Energy giant BP Plc
sees a strong recovery in global crude demand and expects it to last for some time, with U.S.
shale production being kept in check, according to Chief Executive Officer Bernard Looney.
"There is a lot of evidence that suggests that demand will be strong, and the
shale seems to be remaining disciplined," Looney told Bloomberg News in St. Petersburg,
Russia. "I think that the situation we're in at the moment could last like this for a
while."
Western hypocrisy revealed 10 years after the event in today's Independent:
"Tony Blair and Iraq: The damning evidence" . And they go on and on about those wicked,
evil Russians and their tyrannical leader causing death and destruction Syria by their
"support" of the Assad government whilst the West arms the "freedom fighters" there.
Issue 3/2010 of the review of Geopolitics "Eurasia", entitled USA: HEGEMONY AND
DECLINE , has been released. This 288-page volume contains 24 articles about the USA, a
still-hegemonic power in decline, on the scene of the transition from unipolarism to the new
multipolarist order. Here follows a list and a short synthesis of each article.
Tiberio Graziani, USA, Turkey and the crisis of the western system
After history put an end to the unipolar moment, the western system led by USA seems to
have entered an irreversible crisis. The economic and financial downfall and the loss of a
secure pillar of the western geopolitical scene like Turkey mark the end of the US driving
force. The USA, today, have to take an epochal decision: either shelving the project of world
supremacy, which means sharing decision-making regarding international politics and economics
with other global actors, or insist on their supremacy plan and even risk their survival as
nation. One or the other will be motivated by the relationships that will be built, on the
middle and long term, between the lobbies which are conditioning American foreign policy and
by the evolution of the multipolarist process.
T. Graziani is managing editor of "Eurasia".
Fabio Falchi, The mirror of knowledge. Giorgio Colli and Eurasianism
This essay aims to show, also through a short exposition of Giorgio Colli's theoretical
philosophy, not only that he has the merit, thanks to his talent of "pondering philologist",
to have caught the deep relation between mysticism and logic in the "Greek knowledge", but
above all that the way he is interpreting the thought of the "pre-Socratic" – an
interpretation characterized by several and meaningful references to the Indian philosophy
– is extremely important for the Eurasianism, if it's true that "Eurasia" is in the
first place a "spiritual concept". In this perspective, it's not important that Colli cannot
be defined an "Eurasiatist" or the fact that probably he himself had refused to define
himself this way. What matters is the path pointed out by his philosophical speech, so that
it's possible to leave behind obsolete and "incapacitating" dichotomies.
F. Falchi is a contributor to "Eurasia".
Phil Kelly, Geopolitics of the United States
The scope of this essay is to identify the different and typical elements of the
traditional US geopolitics. In its path is reflected on the most relevant spatial
characteristics in order to delineate the traditional aspects of North American geopolitics,
rather than focusing on current international affairs; in spite of this, it comes to
conclusion with some observations about the present American and global geopolitics.
P. Kelly is teaching at the University of Emporia (Texas, USA) and member of the
Scientific Committee of "Eurasia".
Daniele Scalea, How an "empire" has risen (and how it will crumble soon)
Today's United States, in origin, were an united group of colonies of a small
underdeveloped island; nevertheless, in a few centuries, they have become the first and the
only world superpower. In this essay are retraced the geopolitical and strategic reasons that
led to the rise of the original thirteen colonies, to their independence and expansion in
North America; the rise of the USA and their informal empire are analyzed and how the passage
from isolationism to hegemonism, that was not ineluctable, is leading them to lose it.
D. Scalea is editor of "Eurasia".
F. William Engdahl, The USA's geopolitical position today
At the end of the first decade of the 21th century it's time to locate the United States
in the political, economic and above all geopolitical world context. It's clear to every
impartial observer that the emerging giant, proclaimed in 1941 by Henry Luce, "the Time-Life"
publisher, as the dawn of the "American Century", is today, in 2010, a nation and a power
whose foundations themselves crumble. In this short essay are analyzed the particular nature
of this disintegration and its implications.
F.W. Engdahl is associate director of "Global Research" and member of the Scientific
Committee of "Eurasia".
Fabio Mini, Projects and debts
The Americans are no more able to recognize their deficiencies and vulnerabilities: they
act as if they still controlled the entire world, when in reality they have lost great part
of their autonomy relating to multinationals which control the economy and to national or
transnational bodies they are indebted to. To the debt financing must be added the political
debts, acquired to nations which are not secure thanks to the US politics of force: Iraq,
Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Somalia, Rwanda and even Europe. This essay explains how
power is the destroying drug of the USA, and how the "New American Century" has come to an
end before coming to life.
F. Mini is a retired Lieutenant General of the Italian Army, he led the KFOR and the
NATO's Command Allied Forces Southern Europe".
Eleonora Peruccacci, The evolution of USA-Russia relationships after the downfall of
the bipolar system
The idea – to which Keohane already drew attention – that power is now based
on the influence of ideas, on using cleverly skills like persuasion and cooptation, on the
ability to manipulate mass communication as well, rather than on the traditional attributes
of military force and wealth, is useful for the analysis of this essay, in which it is tried
to comprehend how, after the end of the bipolar system, the relationships between the two ex
world superpowers, USA and Russia, developed and changed, going through the stages of 4
treaties on nuclear disarmament.
E. Peruccacci, MA in International Relations, contributes to "Eurasia".
Spartaco Alfredo Puttini, China, the sea and the United States: the Sino-American naval
antagonism
The development of a modern military fleet in the People's Republic of China has given
rise to serious concerns in Washington and adds an element of tension to their relations. On
the horizon beckons the danger of a naval antagonism between the two giants that could
represent one of the more serious and meaningful elements for the international order of the
21th century. In this essay is talked about the Chinese willingness to develop marine force,
about the stages of the fleet modernization, about the importance that Sino-American naval
antagonism can assume in the near future.
S.A. Puttini, MA in History.
Chiara Felli, A miracle for Obama's "new beginning"
Israeli-American relations seem to be at a crossroads again: new negotiations in order to
achieve the much desired peace in Near East hold the balance of power. In Washington, the
atmosphere is tense, in contemplation of twelve months of negotiations the danger of a
possible immediate bankruptcy outcome is reduced but concerns about the current state of the
international comparison raise. Will the USA be finally able to play on their strong position
as influential mediators? Does Israeli regional isolation risk worsening following the blind
pursuit of nationalistic strategies? Are we really close to the "great compromise" and to the
calm after a decade-long storm?
C. Felli, MA in International relations, contributes to "Eurasia".
Francesco Brunello Zanitti, American Neoconservatism and Israeli Neo-revisionism: a
comparison
The G.W Bush Jr. Presidency has been strongly influenced by a political movement, commonly
known as Neoconservatism, which started at the beginning of the '60s and was already
significant during the Ronald Reagan Presidency. The neoconservatives have inspired in
particular the recent North American politics in the Near East. The last decade, concerning
Israeli politics, has been characterized by the strengthening of the right-wing party, the
Likud, which, since its origins, has been not prone to any form of compromise with the Arab
world. This essay offers a comparison between American Neoconservatism and Israeli
Neo-revisionism, identifying various similarities.
F.Brunello Zanitti, MA in History of society and contemporary culture.
Julien Mercille, The fight against drugs in Afghanistan: a critical
interpretation
This article offers a critical interpretation of the "fight against drugs" waged by the
United States in Afghanistan since 2001, in contrast to the conventional view proposed by
some of the most representative authors. While the conventional interpretation takes for
granted that the US are leading a fight in Afghanistan against drugs in order to reduce their
consumption in the West and to weaken the Taliban, who are closely linked to narcotics
traffic, in this article it's argued that in fact there are few signs from Washington of a
real and concrete struggle against drugs . The rhetoric of the fight against drugs is
largely motivated by the need to justify military intervention in Afghanistan and the fight
against insurgent groups opposing to American hegemony in the region, rather than by a
genuine concern about drugs themselves.
J. Mercille is Professor at the National University of Ireland.
Matías Magnasco, Geopolitics of the United States in the Southern Cone
The South American region is nowadays a geostrategic scenario of great importance and will
grow in importance in the future because of the race for raw materials (oil, gas and
drinking-water) and the rise of Brazil as a regional and world power. South America must look
with concern to US withdrawal from those difficult regions, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and
from those where Russia and China have virtually overcome their influence, because this
reopens the possibility of looking back at their "backyard" and their "mare nostrum" ( the
Caribbean Sea).
M. Magnasco is Director of the Argentine Centre of International Studies.
Jean-Claude Paye, The euro crisis and the transatlantic market
The offensive against the euro, implemented by the financial markets during the months of
April and May 2010, is not simply an episode in the economic war between the two continents.
It is indeed the symptom of a geopolitical change.
The American initiative aimed to weaken the EU was led with the participation of European
institutions themselves, that sacrificed euro in order to recover the Greek debt. This
convergence confirms the choice of both protagonists which was already made to integrate the
EU into a great future transatlantic market.
J.-C. Paye is a sociologist and essayist.
Ivan Marino, "Nabucco" versus "South Stream"
The US-backed Nabucco pipeline is a choice which sprang from political and economic
reasons, and, in substance, aims to avoid the Russian territory and consequently to contrast
the interests of Moscow; but the choice of "Nabucco" may be dangerous for the same energy
safety of European Union.
Italy's choice of supporting the "South Stream" has a strategic and objective value. The
essay evaluates the strategic importance of this option on the long-term in the dialogue
between EU and Russia.
I. Marino coordinates the Observatory on the Constitutional Political System of the
Russian Federation.
Fabrizio Di Ernesto, US and NATO bases in Europe
More than 60 years after the end of World War II, Europe struggles to regain its political
and military autonomy. This is mainly due to the forced occupation set on by USA through
NATO, the military alliance started in 1949 and that with the passing of time has become the
real armed wing of the Pentagon. During the years of the Cold War Washington justified this
presence with the need of defending its interests against possible attacks of the Red Army
and of the Warsaw Pact. Now that this pretext is becoming ever more anachronistic, the White
House continues to support the need for this forced militarization hiding behind the
scarecrow represented by Islamic terrorism. This presence also leads to various problems,
summarized in this essay.
F. Di Ernesto is a journalist and essayist.
Stefano Vernole, The strange story of the "International Money Orders"
According to some sources, during the first months of 1992 the U.S. government developed a
sophisticated financial-economics operation, using US taxpayers' funds, for secret aims. The
money, nominally allocated for a "humanitarian" operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, would
have been mainly used to finance Bill Clinton's election campaign and to pay debts acquired
by the Saudi financier Adnan Kashoggi to the procurement office of the JNA (Yugoslav People's
Army), but later it was put back in circulation to be used in the most various
financial-economics operations.
S. Vernole is editor of "Eurasia".
Tomislav Sunic, In Yaweh we trust: the "divine" US foreign policy
The North American aspiration to "guarantee the democracy in the world " is above all
originated by the biblical message. Whatever many European critics of US may say, US military
interventions have never had as their sole purpose economic imperialism, rather the desire to
spread the U.S. democracy all over the world. Anyone who dares to defy the US military,
incurs the risk of being declared out of humankind, or at least of being branded as
terrorist. Once someone is declared a terrorist or out of the human race, it's possible to
dispose of a person or of a nation at one's pleasure. The ideological element in the history
of US foreign policy is described in this essay, a revised version of a chapter, named after
it, of the book Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age (2007).
T. Sunic was Croatian diplomat and University Professor in the USA.
Kees van der Pijl, Transatlantic ideology and neoliberal capitalism
In this essay we deal with three issues: the first concerns the origins of western
ideology, an ideology marked by possessive individualism, free enterprise and intensive
nature exploitation and that, with zeal of protestant missionary, claims universal validity
for these principles. After that, we observe how neo-liberalism has emerged as the most
radical western ideology and allowed capitalism to become a machine scam into which the world
economy of the last thirty years has been drawn and that just now has suffered a setback.
Finally, some lines of development are drawn, through which Ukraine, and perhaps Russia,
Belarus, Kazakhstan and others, could break with the present strategy of slavish adaptation
to the neoliberal economy, which has damaged them so much, and stop to absorb the western
ideology so different from their traditions, to implement a common strategy that combines
their unique experience with the form of a multinational State and with elements of planned
economy, whose strengths and weaknesses they know better than anybody else.
K. van der Pijl is Professor at the University of Sussex.
Paolo Bargiacchi, Is international law really law? A critique to John Bolton's
negationism
In the US the (minority) idea that the international law does not exist and the (most
common) one that customary international rules only bind States that accept them find a
common root in the improper comparison between International context (and International law)
and internal context (Internal law). This comparison, in turn, is direct consequence of the
Austinian positivism, that, not catching the autonomy of the political and juridical
international context compared to the domestic one, mistakenly uses logics, methodologies and
categories of internal law to analyze the international law. An example of this modus
procedendi comes from J. Bolton, who wonders if "Is There Really "Law" in International
Affairs?" and concludes that "International law is not law". In this essay a
general-theoretical and empirical critique of his thesis is developed.
P. Bargiacchi is Professor at the University Kore of Enna.
Alessandro Lattanzio, US nuclear forces
U.S. strategic forces, that since 1990 are no longer the backbone of US Army, a role now
appertaining to the force projection (aircraft carrier, airborne troops and marine divisions,
tactical air force) have undergone a significant downsizing in quality and above all
quantities. But this reduction has been sold successfully at the table of international
negotiations about nuclear disarmament. With the recent ratification of the START II Treaty,
US strategic forces are kept on 500 ICBMs single-warheads, 14 SSBNs each carrying 24 SLBMs,
and finally 96 strategic bombers. The budget deficit, the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan wars,
the priorities for other programs, including the so-called theatre ballistic missile (THAAD),
and the US financial-economic crisis will probably stop the last modernization programs of
the U.S. strategic arsenal.
A. Lattanzio is editor of "Eurasia".
Claudio Mutti, Pietro Nenni against the Atlantic Pact
Interjecting into the parliamentary debate in accordance to the Italian democracy rules
for enter the NATO, the secretary of the PSI (Italian Socialist Party) pointed put how the
inclusion of Italy among the countries bordering the Atlantic was a violation of the basic
elements of geography and history. He also contested the political justifications of this
accession: partnering with the American superpower, Italy, which "compared to the US is like
San Marino compared to Europe", instead of securing her independence would have further
reduced her sovereignty, already harshly limited by the international treaties imposed by the
winners of the Second World War.
C. Mutti is editor of "Eurasia".
Erika Morucci, 1991-2003: rehearsal of a superpower
In the twenty years since the first Gulf War to the present, different administrations
came one after the other at the White House, giving different directions to American foreign
policy. Apart from that, these were crucial years of a new historical course, that after the
Cold War has opened up a reality whose facets were hidden for a long time and was fed by the
iron curtain that divided the world. For the US widened its perspectives: they behaved as if
they knew they can reach for primacy, pushing it to the manic search for global power. The
multipolarity on the international scene has strongly emerged with the presence of other
actors, including Russian, Chinese, European, and so the perspective is now to defend their
lead and not lead the world.
E. Morucci, MA in International Relations.
Antonio Grego, Interview with Robert Pelo
Roberto Pelo is the director of the Moscow office of Italian Institute for Foreign Trade
(ICE) and coordinator of the ICE office-network in Russia, Armenia, Belarus and
Turkmenistan.
Antonio Grego, Interview with Livio Filippo Colasanto
Livio Filippo Colasanto is the first Director-General of RusEnergosbyt-Enel.
Paper oil sellers essentially dictate prices to real producers. So they are looting
producers. That's hurt the process of replacement of old wells with new ones (and shale oil well
live just several years, with only first two the most procductive) and as "paper oil" is Wall
Street fiction, and at some point paper oil market might collapse and oil prices go to
stratosphere.
As the price of oil begins to falter, Saudi Arabia has stepped up its rhetoric, even going
as far as to warn short sellers not to bet against the price of the commodity.
Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman gave "clear hints" on Thursday that there
could be a change of direction in production policy forthcoming as the price of oil continues
its slide, according to
Bloomberg .
He said Thursday: "We will never leave this market unattended. I want the guys in the
trading floors to be as jumpy as possible. I'm going to make sure whoever gambles on this
market will be ouching like hell."
At the same time, Brent was falling below $40 per barrel and the market continues to show
signs of waning demand. OPEC and its allies said they would be "proactive and preemptive" in
addressing the diminishing price, recommending "participating counties take further necessary
measures".
Abdulaziz started a meeting on Thursday with what Bloomberg called a "forceful condemnation"
of members who are pumping out too much supply. His ire may have been directed to UAE Energy
Minister Suhail al Mazrouei, who attended the meeting. The UAE has been "one of the worst quota
breakers" in OPEC+, only making 10% of its pledged cuts for August.
Abdulaziz said: "Using tactics to over-produce and hide non-compliance have been tried many
times in the past, and always end in failure. They achieve nothing and bring harm to our
reputation and credibility."
"Attempts to outsmart the market will not succeed and are counterproductive when we have the
eyes, and the technology, of the world upon us," Prince Abdulaziz continued.
UAE was overproducing by about 520,000 barrels per day in August and the country will try to
make additional cuts in October and November to make up for past month shortcomings.
Countries like Iraq and Nigeria have implemented more than 100% of their required cuts,
helping give OPEC and Abdulaziz credibility.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Harry Tchilinguirian, head of commodities strategy at BNP Paribas SA, concluded: "You have
to hand it to Prince Abdulaziz. Since he became Saudi oil minister, the kingdom has kept OPEC+
in line through his diplomatic and compelling powers of influence."
If that were true, the energy world would be a lot better off. Producers want to contract;
consumers, probably even China, like the market price. For it can be manipulated easier by
consumers than by suppliers; because consumers control the intl banks and capitalist rules.
Unless China is kept from the market table , then it might accept contracting. Tough racket,
this sanctioning stuff is getting to be, eh?
"At present, a total of 117 very large crude carriers (VLCCs) -- each capable of shipping
2 million barrels of oil -- are traveling to China for unloading at its ports between the
middle of May and the middle of August. If those supertankers transport standard-size crude
oil cargoes, it could mean that China expects at least 230 million barrels of oil over the
next three months, according to Bloomberg. The fleet en route to China could be the largest
number of supertankers traveling to the world's top oil importer at one time, ever, Bloomberg
News' Firat Kayakiran says.
Many of the crude oil cargoes are likely to have been bought in April, when prices were
lower than the current price and when WTI Crude futures even dipped into negative territory
for a day.
China was also estimated to have doubled the fill rate at its strategic and commercial
inventories in Q1 2020, taking advantage of the low oil prices and somewhat supporting the
oil market amid crashing demand by diverting more imports to storage, rather than outright
slashing crude imports.
China's crude oil imports jumped in April to about 9.84 million barrels per day as
demand for fuels began to rebound and local refiners started to ramp up crude processing,
according to Chinese customs data cited by Reuters."
Well, now we know who was taking advantage of those pindo negative oil price sales ;-D
The Chinese are at the advantage here, not being neocon/likud bottom rungers. The
desperation of zionazia is expressed in choosing the neocon lowlife to run things in the
western colonies. Yes, their extremism provides the initiative in getting extreme capitalist
policies through and continues the push to the extreme far right in the zionazi-gay colonies.
But it is at the cost of intelligent long term strategy. Short term imaginary gain at the
cost of real gain. The fast food, face feeding, bum bandit approach. The quick fixers.
The oil market is in disarray, a result of a coronavirus-led collapse in demand, surplus
supply following a price war and a shortage of storage. Yet there have been plenty of people
willing to bet on a rebound in basement-level crude prices, and for many retail investors the
vehicle of choice has been an exchange-traded fund. However, those wagers via the biggest
American ETF -– the U.S. Oil Fund, or USO -– have contributed to market mayhem and
helped push crude prices below zero.
1. What did the fund do?
It grew so huge so quickly that it became a sizable player in the market for West Texas
Intermediate, the U.S. benchmark for crude. Investors piled in during March and April,
convinced that oil prices that had been falling -- pushed down by a
price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia that boosted production just as demand
was slashed by pandemic-driven lockdowns -- would eventually recover once economies reopened.
At different stages, the fund held about a quarter of all May and June contracts for
WTI.
2. What's the problem?
Unlike shares that can be held as long as an investor chooses, oil futures have finite terms
and are agreements to buy or sell a physical product. The May futures contract, for example,
expired on April 21. Any holder who had not sold by then would need to take delivery of the oil
-- 1,000 U.S. barrels, or 42,000 gallons, for each contract.
3. Where does USO come
in?
As a favored investment vehicle for
many bullish speculators , the number of shares in the fund ballooned from 145 million at
the end of February to more than 1.4 billion by mid-April. Its outsized portion of the WTI
market -– on paper -- came at a time when demand for physical oil was cratering and
storage space was becoming harder and more expensive to find.
4. What does that have to
do with the price plunge?
For years, USO was
mandated to invest in the most-active WTI contract and to roll it over to the following
contract. (Rolling over means selling it and, often simultaneously, buying the following
month's contract.) The flood of money into May contracts earlier had pushed oil prices up; as
USO sold its May futures as part of the rollover and bought June and July contracts, prices
fell for May and rose for the following months, opening an unusually wide spread. Only a
handful of traders remained in the May contract on Monday, when prices plunged
well below zero .
5. What's the worry now?
With USO holding a significant level of June contracts, there are concerns that prices will
go negative again and that the whole process might repeat -- or might be worse, if the April
20th debacle scares off more investors. To try to mitigate the prospect, USO, which lost 37% of
its value in the first three weeks of April, has moved to allocate some holdings to contracts
expiring later in the year, since those prices tend to be less volatile. But the fund is adding
to pressure on oil prices in other ways.
There was so much demand for USO that it exhausted the number of shares it was allowed to
issue and, on April 20, asked regulators for permission to register an additional 4 billion,
more than double the existing number. Until the new shares are cleared for issuance, the ETF
will not purchase more futures contracts, according to analysts, potentially adding to pressure
on crude prices. Without new oil contracts, the fund will also become untethered from the
prices it's supposed to track.
7. Anything else?
ETF prices are kept in sync with the value of their holdings, their so-called NAV (net-asset
value), through the creation and redemption of shares. So-called "authorized participants" for
instance sell an ETF when it's rising and buy the underlying security to pocket a quick profit,
keeping the fund's price and NAV in lockstep in the process. However, with the authorized
participants no longer able to create shares, that's disrupted demand for the underlying
contracts.
8. How about other ETFs?
USO is hardly the only exchange-traded fund to be hammered by the swings in oil futures; the
effects were felt around the globe. The Samsung S&P GSCI Crude Oil ER Futures ETF, whose
holdings of the derivatives slumped 26% on Tuesday to $378 million , saw its traded units lose
half their value for a time Wednesday. Closing down 46% at HK $1.79 , the ETF had its biggest
drop and lowest finish since trading began in May 2016. Credit Suisse Group AG told investors in a
leveraged exchange-traded note that tracks the price of oil they probably won't get any money
back after the value of the note dropped below zero.
The Reference Shelf
A
QuickTake about the day when oil prices fell below zero.
A Bloomberg Opinion
column on the risks of oil ETFs.
A Bloomberg News
article on how negative oil prices are leading some traders to rewrite risk models, and
one on how others are betting the lows won't
last.
A
QuickTake on the OPEC price war that flooded markets with
oil just as demand cratered.
Bloomberg Professional subscribers can see oil net ETF positions at {.OILETFNT G Index
<GO>}.
The oil market is in disarray, a result of a coronavirus-led collapse in demand, surplus
supply following a price war and a shortage of storage. Yet there have been plenty of people
willing to bet on a rebound in basement-level crude prices, and for many retail investors the
vehicle of choice has been an exchange-traded fund. However, those wagers via the biggest
American ETF -– the U.S. Oil Fund, or USO -– have contributed to market mayhem and
helped push crude prices below zero.
1. What did the fund do?
It grew so huge so quickly that it became a sizable player in the market for West Texas
Intermediate, the U.S. benchmark for crude. Investors piled in during March and April,
convinced that oil prices that had been falling -- pushed down by a
price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia that boosted production just as demand
was slashed by pandemic-driven lockdowns -- would eventually recover once economies reopened.
At different stages, the fund held about a quarter of all May and June contracts for
WTI.
2. What's the problem?
Unlike shares that can be held as long as an investor chooses, oil futures have finite terms
and are agreements to buy or sell a physical product. The May futures contract, for example,
expired on April 21. Any holder who had not sold by then would need to take delivery of the oil
-- 1,000 U.S. barrels, or 42,000 gallons, for each contract.
3. Where does USO come
in?
As a favored investment vehicle for
many bullish speculators , the number of shares in the fund ballooned from 145 million at
the end of February to more than 1.4 billion by mid-April. Its outsized portion of the WTI
market -– on paper -- came at a time when demand for physical oil was cratering and
storage space was becoming harder and more expensive to find.
4. What does that have to
do with the price plunge?
For years, USO was
mandated to invest in the most-active WTI contract and to roll it over to the following
contract. (Rolling over means selling it and, often simultaneously, buying the following
month's contract.) The flood of money into May contracts earlier had pushed oil prices up; as
USO sold its May futures as part of the rollover and bought June and July contracts, prices
fell for May and rose for the following months, opening an unusually wide spread. Only a
handful of traders remained in the May contract on Monday, when prices plunged
well below zero .
5. What's the worry now?
With USO holding a significant level of June contracts, there are concerns that prices will
go negative again and that the whole process might repeat -- or might be worse, if the April
20th debacle scares off more investors. To try to mitigate the prospect, USO, which lost 37% of
its value in the first three weeks of April, has moved to allocate some holdings to contracts
expiring later in the year, since those prices tend to be less volatile. But the fund is adding
to pressure on oil prices in other ways.
There was so much demand for USO that it exhausted the number of shares it was allowed to
issue and, on April 20, asked regulators for permission to register an additional 4 billion,
more than double the existing number. Until the new shares are cleared for issuance, the ETF
will not purchase more futures contracts, according to analysts, potentially adding to pressure
on crude prices. Without new oil contracts, the fund will also become untethered from the
prices it's supposed to track.
7. Anything else?
ETF prices are kept in sync with the value of their holdings, their so-called NAV (net-asset
value), through the creation and redemption of shares. So-called "authorized participants" for
instance sell an ETF when it's rising and buy the underlying security to pocket a quick profit,
keeping the fund's price and NAV in lockstep in the process. However, with the authorized
participants no longer able to create shares, that's disrupted demand for the underlying
contracts.
8. How about other ETFs?
USO is hardly the only exchange-traded fund to be hammered by the swings in oil futures; the
effects were felt around the globe. The Samsung S&P GSCI Crude Oil ER Futures ETF, whose
holdings of the derivatives slumped 26% on Tuesday to $378 million , saw its traded units lose
half their value for a time Wednesday. Closing down 46% at HK $1.79 , the ETF had its biggest
drop and lowest finish since trading began in May 2016. Credit Suisse Group AG told investors in a
leveraged exchange-traded note that tracks the price of oil they probably won't get any money
back after the value of the note dropped below zero.
The Reference Shelf
A
QuickTake about the day when oil prices fell below zero.
A Bloomberg Opinion
column on the risks of oil ETFs.
A Bloomberg News
article on how negative oil prices are leading some traders to rewrite risk models, and
one on how others are betting the lows won't
last.
A
QuickTake on the OPEC price war that flooded markets with
oil just as demand cratered.
Bloomberg Professional subscribers can see oil net ETF positions at {.OILETFNT G Index
<GO>}.
Energy Minister Alexander Novak said that the fall in prices for WTI oil futures is due to
the actions of speculators.
"Yesterday's collapse of oil quotes of the us WTI brand occurred due to the sale of futures
for delivery in may at the end of trading on paper (after April 20, the may futures are not
traded on the exchange), the lack of demand for additional oil supplies in may and the
likelihood of overstocking storage facilities. This caused a speculative fall of the financial
instrument to negative values, " he said, according to TASS.
The head of the energy Ministry urged "not to dramatize the situation". According to him, it
is important to understand that this is "a paper market, not a trade in physical oil," RIA
Novosti reports.
The Minister also noted that the pressure on the oil market will continue until the start of
the OPEC+ agreement in may, after which the reduction of oil production by countries outside
the agreement and the easing of restrictions will begin.
"The oil market is currently in an extremely volatile state due to a sharp drop in demand
associated with measures to counter the spread of coronavirus, with the gradual overstocking of
storage facilities and the uncertainty of the timing of the global economic recovery. Pressure
on the market will continue until the OPEC + agreement begins in may, reducing production by
countries outside the agreement and easing restrictive measures, " he said.
Novak assured that OPEC+ countries are closely monitoring the situation in the oil market
and have all the capabilities to respond.
"But don't dramatize the situation. It is important to understand that this is a paper
market, that is, trading in derivative financial instruments, and not physical oil. Quotes for
June Brent and WTI futures are significantly higher, although they are also subject to
volatility due to the General negative mood in the market," Novak added.
The price of WTI oil for delivery in may ended Monday's main trading on the NYMEX on
negative values, falling to minus 37.63 dollars. The decrease was 300%. Before that, the quotes
reached minus 40.32 dollars per barrel. Later, the price of may WTI futures returned to
positive values, rising by 160% to $ 2.21 per barrel.
The price of a barrel of oil on the morning of April 21 was trading at $ 21.41.
"... The Iraq war was about oil. Recently declassified US government documents confirm this ( 1 ), however much US president George W Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their ally, the British prime minister Tony Blair, denied it at the time. ..."
The Iraq war was about oil. Recently declassified US government documents confirm this (
1 ), however much US
president George W Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and
their ally, the British prime minister Tony Blair, denied it at the time.
When Bush moved into the White House in January 2001, he faced the familiar problem of the
imbalance between oil supply and demand. Supply was unable to keep up with demand, which was
increasing rapidly because of the growth of emerging economies such as China and India. The
only possible solution lay in the Gulf, where the giant oil-producing countries of Saudi
Arabia, Iran and Iraq, and the lesser producing states of Kuwait and Abu Dhabi, commanded 60%
of the world's reserves.
For financial or political reasons, production growth was slow. In Saudi Arabia, the
ultra-rich ruling families of the Al-Saud, the Al-Sabah and the Zayed Al-Nayan were content
with a comfortable level of income, given their small populations, and preferred to leave their
oil underground. Iran and Iraq hold around 25% of the world's hydrocarbon reserves and could
have filled the gap, but were subject to sanctions -- imposed solely by the US on Iran,
internationally on Iraq -- that deprived them of essential oil equipment and services.
Washington saw them as rogue states and was unwilling to end the sanctions.
How could the US get more oil from the Gulf without endangering its supremacy in the region?
Influential US neoconservatives, led by Paul Wolfowitz, who had gone over to uninhibited
imperialism after the fall of the Soviet Union, thought they had found a solution. They had
never understood George Bush senior's decision not to overthrow Saddam Hussein in the first
Gulf war in 1991. An open letter to President Bill Clinton, inspired by the Statement of
Principles of the Project for the New American Century, a non-profit organisation founded by
William Kristol and Robert Kagan, had called for a regime change in Iraq as early as 1998:
Saddam must be ousted and big US oil companies must gain access to Iraq. Several signatories to
the Statement of Principles became members of the new Republican administration in 2001.
In 2002, one of them, Douglas Feith, a lawyer who was undersecretary of defense to Rumsfeld,
supervised the work of experts planning the future of Iraq's oil industry. His first decision
was to entrust its management after the expected US victory to Kellog, Brown & Root, a
subsidiary of US oil giant Halliburton, of which Cheney had been chairman and CEO. Feith's
plan, formulated at the start of 2003, was to keep Iraq's oil production at its current level
of 2,840 mbpd (million barrels per day), to avoid a collapse that would cause chaos in the
world market.
Privatising oil
Experts were divided on the privatisation of the Iraqi oil industry. The Iraqi government
had excluded foreign companies and successfully managed the sector itself since 1972. By 2003,
despite wars with Iran (1980-88) and in Kuwait (1990-91) and more than 15 years of sanctions,
Iraq had managed to equal the record production levels achieved in 1979-1980.
The experts had a choice -- bring back the concession regime that had operated before
nationalisation in 1972, or sell shares in the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC) on the Russian
model, issuing transferrable vouchers to the Iraqi population. In Russia, this approach had
very quickly led to the oil sector falling into the hands of a few super-rich oligarchs.
Bush approved the plan drawn up by the Pentagon and State Department in January 2003. The
much-decorated retired lieutenant general Jay Gardner, was appointed director of the Office of
Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, the military administration set up to govern
post-Saddam Iraq. Out of his depth, he stuck to short-term measures and avoided choosing
between the options put forward by his technical advisers.
Reassuring the oil giants
The international oil companies were not idle. Lee Raymond, CEO of America's biggest oil
company ExxonMobil, was an old friend of Dick Cheney. But where the politicians were daring, he
was cautious. The project was a tempting opportunity to replenish the company's reserves, which
had been stagnant for several years, but Raymond had doubts: would Bush really be able to
assure conditions that would allow the company to operate safely in Iraq? Nobody at ExxonMobil
was willing to die for oil. (Its well-paid engineers do not dream of life in a blockhouse in
Iraq.) The company would also have to be sure of its legal position: what would contracts
signed by a de facto authority be worth when it would be investing billions of dollars that
would take years to recover?
In the UK, BP was anxious to secure its own share of the spoils. As early as 2002 the
company had confided in the UK Department of Trade and Industry its fears that the US might
give away too much to French, Russian and Chinese oil companies in return for their governments
agreeing not to use their veto at the UN Security Council ( 2 ). In February 2003 those fears were removed:
France's president Jacques Chirac vetoed a resolution put forward by the US, and the third Iraq
war began without UN backing. There was no longer any question of respecting the agreements
Saddam had signed with Total and other companies (which had never been put into practice
because of sanctions).
To reassure the British and US oil giants, the US government appointed to the management
team Gary Vogler of ExxonMobil and Philip J Carrol of Shell. They were replaced in October 2003
by Rob McKee of ConocoPhilips and Terry Adams of BP. The idea was to counter the dominance of
the Pentagon, and the influential neocon approach (which faced opposition from within the
administration). The neocon ideologues, still on the scene, had bizarre ideas: they wanted to
build a pipeline to transport Iraq's crude oil to Israel, dismantle OPEC (Organisation of the
Petroleum Exporting Countries) and even use "liberated" Iraq as a guinea pig for a new oil
business model to be applied to all of the Middle East. The engineers and businessmen, whose
priorities were profits and results, were more down-to-earth.
In any event, the invasion had a devastating impact on Iraq's oil production, less because
of the bombing by the US air force than because of the widespread looting of government
agencies, schools, universities, archives, libraries, banks, hospitals, museums and state-owned
enterprises. Drilling rigs were dismantled for the copper parts they were believed to contain.
The looting continued from March to May 2003. Only a third of the damage to the oil industry
was caused during the invasion; the rest happened after the fighting was over, despite the
presence of the RIO Task Force and the US Corps of Engineers with its 500 contractors,
specially prepared and trained to protect oil installations. Saddam's supporters were prevented
from blowing up the oil wells by the speed of the invasion, but the saboteurs set to work in
June 2003.
Iraq's one real asset
The only buildings protected were the gigantic oil ministry, where 15,000 civil servants
managed 22 subsidiaries of the Iraq National Oil Company. The State Oil Marketing Organisation
and the infrastructure were abandoned. The occupiers regarded the oil under the ground as
Iraq's one real asset. They were not interested in installations or personnel. The oil ministry
was only saved at the last minute because it housed geological and seismic data on Iraq's 80
known deposits, estimated to contain 115bn barrels of crude oil. The rest could always be
replaced with more modern US-made equipment and the knowhow of the international oil companies,
made indispensible by the sabotage.
Thamir Abbas Ghadban, director-general of planning at the oil ministry, turned up at the
office three days after the invasion was over, and, in the absence of a minister for oil (since
Iraq had no government), was appointed second in command under Micheal Mobbs, a neocon who
enjoyed the confidence of the Pentagon. Paul Bremer, the US proconsul who headed Iraq's
provisional government from May 2003 to June 2004, presided over the worst 12 months in the oil
sector in 70 years. Production fell by 1 mbpd -- more than $13bn of lost income.
The oil installations, watched over by 3,500 underequipped guards, suffered 140 sabotage
attacks between May 2003 and September 2004, estimated to have caused $7bn of damage. "There
was widespread looting," said Ghadban. "Equipment was stolen and in most cases the buildings
were set on fire." The Daura refinery, near Baghdad, only received oil intermittently, because
of damage to the pipeline network. "We had to let all the oil in the damaged sections of the
pipeline burn before we could repair them." Yet the refinery continued to operate, no mean
achievement considering that the workers were no longer being paid.
The senior management of the national oil company also suffered. Until 1952 almost all
senior managers of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) were foreigners, who occupied villas in
gated and guarded compounds while the local workforce lived in shantytowns. In 1952 tension
between Iraq and Muhammad Mossadegh's Iran led the IPC to review its relations with Baghdad,
and a clause of the new treaty concerned the training of Iraqi managers. By 1972, 75% of the
thousand skilled jobs were filled by Iraqis, which helped to ensure the success of the IPC's
nationalisation. The new Iraq National Oil Company gained control of the oilfields and
production reached unprecedented levels.
Purge of the Ba'ath
After the invasion, the US purged Ba'athist elements from INOC's management. Simply
belonging to the Ba'ath, Iraq's single political party, which had been in power since 1968, was
grounds for dismissal, compulsory retirement or worse. Seventeen of INOC's 24 directors were
forced out, along with several hundred engineers, who had kept production high through wars and
foreign sanctions. The founding fathers of INOC were ousted by the Deba'athification
Commission, led by former exiles including Iraq's prime minister Nuri al-Maliki, who replaced
them with his own supporters, as incompetent as they were partisan.
Rob McKee, who succeeded Philip J Carrol as oil adviser to the US proconsul, observed in
autumn 2003: "The people themselves are patently unqualified and are apparently being placed in
the ministry for religious, political or personal reasons... the people who nursed the industry
through Saddam's years and who brought it back to life after the liberation, as well as many
trained professionals, are all systematically being pushed to the sidelines" ( 3 ).
This purge opened the door to advisers, mostly from the US, who bombarded the oil ministry
with notes, circulars and reports directly inspired by the practices of the international oil
industry, without much concern for their applicability to Iraq.
The drafting of Iraq's new constitution and an oil law provided an opportunity to change the
rules. Washington had decided in advance to do away with the centralised state, partly because
of its crimes against the Kurds under Saddam and partly because centralisation favours
totalitarianism. The new federal, or even confederal, regime was decentralised to the point of
being de-structured. A two-thirds majority in one of the three provinces allows opposition to
veto central government decisions.
Baghdad-Irbil rivalry
Only Kurdistan had the means and the motivation to do so. Where oil was concerned, power was
effectively divided between Baghdad and Irbil, seat of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG),
which imposed its own interpretation of the constitution: deposits already being exploited
would remain under federal government control, but new licenses would be granted by the
provincial governments. A fierce dispute arose between the two capitals, partly because the KRG
granted licenses to foreign oil companies under far more favourable conditions than those
offered by Baghdad.
The quarrel related to the production sharing agreements. The usual practice is for foreign
companies that provide financial backing to get a share of the oil produced, which can be very
significant in the first few years. This was the formula US politicians and oil companies
wanted to impose. They were unable to do so.
Iraq's parliament, so often criticised in other matters, opposed this system; it was
supported by public opinion, which had not forgotten the former IPC. Tariq Shafiq, founding
father of the INOC, explained to the US Congress the technical reasons for the refusal (
4 ). Iraq's oil deposits
were known and mapped out. There was therefore little risk to foreign companies: there would be
no prospecting costs and exploitation costs would be among the lowest in the world. From 2008
onwards, Baghdad started offering major oil companies far less attractive contracts --
$2/barrel for the bigger oilfields, and no rights to the deposits.
ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Total, and Russian, Chinese, Angolan, Pakistani and Turkish oil
companies nevertheless rushed to accept, hoping that things would turn to their advantage.
Newsweek (24 May 2010) claimed Iraq had the potential to become "the next Saudi Arabia."
But although production is up (over 3 mbpd in 2012), the oil companies are irritated by the
conditions imposed on them: investment costs are high, profits are mediocre and the oil still
underground is not counted as part of their reserves, which affects their share price.
ExxonMobil and Total disregarded the federal government edict that threatened to strip
rights from oil companies that signed production-sharing agreements relating to oilfields in
Kurdistan. Worse, ExxonMobil sold its services contract relating to Iraq's largest oilfield,
West Qurna, where it had been due to invest $50bn and double the country's current production.
Baghdad is now under pressure: if it continues to refuse the conditions requested by the
foreign oil companies, it will lose out to Irbil, even if Kurdistan's deposits are only a third
of the size of those in the south. Meanwhile, Turkey has done nothing to improve its relations
with Iraq by offering to build a direct pipeline from Kurdistan to the Mediterranean. Without
the war, would the oil companies have been able to make the Iraqis and Kurds compete? One thing
is certain: the US is far from achieving its goals in the oil sector, and in this sense the war
was a failure.
Alan Greenspan, who as chairman of the US Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006 was well placed
to understand the importance of oil, came up with the best summary of the conflict: "I am
saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war
is largely about oil" ( 5
).
"Myths, Lies, and Oil Wars" by William F. Engdahl is a must read for anyone struggling to
make sense of U.S. foreign policy. Why are U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why did NATO
take out Gaddafi? Why are we going after Iran and Syria? Is there a grand strategy? Was the
"Arab Spring" uprisings really grassroots revolutions or just a second round of color
revolutions?
"Control the food and you control the people. Control the oil and you control the nations"
is a statement that has been attributed to Henry Kissinger. The premise of the book is summed
up by the latter part of Kissinger's statement, the control of oil or more generally the
control of energy.
Engdahl maintains that the geopolitical events we have been witnessing is part of the
Pentagon's "Full Spectrum Dominance" plan. A cornerstone of the plan is the control of oil at
the source. Much of the world's proven oilfields are in the Middle East. For the next two
decades the Mideast oilfields is expected to provide Asia with most of its oil.
Engdahl begins laying out the history of conflicts over oil and provides insightful
revelations into conflicts that benefited the Oil majors by reducing the world supply of oil.
Case in point the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's. The oil exports from these two nations was
drastically reduced during wartime leading to higher prices.
Another example Engdahl lists is the fact that David Rockefeller lobbied the Carter
Administration to allow the Shah of Iran into the U.S. for medical treatment knowing that it
would cause a crisis with the Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian government and how Rockefeller's
Bank was able to benefit after the U.S. froze the assets of Iran.
Other topics covered include:
The "Peak Oil Fraud" and the pseudo-science of its creator King Hubbert.
The fact that in Russia the Abiotic theory of oil formation is accepted as the leading
theory for the last fifty years resulting in Russian Geoligist finding oil in places that
western dogma says it shouldn't be.
The rapid rise of China is a source of much concern in Washington. The economic rise of
China must be contained and in no way can Russia and China be allowed to join forces. Many
tacticians have emphasized the importance of not allowing the rise of a unified Eurasian
power. A Eurasian power would be in a position to challenge the dominance of the
Anglo-American Empire.
According to the info the Engdahl provides China's weakness is its lack of oil. Engdahl
illustrates how the Pentagon has been encircling Russia and China and the events we are
seeing is Washington's attempt to knock China out of Africa where China was making steady
inroads signing economic alliances with African nations that the Anglo-Americans were
exploiting.
Engdahl makes the case that the Iraq war was about control of the oil at the source.
The invasion of Afghanistan was about a controlling Caspian sea oil and gas.
Engdahl offers an explanation for NATO alliances with the former Soviet States of Ukraine
and Georgia.
What really was behind the Russian invasion of Georgia? The consequences for Russia.
The establishment of joint ventures between U.S. oil companies and former state run oil
enterprises in Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan.
Why did the U.S. move Afghani Mujahideen into Chechnya and start a proxy war along a vital
Russian pipeline?
Engdahl provides the information needed to connect the "dots" of seemingly unrelated
conflicts to form a vivid picture of the "New World Order" being assembled in the 21st
Century.
I highly recommend this book along with all of Engdahl's other works. Engdahl wrote two
other books that are especially pertinent to "Myths, Lies, and Oil Wars"
The first is "A Century of War, Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" which
I consider as a prequel to "Myths, Lies, and Oil Wars"
The second is "Full Spectrum Dominance, Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order"
which describes the encircling of Russia, the color revolutions, and much more.
These three books together will surely enlighten the lay person to the machinations of the
U.S. Empire. Another point I should mention is, Engdahl's works are concise and thoughtful
hitting on the important points while remaining entertaining and not overwhelming the reader
with a thousand plus page tome.
"... Like most lefty journalists, I assumed that George Bush and Tony Blair invaded Iraq to buy up its oil fields, cheap and at gun-point, and cart off the oil. We thought we knew the neo-cons true casus belli ..."
"... But the truth in the Options for Iraqi Oil Industry was worse than "Blood for Oil". Much, much worse. The key was in the flow chart on page 15, Iraq Oil Regime Timeline & Scenario Analysis: "...A single state-owned company ...enhances a government's relationship with OPEC." ..."
Because it was marked "confidential" on each page, the oil industry stooge couldn't believe
the US State Department had given me a complete copy of their secret plans for the oil fields
of Iraq.
Actually, the State Department had done no such thing. But my line of bullshit had been so
well-practiced and the set-up on my mark had so thoroughly established my fake identity, that I
almost began to believe my own lies.
I closed in. I said I wanted to make sure she and I were working from the same State
Department draft. Could she tell me the official name, date and number of pages? She did.
Bingo! I'd just beaten the Military-Petroleum Complex in a lying contest, so I had a right
to be chuffed.
After phoning numbers from California to Kazakhstan to trick my mark, my next calls were to
the State Department and Pentagon. Now that I had the specs on the scheme for Iraq's oil --
that State and Defense Department swore, in writing, did not exist -- I told them I'd
appreciate their handing over a copy (no expurgations, please) or there would be a very
embarrassing story on BBC Newsnight .
Within days, our chief of investigations, Ms Badpenny, delivered to my shack in the woods
outside New York a 323-page, three-volume programme for Iraq's oil crafted by George Bush's
State Department and petroleum insiders meeting secretly in Houston, Texas.
I cracked open the pile of paper -- and I was blown away.
Like most lefty journalists, I assumed that George Bush and Tony Blair invaded Iraq to
buy up its oil fields, cheap and at gun-point, and cart off the oil. We thought we knew the
neo-cons true casus belli : Blood for oil.
But the truth in the Options for Iraqi Oil Industry was worse than "Blood for Oil".
Much, much worse. The key was in the flow chart on page 15, Iraq Oil Regime Timeline &
Scenario Analysis: "...A single state-owned company ...enhances a government's relationship
with OPEC."
The
tale of what is going on in Syria reads something like this: an insurgency active since March
2011 has been funded and armed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and allowed to operate out of Turkey
with the sometimes active, but more often passive, connivance of a number of Western powers,
including Britain, France, Germany, and the United States. The intention was to overthrow the
admittedly dictatorial Bashar al-Assad quickly and replace him with a more representative
government composed largely of Syrians-in-exile drawn from the expat communities in Europe and
the United States. The largely ad hoc political organization that was the counterpart to the
Free Syrian Army ultimately evolved into the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and
Opposition Forces (Syrian National Coalition) in November 2012, somewhat reminiscent of
Ahmad Chalabi and the ill-starred Iraqi National Congress. As in the lead-up to regime
change in Iraq, the exiles successfully exploited anti-Syrian sentiment among leading
politicians in Washington and Europe while skillfully manipulating the media narrative to
suggest that the al-Assad regime was engaging in widespread atrocities and threatening to
destabilize its neighbors, most notably Lebanon. As in the case of Iraq, Syria's possession of
weapons of mass destruction was introduced into the indictment of al-Assad and cited as a
regional threat.
If there was a model for what was planned for Syria it must have been the invasion of
Iraq in 2003 or possibly the United Nations-endorsed armed intervention in Libya in
2010 , both of which intended to replace dictatorial regimes with Western-style
governments that would at least provide a simulacrum of accountable popular rule. But the
planners must have anticipated a better outcome.
Both Libya and Iraq have become more destabilized than they were under their autocrats, a
fact that appears to have escaped everyone's notice. It did not take long for the wheels to
fall off the bus in Syria as well. As in Iraq, the Syrian exiles had no real constituency
within their homeland, which meant that the already somewhat organized resistance to al-Assad,
consisting of the well-established Muslim Brotherhood and associated groups, came to the fore.
Al-Assad, who somewhat credibly has described the
rebels as terrorists supported by foreign governments, did not throw in the towel and
leave.
The Turkish people, meanwhile, began to turn sour on a war which seemed endless, was
creating a huge refugee and security problem as Kurdish terrorists mixed in with the refugees,
and was increasingly taking on the shape of a new jihad as foreign volunteers began to assume
responsibility for most of the fighting.
The proposed alternative government of the Syrian National Coalition was quickly recognized by
Washington and the Europeans, primarily because it promised some kind of democratic and
pluralistic future for Syria and control over the disparate and sometimes radical elements in
the Free Syrian Army. The supporters of the rebellion in the West were willing to hold their
collective noses and endorse the enterprise even though it was dominated by the Muslim
Brotherhood and other Islamists rather than by Western-educated liberals and other
secularists. But the painstakingly arrived at distribution of power provided no real solution
as the Coalition had no authority over most of the actual rebel combatants and little ability
to enforce standards on the cadres who were fighting the Syrian Army in Aleppo and Damascus.
Emphasizing its political divisions and also its essential powerlessness, on January 21, 2013
the Coalition was unable
to agree on who might be part of a transitional government to run the areas controlled by the
insurgents, largely because the Muslim Brotherhood was unwilling to cede authority to other
groups. Since that time it has
failed to agree on possible conditions for initiating peace negotiations with the al-Assad
government.
There will be plenty of finger-pointing in Washington and in the European chanceries over
what went wrong, but one issue that will probably not be confronted directly is the competing
objectives of the various supporters of the insurgents, which should have been visible right
from the beginning. The U.S. and the Europeans clearly envisioned some kind of humanitarian
intervention which would lead to a new, more representative government, but that was not the
goal of Turkey, which sought a pliable replacement regime that would clamp down on the
activities of groups like the separatist Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), Ankara's primary
geopolitical security concern.
Perhaps even more important, people in Washington should have also been asking why
Saudi Arabia and Qatar wanted to overthrow al-Assad and what kind of government they had in
mind to replace him . Saudi Arabia's rival as regional hegemon, Iran, is viewed in
Riyadh as ascendant due to the rise to power of a friendly Shia regime in Iraq as a result of
the American invasion and regime change. This has permitted the development of a geographically
contiguous Arab bloc closely tied to Tehran and its regional interests, running through Iraq,
across Syria, and connecting with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. To break up
that de facto coalition, the Saudis, who see Syria as the weak link in the chain, have sought
to replace Assad's Alawite-led government with a Sunni regime. But there is also a
second agenda. Because the ruling minority Alawites are considered to be heretics similar to
Shi'ites, a change in religious orientation would be necessary, with the Saudis serving as
protectors of the Sunni majority. The Riyadh-backed Sunni regime would of course be expected to
conform with the particularly Saudi view of proper religious deportment -- the extremely
conservative Wahhabism that prevails in the Kingdom, which is closer to the views of the more
radical insurgents while hostile to the secularists. It would also make the country's
significant numbers of Christians, Alawites, Shi'ites, and Kurds potential victims of the
arrangement.
All of which means that the Saudis and their allies Qatar believe in change in Syria, but on
their own terms, and they actually oppose enabling a populist or democratic evolution. In fact,
Riyadh has been actively engaged regionally in doing what it can to contain the unrest
resulting from the Arab Spring so that the populism does not become untidy and spill over into
Saudi Arabia itself. This has meant that from the beginning Saudi and Qatari objectives in
Syria have differed from the goals of either Turkey or the Western powers, which should have
been seen as a recipe for disaster.
And it gets even more complicated. In spite of their tendency to support religious groups
rather than secular ones, Saudi Arabia and its ally Qatar view the Muslim Brotherhood's
"political Islam" as one of the divisive elements that has destabilized countries like Egypt,
unleashing forces that could ultimately threaten the Saudis and Qataris
themselves. As a result, working through their surrogates in Lebanon and in Turkey as
well as in Jordan, they have systematically and deliberately starved most of the Free Syrian
Army of money and weapons, instead diverting their assistance to the militant Jabhat al-Nusra,
a Salafist group alleged to have links to al-Qaeda. Al-Nusra is generally regarded as the
most effective insurgent group when it comes to fighting, but it advocates a strict Sunni
religious state as part of a worldwide Caliphate under Sharia law when the fighting is
concluded. It has also become a magnet for the foreign jihadis who have been drawn into the
rebellion, an issue that has raised concerns in Washington because of the likelihood that
any successor regime to al-Assad could easily be dominated by a well-armed and disciplined
Salafist minority.
Ironically, the Saudis are acutely aware that aid to groups like al-Nusra could easily
blowback and feed a new wave of jihadi-led violence -- with al-Nusra playing a similar role to
that of al-Qaeda after it cut its teeth in Afghanistan -- but they are unfortunately locked
into their own rhetoric regarding what is necessary to take down al-Assad and break the
coalition of Arab states aligned with Iran. What it means for the other players in the tragedy
is that Syria is de facto in a bloody civil war that is approaching stalemate, while the United
States and Europeans have no good options and the Turks are increasingly playing damage
control. If there is a solution to the conflict it is not readily discernible, and it is now
doubtful whether some kind of resolution by force could be imposed even if Washington and the
Europeans were inclined to do so, which they are not.
Syria is in danger of ceasing to exist as a nation-state. Its collapse could
inspire a new global jihad and provoke violence throughout the Middle East, while its chemical
weapons could easily fall into dangerous hands. Well-armed bands of the most radical of the
insurgents taking the lead in the conflict without any political direction or control cannot be
what anyone envisioned two years ago, but that is what has emerged, with the United States
again looking on like a helpless giant.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the
National Interest.
I coming to sad conclusion that the Syria civil war is following the steps of the Lebanon
civil war and turning into a Spaghetti (Italian) Western. What we have now a whole bunch of
warring sides with guns that are fight until everybody is too exhausted to continue
fighting.
The problem with taking a hands-off approach to Syria is that we have no say in how things
turn out. I am not so sure that we should care one way or another how it turns out. We dont do
business with them, I doubt many of our people travel there for vacation, and they are not a
direct threat to us. We can have an opinion, but shouldnt get too worked up over the
outcome.
If this article is accurate, this Admin. justified the case for the Iraq and Afghanistan
Invasions.
Regime change
And it is folly. So we assist via the back door to overthrow President Assad and replace his
government with those who have not lived the country for ten to twenty years.
Hmmm . . . I think I have seen this game plan before.
This article makes the Syrian civil war sound most like the Afghanistan revolt followed by
civil war against the Soviets after their invasion.
Of course, there limited US attention after the Soviets left meant that Saudi, Iranian, and
Pakistani backed militias fought against one another. Instead of being exhausted, the ultimate
winner decided that they still hated the USA.
The parallel that falls to mind is the Spanish Civil War in which various powers were
willing to fight right down to the last Spaniard. Spain emerged from that civil war with a
stable, non-interventionist regime under Franco but I doubt Syria will be so lucky.
As to "It has also become a magnet for the foreign jihadis who have been drawn into the
rebellion, an issue that has raised concerns in Washington because of the likelihood that any
successor regime to al-Assad could easily be dominated by a well-armed and disciplined Salafist
minority." I can only say that this is an excellent opportunity for the West to discretely fund
some vermin control. The more of these jihadis Assad kills the better off we all are. We should
remember that our defeat of Communist subversion in the Europe of 1946-7 was made easier by the
fact that so many leftist trouble makers were buried in Spain in 1936-8.
One mystery remains. Why on earth are the neo-cons agitating for war with Assad? Surely
Israel is better off with the relatively ineffective Assad regime than they would be under what
would follow.
"Syria is in danger of ceasing to exist as a nation-state". That is the problem right there,
Syria never was a nation state, no different than Yugoslavia which could only be kept together
by a Tito, so is the case with the Assads.
If this author could go beyond his PC thinking, this simple fact would easily explain why
Syria is facing such an intractable problem.
I feared the unrest in Syria would lead to a vicious civil war in which irreplaceable
historical and archaeological treasures are destroyed.
I thought the Saudis were promoting civil war in order to weaken Iran, due in part to Iran's
reckless decision to treble production of uranium enriched to 20 percent.
I also thought "the West" blundered in Libya by making a negotiated resolution of the unrest
more difficult. Same blunder has taken place with Syria.
What is the percentage of foreign fighters? I hear various percentages thrown about, some
over 50%.
The Assad government conducted a constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections, as
well (but that is studiously ignored by western press).
Syria, in its current makeup, is an obstacle to western power & control. Humanitarian
concerns have little to do with it.
In 2007, Seymour Hersh had a New Yorker article, The Redirection, where U. S.
government plans for the destabilization of Syria was reported.
And, as reported by the present author, Mr. Giraldi, the United States has been
significantly involved in facilitating weapons into Syria. What has happened presently is much
like what Hersh reported was planned to happen in his 2007 New Yorker article.
But obviously it didn't go according to plan.
Some analysts submit the United States is the spider in the center of the web, the
prime mover, as far as Syria goes. Would Saudi Arabia act against a strong U. S.
objection?
Syria is potentially also a stepping stone to Iran.
Israel is fine with balkanized neighbors who are weak (maybe a little more land can be taken
down the road).
There is no doubt the fighters use terrorist tactics of indiscriminate large scale bombing,
summary execution, and infastructure destruction (including religous and historical sites).
The U. S. vetoed a U. N. Security Council resolution submitted by Russia condemning last
week's Damascus bombing where over 50 died and hundreds were wounded. The U. S. wanted a
condemnation focusing on Assad with passing reference to the Damascus bombing (subsequently the
al-Nusra front claimed responsibility for the bombing).
So, implicitly, the U. S. government is condoning terrorist acts of al Quaeda linked terror
groups who are on the state department terrorist watch list.
The U. S. government is condoning large-scale terrorism in Syria, plain and simple. It's
immoral. Is that what the U. S. has come to?
It would be easy to turn off the weapons and terrorist supply into Syria, but it would take
political will to change the inertia and an implicit aknowledgement of failure.
That acknowledgement of failure might be the biggest political stumbling block of
all.
very much a 'devil you know vs. devil you don't' with the understanding that we pretty much
'know' both devils; we just don't 'know' what Syria (or Iraq, Libyia, etc.) would be like with
the latter. that said; I think the real question is not so much is it wise to back rebels;
which inevitably invites or at the very least encourages/nurtures jihadists? rather; is it
possible to anticipate the "jihad card" and somehow use it to serve our interests? even if "our
interests" are best served by, as Michael Corleone observed (to Frank Pantangeli re: a turf war
in NYC); " do(ing) nothing ". the truth is; many of these revolutions (Arab Spring movements,
more than Iraq) are as genuine as the 13 colonies revolting against King George. at this point
in our history; you would think we'd be pretty good at "playing" others, when the sad fact is;
we seem to be the ones being played. no doubt the neocon enablers of the military-insustrial
complex certainly act to server their interests, which is probably a good place to look for an
answer.
The great debate that I've been having for years with friends on and offline is whether
American foreign policy planners and officials are idealists or are actively assisting certain
types of Sunni Islamist forces to fill the vacuum when secularist regimes are toppled (or being
attacked, as in Syria's case).
We've seen the exodus of Christian communities and the rise of Sunni extremists in every one
of these countries either invaded by the USA or that have been part of this "Arab Spring".
"One mystery remains. Why on earth are the neo-cons agitating for war with Assad? Surely
Israel is better off with the relatively ineffective Assad regime than they would be under what
would follow."
Israel was actually one of the last to get onside with regime change in Syria, long after
the French, British and the GCC got the ball rolling. Many in Israel prefer Assad as "the devil
you know", but the plus side of a removal of the Ba'athist regime is that the route from Iran
to Hezbollah is cut off, leaving them isolated and surrounded by the IDF and Sunni Islamist
forces in Syria, with Sunni proxies in Lebanon itself.
I guess that the Israelis did the calculus and figured that a degrading of Hezbollah supply
routes is a livable option.
No Sunni forces have been able to challenge the IDF in decades, but Hezbollah gave them a
bloody nose and their entire foreign policy environment is clouded by Iran, Hezbollah's
sponsor.
By what authority does the Washington regime use our nation's money and prestige (what
remains of it) to meddle in the internal affairs of Syria or any other country? This government
is tottering on the edge of bankruptcy and does not even have control its own borders; and it's
trying to bring "stability" to a country halfway around the world. Incredible
imbecility!
Really the most comprehensive short analysis I've seen anywhere. Hard to believe though that
it's passing out of Turkey's hands; it seems to me in terms of proximity, interest, toughness,
Ankara should be the strongest actor.
Syria's war is one of the most irrational and thus criminal Westren wars. Assad is way
closer to an ideal/practical government than any future State would be. Assad government
includes all factions of society, allows market, controls radicals and is less corrupt and more
representative than US allies.
"Well-armed bands of the most radical of the insurgents taking the lead in the conflict
without any political direction or control cannot be what anyone envisioned two years ago, but
that is what has emerged, with the United States again looking on like a helpless giant."
Well this is partly the result of Obama's policy of passivity and timidity in Syria. The CIA
director, the Secretary of State, the Defense Secretary, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
all pushed and supported a plan to train and arm moderate, pro-Western rebel groups in Syria.
But Obama unfortunately was too risk-averse and too worried about domestic politics to approve
the plan. Obama's policy carries at least as many risks as the alternative does. At least the
Obama administration has now decided to send non-lethal aid to the armed rebel groups. Maybe
weapons will come next. But with Kerry and Hagel at State and Defense, I'm not holding my
breath.
The US is less dependent on middle Eastern oil than in the past, and this dependence will
reduce further thanks to fracking and shale oil. As long as the navy has a secure base in Doha
from which to control the Straits of Hormuz, the strategic interests of the country are
secure.
One, it isn't "terrorism" when it's done by "our" sons of bitches. "Ours" is an increasingly
loose definition.
Chaos serves the purpose of weakening rivals for the politically focused, and driving up war
equipment profits for the financially focused. There are no humanitarian considerations among
either of those groups who make policy in our name.
Scott McConnell wrote "Ankara should be the strongest actor"
Yes, Phil thinks Turkey is "playing damage control", but its military strength,
self-interest and 500 mile shared border shuts down nearly all arguments as to who should (and
will) take the lead in handling this among the various candidate state actors.
God knows we could use a break from contemplating disasters resulting from our own
blundering meddling.
Kurds are an ethnic group, rather than a religious one (though the majority happen to be
Sunni). I don't see how they are clear losers if the Saudis are more influential. Maybe the
variety of Sunni Islam they prefer isn't Wahabbist, and in that case you should have made that
explicit.
I appreciate Mr. Giraldi's invaluable contribution to shedding some true light on the war
against Syria, especially in early stages of the conflict where his reporting on the influx of
terrorists and weapons through Turkey and on their training there stood out from the deluge of
vicious hypocritical, lying and outrageous war propaganda in the Western and GCC media.
But it is beyond me why Mr.Giraldi is leaving out form his analysis two crucial issues:
1) the pivotal change in regional energy security puzzle related to the world largest South
PARS gas field shared by Iran and Qatar discovered in 2007
2) the collapse of the oil-backed Petro-dollar also sustain mainly by the the US quest for
full spectrum global dominance since the end of the Soviet Union.
You cannot understand the whole picture without these two factors. To learn more read
Thierry Meyssan et. al. at VoltairNet and Christof Lehmann et. al at NSNBC.me. Also Veterans
Today is very informative with broad spectrum of perspectives on global and domestic
issues.
"... The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Rarely do pundits apologize for the horrendous Iraqi losses inflicted by the war: more than a million deaths and millions more wounded with varying lifelong disabilities, including thousands of tortured prisoners, with an estimated 16,000 of them still unaccounted for . Twenty-eight percent of Iraqi children suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, and 2.8 million people are still ..."
The only message our children will take away from the war in Iraq is that if you repeat a
boldfaced lie enough, it will someday become accepted truth. And as a corollary, saving face is
much more important than admitting a mistake, no matter how destructive the outcome.
Unfortunately for our children, manipulating the truth became the norm for the Bush
administration, which invaded Iraq on what we know now (and the administration almost certainly
knew then) were utterly false pretenses. Thanks to these lies, Americans, including our
soldiers and civilians serving in Iraq, were convinced Saddam Hussein was linked to the 9/11
attacks and had weapons of mass destruction, two of the ever-evolving reasons for getting into
the war. Many still believe this. Engaging in mass deception in order to justify official
policy both degrades and endangers democracy. But by far, it is ordinary Iraqis who have
suffered the most.
We know now beyond any doubt that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 and had no weapons of mass
destruction. But as Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA analyst with the Iraqi portfolio, wrote on
March 14, "Intelligence did not drive the decision to invade Iraq – not by a long shot,
despite the aggressive use by the Bush administration of cherry-picked fragments of
intelligence reporting in its public sales campaign for the war." Indeed, this was a war in
search of a justification from the very beginning, and any little lie would have worked.
It is very fortuitous for all those politicians, policy makers, and bureaucrats with Iraqi
blood on their hands -- Republicans and Democrats both -- that the only courtroom they've been
shuffled into is the court of public opinion, where most received light sentences.
Indeed, the Iraq war boosters are still a fixture on our television screens. Dan Senor , who served
as a spokesman for the U.S occupation authorities and willfully misrepresented events on the
ground during that time, is a regular commentator on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," a veritable
roundtable of Washington establishment punditry. Kenneth Pollack, a longtime Brookings fellow
and CIA analyst who wrote the 2002 book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading
Iraq (which is barely mentioned today on the Brookings website), is a familiar face on the
commentary circuit and among think tank salons. Ex-Generals David Petraeus and Stanley
McChrystal, who each left their most recent posts in disgrace, are raking in thousands of
dollars for speeches, lectures, and consulting work.
Sure, there are pundits and reporters who admit they wrongly supported the war, but their
regrets are usually reserved for their blind faith in the war planners and their own lack of
inquisitiveness. For example, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius confessed in a
March 21 column that Iraq was one of "the biggest strategic errors in Modern American history."
But the thrust of his own mea culpa was that he did not write enough "on the
overriding question of whether the war made sense," which would have allowed him to see that
the U.S was not strong enough nor flexible enough to succeed.
Rarely do pundits apologize for the horrendous Iraqi losses inflicted by the war: more
than a million deaths and millions more wounded with varying lifelong disabilities, including
thousands of tortured prisoners, with an estimated 16,000 of
them still unaccounted for . Twenty-eight percent of Iraqi children suffer from
post-traumatic stress disorder, and 2.8 million people are still internally
displaced or living as refugees outside the country. Add to that the
complete upheaval of the Iraqi economy, as well as its transportation, education, and medical
institutions. Don't forget the countless people suffering from trauma and depression, sectarian
strife, terrifying birth defects from toxic pollution, and a brain drain that has left the
country illiterate.
Not since the American Civil War has the U.S citizenry had to endure such horrors. Yet
discussion of these repercussions is noticeably absent as we still struggle to understand the
scope of the Iraq war and what all of its lies have wrought.
Let us start with a sincere apology to the Iraqi people for the crimes the U.S government
has committed. A long-range plan for restitution is a second step. Empires decline due to moral
decay from within. Ten years after the invasion of Iraq, our nation is looking at the moral
abyss. If lies have delivered us to this place, then only the truth will begin our journey
back.
"... Economic growth is more about financialising goods and services that were previously free or are/were social goods. There is no real growth; just taxing the living. ..."
"... So, in my view, the only restraint on destroying Iran is capability, is the cost and the risk of retaliation (not just from Iran) - not the destruction of Iran's capital - better for Iran's capital to be destroyed than for Iran to be independent or a competitor. ..."
My comment @342 should have read: "The petrodollar is the way in which the US gets the
rest of the world to fund its wars,"
---------
Your comment about capitalist accumulation doesn't hold (as a motivator for the US) when
we have a capitalist monopolist situation. Rate of profit is not about growth (of real
goods); it is about reducing competition and scarcity. When you are the monopolist you can
charge what you like but profit becomes meaningless - the monopolist power comes from the
control of resources - the monopolistic capitalist becomes a ruler/monarch. You no longer
need ever-increasing customers so you can dispense with them if you so chose (by reducing the
population). One bottle of water is far more valuable and a lot less trouble to produce that
100 millions bottles of water. There is no point in AI to provide for the needs of "the
many"; AI becomes a means to dispense with "the many" altogether.
Economic growth is more about financialising goods and services that were previously free
or are/were social goods. There is no real growth; just taxing the living.
So, in my view, the only restraint on destroying Iran is capability, is the cost and the risk of
retaliation (not just from Iran) - not the destruction of Iran's capital - better for Iran's
capital to be destroyed than for Iran to be independent or a competitor.
The future of the U.S.'s involvement in the Middle East is in Iraq. The exchange of
hostilities between the U.S. and Iran occurred wholly on Iraqi soil and it has become the site
on which that war will continue.
Israel continues to up the ante on Iran, following President Trump's lead by bombing Shia
militias stationed near the Al Bukumai border crossing between Syria and Iraq.
The U.S. and Israel are determined this border crossing remains closed and have demonstrated
just how far they are willing to go to prevent the free flow of goods and people across this
border.
The regional allies of Iran are to be kept weak, divided and constantly under
harassment.
Iraq is the battleground because the U.S. lost in Syria. Despite the presence of U.S. troops
squatting on Syrian oil fields in Deir Ezzor province or the troops sitting in the desert
protecting the Syrian border with Jordan, the Russians, Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds forces
continue to reclaim territory previously lost to the Syrian government.
Now with Turkey redeploying its pet Salafist head-choppers from Idlib to Libya to fight
General Haftar's forces there to legitimize its claim to eastern Mediterannean gas deposits,
the restoration of Syria's territorial integrity west of the Euphrates River is nearly
complete.
The defenders of Syria can soon transition into the rebuilders thereof, if allowed. And they
didn't do this alone, they had a silent partner in China the entire time.
And, if I look at this situation honestly, it was China stepping out from behind the shadows
into the light that is your inciting incident for this chapter in Iraq's story.
China moving in to sign a $10.1 billion deal with the Iraqi government to begin the
reconstruction of its ruined oil and gas industry in exchange for oil is of vital
importance.
It doubles China's investment in Iraq while denying the U.S. that money and influence.
This happened after a massive $53 billion deal between Exxon-Mobil and Petrochina was put on
hold after the incident involving Iran shooting down a U.S. Global Hawk drone in June.
With the U.S balking over the Exxon/Petrochina big deal, Iraqi Prime Minster Adel Abdul
Mahdi signed the new one with China in October. Mahdi brought up the circumstances surrounding
that in Iraqi parliaments during the session in which it passed the resolution recommending
removal of all foreign forces from Iraq.
Did Trump openly threaten Mahdi over this deal as I covered in my
podcast on this? Did the U.S. gin up protests in Baghdad, amplifying unrest over growing
Iranian influence in the country?
And, if not, were these threats simply implied or carried by a minion (Pompeo, Esper, a
diplomat)? Because the U.S.'s history of regime change operations is well documented. Well
understood color revolution
tactics used successfully in
places like Ukraine , where snipers were deployed to shoot protesters and police alike to
foment violence between them at the opportune time were on display in Baghdad.
Mahdi openly accused Trump of threatening him, but that sounds more like Mahdi using the
current impeachment script to invoke the sinister side of Trump and sell his case.
It's not that I don't think Trump capable of that kind of threat, I just don't think he's
stupid enough to voice it on an open call. Donald Trump is capable of many impulsive things,
openly threatening to remove an elected Prime Minister on a recorded line is not one of
them.
Mahdi has been under the U.S.'s fire since he came to power in late 2018. He was the man who
refused Trump during
Trump's impromptu Christmas visit to Iraq in 2018 , refusing to be summoned to a
clandestine meeting at the U.S. embassy rather than Trump visit him as a head of state, an
equal.
He was the man who declared the Iraqi air space closed after Israeli air attacks on Popular
Mobilization Force (PMF) positions in September.
And he's the person, at the same time, being asked by Trump to act as a mediator between
Saudi Arabia and Iran in peace talks for Yemen.
So, the more we look at this situation the more it is clear that Abdul Madhi, the first
Iraqi prime minister since the 2003 U.S. invasion push for more Iraqi sovereignty, is emerging
as the pivotal figure in what led up to the attack on General Soleimani and what comes after
Iran's subsequent retaliation.
It's clear that Trump doesn't want to fight a war with Iran in Iran. He wants them to
acquiesce to his unreasonable demands and begin negotiating a new nuclear deal which
definitively stops the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon, and as P
atrick Henningsen at 21st Century Wire thinks ,
Trump now wants a new deal which features a prohibition on Iran's medium range missiles ,
and after events this week, it's obvious why. Wednesday's missile strike by Iran demonstrates
that the US can no longer operate in the region so long as Iran has the ability to extend its
own deterrence envelope westwards to Syria, Israel, and southwards to the Arabian Peninsula,
and that includes all US military installations located within that radius.
Iraq doesn't want to be that battlefield. And Iran sent the message with those two missile
strikes that the U.S. presence in Iraq is unsustainable and that any thought of retreating to
the autonomous Kurdish region around the air base at Erbil is also a non-starter.
The big question, after this attack, is whether U.S. air defenses around the Ain al Assad
airbase west of Ramadi were active or not. If they were then Trump's standing down after the
air strikes signals what Patrick suggests, a new Middle East in the making.
If they were not turned on then the next question is why? To allow Iran to save face after
Trump screwed up murdering Soleimani?
I'm not capable of believing such Q-tard drivel at this point. It's far more likely that the
spectre of Russian electronics warfare and radar evasion is lurking in the subtext of this
story and the U.S. truly now finds itself after a second example of Iranian missile technology
in a nascent 360 degree war in the region.
It means that Iran's threats against the cities of Haifa and Dubai were real.
In short, it means the future of the U.S. presence in Iraq now measures in months not
years.
Because both China and Russia stand to gain ground with a newly-united Shi'ite Iraqi
population. Mahdi is now courting Russia to sell him S-300 missile defense systems to allow him
to enforce his demands about Iraqi airspace.
Moqtada al-Sadr is mobilizing his Madhi Army to oust the U.S. from Iraq. Iraq is key to the
U.S. presence in the region. Without Iraq the U.S. position in Syria is unsustainable.
If the U.S. tries to retreat to Kurdish territory and push again for Masoud Barzani and his
Peshmerga forces to declare independence Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will go
ballistic.
And you can expect him to make good on his threat to close the Incerlik airbase, another
critical logistical juncture for U.S. force projection in the region.
But it all starts with Mahdi's and Iraq's moves in the coming weeks. But, with Trump rightly
backing down from escalating things further and not following through on his outlandish threats
against Iran, it may be we're nearing the end of this intractable standoff.
Back in June I told you
that Iran had the ability to fight asymmetrically against the U.S., not through direct
military confrontation but through the after-effects of a brief, yet violent period of war in
which all U.S., Israeli and Arab assets in the Middle East come under fire from all
directions.
It sent this same message then that by attacking oil tankers it could make the transport of
oil untenable and not insurable. We got a taste of it back then and Trump, then, backed
down.
And the resultant upheaval in the financial markets creating an abyss of losses, cross-asset
defaults, bank failures and government collapses.
Trump has no real option now but to negotiate while Iraq puts domestic pressure on him to
leave and Russia/China come in to provide critical economic and military support to assist
Mahdi rally his country back towards some semblance of sovereignty
How about "what is the goal?" There is none of course. The assholes in the Washington/MIC
just need war to keep them relevant. What if the US were to closed down all those wars and
foreign bases? THEN the taxpayer could demand some accounting for the trillions that are
wasted on complete CRAP. There are too many old leftovers from the cold war who seem to think
there is benefit to fighting wars in shithole places just because those wars are the only
ones going on right now. The stupidity of the ****** in the US military/MIC/Washington is
beyond belief. JUST LEAVE you ******* idiots.
Sometimes, in treading thru the opaque, sandstorm o ******** swept wastes of the '
desert of the really real '...
one must rely upon a marking... some kind of guidepost, however tenuous, to show you to be
still... on the trail, not lost in the vast haunted reaches of post-reality. And you know,
Tommy is that sort of guide; the sort of guy who you take to the fairgrounds, set him up with
the 'THROW THE BALL THRU THE HOOP... GUARANTEED PRIZE TO SCOOP' kiosk...
and he misses every time. Just by watching Tom run through his paces here... zeroing in on
the exact WRONG interpretation of events ... every dawg gone time... one resets their compass
to tru course and relaxes into the flow agin! Thanks Tom! Let's break down ... the Schlitzy
shopping list of sloppy errors:
Despite the presence of U.S. troops squatting on Syrian oil fields in Deir Ezzor
province or the troops sitting in the desert protecting the Syrian border with Jordan, the
Russians, Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds forces continue to reclaim territory previously
lost to the Syrian government. / umm Tom... the Russkies just ONCE AGIN... at Ankaras
request .. imposed a stop on the IDLIB CAMPAIGN. Which by the way... is being conducted
chiefly by the SAA. Or was that's to say. To the east... the Russkies have likewise become
the guarantors of .... STATIS... that is a term implying no changes on the map. Remember
that word Tom... "map" ... I recommend you to find one... and learn how to use it!
Now with Turkey redeploying its pet Salafist head-choppers from Idlib to Libya to fight
General Haftar's forces there to legitimize its claim to eastern Mediterannean gas
deposits, the restoration of Syria's territorial integrity west of the Euphrates River is
nearly complete. See above... with gravy Tom. Two hundred jihadists moving to Libya has not
changed the status quo... except in dreamland.
Israel continues to up the ante on Iran, f ollowing President Trump's lead by bombing
Shia militias stationed near the Al Bukumai border crossing between Syria and Iraq.
Urusalem.. and its pathetically obedient dogsbody USSA ... are busy setting up RIMFISTAN
Tom.. you really need to start expanding your reading list; On both sides of that border
you mention .. they will be running - and guarding - pipeline running to the mothership.
Shia miitias and that project just don't mix. Nobody gives a frying fluck bout your
imaginary 'land bridge to the Med'... except you and the gomers. And you and they aren't
ANYWHERES near to here.
Abdul Madhi, the first Iraqi prime minister since the 2003 U.S. invasion push for
more Iraqi sovereignty, is emerging as the pivotal figure in what led up to the attack on
General Soleimani and what comes after Iran's subsequent retaliation.
Ok... this is getting completely embarrassing. The man is a 'caretaker' Tom...
that's similar to a 'janitor' - he's on the way out. If you really think thats' being
pivotal... I'm gonna suggest that you've 'pivoted' on one of your goats too many
times.
Look, Tom... I did sincerely undertake to hold your arm, and guide you through this to a
happier place. But you... are underwater my man. And that's quite an accomplishment, since we
be traveling through the deserts of the really real. You've enumerated a list of things which
has helped me to understand just how completely distorted is the picture of the situation
here in mudded east.. is... in the minds of the myriad victims of your alt-media madness. And
I thank you for that. But its time we part company.
These whirring klaidescope glasses I put on, in order to help me see how you see things,
have given me a bit of a headache. Time to return to seeing the world... as it really
works!
The whole *target and destroy* Iran (and Iraq) clusterfuck has always been about creating
new profit scenarios, profit theaters, for the MIC.
If the US govt was suddenly forced to stop making and selling **** designed to kill
people... if the govt were forced to stopping selling **** to other people so
they can kill people... if the govt were forced to stop stockpiling **** designed to
kill people just so other people would stop building and stockpiling **** designed to kill
people... first the US then the world would collapse... everyone would finally see... the US
is a nation of people that allows itself to be propped up by the worst sort of people... an
infinitesimally small group of gangsters who legally make insane amounts of money... by
creating in perpetuity... forever new scenarios that allow them to kill other people.
Jesus ******* Christ ZeroHedge software ******* sucks.
Why has Trump no real option? What do you believe are the limits of Trump's options that
assure he must negotiate? Perhaps all out war is not yet possible politically in the US, but
public sentiment has been manipulated before. Why not now?
One must not yet reject the idea that the road to Moscow and Beijing does not run through
Iran. Throwing the US out of the Middle East would be a grievous failure for the deep state
which has demonstrated itself to be absolutely ruthless. It is hard to believe the US will
leave without a much more serious war forcing the issue.
So far Trump has appeared artless and that may continue but that artlessness may well
bring a day when Trump will not back down.
The motivation behind Trump pulling out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action wasn't
because, after careful analytical study of the plan, he decided it was a bad deal. It was
because Israel demanded it as it didn't fit into their best interests and, as with the
refreezing of relationships with Cuba, it was a easier way to undo Obama policy rather than
tackling Obamacare. Hardly sound judgement.
The war will continue in Iraq as the Shia majority mobilize against an occupying force
that has been asked to leave, but refuse. What will quickly become apparent is that this war
is about to become far more multifaceted with Iraqi and Iranian proxies targeting American
interests across numerous fronts.
Trump is the head of a business empire; Downsizing is not a strategy that he's ever
employed; His business history is a case study in go big or go bust.
trump's zionist overlords have demanded he destroy iran.
as a simple lackey, he agreed, but he does need political cover to do so.
thus the equating of any attack or threat of attack by any group of any political
persuasion as originating from iran.
any resistance by the shia in iraq will be considered as being directed from iran, thus an
attack on iran is warranted.
any resistance by the currect governement of iraq will be considered as being directed
from iran, thus an attack on iran is warranted.
any resistance by the sunni in iraq will be considered subversion by iran, or a false flag
by iran, thus an attack on iran is warranted.
trump's refusal to follow the SOFA agreement, and heed the call of the democratic
government we claim to have gone in to install, is specifically designed to lead to more
violence, which in turn can be blamed on iran's "malign" influence, which gives the entity
lackeys cover to spread more democracy.
I'm more positive that Iraq can resolve its issues without starting a Global War.
The information
shared by the Iraqi Prime Minister goes part way to awakening the population as to what
is happening and why.
Once more information starts to leak out (and it will from those individuals who want to
avoid extinction) the broad mass of the global population can take action to protect
themselves from the psychopaths.
China moving in to sign a $10.1 billion deal with the Iraqi government to begin the
reconstruction of its ruined oil and gas industry in exchange for oil is of vital
importance.
Come on Tom, you should know better than that: the U.S will destroy any agreements between
China and the people of Iraq.
The oil will continue to be stolen and sent to Occupied Palestine to administer and the
people of Iraq will be in constant revolt, protest mode and subjugation- but they will never
know they are being manipulated by the thieving zionists in D.C and Tel aviv.
Agreed. It will take nothing short of a miracle to stop this. Time isnt on their side
though so they better get on it. They will do something big to get it going.
This isn't "humanity." Few people are psychopathic killers. It is being run by a small
cliche of Satanists who are well on their way to enslaving humanity in a dystopia even George
Orwell could not imagine. They control most of the levers of power and influence and have
done so for centuries.
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to
risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one
piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor
for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in
any country.
- Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring's testimony before the Nuremberg tribunal on crimes
against humanity
When
the United States, the United Kingdom, and the "coalition of the willing" attacked Iraq in
March 2003, millions protested around the world. But the war of "shock and awe" was just the
beginning. The subsequent occupation of Iraq by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority
bankrupted the country and left its infrastructure in shambles.
It's not just a question of security. Although the breathtaking violence that attended
Iraq's descent into sectarian nightmare has been well documented in many retrospectives on the
10-year-old war, what's often overlooked is that by far more mundane standards, the United
States did a spectacularly poor job of governing Iraq.
It's not that Iraq was flourishing before the occupation. From 1990 to 2003, the UN Security
Council imposed economic sanctions on Iraq that were the harshest in the history of global
governance. But along with the sanctions, at least, came an elaborate system of oversight and
accountability that drew in the Security Council, nine UN agencies, and General Secretary
himself.
The system was certainly imperfect, and the effects of the sanctions on the Iraqi people
were devastating. But when the United States arrived, all semblance of international oversight
vanished.
Under enormous pressure from Washington, in May 2003 the Security Council formally
recognized the occupation of Iraq by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Resolution
1483. Among other things, this resolution gave the CPA complete control over all of Iraq's
assets.
At the same time, the Council removed all the forms of monitoring and accountability that
had been in place: there would be no reports on the humanitarian situation by UN agencies, and
there would be no committee of the Security Council charged with monitoring the occupation.
There would be a limited audit of funds, after they were spent, but no one from the UN would
directly oversee oil sales. And no humanitarian agencies would ensure that Iraqi funds were
being spent in ways that benefitted the country.
Humanitarian concerns
In January 2003, the UN prepared a working plan anticipating the impact of
a possible war. Even with only "medium impact" from the invasion, the UN expected that
humanitarian conditions would be severely compromised.
Because the Iraqi population was so heavily reliant on the government's food distribution
system (a consequence of international sanctions), the UN anticipated that overthrowing the
Iraqi regime would also undermine food security. And because the population already suffered
from extensive malnutrition, this disruption would be quite lethal, putting 30 percent of Iraqi
children under five at risk of death. The UN noted that if water and sewage treatment plants
were damaged in the war, or if the electrical system could not operate, Iraqis would lose
access to potable water, which would likely precipitate epidemics of water-borne diseases. And
if electricity, transportation, and medical equipment were compromised, then the medical system
would be unable to respond effectively to these epidemics.
During the occupation, much of this came to pass. A
June 2003 UN report noted that the postwar water and sewage systems for Baghdad and other
central and southern governorates were "in crisis." In Baghdad alone, the report estimated that
40 percent of the city's water distribution network was damaged, leading to a loss of up to
half of the city's potable water through leaks and breaks in the system. And direr still, the
UN reported that neither of Baghdad's two sewage treatment plants was functional, leading to a
massive discharge of raw sewage into the Tigris River.
The food situation was similar. The UN found that farming had collapsed due to "widespread
insecurity and looting, the complete collapse of ministries and state agencies -- the sole
providers of essential farming inputs and services -- together with significant damages to
power supplies."
Likewise, the health system deteriorated dramatically. Less than 50 percent of the Iraqi
population had access to medical care, due in part to the dangers associated with travel.
Additionally, the report estimated that 75 percent of all health-care institutions were
affected by the looting and chaos that occurred in the aftermath of the war. As of June 2003,
the health system as a whole was functioning at 30-50 percent of its pre-war capacity. The
impact was immediate. By early summer, acute malnutrition rates had doubled, dysentery was
widespread, and little medical care was available. In August, when a power outage blacked out
New York, the joke going around Baghdad was "I hope they're not waiting for the Americans to
fix it."
The CPA gave responsibility for humanitarian relief to the U.S. military -- not to agencies
with experience in humanitarian crises -- and marginalized the UN's humanitarian relief
agencies. Over the 14-month course of the CPA's administration, the humanitarian crisis
worsened. Preventable diseases like dysentery and typhoid ran rampant. Malnutrition worsened,
claiming the lives of ever more infants, mothers, and young children. All told, there was an
estimated 100,000
"excess deaths" during the invasion and occupation -- well above and beyond the mortality rate
under Saddam Hussein, even under international sanctions.
The CPA's priorities were clear. After the invasion, during the widespread looting and
robbery, occupation authorities did little to protect water and sewage treatment plants, or
even pediatric hospitals. By contrast, they provided immediate protection for the oil ministry
offices, hired a U.S. company to put out oil field fires, and immediately provided protection
for the oil fields as well.
Corruption
In addition, the U.S.-led CPA was deeply corrupt. Much of Iraq's revenues, from oil sales or
other sources, went to contracts with U.S. companies. Of contracts for more than $5 million, 74
percent went to U.S. companies, with most of the remainder going to U.S. allies. Only 2 percent
went to Iraqi companies.
Over the course of the occupation, huge amounts of money simply disappeared. Kellogg, Brown,
and Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton, received over 60 percent of all contracts paid for
with Iraqi funds, although it was repeatedly criticized by auditors for issues of honesty and
competence. In the last six weeks of the occupation, the United States shipped $5 billion of
Iraqi funds, in cash, into the country, to be spent before the Iraqi-led government took over.
Auditor reports indicated that Iraqi funds were systematically looted by the CPA officials:
"One contractor received a $2 million payment in a duffel bag stuffed with shrink-wrapped
bundles of currency," read one
report . "One official was given $6.75 million in cash, and was ordered to spend it one
week before the interim Iraqi government took control of Iraqi funds."
U.S. officials were apparently unconcerned about the gross abuses of the funds with which
they were entrusted. In one instance, the CPA transferred some $8.8 billion of Iraqi money
without any documentation as to how the funds were spent. When questioned about how the money
was spent, Admiral David Oliver, the principal deputy for financial matters in the CPA,
replied
that he had "no idea" and didn't think it was particularly important. "Billions of dollars of
their money?" he asked his interlocutor. "What difference does it make?"
In the end, none of this should be terribly surprising -- the corruption, the indifference
to human needs, the singular concern with controlling Iraq's oil wealth. It was obvious from
the moment that the Security Council, under enormous pressure from the United State, passed
Resolution 1483.
By systematically removing nearly every form of oversight from their self-imposed
administration of Iraq, the United States and its allies laid the foundation for the looting of
an entire nation's wealth, abetted by their own wanton indifference to the needs and rights of
Iraqis. Ten years after the start of the war, the CPA's disastrous governance of Iraq stands
alongside the country's horrifying descent into violence as a dark legacy in its own right.
Having spent the last several years of my life engineering investment strategies to profit
from the inevitability of Peak Oil, I've become obsessed with understanding the ramifications
of radically different energy supply dynamics on the global economy. There are many facets to
this, some obvious and some not so obvious. So when ASPO-USA Executive Director Jan Mueller
approached me at the end of this year's conference in Austin and asked for an article
discussing the less obvious economic impacts of Peak Oil, I knew instantly that the
topic should be the threat Peak Oil poses to the International Monetary System (IMS). This
connection is critically important, but far from obvious.
I assure you that this story is very much about Peak Oil, but please bear with me, as I'll
need to start by reviewing what the IMS is and how it came about in the first place. Then I'll
explain the role energy has already played in shaping the present-day IMS, and finally, I'll
tie this back to Peak Oil by explaining why rising energy prices could very well be the
catalyst that will cause the present system to fail.
What is the International Monetary System?
At the end of World War II, many countries were literally lying in ruin, and needed to be
rebuilt. It was clear that international trade would be very important going forward, but how
would it work? World leaders recognized the need to architect a new monetary system that would
facilitate international trade and allow the world to rebuild itself following the most
devastating war in world history.
A global currency was out of the question because the many countries of the world valued
their sovereignty, and wanted to continue to issue their own domestic currencies. In order for
international trade to flourish, a system was needed to allow trade between dozens of different
nations, each with its own currency.
A convention was organized by the United Nations for the purpose of bringing world leaders
together to architect this new International Monetary System . The meetings were held in
July, 1944 at the Mt. Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, and were attended by
730 delegates representing all 44 allied nations. The official name for the event was the
United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference , but it would forever be remembered as
The Bretton Woods Conference .
To this day, the system designed in those meetings remains the basis for all international
trade, and is known as the Bretton Woods System. The system has evolved quite a bit
since its inception, but its core principles remain the basis for all international trade. I'm
going to focus this article on the parts of the system which I believe are now at risk of
radical change, with Peak Oil the most likely catalyst to bring about that change. Readers
seeking a deeper understanding of the system itself should refer to the Further Reading
section at the end of this article.
Why is an International Monetary System needed?
It simply wouldn't be practical for all countries to sell their export products to other
countries in their own currencies. If one had to pay for wine from France in French Francs
(there was no Euro currency in 1944), and then pay to import a BMW automobile in German Marks,
then pay for copper produced in Chile in Pesos, each country would face an overwhelming burden
just maintaining reserve deposits of all the various world currencies. The system of trade
would be very inefficient. For centuries, this problem has been solved by using a single
standard currency for all international trade.
Because a standard-currency system dictates that each nation's central bank will need to
maintain a reserve supply of the standard currency in order to facilitate international
trade, the standard currency is known as the reserve currency . At various times in
history, the Greek Drachma, the Roman Denari, and the Islamic Dinar have served as de-facto
reserve currencies. Prior to World War II, the English Pound Sterling was the
international reserve currency.
Throughout history, reserve currencies came into and out of use through happenstance. The
Bretton Woods conference marked the first time that a global reserve currency was established
by formal treaty between cooperating nations. The currency chosen was, of course, the U.S.
Dollar.
How does the IMS work?
The core of the system was the U.S. Dollar serving as the standard currency for
international trade. To assure other nations of the dollar's value, the U.S. Treasury would
guarantee that other nations could convert their U.S. dollars into gold bullion at a fixed
exchange rate of $35/oz. Other nations would then "peg" their currencies to the U.S. dollar at
a fixed rate of exchange. Each nation's central bank would be responsible for "defending" the
official exchange rate to the U.S. dollar by offering to buy or sell any amount of currency bid
or offered at that price. This meant each nation would need to keep a healthy reserve of
U.S. dollars on hand to service the needs of domestic businesses wishing to convert money
between the local currency and the U.S. dollar.
By design, the effect of the system was that each national currency was indirectly
redeemable for gold. This was true because each nation's central bank guaranteed convertibility
of its own currency to U.S. dollars at some fixed rate of exchange, and the U.S. Treasury
guaranteed convertibility of U.S. dollars to gold at a fixed rate of $35/oz. So long as all of
the governments involved kept their promises, each nation's domestic currency would be as good
as gold, because it was ultimately convertible to gold. United States President Richard Nixon
would break the most central promise of the entire system (U.S. dollar convertibility for gold)
on August 15, 1971. I'll come back to that event later in this article.
Triffin's Dilemma
In 1959, three years after M. King Hubbert's now-famous Peak Oil predictions, economist
Robert Triffin would make equally prescient predictions about the sustainability of the "new"
IMS, which was then only 15 years old. Sadly, Triffin's predictions, like Hubbert's, would be
ignored by the mainstream.
The whole reason for choosing the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency was
that without a doubt, the U.S.was the world's strongest credit in 1944. To assure confidence in
the system, the strongest, most creditworthy currency on earth was chosen to serve as the
standard unit of account for global trade. To eliminate any question about the value of the
dollar, the system was designed so that any international holder of U.S. dollars could convert
those dollars to gold bullion at a pre-determined fixed rate of exchange. Dollars were
literally as good as gold.
Making the USD the world's reserve currency created an enormous international demand for
more dollars to meet each nation's need to hold a reserve of dollars. The USA was happy to
oblige by printing up more greenbacks. This provided sufficient dollars for other nations to
hold as foreign exchange reserves, while at the same time allowing the U.S.to spend beyond its
means without facing the same repercussions that would occur were it not the world's reserve
currency issuer.
Triffin observed that if you choose a currency because it's a strong credit, and then give
the issuing nation a financial incentive to borrow and print money recklessly without penalty,
eventually that currency won't be the strongest credit any more! This paradox came to be known
as Triffin's Dilemma.
Specifically, Triffin predicted that as issuer of the international reserve currency, the
USA would be prone to over consumption, over-indebtedness, and tend toward military
adventurism. Unfortunately, the U.S. Government would prove Triffin right on all three
counts.
Triffin correctly predicted that the USA would eventually be forced off the gold standard.
The international demand for U.S. dollars would allow the USA to create more dollars than it
otherwise could have without bringing on domestic inflation. When a country creates too much of
its own currency and that money stays in the country, supply-demand dynamics kick in and too
much money chasing too few goods and services results in higher prices. But when a country can
export its currency to other nations who have an artificial need to hold large amounts of that
currency in reserve, the issuing country can create far more money than it otherwise could
have, without causing a tidal wave of domestic inflation.
Nixon proves Triffin right
By 1970, the U.S.had drastically over-spent on the Vietnam War, and the number of dollars in
circulation far outnumbered the amount of gold actually backing them. Other nations recognized
that there wasn't enough gold in Fort Knox for the U.S.to back all the dollars in circulation,
and wisely began to exchange their excess USDs for gold. Before long, something akin to a run
on the bullion bank had begun, and it became clear that the USA could not honor the $35
conversion price indefinitely.
On August 15, 1971, President Nixon did exactly what Triffin predicted more than a decade
earlier: he declared force majeure , and defaulted unilaterally on theUSA's promise to
honor gold conversion at $35/oz, as prescribed by the Bretton Woods accord.
Of course Nixon was not about to admit that the reason this was happening was that the U.S.
Government had abused its status as reserve currency issuer and recklessly spent beyond its
means. Instead, he blamed "speculators", and announced that the United Stateswould suspend
temporarily the convertibility of the Dollar into gold. Forty-two years later, the word
temporarily has taken on new meaning.
Exorbitant Privilege
With the whole world conducting international trade in U.S. dollars, nations with large
export markets wound up with a big pile of U.S. dollars (payments for the goods they exported).
The most obvious course of action for the foreign companies who received all those dollars as
payment for their exported products would be to exchange the dollars on the international
market, converting them into their own domestic currencies. What may not be obvious at first
glance is that there would be catastrophic unintended consequences if they actually did
that.
If all the manufacturing companies in Japan or China converted their dollar revenues back
into local currency, the act of selling dollars and buying their domestic currencies would
cause their own currencies to appreciate markedly against the dollar. The same holds true for
oil exporting countries. If they converted all their dollar revenues back into their own
currencies, doing so would make their currencies more expensive against the dollar. That would
make their exports less attractive because, being priced in dollars, they would fetch lower and
lower prices after being converted back into the exporting nation's domestic currency.
The solution for the exporting nations was for their central banks to allow commercial
exporters to convert their dollars for newly issued domestic currency. The central banks of
exporting nations would wind up with a huge surplus of U.S. dollars they needed to invest
somewhere without converting them to another currency . The obvious place to invest them
was into U.S. Government Bonds.
This is the mechanism through which the reserve currency status of the dollar creates
artificial demand for U.S. dollar-denominated treasury debt. That artificial demand allows the
United States government to borrow money from foreigners in its own currency, something most
nations cannot do at all. What's more, this artificial demand for U.S. Treasury debt allows the
USA to borrow and spend far more borrowed foreign money than it would otherwise be able to,
were it not the world's reserve currency issuer. The reason is that, if not for the artificial
need to hold dollar reserves, foreign lenders would be much less inclined to purchase U.S.
debt, and would therefore demand much higher interest rates. Similarly, the more that
international trade has grown as a result of globalization, the more the United States'
exorbitant privilege has grown.
Have you ever wondered why China, Japan, and the oil exporting nations have such enormous
U.S. Treasury bond holdings, despite the fact that they hardly pay any interest these days? The
reason is definitely not because those nations think 1.6% interest on a 10-year
unsecured loan to a nation known to have a reckless spending habit is a good investment. It's
because they have little other choice. The more their own economies rely on exports priced in
dollars, the more they need to keep their own currencies attractively priced relative to the
U.S. dollar in order for their exports to remain competitive on the international market. To
achieve that outcome, they must hold large reserves denominated in U.S. dollars. That's why
China and Japan – major export economies – are the biggest foreign holders of U.S.
debt.
The net effect of this system is that the USA gets to borrow money from foreigners at
artificially low interest rates. Moreover, the USA can become over-indebted without the usual
consequences of increasing borrowing cost and declining creditworthiness. Other nations have
little choice but to maintain a large reserve supply of dollars as the international trade
currency. But the U.S. has no need to maintain large reserves of other nations' currencies,
because those currencies are not used in international trade.
By the mid-1960s, this phenomenon became known as exorbitant privilege : That
phrase refers to the ability of the USA to go into debt virtually for free, denominated in its
own currency, when no other nation enjoys such a privilege. The phrase exorbitant
privilege is often attributed to French President Charles de Gaulle, although it was
actually his finance minister, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who coined the phrase.
What's important to understand here is that the whole reason the U.S. can get away with
running trillion-dollar budget deficits without the bond market revolting (a la Greece) is
because of exorbitant privilege. And that privilege is a direct consequence of the U.S. dollar
serving as the world's reserve currency. If international trade were not conducted in dollars,
exporting nations (both manufacturers and oil exporters) would no longer need to hold large
reserves of U.S. dollars.
Put another way, when the U.S. dollar loses its reserve currency status, the U.S.will lose
its exorbitant privilege of spending beyond its means on easy credit. The U.S. Treasury bond
market will most likely crash, and borrowing costs will skyrocket. Those increased borrowing
costs will further exacerbate the fiscal deficit. Can you say self-reinforcing vicious
cycle?
But wait Wasn't Gold convertibility the whole basis of the system?
If the whole point of the Bretton Woods system was to guarantee that all the currencies of
the world were "as good as gold" because they were convertible to U.S. dollars, which in turn
were promised to be convertible into gold And then President Nixon broke that promise in 1971
Wouldn't that suggest that the whole system should have blown up in reaction to Nixon slamming
the gold window shut in August of '71?
Actually, it almost did. But miraculously, the system has held together for the last 42
years, despite the fact that the most fundamental promise upon which the system was based no
longer holds true. To be sure, the Arabs were not happy about Nixon's action, and they
complained loudly at the time, rhetorically asking why they should continue to accept dollars
for their oil, if those dollars were not backed by anything, and might just become worthless
paper. After all, if U.S. dollars were no longer convertible into gold, what value did they
really have to foreigners? The slamming of the gold window by President Nixon in 1971 was not
the only cause of the Arab oil embargo, but it was certainly a major influence.
What's holding the IMS together?
Why didn't the rest of the world abandon the dollar as the global reserve currency in
reaction to the USA unilaterally reneging on gold convertibility in 1971? In my opinion, the
best answer is simply "Because there was no clear alternative". And to be sure, the unmatched
power of the U.S.military had a lot to do with eliminating what might otherwise have been
attractive alternatives for other nations.
U.S. diplomats made it clear to Arab leaders that they wanted the Arabs to continue pricing
their oil in dollars. Not just for U.S.customers, but for the entire world. Indeed, U.S.
leaders at the time understood all too well just how much benefit the USA derives from
exorbitant privilege , and they weren't about to give it up.
After a few years of tense negotiations including the infamous oil embargo, the so-called
petro-dollar business cycle was born. The Arabs would only accept dollars for their oil, and
they would re-invest most of their profits in U.S. Treasury debt. In exchange for this
concession, they would come under the protectorate of the U.S. military. Some might even go so
far as to say that the U.S. government used the infamous Mafia tactic of making the Arabs an
"offer they couldn't refuse" – forcing oil producing nations to make financial
concessions in exchange for "protection".
With the Arabs now strongly incented to continue pricing the world's most important
commodity in U.S. dollars, the Bretton Woods system lived on. No longer constrained by the
threat of a run on its bullion reserves, the U.S. kicked its already-entrenched practice of
borrowing and spending beyond its means into high gear. For the past 42 years, the entire world
has continued to conduct virtually all international trade in Dollars. This has forced
China,Japan, and the oil exporting nations to buy and hold an enormous amount of U.S. Treasury
debt. Exorbitant privilege is the key economic factor that allows the U.S.to run trillion
dollar fiscal deficits without crashing the Treasury bond market. So far.
There's a limit to how long this can last
But how long can this continue? The U.S.debt-to-GDP ratio now exceeds 100%, and the U.S.has
literally doubled its national debt in the last 6 years alone. It stands to reason that
eventually, other nations will lose faith in the dollar and start conducting business in some
other currency. In fact, that's already started to happen, and it's perhaps the most
important, under-reported economic news story in all of history.
Some examples China and Brazil are now conducting international trade in their own
currencies, as are Russia and China. Turkey and Iran are trading oil for gold, bypassing the
dollar as a reserve currency. In that case,U.S.sanctions are a big part of the reason Iran
can't sell its oil in dollars. But I wonder if President Obama considered the undermining
effect on exorbitant privilege when he imposed those sanctions. I fear that the present U.S.
government doesn't understand the importance of the dollar's reserve currency role nearly as
well as our leaders did in the 1970s.
The Biggest Risk We Face is a U.S. Bond and Currency Crisis
To be sure, Peak Oil in general represents a monumental risk to humanity because it's
literally impossible to feed all 7+ billion people on the planet without abundant energy to run
our farming equipment and distribution infrastructure. But the risks stemming directly from
declining energy production are not the most imposing, in my view.
Decline rates will be gradual at first, and it will be possible, even if unpopular, to
curtail unnecessary energy consumption and give priority to life-sustaining uses for the
available supply of liquid fuels. In my opinion, the greatest risks posed by Peak Oil are the
consequential risks. These include resource wars between nations, hoarding of scarce
resources, and so forth. Chief among these consequential risks is the possibility that the Peak
Oil energy crisis will be the catalyst to cause a global financial system meltdown. In my
opinion, the USA losing its reserve currency status is likely to be at the heart of such a
meltdown.
A good rule of thumb is that if something is unsustainable and cannot continue forever, it
will not continue forever. The present incarnation of the IMS, which affords the United States
the exorbitant privilege of borrowing a seemingly limitless amount of its own currency from
foreigners in order to finance its reckless habit of spending beyond its means with
trillion-dollar fiscal deficits, is a perfect example of an unsustainable system that cannot
continue forever.
But the bigger the ship, the longer it takes to change course. The IMS is the biggest
financial ship in the sea, and miraculously, it has remained afloat for 42 years after the most
fundamental justification for its existence (dollar-gold convertibility) was eliminated. How
long do we have before the inevitable happens, and what will be the catalyst(s) to bring about
fundamental change? Those are the key questions.
In my opinion, the greatest risk to global economic stability is a sovereign debt crisis
destroying the value of the world's reserve currency. In other words, a crash of the U.S.
Treasury Bond market. I believe that the loss of reserve currency status is the most likely
catalyst to bring about such a crisis.
The fact that the United States' borrowing and spending habits are unsustainable has been a
topic of public discussion for decades. Older readers will recall billionaire Ross Perot
exclaiming in his deep Texas accent, "A national debt of five trillion dollarsis
simply not sustainable!" during his 1992 Presidential campaign. Mr. Perot was right when he
said that 20 years ago, but the national debt has since more than tripled . The big
crisis has yet to occur. How is this possible? I believe the answer is that because the U.S.
dollar is the world's reserve currency and is perceived by institutional investors around the
globe to be the world's safest currency, it enjoys a certain degree of immunity derived from
widespread complacency.
But that immunity cannot last forever. The loss of reserve currency status will be the
forcing function that begins a self-reinforcing vicious cycle that brings about a U.S. bond and
currency crisis. While many analysts have opined that the USA cannot go on borrowing and
spending forever, relatively few have made the connection to loss of reserve currency status as
the forcing function to bring about a crisis.
We're already seeing small leaks in the ship's hull. China openly promoting the idea that
the yuan should be asserted as an alternative global reserve currency would have been
unthinkable a decade ago, but is happening today. Major international trade deals (such as
China and Brazil) not being denominated in U.S. dollars would have been unthinkable a
decade ago, but are happening today.
So we're already seeing signs that the dollar's exclusive claim on reserve currency status
will be challenged. Remember, when the dollar loses reserve currency status, the U.S.loses
exorbitant privilege. The deficit spending party will be over, and interest rates will explode
to the upside. But to predict that this will happen right now simply because the system is
unsustainable would be unwise. After all, by one important measure the system stopped making
sense 42 years ago, but has somehow persisted nonetheless. The key question becomes, what
will be the catalyst or proximal trigger that causes the USD to lose reserve currency status,
igniting a U.S. Treasury Bond crisis?
Elevated Risk
It's critical to understand that the USA is presently in a very precarious fiscal situation.
The national debt has more than doubled in the last 10 years, but so far, there don't seem to
have been any horrific consequences. Could it be that all this talk about the national debt
isn't such a big deal after all?
The critical point to understand is that while the national debt has more than doubled, the
U.S. Government's cost of borrowing hasn't increased at all. The reason is that interest
rates are less than half what they were 10 years ago. Half the interest on twice as much
principal equals the same monthly payment, so to speak. This is exactly the same trap that
subprime mortgage borrowers fell into. First, money is borrowed at an artificially low interest
rate. But eventually, the interest rate increases, and the cost of borrowing skyrockets. The
USA is already running an unprecedented and unsustainable $1 trillion+ annual budget deficit.
All it would take to double the already unsustainable deficit is for interest rates to rise to
their historical norms.
This all comes back to exorbitant privilege. The only reason interest rates are so low is
that the Federal Reserve is intentionally suppressing them to unprecedented low levels in an
attempt to combat deflation and resuscitate the economy. The only reason the Fed has the
ability to do this is that foreign lenders have an artificial need to hold dollar reserves
because the USD is the global reserve currency. They would never accept such low interest rates
otherwise. Loss of reserve currency status means loss of exorbitant privilege, and that in turn
means the Fed would lose control of interest rates. The Fed might respond by printing even more
dollars out of thin air to buy treasury bonds, but in absence of reserve currency status, doing
that would cause a collapse of the dollar's value against other currencies, making all the
imported goods we now depend on unaffordable.
In summary, the U.S. Government has repeated the exact same mistake that got all those
subprime mortgage borrowers into so much trouble. They are borrowing more money than they can
afford to pay back, depending solely on "teaser rates" that won't last. The U.S. Government's
average maturity of outstanding treasury debt is now barely more than 5 years. This is
analogous to cash-out refinancing a 30-year fixed mortgage, replacing it with a much higher
principal balance in a 3-year ARM that offers an initial teaser rate. At first, you get to
borrow way more money for the same monthly payment. But eventually the rate is adjusted, and
the borrower is unable to make the higher payments.
The Janszen Scenario
When it comes to evaluating the risk of a U.S. sovereign debt and currency crisis, most
mainstream economists dismiss the possibility out of hand, citing the brilliant wisdom that
"the authorities would never let such a thing happen". These are the same people who were
steadfastly convinced that housing prices would never crash in the United States because they
never had before, and that Peak Oil is a myth because the shale gas boom solves everything
(provided you don't actually do the math).
At the opposite extreme are the bloggers on the Internet whom I refer to as the
Hyperinflation Doom Squad. Their narrative generally goes something like this: Suddenly,
when you least expect it, foreigners will wise up and realize that the U.S. national debt
cannot be repaid in real terms, and then there will be a panic that results in a crash of the
U.S. Treasury market, hyperinflation of the U.S. dollar, and declaration of martial law. This
group almost always cites the hyperinflations of Zimbabwe and Argentina as "proof" of what's
going to happen in the USA any day now, but never so much as acknowledges the profound
differences in circumstances between the USA and those countries. These folks deserve a little
credit for having the right basic idea, but their analysis of what could actually happen simply
isn't credible when examined in detail.
Little-known economist Eric Janszen stands out as an exception. Janszen is the only credible
macroeconomic analyst I'm aware of who realistically acknowledges just how real and serious the
threat of a U.S.sovereign debt crisis truly is. But his analysis of that risk is based on
credible, level-headed thinking complemented by solid references to legitimate economic theory
such as Triffin's Dilemma. Unlike the Doom Squad, Janszen does not rely on specious comparisons
of the USA to small, systemically insignificant countries whose past financial crises have
little in common with the situation the USA faces. Instead, Janszen offers refreshingly sound,
well constructed arguments. Many of the concepts discussed in this article reflect Janszen's
work.
Janszen also happens to be the same guy who coined the phrase Peak Cheap Oil back in
2006, drawing an important distinction between the geological phenomenon of Hubbert's Peak and
the economic phenomenon which begins well before the actual peak, due to increasing marginal
cost of production resulting from ever-increasing extraction technology complexity.
"But there's no sign of inflation " (Hint: It's coming)
Janszen has put quite a bit of work into modeling what a U.S.bond and currency crisis would
look like. He initially called this KaPoom Theory , because history shows that brief
periods of marked deflation (the 'Ka') usually precede epic inflations (the 'Poom'). He
recently renamed this body of work The Janszen Scenario . Briefly summarized, Janszen's
view is that the U.S. has reached the point where excessive borrowing and fiscal
irresponsibility will eventually cause a catastrophic currency and bond crisis. He believes
that all that's needed at this point is a proximal trigger , or catalyst, to bring about
such an outcome. He thinks there are several potential triggers that could bring such a crisis
about, and chief among the possibilities is the next Peak Cheap Oil price spike.
How Peak Oil could cause a Bond and Currency Crisis
There are several ways that an oil price spike could trigger a U.S.bond and currency crisis.
Energy is an input cost to almost everything else in the economy, so higher oil prices are very
inflationary. The Fed would be hard pressed to continue denying the adverse consequences of
quantitative easing in a high inflation environment, and that alone could be the spark that
leads to higher treasury yields. The resulting higher cost of borrowing to finance the national
debt and fiscal deficit would be devastating to the United States.
A self-reinforcing vicious cycle could easily begin in reaction to oil price-induced
inflation alone. But we must also consider how an oil price shock could lead to loss of USD
reserve currency status, and therefore, loss of U.S.exorbitant privilege. In the 1970s, the USA
represented 80% of the global oil market. Today we represent 20%, and demand growth is
projected to come primarily from emerging economies. In other words, the rationale for oil
producers to keep pricing their product in dollars has seriously deteriorated since the '70s.
The more the global price of oil goes up, the more the U.S. will source oil from Canadian tar
sands and other non-OPEC sources. That means less and less incentive for the OPEC nations to
continue pricing their oil in dollars for all their non-U.S. customers.
Iran and Turkey have already begun transacting oil sales in gold rather than dollars. What
if the other oil exporting nations wake up one morning and conclude "Hey, why are we selling
our oil for dollars that might some day not be worth anything more than the paper they're
printed on?" Oil represents a huge percentage of international trade, so if oil stopped trading
in dollars, that alone would be reason for most nations to reduce the very large dollar
reserves they now hold. They would start selling their U.S. treasury bonds, and that could
start the vicious cycle of higher interest rates and exploding borrowing costs for the U.S.
Government. The precise details are hard to predict. The point is, the system is already
precarious and vulnerable, and an oil price shock could easily detonate the time bomb that's
already been ticking away for more than two decades.
What if U.S. Energy Independence claims were true?
There's another angle here. Peak Oil just might be the catalyst to cause the loss of U.S.
exorbitant privilege, even without an oil price shock.
Astute students of Peak Oil already know better than to believe the recently-popularized
political rhetoric claiming that the USA will soon achieve energy independence, thanks to the
shale oil and gas boom. To be sure, the Bakken, Eagle Ford, and various other U.S. oil and gas
plays are a big deal. The most optimistic forecasts I've seen show these plays collectively
ramping up to as much as 4.8 million barrels per day of production, which is equivalent to
about ½ of Saudi Arabia's current production.
But the infamous "wedge of hope" chart from the EIA projects production declines from
existing global resources of 60 million barrels per day by 2030. By the most optimistic
projections, all the exciting new plays in the U.S. will replace less than 5 million barrels
per day. Where the other 55 million barrels per day will come from remains a mystery! And of
course the politicians never bother to mention such minor details when they make predictions of
energy independence.
But let's just pretend for a moment that hyperbole is reality, and that the USA will achieve
energy-independence in just a few years' time. Now consider the consequences to the IMS. The
oil-exporting nations would lose the USA as their primary export customer, and would no longer
have an incentive to price their oil in dollars, or to maintain large dollar reserves. They
would start selling off their U.S. treasury bonds, and pricing their oil in something other
than dollars. Large oil importers like China and Japan would stop paying for oil in dollars,
and would no longer need to maintain present levels of U.S. dollar reserves. So they too would
start selling U.S. treasury bonds, pushing up U.S. interest rates in the process. Once again,
we have the ingredients for a self-reinforcing vicious cycle of increasing U.S. interest rates
causing U.S. Government borrowing costs to skyrocket.
Without the artificial demand for treasury debt created by exorbitant privilege, the U.S.
would be unable to finance its federal budget deficit. The Federal Reserve might respond with
even more money printing to monetize all the government's borrowing needs, but without the
international demand that results from the dollar's reserve currency status, the dollar would
crash in value relative to other currencies as a result of excessive monetization by the Fed.
The resulting loss of principal value would cause even more international holders of U.S.
Treasury debt to panic and sell their holdings. Once again, a self-reinforcing vicious cycle
would develop, with consequences for the United States so catastrophic that the 2008 event
would pale in contrast.
Rambo to the Rescue?
Let's not forget that the USA enjoys virtually unchallenged global military hegemony. China
is working hard to build out its "blue water navy", including strategic ballistic missile
nuclear submarine capability. But the USA is still top dog on the global power stage, and if
the USA was willing to use its nuclear weapons, it could easily defeat any country on earth,
except perhaps China and Russia.
While the use of nuclear weapons in an offensive capacity might seem unthinkable today, the
USA has yet to endure significant economic hardship. $15/gallon gasoline from the next Peak
Cheap Oil price shock coupled with 15% treasury yields and a government operating in crisis
mode just to hold off systemic financial collapse in the face of rampant inflation would change
the mood considerably.
All the USA has to do in order to secure an unlimited supply of $50/bbl imported oil is to
threaten to nuke any country refusing to sell oil to the U.S. for that price. Unthinkable
today, but in times of national crisis, morals are often the first thing to be forgotten. We
like to tell ourselves that we would never allow economic hardship to cause us to lose our
morals. But just look at the YouTube videos of riots at Wal-Mart over nothing more than
contention over a limited supply of boxer shorts marked down 20% for Black Friday. What we'll
do in a true crisis that threatens our very way of life is anyone's guess.
If faced with the choice between a Soviet-style economic collapse and abusing its military
power, the USA just might resort to tactics previously thought unimaginable. Exactly what those
tactics might be and how it would play out are unknowable. The point is, this is a very complex
problem, and a wide array of factors including military capability will play a role in
determining the ultimate outcome.
I certainly don't mean to predict such an apocalyptic outcome. All I'm really trying
to say is that the military hegemony of the USA will almost certainly play into the equation.
Even if there is no actual military conflict, the ability of the U.S. to defeat almost
any opponent will play into the negotiations, if nothing else.
Conclusions
The current incarnation of the International Monetary System, in which the USA enjoys the
exorbitant privilege of borrowing practically for free, and is therefore able to pursue
reckless fiscal policy with immunity from the adverse consequences that non-reserve currency
issuing nations would experience by doing so, cannot continue indefinitely. Therefore, it will
not continue indefinitely. How and when it will end is hard to say, especially considering the
fact that it's already persisted for 42 years after it stopped making sense. The system will
continue to operate until some catalyst or trigger event brings about catastrophic change.
The next Peak Cheap Oil price spike is not the only possible catalyst to bring about a U.S.
bond and currency crisis, but it's the most likely candidate I'm aware of. I don't believe that
U.S. energy independence is possible, but if it were, the end of oil imports from the Middle
East would also be the catalyst to end exorbitant privilege and bring about a U.S.bond and
currency crisis. To summarize, the music hasn't stopped quite yet, but when it does, this will
end very, very badly. I'm pretty sure we're on the last song, but I don't know how long it has
left to play.
First, thank you b for presenting the 'knowns' as you always do, succinctly and with your
usual clarity. "Iran's missile launch...calls...bluff." That is what it did do, and
effectively.
It should be very clear to all which country defines its own terms and which does not.
Some are pointing to the red flag for confirmation as to who has 'won' this challenge. Not
necessary. A simple comparison of statements before and after, the witness of Iran's
solidarity in the face of atrocity, and now, I think we simply watch and wait.
I will take from Michael Hudson's piece at the Saker site what will be a clear sign,
and that will be who controls the oil? Someone did say on a previous thread that an oilfield
near one of the bases attacked has been relinquished. And for those wondering about 'minimal
damage' it ought to be pointed out that the airfields in question are on Iraq soil, and the
less harm to them the better if Iraq is to be able to recover its assets. So too for Syria -
it should not be forgotten that the problem that was arising was with the protection of
terrorists on the Syria/Iraq border, and the boast that the US had control over the oil
fields in that vicinity.
Also, dominion over the air space is crucial. As I understand it, that is now free of US
planes and drones. How far that extends would be very important to all those who have
shuddered at the sound of approaching engines for weddings and funerals these many years.
What a sorry legacy this empire has left! And, may it have left it!
Looks like Iran is Catch22 for the USA: it can destroy it, but only at the cost of losing empire and dollar hegemony...
Notable quotes:
"... The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that other countries sacrifice their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire. In effect, foreign countries are beginning to respond to the United States what the ten tribes of Israel said when they withdrew from the southern kingdom of Judah, whose king Rehoboam refused to lighten his demands (1 Kings 12). They echoed the cry of Sheba son of Bikri a generation earlier: "Look after your own house, O David!" The message is: What do other countries have to gain by remaining in the US unipolar neoliberalized world, as compared to using their own wealth to build up their own economies? It's an age-old problem. ..."
"... The dollar will still play a role in US trade and investment, but it will be as just another currency, held at arms length until it finally gives up its domineering attempt to strip other countries' wealth for itself. However, its demise may not be a pretty sight. ..."
"... Conflict in the ME has traditionally almost always been about oil [and of course Israel]. This situation is different. It is only partially about oil and Israel, but OVERWHHEMINGLY it is about the BRI. ..."
"... The salient factor as I see it is the Oil for Technology initiative that Iraq signed with China shortly before it slid into this current mess. ..."
"... This was a mechanism whereby China would buy Iraq oil and these funds would be used directly to fund infrastructure and self-sufficiency initiatives and technologies that would help to drag Iraq out of the complete disaster that the US war had created in this country. A key part of this would be that China would also make extra loans available at the same time to speed up this development. ..."
"... "Iraq's Finance Ministry that the country had started exporting 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil to China in October as part of the 20-year oil-for-infrastructure deal agreed between the two countries." ..."
"... "For Iraq and Iran, China's plans are particularly far-reaching, OilPrice.com has been told by a senior oil industry figure who works closely with Iran's Petroleum Ministry and Iraq's Oil Ministry. China will begin with the oil and gas sector and work outwards from that central point. In addition to being granted huge reductions on buying Iranian oil and gas, China is to be given the opportunity to build factories in both Iran and Iraq – and build-out infrastructure, such as railways – overseen by its own management staff from Chinese companies. These are to have the same operational structure and assembly lines as those in China, so that they fit seamlessly into various Chinese companies' assembly lines' process for whatever product a particular company is manufacturing, whilst also being able to use the still-cheap labour available in both Iraq and Iraq." ..."
"... Hudson is so good. He's massively superior to most so called military analysts and alternative bloggers on the net. He can clearly see the over arching picture and how the military is used to protect and project it. The idea that the US is going to leave the middle east until they are forced to is so blind as to be ridiculous. ..."
"... I'd never thought of that "stationary aircraft carrier" comparison between Israel and the British, very apt. ..."
"... Trump et al assassinated someone who was on a diplomatic mission. This action was so far removed from acceptable behavior that it must have been considered to be "by any means and at all costs". ..."
"... This article, published by Strategic Culture, features a translation of Mahdi's speech to the Iraqi parliament in which he states that Trump threatened him with assassination and the US admitted to killing hundreds of demonstrators using Navy SEAL snipers. ..."
"... This description provided by Mr Hudson is no Moore than the financial basis behind the Cebrowski doctrine instituted on 9/11. https://www.voltairenet.org/article ..."
"... "The leading country breaking up US hegemony obviously is the United States itself. That is Trump's major contribution The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that other countries sacrifice their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire." ..."
"... The US govt. have long since paid off most every European politician. Thusly, Europe, as separate nations that should be remain still under the yolk of the US Financial/Political/Military power. ..."
"... In any event, it is the same today. Energy underlies, not only the military but, all of world civilization. Oil and gas are overwhelmingly the source of energy for the modern world. Without it, civilization collapses. Thus, he who controls oil (and gas) controls the world. ..."
"... the link between the US $$$ and Saudi Oil, is the absolute means of the American Dollar to reign complete. This payment system FEEDS both the US Military, but WALL STREET, hedge funds, the US/EU oligarchs – to name just a few entities. ..."
Introduction: After posting Michael Hudson's article "America
Escalates its "Democratic" Oil War in the Near East" on the blog, I decided to ask
Michael to reply to a few follow-up questions. Michael very kindly agreed. Please see our
exchange below.
The Saker
-- -- -
The Saker: Trump has been accused of not thinking forward, of not having a long-term
strategy regarding the consequences of assassinating General Suleimani. Does the United States
in fact have a strategy in the Near East, or is it only ad hoc?
Michael Hudson: Of course American strategists will deny that the recent actions do not
reflect a deliberate strategy, because their long-term strategy is so aggressive and
exploitative that it would even strike the American public as being immoral and offensive if
they came right out and said it.
President Trump is just the taxicab driver, taking the passengers he has accepted –
Pompeo, Bolton and the Iran-derangement syndrome neocons – wherever they tell him they
want to be driven. They want to pull a heist, and he's being used as the getaway driver (fully
accepting his role). Their plan is to hold onto the main source of their international revenue:
Saudi Arabia and the surrounding Near Eastern oil-export surpluses and money. They see the US
losing its ability to exploit Russia and China, and look to keep Europe under its control by
monopolizing key sectors so that it has the power to use sanctions to squeeze countries that
resist turning over control of their economies and natural rentier monopolies to US buyers. In
short, US strategists would like to do to Europe and the Near East just what they did to Russia
under Yeltsin: turn over public infrastructure, natural resources and the banking system to
U.S. owners, relying on US dollar credit to fund their domestic government spending and private
investment.
This is basically a resource grab. Suleimani was in the same position as Chile's Allende,
Libya's Qaddafi, Iraq's Saddam. The motto is that of Stalin: "No person, no problem."
The Saker: Your answer raises a question about Israel: In your recent article you only
mention Israel twice, and these are only passing comments. Furthermore, you also clearly say
the US Oil lobby as much more crucial than the Israel Lobby, so here is my follow-up question
to you: On what basis have you come to this conclusion and how powerful do you believe the
Israel Lobby to be compared to, say, the Oil lobby or the US Military-Industrial Complex? To
what degree do their interests coincide and to what degree to they differ?
Michael Hudson: I wrote my article to explain the most basic concerns of U.S. international
diplomacy: the balance of payments (dollarizing the global economy, basing foreign central bank
savings on loans to the U.S. Treasury to finance the military spending mainly responsible for
the international and domestic budget deficit), oil (and the enormous revenue produced by the
international oil trade), and recruitment of foreign fighters (given the impossibility of
drafting domestic U.S. soldiers in sufficient numbers). From the time these concerns became
critical to today, Israel was viewed as a U.S. military base and supporter, but the U.S. policy
was formulated independently of Israel.
I remember one day in 1973 or '74 I was traveling with my Hudson Institute colleague Uzi
Arad (later a head of Mossad and advisor to Netanyahu) to Asia, stopping off in San Francisco.
At a quasi-party, a U.S. general came up to Uzi and clapped him on the shoulder and said,
"You're our landed aircraft carrier in the Near East," and expressed his friendship.
Uzi was rather embarrassed. But that's how the U.S. military thought of Israel back then. By
that time the three planks of U.S. foreign policy strategy that I outlined were already firmly
in place.
Of course Netanyahu has applauded U.S. moves to break up Syria, and Trump's assassination
choice. But the move is a U.S. move, and it's the U.S. that is acting on behalf of the dollar
standard, oil power and mobilizing Saudi Arabia's Wahabi army.
Israel fits into the U.S.-structured global diplomacy much like Turkey does. They and other
countries act opportunistically within the context set by U.S. diplomacy to pursue their own
policies. Obviously Israel wants to secure the Golan Heights; hence its opposition to Syria,
and also its fight with Lebanon; hence, its opposition to Iran as the backer of Assad and
Hezbollah. This dovetails with US policy.
But when it comes to the global and U.S. domestic response, it's the United States that is
the determining active force. And its concern rests above all with protecting its cash cow of
Saudi Arabia, as well as working with the Saudi jihadis to destabilize governments whose
foreign policy is independent of U.S. direction – from Syria to Russia (Wahabis in
Chechnya) to China (Wahabis in the western Uighur region). The Saudis provide the underpinning
for U.S. dollarization (by recycling their oil revenues into U.S. financial investments and
arms purchases), and also by providing and organizing the ISIS terrorists and coordinating
their destruction with U.S. objectives. Both the Oil lobby and the Military-Industrial Complex
obtain huge economic benefits from the Saudis.
Therefore, to focus one-sidedly on Israel is a distraction away from what the US-centered
international order really is all about.
The Saker: In your recent article you wrote: " The assassination was intended to escalate
America's presence in Iraq to keep control the region's oil reserves ." Others believe that
the goal was precisely the opposite, to get a pretext to remove the US forces from both Iraq
and Syria. What are your grounds to believe that your hypothesis is the most likely one?
Michael Hudson: Why would killing Suleimani help remove the U.S. presence? He was the
leader of the fight against ISIS, especially in Syria. US policy was to continue using ISIS to
permanently destabilize Syria and Iraq so as to prevent a Shi'ite crescent reaching from Iran
to Lebanon – which incidentally would serve as part of China's Belt and Road initiative.
So it killed Suleimani to prevent the peace negotiation. He was killed because he had been
invited by Iraq's government to help mediate a rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
That was what the United States feared most of all, because it effectively would prevent its
control of the region and Trump's drive to seize Iraqi and Syrian oil.
So using the usual Orwellian doublethink, Suleimani was accused of being a terrorist, and
assassinated under the U.S. 2002 military Authorization Bill giving the President to move
without Congressional approval against Al Qaeda. Trump used it to protect Al Qaeda's
terrorist ISIS offshoots.
Given my three planks of U.S. diplomacy described above, the United States must remain in
the Near East to hold onto Saudi Arabia and try to make Iraq and Syria client states equally
subservient to U.S. balance-of-payments and oil policy.
Certainly the Saudis must realize that as the buttress of U.S. aggression and terrorism in
the Near East, their country (and oil reserves) are the most obvious target to speed the
parting guest. I suspect that this is why they are seeking a rapprochement with Iran. And I
think it is destined to come about, at least to provide breathing room and remove the threat.
The Iranian missiles to Iraq were a demonstration of how easy it would be to aim them at Saudi
oil fields. What then would be Aramco's stock market valuation?
The Saker: In your article you wrote: " The major deficit in the U.S. balance of payments
has long been military spending abroad. The entire payments deficit, beginning with the Korean
War in 1950-51 and extending through the Vietnam War of the 1960s, was responsible for forcing
the dollar off gold in 1971. The problem facing America's military strategists was how to
continue supporting the 800 U.S. military bases around the world and allied troop support
without losing America's financial leverage. " I want to ask a basic, really primitive
question in this regard: how cares about the balance of payments as long as 1) the US continues
to print money 2) most of the world will still want dollars. Does that not give the US an
essentially "infinite" budget? What is the flaw in this logic?
Michael Hudson: The U.S. Treasury can create dollars to spend at home, and the Fed can
increase the banking system's ability to create dollar credit and pay debts denominated in US
dollars. But they cannot create foreign currency to pay other countries, unless they willingly
accept dollars ad infinitum – and that entails bearing the costs of financing the U.S.
balance-of-payments deficit, getting only IOUs in exchange for real resources that they sell to
U.S. buyers.
This is the situation that arose half a century ago. The United States could print dollars
in 1971, but it could not print gold.
In the 1920s, Germany's Reichsbank could print deutsche marks – trillions of them.
When it came to pay Germany's foreign reparations debt, all it could do was to throw these
D-marks onto the foreign exchange market. That crashed the currency's exchange rate, forcing up
the price of imports proportionally and causing the German hyperinflation.
The question is, how many surplus dollars do foreign governments want to hold. Supporting
the dollar standard ends up supporting U.S. foreign diplomacy and military policy. For the
first time since World War II, the most rapidly growing parts of the world are seeking to
de-dollarize their economies by reducing reliance on U.S. exports, U.S. investment, and U.S.
bank loans. This move is creating an alternative to the dollar, likely to replace it with
groups of other currencies and assets in national financial reserves.
The Saker: In the same article you also write: " So maintaining the dollar as the world's
reserve currency became a mainstay of U.S. military spending. " We often hear people say
that the dollar is about to tank and that as soon as that happens, then the US economy (and,
according to some, the EU economy too) will collapse. In the intelligence community there is
something called tracking the "indicators and warnings". My question to you is: what are the
economic "indicators and warnings" of a possible (probable?) collapse of the US dollar followed
by a collapse of the financial markets most tied to the Dollar? What shall people like myself
(I am an economic ignoramus) keep an eye on and look for?
Michael Hudson: What is most likely is a slow decline, largely from debt deflation
and cutbacks in social spending, in the Eurozone and US economies. Of course, the decline will
force the more highly debt-leveraged companies to miss their bond payments and drive them into
insolvency. That is the fate of Thatcherized economies. But it will be long and painfully drawn
out, largely because there is little left-wing socialist alternative to neoliberalism at
present.
Trump's protectionist policies and sanctions are forcing other countries to become
self-reliant and independent of US suppliers, from farm crops to airplanes and military arms,
against the US threat of a cutoff or sanctions against repairs, spare parts and servicing.
Sanctioning Russian agriculture has helped it become a major crop exporter, and to become much
more independent in vegetables, dairy and cheese products. The US has little to offer
industrially, especially given the fact that its IT communications are stuffed with US
spyware.
Europe therefore is facing increasing pressure from its business sector to choose the non-US
economic alliance that is growing more rapidly and offers a more profitable investment market
and more secure trade supplier. Countries will turn as much as possible (diplomatically as well
as financially and economically) to non-US suppliers because the United States is not reliable,
and because it is being shrunk by the neoliberal policies supported by Trump and the Democrats
alike. A byproduct probably will be a continued move toward gold as an alternative do the
dollar in settling balance-of-payments deficits.
The Saker: Finally, my last question: which country out there do you see as the most capable
foe of the current US-imposed international political and economic world order? whom do you
believe that US Deep State and the Neocons fear most? China? Russia? Iran? some other country?
How would you compare them and on the basis of what criteria?
Michael Hudson: The leading country breaking up US hegemony obviously is the United States
itself. That is Trump's major contribution. He is uniting the world in a move toward
multi-centrism much more than any ostensibly anti-American could have done. And he is doing it
all in the name of American patriotism and nationalism – the ultimate Orwellian
rhetorical wrapping!
Trump has driven Russia and China together with the other members of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO), including Iran as observer. His demand that NATO join in US oil
grabs and its supportive terrorism in the Near East and military confrontation with Russia in
Ukraine and elsewhere probably will lead to European "Ami go home" demonstrations against NATO
and America's threat of World War III.
No single country can counter the U.S. unipolar world order. It takes a critical mass of
countries. This already is taking place among the countries that you list above. They are
simply acting in their own common interest, using their own mutual currencies for trade and
investment. The effect is an alternative multilateral currency and trading area.
The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that other countries sacrifice
their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire. In effect, foreign countries are
beginning to respond to the United States what the ten tribes of Israel said when they withdrew
from the southern kingdom of Judah, whose king Rehoboam refused to lighten his demands (1 Kings
12). They echoed the cry of Sheba son of Bikri a generation earlier: "Look after your own
house, O David!" The message is: What do other countries have to gain by remaining in the US
unipolar neoliberalized world, as compared to using their own wealth to build up their own
economies? It's an age-old problem.
The dollar will still play a role in US trade and investment, but it will be as just another
currency, held at arms length until it finally gives up its domineering attempt to strip other
countries' wealth for itself. However, its demise may not be a pretty sight.
The Saker: I thank you very much for your time and answers!
Another one that absolutely stands for me out is the below link to a recent interview of
Hussein Askary.
As I wrote a few days ago IMO this too is a wonderful insight into the utterly complicated
dynamics of the tinderbox that the situation in Iran and Iraq has become.
Conflict in the ME has traditionally almost always been about oil [and of course Israel].
This situation is different. It is only partially about oil and Israel, but OVERWHHEMINGLY it
is about the BRI.
The salient factor as I see it is the Oil for Technology initiative that Iraq signed with
China shortly before it slid into this current mess.
This was a mechanism whereby China would buy Iraq oil and these funds would be used
directly to fund infrastructure and self-sufficiency initiatives and technologies that would
help to drag Iraq out of the complete disaster that the US war had created in this country. A
key part of this would be that China would also make extra loans available at the same time
to speed up this development.
In essence, this would enable the direct and efficient linking of Iraq into the BRI
project. Going forward the economic gains and the political stability that could come out of
this would be a completely new paradigm in the recovery of Iraq both economically and
politically. Iraq is essential for a major part of the dynamics of the BRI because of its
strategic location and the fact that it could form a major hub in the overall network.
It absolutely goes without saying that the AAA would do everything the could to wreck this
plan. This is their playbook and is exactly what they have done. The moronic and
extraordinarily impulsive Trump subsequently was easily duped into being a willing and
idiotic accomplice in this plan.
The positive in all of this is that this whole scheme will backfire spectacularly for the
perpetrators and will more than likely now speed up the whole process in getting Iraq back on
track and working towards stability and prosperity.
Please don't anyone try to claim that Trump is part of any grand plan nothing could be
further from the truth he is nothing more than a bludgeoning imbecile foundering around,
lashing out impulsively indiscriminately. He is completely oblivious and ignorant as to the
real picture.
I urge everyone involved in this Saker site to put aside an hour and to listen very
carefully to Askary's insights. This is extremely important and could bring more clarity to
understanding the situation than just about everything else you have read put together. There
is hope, and Askary highlights the huge stakes that both Russia and China have in the
region.
This is a no brainer. This is the time for both Russia and China to act and to decisively.
They must cooperate in assisting both Iraq and Iran to extract themselves from the current
quagmire the one that the vicious Hegemon so cruelly and thoughtlessly tossed them into.
Also interesting is what Simon Watkins reports in his recent article entitled "Is Iraq About
To Become A Chinese Client State?"
To quote from the article:
"Iraq's Finance Ministry that the country had started exporting 100,000 barrels per day
(bpd) of crude oil to China in October as part of the 20-year oil-for-infrastructure deal
agreed between the two countries."
and
"For Iraq and Iran, China's plans are particularly far-reaching, OilPrice.com has been
told by a senior oil industry figure who works closely with Iran's Petroleum Ministry and
Iraq's Oil Ministry. China will begin with the oil and gas sector and work outwards from that
central point. In addition to being granted huge reductions on buying Iranian oil and gas,
China is to be given the opportunity to build factories in both Iran and Iraq – and
build-out infrastructure, such as railways – overseen by its own management staff from
Chinese companies. These are to have the same operational structure and assembly lines as
those in China, so that they fit seamlessly into various Chinese companies' assembly lines'
process for whatever product a particular company is manufacturing, whilst also being able to
use the still-cheap labour available in both Iraq and Iraq."
and
"The second key announcement in this vein made last week from Iraq was that the Oil
Ministry has completed the pre-qualifying process for companies interested in participating
in the Iraqi-Jordanian oil pipeline project. The U$5 billion pipeline is aimed at carrying
oil produced from the Rumaila oilfield in Iraq's Basra Governorate to the Jordanian port of
Aqaba, with the first phase of the project comprising the installation of a
700-kilometre-long pipeline with a capacity of 2.25 million bpd within the Iraqi territories
(Rumaila-Haditha). The second phase includes installing a 900-kilometre pipeline in Jordan
between Haditha and Aqaba with a capacity of 1 million bpd. Iraq's Oil Minister – for
the time being, at least – Thamir Ghadhban added that the Ministry has formed a team to
prepare legal contracts, address financial issues and oversee technical standards for
implementing the project, and that May will be the final month in which offers for the
project from the qualified companies will be accepted and that the winners will be announced
before the end of this year. Around 150,000 barrels of the oil from Iraq would be used for
Jordan's domestic needs, whilst the remainder would be exported through Aqaba to various
destinations, generating about US$3 billion a year in revenues to Jordan, with the rest going
to Iraq. Given that the contractors will be expected to front-load all of the financing for
the projects associated with this pipeline, Baghdad expects that such tender offers will be
dominated by Chinese and Russian companies, according to the Iran and Iraq source."
Hudson is so good. He's massively superior to most so called military analysts and
alternative bloggers on the net. He can clearly see the over arching picture and how the
military is used to protect and project it. The idea that the US is going to leave the middle
east until they are forced to is so blind as to be ridiculous.
They will not sacrifice the
(free) oil until booted out by a coalition of Arab countries threatening to over run them and
that is why the dollar hegemonys death will be slow, long and drawn out and they will do
anything, any dirty trick in the book, to prevent Arab/Persian unity. Unlike many peoples
obsession with Israel and how important they feel themselves to be I think Hudson is correct
again. They are the middle eastern version of the British – a stationary aircraft
carrier who will allow themselves to be used and abused whilst living under the illusion they
are major players. They aren't. They're bit part players in decline, subservient to the great
dollar and oil pyramid scheme that keeps America afloat. If you want to beat America you have
to understand the big scheme, that and the utter insanity that backs it up. It is that
insanity of the leites, the inability to allow themselves to be 'beaten' that will keep
nuclear exchange as a real possibility over the next 10 to 15 years. Unification is the only
thing that can stop it and trying to unite so many disparate countries (as the Russians are
trying to do despite multiple provocations) is where the future lies and why it will take so
long. It is truly breath taking in such a horrific way, as Hudson mentions, that to allow the
world to see its 'masters of the universe' pogram to be revealed:
"Of course American strategists will deny that the recent actions do not reflect a
deliberate strategy, because their long-term strategy is so aggressive and exploitative that
it would even strike the American public as being immoral and offensive if they came right
out and said it."
Would be to allow it to be undermined at home and abroad. God help us all.
Clever would be a better word. Looking at my world globe, I see Italy, Greece, and Turkey on
that end of the Mediterranean. Turkey has been in NATO since 1952. Crete and Cyprus are also
right there. Doesn't Hudson own a globe or regional map?
That a US Admiral would be gushing about the Apartheid state 7 years after the attempted
destruction of the USS Liberty is painful to consider. I'd like to disbelieve the story, but
it's quite likely there were a number of high-ranking ***holes in a Naval Uniform.
The world situation reminds us of the timeless fable by Aesop of The North Wind and the Sun.
Trump et al assassinated someone who was on a diplomatic mission. This action was so far
removed from acceptable behavior that it must have been considered to be "by any means and at
all costs".
Perhaps the most potent weapon Iran or anyone else has at this critical juncture, is not
missiles, but diplomacy.
"Therefore, to focus one-sidedly on Israel is a distraction away from what the US-centered
international order really is all about."
Thank you for saying this sir. In the US and around the world many people become
obsessively fixated in seeing a "jew" or zionist behind every bush. Now the Zionists are
certinly an evil, blood thirsty bunch, and certainly deserve the scorn of the world, but i
feel its a cop out sometimes. A person from the US has a hard time stomaching the actions of
their country, so they just hoist all the unpleasentries on to the zionists. They put it all
on zionisim, and completly fail to mention imperialism. I always switced back and forth on
the topic my self. But i cant see how a beachead like the zionist state, a stationary
carrier, can be bigger than the empire itself. Just look at the major leaders in the
resistance groups, the US was always seen as the ultimate obstruction, while israel was seen
as a regional obstruction. Like sayyed hassan nasrallah said in his recent speech about the
martyrs, that if the US is kicked out, the Israelis might just run away with out even
fighting. I hate it when people say "we are in the middle east for israel" when it can easily
be said that "israel is still in the mid east because of the US." If the US seized to exist
today, israel would fall rather quickly. If israel fell today the US would still continue
being an imperalist, bloodthirsty entity.
The Deeper Story behind the Assassination of Soleimani
This article, published by Strategic Culture, features a translation of Mahdi's speech to
the Iraqi
parliament in which he states that Trump threatened him with assassination and the US
admitted
to killing hundreds of demonstrators using Navy SEAL snipers.
This description provided by Mr Hudson is no Moore than the financial basis behind the
Cebrowski doctrine instituted on 9/11.
https://www.voltairenet.org/article
I wish the Saker had asked Mr Hudson about some crucial recent events to get his opinion
with regards to US foreign policy. Specifically, how does the emergence of cryptocurrency
relate to dollar finance and the US grand strategy? A helpful tool for the hegemon or the
emergence of a new currency that prevents unlimited currency printing? Finally, what is
global warming and the associated carbon credit system? The next planned model of continuing
global domination and balance of payments? Or true organic attempt at fair energy production
and management?
With all due respect, these are huge questions in themselves and perhaps could to be
addressed in separate interviews.
IMO it doesn't always work that well to try to cover too much ground in just one giant
leap.
I have never understood the Cebrowski doctrine. How does the destruction of Middle Eastern state structures allow the US to control Middle
East Oil? The level of chaos generated by such an act would seem to prevent anyone from controlled
the oil.
Dr. Hudson often appears on RT's "Keiser Report" where he covers many contemporary topics
with its host Max Keiser. Many of the shows transcripts are available at Hudson's website . Indeed, after the two Saker items,
you'll find three programs on the first page. Using the search function at his site, you'll
find the two articles he's written that deal with bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, although I
think he's been more specific in the TV interviews.
As for this Q&A, its an A+. Hudson's 100% correct to playdown the Zionist influence
given the longstanding nature of the Outlaw US Empire's methods that began well before the
rise of the Zionist Lobby, which in reality is a recycling of aid dollars back to Congress in
the form of bribes.
Nils: Good Article. The spirit of Nihilism.
Quote from Neocon Michael Ladeen.
"Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear
down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and
cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and
creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their
inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do
not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very
existence -- our existence, not our politics -- threatens their legitimacy. They must attack
us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission."
@NILS As far as crypto currency goes it is a brilliant idea in concept. But since during the
Bush years we have been shown multiple times, who actually owns [and therefore controls] the
internet. Many times now we have also been informed that through the monitoring capability's
of our defense agency's, they are recording every key stroke. IMO, with the flip of a switch,
we can shut down the internet. At the very least, that would stop us from being able to trade
in crypto, but they have e-files on each of us. They know our passwords, or can easily access
them. That does not give me confidence in e=currency during a teotwawki situation.
One thing that troubles me about the petrodollar thesis is that ANNUAL trade in oil is about
2 trillion DAILY trade in $US is 4 trillion. I can well believe the US thinks oil is the
bedrock if dollar hegemony but is it? I see no alternative to US dollar hegemony.
The lines that really got my attention were these:
"The leading country breaking up US hegemony obviously is the United States itself. That
is Trump's major contribution The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that
other countries sacrifice their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire."
That is so completely true. I have wondered why – to date – there had not been
more movement by Europe away from the United States. But while reading the article the
following occurred to me. Maybe Europe is awaiting the next U.S. election. Maybe they hope
that a new president (someone like Biden) might allow Europe to keep more of the
"spoils."
If that is true, then a re-election of Trump will probably send Europe fleeing for the
exits. The Europeans will be cutting deals with Russia and China like the store is on
fire.
The critical player in forming the EU WAS/IS the US financial Elites. Yes, they had many
ultra powerful Europeans, especially Germany, but it was the US who initiated the EU.
Purpose? For the US Financial Powerhouses & US politicians to "take Europe captive."
Notice the similarities: the EU has its Central Bank who communicates with the private
Banksters of the FED. Much austerity has ensued, especially in Southern nations: Greece,
Italy, etc. Purpose: to smash unions, worker's pay, eliminate unions, and basically allowing
US/EU Financial capital to buy out Italy, most of Greece, and a goodly section of Spain and
Portugal.
The US govt. have long since paid off most every European politician. Thusly, Europe, as
separate nations that should be remain still under the yolk of the US
Financial/Political/Military power.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around this but it sounds like he is saying that the U.S.
has a payment deficit problem which is solved by stealing the world's oil supplies. To do
this they must have a powerful, expensive military. But it is primarily this military which
is the main cause of the balance deficit. So it is an eternally fuelled problem and solution.
If I understand this, what it actually means is that we all live on a plantation as slaves
and everything that is happening is for the benefit of the few wealthy billionaires. And they
intend to turn the entire world into their plantation of slaves. They may even let you live
for a while longer.
I didn't know this until I read a history of World War I.
As you know, World War One was irresolvable, murderous, bloody trench warfare. People
would charge out of the trenches trying to overrun enemy positions only to be cutdown by the
super weapon of the day – the machine gun. It was an unending bloody stalemate until
the development of the tank. Tanks were immune to machine gun fire coming from the trenches
and could overrun enemy positions. In the aftermath of that war, it became apparently that
mechanization had become crucial to military supremacy. In turn, fuel was crucial to
mechanization. Accordingly, in the Sykes Picot agreement France and Britain divided a large
amount of Middle Eastern oil between themselves in order to assure military dominance. (The
United States had plenty of their own oil at that time.)
In any event, it is the same today. Energy underlies, not only the military but, all of
world civilization. Oil and gas are overwhelmingly the source of energy for the modern world.
Without it, civilization collapses. Thus, he who controls oil (and gas) controls the
world.
That is one third of the story. The second third is this.
Up till 1971, the United States dollar was the most trusted currency in the world. The
dollar was backed by gold and lots and lots of it. Dollars were in fact redeemable in gold.
However, due to Vietnam War, the United States started running huge balance of payments
deficits. Other countries – most notably France under De Gaulle – started cashing
in dollars in exchange for that gold. Gold started flooding out of the United States. At that
point Nixon took the United States off of the gold standard. Basically stating that the
dollar was no longer backed by gold and dollars could not be redeemed for gold. That caused
an international payments problem. People would no longer accept dollars as payment since the
dollar was not backed up by anything. The American economy was in big trouble since they were
running deficits and people would no longer take dollars on faith.
To fix the problem, Henry Kissinger convinced the Saudis to agree to only accept dollars
in payment for oil – no matter who was the buyer. That meant that nations throughout
the world now needed dollars in order to pay for their energy needs. Due to this, the dollars
was once again the most important currency in the world since – as noted above –
energy underlies everything in modern industrial cultures. Additionally, since dollars were
now needed throughout the world, it became common to make all trades for any product in
highly valued dollars. Everyone needed dollars for every thing, oil or not.
At that point, the United States could go on printing dollars and spending them since a
growing world economy needed more and more dollars to buy oil as well as to trade everything
else.
That leads to the third part of the story. In order to convince the Saudis to accept only
dollars in payments for oil (and to have the Saudis strong arm other oil producers to do the
same) Kissinger promised to protect the brutal Saudi regime's hold on power against a restive
citizenry and also to protect the Saudi's against other nations. Additionally, Kissinger made
an implicit threat that if the Saudi's did not agree, the US would come in and just take
their oil. The Saudis agreed.
Thus, the three keys to dominance in the modern world are thus: oil, dollars and the
military.
Thus, Hudson ties in the three threads in his interview above. Oil, Dollars, Military.
That is what holds the empire together.
Thank you for thinking through this. Yes, the link between the US $$$ and Saudi Oil, is the
absolute means of the American Dollar to reign complete. This payment system FEEDS both the
US Military, but WALL STREET, hedge funds, the US/EU oligarchs – to name just a few
entities.
I should make one note only to this. That "no man, no problem" was Stalin's motto is a myth.
He never said that. It was invented by a writer Alexei Rybnikov and inserted in his book "The
Children of Arbat".
Wow! Absolutely beautiful summation of the ultimate causes that got us where we are and, if
left intact, will get us to where we're going!
So, the dreamer says: If only we could throw-off our us-vs-them BS political-economic
ideology & religious doctrine-faith issues, put them into live-and-let-live mode, and see
that we are all just humans fighting over this oil resource to which our modern economy (way
of life) is addicted, then we might be able to hammer out some new rules for interacting, for
running an earth-resource sustainable and fair global economy We do at least have the
technology to leave behind our oil addiction, but the political-economic will still is
lacking. How much more of the current insanity must we have before we get that will? Will we
get it before it's too late?
Only if we, a sufficient majority from the lowest economic classes to the top elites and
throughout all nations, are able to psychologically-spiritually internalize the two
principles of Common Humanity and Spaceship Earth soon enough, will we stop our current slide
off the cliff into modern economic collapse and avert all the pain and suffering that's
already now with us and that will intensify.
The realist says we're not going to stop that slide and it's the only way we're going to
learn, if we are indeed ever going to learn.
Thank you for this excellent interview. You ask the kind of questions that we would all like
to ask. It's regrettable that Chalmers Johnson isn't still alive. I believe that you and he
would have a lot in common.
Naxos has produced an incredible, unabridged cd audiobook of
Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. One of Gibbon's observations really resonates
today: "Assassination is the last resource of cowards". Thanks again.
All maps has been removed. See the original for full article with maps
Notable quotes:
"... Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution and seizure of hostages in the U.S. Embassy, Washington has sought to topple the Shi'a revolutionary government in Tehran. That moment was when the demonization of Muslims replaced anti-Communism as the main selling point for military interventions. U.S., Israeli, and Saudi threats have also encouraged a siege mentality among Iranian leaders, who repeatedly used them as a rationale for limiting internal dissent. ..."
"... The nightmare scenario of a regional war has been played out in Central Command strategic planning since the 1980s. The regional blocs have been oversimplified in the western media as merely a Shi'a vs. Sunni rivalry, but Iran has also supported Sunni forces, such as Hamas in Palestine. What is at stake in the Middle East is usually about oil and state power, not simply about religion. ..."
"... Benjamin Netanyahu and Mohammad Bin Salman have been itching for the U.S. to launch strikes against Iran for some time, ostensibly over the nuclear program, but actually to roll back the Tehran-led regional alliance. Trump's tilt toward Russia has been welcomed by Israel and Saudi Arabia, as he tries to "decouple" Moscow from Tehran , in order to make Iran more vulnerable. ..."
"... Part of the neocon agenda for occupying Iraq was to have a staging area for regime change in Iran, but that is clearly no longer possible. Ground forces invading Iran from Kuwait would have to pass through a slice of Iraqi territory. An invasion from Afghanistan or Pakistan would be untenable because of on-going Islamist insurgencies (even though Iran has tended to back the U.S. against the Taliban and ISIS). The U.S. has not built bases to the north in Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan, but Trump's recent tilt toward Turkey may be partly to put more pressure on Iran's northwestern border . ..."
"... Watch for the U.S. stoking ethnic divisions in the diverse country, where ethnic minorities form about 40 percent of the population. The most dangerous sign would be encouraging a rebellion in the Arab province of Khuzestan, called "Ahwaz" by its Arab inhabitants. ..."
"... Back in 2005 I wrote about the possibility that the U.S. would use such an uprising as an excuse to occupy Iran's oil-rich Khuzestan province (next to southern Iraq), with the "humanitarian" rationale of protecting its ethnic Arab population from "ethnic cleansing." Like back then, Tehran's repression of Ahwazi Arab protests and insurgent attacks have recently been increasing, and the possibility again exists of the U.S. exploiting their legitimate grievances for its own interests. ..."
"... My color map makes it clear that the ethnic Ahwazi Arab province of Khuzestan, which Saddam Hussein invaded at the start of the Iran-Iraq War, contains Iran's largest oil reserves (actually about 85% of Iran's oil). In a 2008 New Yorker article, journalist Seymour Hersh exposed CIA assistance to Ahwazi Arab and other ethnic insurgents , later advocated by John Bolton , and a CIA analysis declassified in 2013 referred to Khuzestan as " Iran's Achilles Tendon ." ..."
"... Whether Trump carries out an air war or a ground war, attacking Iran would be far more disastrous than attacking Iraq. It would destroy any chance of political reforms in Iran or Iraq, and rally even Iranian and Iraqi reformers around their governments. Iranian military forces and Revolutionary Guards could counterattack, block oil lanes in the Strait of Hormuz, or melt into an insurgency far deeper and longer than in Iraq. ..."
"... Trump's War would be a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it could stimulate the terrorism and nuclear weapons programs it claims to oppose. ..."
"... The American public has developed a healthy " Iraq Syndrome " that abhors endless wars, much as the "Vietnam Syndrome" temporarily scaled back U.S. military interventions. Even though Iran is very different from Iraq, that strong public sentiment previously prevented both Obama and Trump from attacking Iran. If that sentiment can again be mobilized into an organized antiwar movement in the coming weeks, it can be even more effective. ..."
Since President Trump's assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, widespread alarm has
centered on whether he is again dragging us into another war like Iraq, to detract from his
impeachment. The bad news is that the situation is even more potentially disastrous.
As a political-cultural geographer who has long studied the history of U.S. military interventions
, I'm alarmed that his action could set into motion a regional conflagration, the violent
break-up of Iran into ethnic enclaves, and a death toll that would make the Iraq War look like
a warm-up exercise. The good news is that Americans can and have stood in the way of such a
war, and we can do so again.
...Iran has
always been more geographically pivotal than Iraq, in land area, population, and economics. It
was one of the few countries that retained independence through the colonial era, and one of
the only Third World societies to successfully reject Western corporate domination.
Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution and seizure of hostages in the U.S. Embassy,
Washington has sought to topple the Shi'a revolutionary government in Tehran. That moment was
when the demonization of Muslims replaced anti-Communism as the main selling point for military
interventions. U.S., Israeli, and Saudi threats have also encouraged a siege mentality among
Iranian leaders, who repeatedly used them as a rationale for limiting internal dissent.
The U.S. has already been at war with Iran, during the Iran-Iraq War. In 1987-88, the U.S.
Navy actively sided with Saddam
Hussein in his war with Iran , by escorting tankers carrying Iraqi oil, attacking Iranian
boats and oil rigs, and "accidentally" shooting down an Iranian civilian jetliner. A war with
Iran is not a hypothetical possibility, but a continuation of a long-simmering conflict.
Geopolitical Scenarios
Trump's actions may lead to a full-blown World War I-style regional war in the Middle East,
between two blocs that have emerged in the past decade. On one side are the United States,
Israel, Saudi Arabia, most Gulf states (UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman), Syrian Sunni insurgents,
and southern Yemen. On the other side are Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon,
and Houthi rebels in northern Yemen.
Every major war has been preceded by early rumblings, such as in Morocco before World War I,
or in Spain, Ethiopia, and China before World War II. The horrific civil wars in Syria and
Yemen -- as well as conflicts in Iraq, Lebanon, and Bahrain -- have partly served as proxy wars
(with local origins) between these two emerging blocs. We may now be living in August 1914,
when similar alliances propelled Europe to World War I, also sparked by an assassination.
The nightmare scenario of a regional war has been played out in Central Command strategic
planning since the 1980s. The regional blocs have been oversimplified in the western media as
merely a Shi'a vs. Sunni rivalry, but Iran has also supported Sunni forces, such as Hamas in
Palestine. What is at stake in the Middle East is usually about oil and state power, not simply
about religion.
... ... ...
What's Next?
The Houthi-claimed attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure, attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf,
direct exchange of missiles between Iranian forces in Syria and Israeli forces in the occupied
Golan Heights, the U.S. bombing of Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria, and a short siege of
the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad have all taken place since
Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal, but their origins are far more complex
and local than the Washington-Tehran rivalry.
This conflict could quickly mushroom out of control, such as in confrontations over islands
contested by Iran and the Gulf states, as well as U.S. military brinkmanship with Iranian
vessels in the Straits of Hormuz, and with Russian and Iranian forces in Syria. Juan Cole has
pointed out that even in the Iran-Iraq War, neither side attacked oil
refineries because they knew they were vulnerable to a counterattack, but the assassination
of an Iranian general is also unprecedented.
Benjamin Netanyahu and Mohammad Bin Salman have been itching for the U.S. to launch strikes
against Iran for some time, ostensibly over the nuclear program, but actually to roll back the
Tehran-led regional alliance. Trump's tilt toward Russia has been welcomed by Israel and Saudi
Arabia, as he tries to
"decouple" Moscow from Tehran , in order to make Iran more vulnerable.
It's possible that Trump is building up war fever as a set-up, in order that he can later
reverse it and portray himself as a peace candidate. But if he does spark a war, he will use it
to the hilt to question the loyalty of anyone who opposes it, and many congressional Democrats
would probably rally around the flag.
Even if Iran reacts militarily to the assassination, Mayor DeBlasio's hysterical
warning of terrorist retaliation in New York is utter B.S. In four decades of conflict,
Iran has never sponsored an attack within the U.S., even as the U.S. has attacked its allies in
Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, and directly attacked its own forces in the Gulf. Only Sunni
terrorists (also opposed by Iran) have attacked targets inside the U.S.
Ground War or Air War?
Unlike Iraq, the U.S. has limited options to invade Iran. One of the most important
differences between Iran and Iraq is in their physical geography. Iraq has largely flat
terrain, and so has been repeatedly invaded by foreign armies. Iran has natural defensive
barriers in the Zagros and Elburz mountain ranges, and a political advantage in having complex
neighbors that may not be willing to host invading forces.
Part of the neocon
agenda for occupying Iraq was to have a staging area for regime change in Iran, but that is
clearly no longer possible. Ground forces invading Iran from Kuwait would have to pass through
a slice of Iraqi territory. An invasion from Afghanistan or Pakistan would be untenable because
of on-going Islamist insurgencies (even though Iran has tended to back the U.S. against the
Taliban and ISIS). The U.S. has not built bases to the north in Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan, but
Trump's recent tilt toward Turkey may be partly to put
more pressure on Iran's northwestern border .
Trump also is aware that U.S. civilians and even the military will be wary of another Middle
East war. Like President Obama in 2013, Trump pulled the Pentagon back from strikes against
Iran and Syria earlier in 2019, understanding (at least before his impeachment) that voters
would not want another war. In a recent
Pew Center poll , 62 percent of civilians and 64 percent of veterans say the war in Iraq
was not worth fighting. A recent Military Times poll shows that half of active-duty military personnel are unhappy
with Trump, and Bernie Sanders actually leads in
donations from them.
These limited options means that a U.S. ground invasion of Iran is very unlikely, so there
would not be a repeat of the 2003 Iraq invasion, followed by an occupation of the entire
country. At least in its initial stages, a war on Iran would be largely an air war of bombs,
missiles, and drones, launched by the Navy and Air Force, with minimal "boots on the
ground."
That's why it may be dangerous for the antiwar movement to warn that an Iran War would be a
repeat of the Iraq War, with massive U.S. casualties and a legacy of combat injuries and PTSD.
During the Vietnam War, facing huge protests because of bodybags coming home, President Nixon
switched from a ground war to an air war, reducing U.S. troop casualties, but vastly increasing
civilian casualties.
President Bush employed a similar strategy in the 1991 Gulf War, sanitizing air strikes on
Iraq as a detached video game. Clinton's 1999 air war on Serbia and Obama's 2011 air war on
Libya were the first time in human history that a one side in a major war had zero deaths by
enemy fire. Trump has inherited these technological tactics of imperial impunity. If the
antiwar movement mainly emphasizes the possibilities of U.S. military casualties, it only plays
into the Pentagon's hands and reinforces high-tech warfare that claims even more civilian
lives.
Playing the Ethnic Card
But there is one scenario that I fear could lead to a ground invasion of Iran. Watch for the
U.S. stoking ethnic divisions in the diverse country, where ethnic minorities form about 40
percent of the population. The most dangerous sign would be encouraging a rebellion in the Arab
province of Khuzestan, called "Ahwaz" by its Arab inhabitants.
Back in 2005 I wrote about the possibility that the U.S. would use such an uprising as an
excuse to
occupy Iran's oil-rich Khuzestan province (next to southern Iraq), with the "humanitarian"
rationale of protecting its ethnic Arab population from "ethnic cleansing." Like back then,
Tehran's repression of Ahwazi Arab protests and insurgent
attacks have recently been increasing, and the possibility again exists of the U.S. exploiting
their legitimate grievances for its own interests.
My color
map makes it clear that the ethnic Ahwazi Arab province of Khuzestan, which Saddam Hussein
invaded at the start of the Iran-Iraq War, contains Iran's largest oil reserves (actually about
85% of Iran's oil). In a 2008 New Yorker article, journalist Seymour Hersh exposed
CIA assistance to Ahwazi Arab and other ethnic insurgents , later advocated by
John Bolton , and a CIA analysis declassified in 2013 referred to Khuzestan as " Iran's
Achilles Tendon ."
The U.S. and Saudis may feel that in this " Khuzestan Gambit ," they could
land Marines and paratroopers on western Khuzestan's flat terrain, and hold its massive oil
fields hostage for concessions from Tehran, without having to push through mountainous barriers
and occupy the rest of Iran.
Like Saddam in 1980, they may be deluded that that Ahwazi Arabs will welcome them in
Khuzestan, much as they thought that Iraqi Shi'as would welcome foreign occupiers in 2003.
Backing an Arab secessionist movement could easily set into motion the violent "Balkanization"
of Iran, which would make Yugoslavia pale in comparison, and even tear apart neighboring
countries.
Even if ethnic grievances are legitimate, the timing of western interest in their grievances
coincides too neatly with the larger desire to pressure and isolate Iran. Washington has a long
history of championing the rights of ethnic minorities against its enemies (such as in Vietnam,
Laos, Nicaragua, and Syria), then abandoning or selling out the minority when it is no longer
strategically useful. We love 'em, we use 'em, and then we dump 'em.
Fighting the Last War
Whether Trump carries out an air war or a ground war, attacking Iran would be far more
disastrous than attacking Iraq. It would destroy any chance of political reforms in Iran or
Iraq, and rally even Iranian and Iraqi reformers around their governments. Iranian military
forces and Revolutionary Guards could counterattack, block oil lanes in the Strait of Hormuz,
or melt into an insurgency far deeper and longer than in Iraq.
Trump's War would be a
self-fulfilling prophecy, because it could stimulate the terrorism and nuclear weapons programs
it claims to oppose.
The American public has developed a healthy " Iraq
Syndrome " that abhors endless wars, much as the "Vietnam Syndrome" temporarily scaled back
U.S. military interventions. Even though Iran is very different from Iraq, that strong public
sentiment previously prevented both Obama and Trump from attacking Iran. If that sentiment can
again be mobilized into an organized antiwar movement in the coming weeks, it can be even more
effective.
But to be effective, the movement has to focus on the horrendous effects of such a war on
Iranian civilians, not only on U.S. troops. And it should understand that this war may unfold
in unpredictable ways that differ from previous invasions. Just as "generals always fight the
last war," antiwar movements will lose if they merely fight against the last war. Join the debate
on Facebook
Zoltan Grossman is a
professor of Geography and Native Studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia,
Washington, who has been a warm body in peace, justice, and environmental movements for the
past 35 years. His website is http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz and
email is [email protected]
In the wake of this, Congress passed the 2002 Authorization Act. This authorized the
President to move against Al Qaeda.
Fast forward to today: Suleimani and Iran were fighting AGANST Al Qaeda and its offshoot,
ISIS/Daesh. Saudi Arabia had asked Suleimani (with U.S. approval) to help negotiate a peace,
whereby the Saudi's would stop backing ISIS. It was an official mission invited by Iraq to
negotiate peace between Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq.
This infuriated the United States, which wanted a permanent warfare there as an excuse to
occupy Iraq and prevent a Shi'ite Crescent linking Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, which
incidentally would serve as part of China's Belt and Road initiative. So it killed Suleimani to
prevent the peace negotiation.
The implication is that the US wants a PERMANENT occupation of Iraq, which is needed to
secure the US grab of Iraq's oil and Syria's oil, as well as to prevent any non-U.S. oil
transit.
The question is, how to get the world's politicians – U.S., European and Asians
– to see how America's all-or-nothing policy is threatening new waves of war, refugees,
extreme weather and the disruption of the oil trade in the Strait of Hormuz. Ultimately, the
aim is to ensure neoliberal dollarization is imposed on all countries to subsidize US imperial
hegemony.
It is a sign of how little power exists in the United Nations that no countries are calling
for a new Nurenberg-style war crimes trial following the assassination, no threat to withdraw
from NATO or even to avoid holding reserves in the form of money lent to the U.S. Treasury to
fund America's military budget.
"... War will allow Trump to claim the mantle of "national" wartime leader, while diverting attention away from his impeachment trial. And in light of the intensification of belligerent rhetoric from this administration, war appears to be increasingly likely. ..."
"... The American people have a moral responsibility to question not only Trump's motives, but to consider the humanitarian disaster that inevitably accompanies war. ..."
"... is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: The Politics of Persuasion: Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern Era (Paperback, 2018), and Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media , and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2016). He can be reached at: [email protected] ..."
The U.S. stands at the precipice of war. President Trump's rhetorical efforts to
sell himself as the "anti-war" president have been exposed as a fraud via his assault on Iran.
Most Orwellian of all is Trump's claim that the assassination of Iranian General Qassam
Soleimani was necessary to avert war, following the New Year's Eve attack on the U.S. embassy
in Baghdad. In reality the U.S. hit on Soleimani represents a criminal escalation of the
conflict between these two countries. The general's assassination was rightly seen as an
act of war , so the claim that the strike is a step toward peace is absurd on its face. We
should be perfectly clear about the fundamental threat to peace posed by the Trump
administration. Iran has already
promised "harsh retaliation" following the assassination, and
announced it is pulling out of the 2015 multi-national agreement prohibiting the nation
from developing nuclear weapons. Trump's escalation has dramatically increased the threat of
all-out war. Recognizing this threat, I sketch out an argument here based on my initial
thoughts of this conflict, providing three reasons for why Americans need to oppose war.
#1: No Agreement about an Iranian Threat
Soleimani was the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – the Quds Force
– a clandestine military intelligence organization that specializes in paramilitary-style
operations throughout the Middle East, and which is
described as seeking to further Iranian political influence throughout the region. Trump
celebrated the assassination as necessary to bringing Soleimani's "reign of terror" to an
end. The strike, he claimed, was vital after the U.S. caught Iran "in the act" of planning
"imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel."
But Trump's justification for war comes from a country with a long history of distorting and
fabricating evidence of an Iranian threat. American leaders have disingenuously and
propagandistically portrayed Iran as on the brink of developing nuclear weapons for decades.
Presidents Bush and Obama were both rebuked, however, by domestic intelligence
and
international weapons inspectors , which failed to uncover evidence that Iran was
developing these weapons, or that it was a threat to the U.S.
Outside of previous exaggerations, evidence is emerging that the Trump administration and
the intelligence community are not of one mind regarding Iran's alleged threat. Shortly after
Soleimani's assassination, the Department of Homeland Security declared
there was "no specific, credible threat" from Iran within U.S. borders. And U.S. military
officials disagree regarding Trump's military escalation. As the New York Times
reports :
"In the chaotic days leading to the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's most
powerful commander, top American military officials put the option of killing him -- which they
viewed as the most extreme response to recent Iranian-led violence in Iraq -- on the menu they
presented to President Trump. They didn't think he would take it. In the wars waged since the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents
to make other possibilities appear more palatable."
"Top pentagon officials," the Times
reports , "were stunned" by the President's order. Furthermore, the paper reported that
"the intelligence" supposedly confirming Iranian plans to attack U.S. diplomats was "thin," in
the words of at least one U.S. military official who was privy to the administration's
deliberations. According to that
source , there is no evidence of an "imminent" attack in the foreseeable future against
American targets outside U.S. borders.
U.S. leaders have always obscured facts, distorted intelligence, and fabricated information
to stoke public fears and build support for war. So it should come as no surprise that this
president is politicizing intelligence. He certainly has reason to – in order to draw
attention away from his Senate impeachment trial, and considering Trump's increasingly
desperate efforts to demonstrate that he is a serious President, not a tin-pot authoritarian
who ignores the rule of law, while shamelessly coercing and extorting foreign leaders in
pursuit of domestic electoral advantage.
Independent of the corruption charges against Trump, it is unwise for Americans to take the
President at his word, considering the blatant lies employed in the post-9/11 era to justify
war in the Middle East. Not so long ago the American public was sold a bill of goods regarding
Iraq's alleged WMDs and ties to terrorism. Neither of those claims was remotely true, and
Americans were left footing the bill for a war that cost trillions ,
based on the lies of an opportunistic president who was dead-set on exploiting public fears of
terrorism in a time of crisis. The Bush administration sold war based on intelligence they
knew was fraudulent, manipulating the nation into on a decade-long war that led to the
murder of more than
1 million Iraqis and more than 5,000 American servicemen, resulting in a failed Iraqi
state, and paving the way for the rise of ISIS. All of this is to say that the risks of
beginning another war in the Middle East are incredibly high, and Americans would do well to
seriously consider the consequences of entering a war based (yet again) on questionable
intelligence.
#2: The "War on Terrorism" as a Red Herring
U.S. leaders have long used the rhetoric of terrorism to justify war. But this strategy
represents a serious distortion of reality, via the conflation of terrorism – understood
as premeditated acts of violence to intimidate civilians – with acts of war. Trump fed
into this misrepresentation when he
described Soleimani's "reign of terror" as encompassing not only the alleged targeting of
U.S. diplomats, but attacks on "U.S. military personnel." The effort to link the deaths of U.S.
soldiers in wartime to terrorism echoes the State Department's 2019
statement , which designated Iran's Quds Force a "terrorist" organization, citing its
responsibility "for the deaths of at least 603 American service members in Iraq" from "2003 to
2011" via its support for Iraqi militias that were engaging in attacks on U.S. forces.
As propaganda goes, the attempt to link these acts of war to "terrorism" is quite perverse.
U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq were participating in a criminal, illegal occupation,
which was widely condemned by the international community. The U.S. war in Iraq was a crime of
aggression under the Nuremberg Charter, and it violated the United Nations Charter's
prohibition on the use of force, which is only allowed via Security Council authorization
(which the U.S. did not have), or in the case of military acts undertaken in self-defense
against an ongoing attack (Iraq was not at war with the U.S. prior to the 2003 invasion).
Contrary to Trump's and the State Department's propaganda, there are no grounds to classify the
deaths of military personnel in an illegal war as terrorism. Instead, one could argue that
domestic Iraqi political actors (of which Iraqi militias are included, regardless of their ties
to Iran) were within their legal rights under international law to engage in acts of
self-defense against American troops acting on behalf of a belligerent foreign power, which was
conducting an illegal occupation.
#3: More War = Further Destabilization of the Middle East
The largest takeaway from recent events should be to recognize the tremendous danger that
escalation of war poses to the U.S. and the region. The legacy of U.S. militarism in the Middle
East, North Africa, and Central Asia, is one of death, destruction, and instability. Every
major war involving the U.S. has produced humanitarian devastation and mass destruction, while
fueling instability and terrorism. With the 1979 Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, U.S. support
for Mujahedeen radicals led to the breakdown of social order, and the rise of the radical
Taliban regime, which housed al Qaeda fundamentalists in the years prior to the September 11,
2001 terror attacks. The 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan contributed to the further
deterioration of Afghan society, and was accompanied by the return of the Taliban, ensuing in a
civil war that has persisted over the last two decades.
With Iraq, the U.S. invasion produced a massive security vacuum following the collapse of
the Iraqi government, which made possible the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq. The U.S. fueled
numerous civil wars, in Iraq during the 2000s and Syria in the 2010s, creating mass
instability, and giving rise to ISIS, which became a mini-state of its own operating across
both countries. And then there was the 2011 U.S.-NATO supported rebellion against Muammar
Gaddafi, which not only resulted in the dictator's overthrow, but in the rise of another ISIS
affiliate within Libya's border. Even Obama, the biggest cheerleader for the war, subsequently
admitted
the intervention was his "worst mistake," due to the civil war that emerged after Gaddafi's
overthrow, which opened the door for the rise of ISIS.
All of these conflicts have one thing in common. They brought tremendous devastation to the
countries under assault, via scorched-earth military campaigns, which left death, misery, and
destruction in their wake. The U.S. is adept at destroying countries, but shows little interest
in, or ability to reconstruct them. These wars provided fertile ground for Islamist radicals,
who took advantage of the resulting chaos and instability.
The primary lesson of the "War on Terror" should be clear to rationally minded observers:
U.S. wars breed not only instability, but desperation, as the people victimized by war become
increasingly tolerant of domestic extremist movements. Repressive states are widely reviled by
the people they subjugate. But the only thing worse than a dictatorship is no order at all,
when societies collapse into civil war, anarchy, and genocide. The story of ISIS's rise is one
of citizens suffering under war and instability, and becoming increasingly tolerant of
extremist political actors, so long as they are able to provide order in times of crisis. This
point is consistently neglected in U.S. political and media discourse – a sign of how
propagandistic "debates" over war have become, nearly 20 years into the U.S. "War on
Terrorism."
Where Do We Go From Here?
Trump followed up the Soleimani assassination with a Twitter announcement
that the U.S. has "targeted" 52 additional "Iranian sites," which will be attacked "if Iran
strikes any Americans or American assets." There's no reason in light of recent events to chalk
this announcement up to typical Trump-Twitter bluster. This President is desperate to begin a
war with Iran, as Trump has courted confrontation with the Islamic republic since the early
days of his presidency.
War will allow Trump to claim the mantle of "national" wartime leader,
while diverting attention away from his impeachment trial. And in light of the intensification
of belligerent rhetoric from this administration, war appears to be increasingly likely.
The American people have a moral responsibility to question not only Trump's motives, but to
consider the humanitarian disaster that inevitably accompanies war. War with Iran will only
make the Middle East more unstable, further fueling anti-American radicalism, and increasing
the terror threat to the U.S. This conclusion isn't based on speculation, but on two decades of
experience with a "War on Terror" that's done little but destroy nations and increase terror
threats. The American people can reduce the dangers of war by protesting Trump's latest
provocation, and by pressuring Congress to pass legislation condemning any future attack on
Iran as a violation of national and international law.
To contact your Representative or Senator, use the following links:
Since 1979 the oil has flowed through the government of Russia.
Iran nationalized it's oil production in 1979 and Russia had nothing to do with this.
The era of nationalized oil, 1979–present
...
Following the Revolution, the NIOC took control of Iran's petroleum industry and canceled
Iran's international oil agreements. In 1980 the exploration, production, sale, and export of
oil were delegated to the Ministry of Petroleum. Initially Iran's post-revolutionary oil
policy was based on foreign currency requirements and the long-term preservation of the
natural resource. Following the Iran–Iraq War, however, this policy was replaced by a
more aggressive approach: maximizing exports and accelerating economic growth. From 1979
until 1998, Iran did not sign any oil agreements with foreign oil companies.
...
In the early 2000s, leading international oil firms from China, France, India, Italy, the
Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Spain, and the United Kingdom had agreements to develop Iran's
oil and gas fields. In 2004 China signed a major agreement to buy oil and gas from Iran, as
well as to develop Iran's Yadavaran oil field. The value of this contract was estimated at
US$150 billion to US$200 billion over 25 years.[5][30] In 2009, China National Petroleum Corp
(CNPC) signed a deal with the National Iranian Oil Company whereby the former took ownership
of a 70% stake upon promising to pay 90 percent of the development costs for the South
Azadegan oil field, with the project needing investment of up to $2.5 billion. Earlier that
year, CNPC also won a $2 billion deal to develop the first phase of the North Azadegan
oilfield.[31]
...
US sanctions have pushed Iran firmly into the welcoming arms of both Russia and China. It's
another burgeoning love affair - a ménage à trois? The law of unintended
consequences strikes again.
Trump has from the beginning of his presidential campaign appealed to the worst and most
fascistic elements in American political life. At a time when the US has no credible peer
military rival, he added hundreds of billions of dollars to the Pentagon budget, and the pudgy
old chicken hawk lionized war criminals. Up until now, however, Trump shrewdly calculated that
his base was tired of wasting blood and treasure on fruitless Middle Eastern wars, and he
avoided taking more than symbolic steps. He dropped a big missile on Afghanistan once, and
fired some Tomahawk Cruise missiles at Syria. But he drew back from the brink of more extensive
military engagements.
Now, by murdering Qasem Soleimani , the
head of the Jerusalem (Qods) Brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, Trump has
brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran. Mind you, Iran's leadership is too
shrewd to rush to the battlements at this moment, and will be prepared to play the long game.
My guess is that they will encourage their allies among Iraqi Shiites to get up a massive
protest at the US embassy and at bases housing US troops.
They will be aided in this task of mobilizing Iraqis by the simultaneous US assassination of
Abu Mahdi
al-Muhandis , the deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Forces. Al-Muhandis is a senior
military figure in the Iraqi armed forces, not just a civilian militia figure. Moreover, the
Kata'ib Hizbullah that he headed is part of a strong political bloc, al-Fath, which has
48 members in parliament and forms a key coalition partner for the current, caretaker prime
minister, Adil Abdulmahdi. Parliament won't easily be able to let this outrage pass.
The US officer corps is confident that the American troops at the embassy and elsewhere in
Baghdad are sufficient to fight off any militia invasion. I'm not sure they have taken into
account the possibility of tens of thousands of civilian protesters invading the
embassy, who can't simply be taken out and shot.
Trump may be counting on the unpopularity among the youth protesters in downtown Baghdad,
Basra, Nasiriya and other cities of Soleimani and of al-Muhandis to blunt the Iraqi reaction to
the murders. The thousands of youth protesters cheered on hearing the news of their deaths,
since they were accused of plotting a violent repression of the rallies demanding an end to
corruption.
Iraq, however, is a big, complex society, and there are enormous numbers of Iraqi Shiites
who support the Popular Mobilization Forces and who view them as the forces that saved Iraq
from the peril of the ISIL (ISIS) terrorist organization. The Shiite hard liners would not need
all Iraqis to back them in confronting the American presence, only a few hundred thousand for
direct crowd action.
You also have to wonder whether Trump and his coterie aren't planning a coup in Iraq. In the
absence of a coup, the Iraqi parliament will almost certainly be forced, after this violation
of Iraqi national sovereignty, to vote to expel American troops. This is foreseeable. So either
the assassination was a drive-by on the way out, or Trump's war cabinet doesn't plan on having
to leave Iraq.
Although Trump justified the murder of Soleimani by calling him a terrorist, that is
nonsense in the terms of international law. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps is the
equivalent of the US National Guard. What Trump did is the equivalent of some foreign country
declaring the US military a terrorist organization (some have) and then assassinating General
Joseph L. Lengyel, the 28th Chief of the National Guard Bureau (God forbid and may he have a
long healthy life).
It's all about the level of geopolitical control of oil-rich regions. In other words Carter
doctrine.
Notable quotes:
"... Don't expect any American journalists to remind viewers that one of Soleimani's achievements was not only to command the entire Iraqi army's campaign against ISIS, but also to do that in cooperation with U.S. forces. ..."
"... Trump doesn't really read. Or even take solace from history. If he did, he would know that many U.S. presidents actually lost the vote at the crucial moment, because of their bungling in the Middle East and, in particular, in Iran. President Reagan for example won the White House in November 1980 after the failed rescue mission of U.S. hostages in April of that year in Iran went spectacularly wrong which gave a "landslide" victory to the former B-movie actor from Hollywood ..."
"... Trump's strike does ring of a president, struggling with an impeachment campaign gaining momentum, who may feel has nothing to lose other than to repeat history, which has doomed him, like Carter or Reagan (who never survived Iran-Contra). ..."
"... But his reckless folly in the Middle East is also a test of how far relations with the U.S. and the rest of the world can go, before something breaks. The assassination of the Iranian general could drive a huge divide between the U.S. and the EU in the next term, if Trump can secure re-election as it will be Europe which pays the real price when the region boils over. ..."
I personally do not think that the strike was a typically
capricious move by Trump. I am more inclined to believe that it has been in the works for a
long time and his advisers might well have offered it to him as a preferable retaliation option
against the Iranian downing of a U.S. drone in June of last year – where Trump floundered
and finally held back from launching a conventional military attack on Iranian forces, through
fear of civilians being killed, or so he claims.
What we are witnessing is unprecedented in the region. It has caught everyone off guard,
even the democrats in the U.S., who can barely believe the stupidity of the move, which
arguably, is a measured one. Trump believes that he can come out the winner of a pseudo war
– or a proxy one – in the region, even though the Iranians have demonstrated that
they easily have the capability of shutting down Saudi Arabia's oil exports with a relatively
minor salvo of ordinance.
In fact, Saudi Arabia might well, in my view, be part of this latest move. Much has been
made of the petulant twitter goading of Tehran's Supreme leader to Trump directly, which may
well have pushed him over a line. But in reality, there is something much deeper and nefarious
at play which may well be the true basis of why the decision was taken for the assassination:
to destroy any possibilities of Iran and Saudi Arabia patching up their differences and
continuing in dialogue, to avoid further tensions.
There is ample evidence to show that since the oilfield attacks carried out by Iran, Saudi
crown prince Mohamed bin Salman has softened his stance on Iran and was looking at ways,
through intermediaries, to build a working relation. It was early days and progress was
slow.
But the Soleimani hit will blow that idea right out of the water. In one fell swoop, the
strike galvanises and polarises an anti-Iran front from Saudi Arabia and Israel, which, whilst
doing wonders for U.S. arms procurement will cause more tension in the region as it places
countries like Qatar, UAE, Turkey and Oman in a really awkward spot with regards to how it
should continue to work with Tehran. It may well put back the Qatar blockade to its earlier
position as 'rogue state' in the region, prompting it to possibly even go rogue and get more
involved in the battle to take Tripoli (supporting Turkish forces, obviously, who are with the
UN-recognised government).
In fact, there is an entire gamut of consequences to the move, beyond merely Iran seeking to
take revenge against America's allies in the region. It is less about a declaration of war
against Iran but more a declaration of anti-peace towards the entire Arab world, which was
starting to unfold in the last six months since Trump stepped back from the region and stood
down from a retaliation strike against Iran in the Straits of Hormuz. Trump is gambling that he
can sustain Saudi Arabia's oil being disrupted and even body bags of U.S. soldiers in Syria and
Iraq in return for a fresh wave of popularity from people too ignorant to understand or wish to
comprehend the nuances of the Middle East and how so many U.S. presidents use the pretext of a
war, or heightened tensions, as part of their chest-beating, shallow popularity campaign.
Don't expect any American journalists to remind viewers that one of Soleimani's
achievements was not only to command the entire Iraqi army's campaign against ISIS, but also to
do that in cooperation with U.S. forces.
Trump doesn't really read. Or even take solace from history. If he did, he would know
that many U.S. presidents actually lost the vote at the crucial moment, because of their
bungling in the Middle East and, in particular, in Iran. President Reagan for example won the
White House in November 1980 after the failed rescue mission of U.S. hostages in April of that
year in Iran went spectacularly wrong which gave a "landslide" victory to the former B-movie
actor from Hollywood .
Reagan, in turn, carried on the great tradition of Middle East histrionics by his notably
'mad dog' Libya campaign, which ran concurrent to two devastating attacks on U.S. soldiers and
embassy staff in Lebanon, while two different CIA teams worked against each other in trying to
secure the release of U.S. hostages in Beirut – while all along he was selling illegal
arms to the Iranians and using the cash to fund Contras in Nicaragua.
Trump's strike does ring of a president, struggling with an impeachment campaign gaining
momentum, who may feel has nothing to lose other than to repeat history, which has doomed him,
like Carter or Reagan (who never survived Iran-Contra).
But his reckless folly in the Middle East is also a test of how far relations with the
U.S. and the rest of the world can go, before something breaks. The assassination of the
Iranian general could drive a huge divide between the U.S. and the EU in the next term, if
Trump can secure re-election as it will be Europe which pays the real price when the region
boils over.
Martin Jay is an award -winning freelance journalist and political
commentator
In fact, the strategic balance – though sorely tested – had been hanging
together. Just to be clear: Iran and Israel both had been keeping – just – within
the parameters of unspoken 'red lines' – despite the inflated rhetoric. And both were
practicing 'strategic patience'. So the strategic balance seemed more or less sustainable:
until its upending with the assassination of Qasem Soleimani and the head of the PMU,
Al-Muhandis, ordered by Trump.
Israel has not – despite its lurid language – been landing strategic blows on
Iran in Syria. It has not been killing Iranians there (apart from seven killed at T4 airport in
eastern Syria last year). It did not target the head of the Iranian air force, some ten days
ago, as some reports have suggested (he was not even in Iraq at the time). Most of the Israeli
air attacks have been on depots in the early hours, when no personnel were present. It has been
a campaign more of a regular, small slicing away at Iranian logistics. It was not strategic
damage.
And Iran, after sending clear 'messages' to Gulf States of its willingness to inflict pain
on parties to its economic siege, plainly had been calibrating this push-back carefully; Iran
still had its eye to global diplomacy (to wit: the joint Iranian naval exercises with Russia
and China in the Persian Gulf) – whilst countering politically, America's 'new' tactic of
inciting 'colour' protests across Lebanon and Iraq (and trying to bust Syria financially, by
stealing its energy revenues).
Here is the point: The US was no longer content with mere sanctions on Iran. It has been
covertly escalating across the board: orchestrating protests in Iraq, in Lebanon, and in Iran
itself; mounting a major cyber offensive on Iran; and a 'messaging' operation aimed at turning
genuine popular frustration with regional mis-governance and corruption, into a weapon aimed at
weakening revolutionary Iran.
The US was having some success with turning protest messaging against Iran – until,
that is – its killing and wounding of so many Iraqi security force members last week
(Ketaib Hizbullah is a part of Iraq's armed forces).
Escalation of maximum-pressure was one thing (Iran was confident of weathering that); but
assassinating such a senior official on his state duties, was quite something else. We have not
observed a state assassinating a most senior official of another state before.
And the manner of its doing, was unprecedented too. Soleimani was officially visiting Iraq.
He arrived openly as a VIP guest from Syria, and was met on the tarmac by an equally senior
Iraqi official, Al-Muhandis, who was assassinated also, (together with seven others). It was
all open. General Soleimani regularly used his mobile phone as he argued that as a senior state
official, if he were to be assassinated by another state, it would only be as an act of
war.
This act, performed at the international airport of Baghdad, constitutes not just the
sundering of red lines, but a humiliation inflicted on Iraq – its government and people.
It will upend Iraq's strategic positioning. The erstwhile Iraqi attempt at balancing between
Washington and Iran will be swept away by Trump's hubristic trampling on the country's
sovereignty. It may well mark the beginning of the end of the US presence in Iraq (and
therefore Syria, too), and ultimately, of America's footprint in the Middle East.
Trump may earn easy plaudits now for his "We're America, Bitch!", as one senior White House
official defined the Trump foreign policy doctrine; but the doubts – and unforeseen
consequences soon may come home to roost.
Why did he do it? If no one really wanted 'war', why did Trump escalate and smash up all the
crockery? He has had an easy run (so far) towards re-election, so why play the always
unpredictable 'wild card' of a yet another Mid-East conflict?
Was it that he wanted to show 'no Benghazi'; no US embassy siege 'on my watch' –
unlike Obama's handling of that situation? Was he persuaded that these assassinations would
play well to his constituency (Israeli and Evangelical)? Or was he offered this option baldly
by the Netanyahu faction in Washington? Maybe.
Some in Israel are worried about a three or four front war reaching Israel. Senior Israeli
officials recently have been speculating about the likelihood of regional conflict occurring
within the coming months. Israel's PM however, is fighting for his political life, and has
requested immunity from prosecution on three indictments – pleading that this was his
legal right, and that it was needed for him to "continue to lead Israel" for the sake of its
future. Effectively, Netanyahu has nothing to lose from escalating tensions with Iran -- but
much to gain.
Opposition Israeli political and military leaders have warned that the PM needs 'war' with
Iran -- effectively to underscore the country's 'need' for his continued leadership. And for
technical reasons in the Israeli parliament, his plea is unlikely to be settled before the
March general elections. Netanyahu thus may still have some time to wind up the case for his
continued tenure of the premiership.
One prime factor in the Israeli caution towards Iran rests not so much on the waywardness of
Netanyahu, but on the inconstancy of President Trump: Can it be guaranteed that the US will
back Israel unreservedly -- were it to again to become enmeshed in a Mid-East war? The Israeli
and Gulf answer seemingly is 'no'. The import of this assessment is significant. Trump now is
seen by some in Israel – and by some insiders in Washington – as a threat to
Israel's future security vis à vis Iran. Was Trump aware of this? Was this act a gamble
to guarantee no slippage in that vital constituency in the lead up to the US elections? We do
not know.
So we arrive at three final questions: How far will Iran absorb this new escalation? Will
Iran confine its retaliation to within Iraq? Or will the US cross another 'red line' by
striking inside Iran itself, in any subsequent tit for tat?
Is it deliberate (or is it political autism) that makes Secretary Pompeo term all the Iraqi
Hash'd a-Sha'abi forces – whether or not part of official Iraqi forces – as
"Iran-led"? The term seems to be used as a laissez-passer to attack all the many Hash'd
a-Sha'abi units on the grounds that, being "Iran-linked", they therefore count as 'terrorist
forces'. This formulation gives rise to the false sequitur that all other Iraqis would somehow
approve of the killings. This would be laughable, if it were not so serious. The Hash'd forces
led the war against ISIS and are esteemed by the vast majority of Iraqis. And Soleimani was on
the ground at the front line, with those Iraqi forces.
These forces are not Iranian 'proxies'. They are Iraqi nationalists who share a common Shi'a
identity with their co-religionists in Iran, and across the region. They share a common
zeitgeist, they see politics similarly, but they are no puppets (we write from direct
experience).
But what this formulation does do is to invite a widening conflict: Many Iraqis will be
outraged by the US attacks on fellow Iraqis and will revenge them. Pompeo (falsely) will then
blame Iran. Is that Pompeo's purpose: casus belli?
But where is the off-ramp? Iran will respond Is this affair simply set to escalate from
limited military exchanges and from thence, to escalate until what? We understand that this was
not addressed in Washington before the President's decision was made. There are no real US
channels of communication (other than low level) with Iran; nor is there a plan for the next
days. Nor an obvious exit. Is Trump relying on gut instinct again?
The murder of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad, in the early hours of January 3 by
US forces, only highlights the extent to which US strategy in the Middle East has failed. It is
likely to provoke reactions that do not benefit US interests in the region.
To understand the significance of this event, it is necessary to quickly reconstruct the
developments in Iraq. The US has occupied Iraq for 17 years, following its invasion of the
country in 2003. During this time, Baghdad and Tehran have re-established ties by sustaining an
important dialogue on post-war reconstruction as well as by acknowledging the importance of the
Shia population in Iraq.
Within two decades, Iraq and Iran have gone from declaring war with each other to
cooperating on the so-called Shia Crescent, favoring cooperation and the commercial and
military development of the quartet composed of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Such ties,
following recent victories over international terrorism, have been further consolidated,
leading to current and planned overland connections between this quartet.
Local movements and organizations have been calling for US troops to leave Iraqi territory
with increasing vigor and force in recent months. Washington has accused Tehran of inciting
associated protests.
At the same time, groups of dubious origin, that have sought to equate the Iranian presence
with the American one, have been calling for the withdrawal of the Popular Mobilization Units
(PMUs) that are linked to Iran from Iraq. The protests from such groups appear to be sponsored
and funded by Saudi Arabia.
With mutual accusations flying around, the US hit a pro-Iranian faction known as Kataib
Hezbollah on December 29. This episode sparked a series of reactions in Iraq that ended up
enveloping the US embassy in Baghdad, which was besieged for days by demonstrators angry about
ongoing airstrikes by US forces.
The US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, blamed this volatile situation on Iran, warning that
Tehran would be held responsible for any escalation of the situation involving the embassy.
In the early hours of January 3, 2020, another tangle was added to the Gordian Knot that is
the Middle East. Qasem Soleimani was assassinated when his convoy was attacked by a drone near
Baghdad International Airport. The most effective opponents of ISIS and Wahabi jihadism in
general was thus eliminated by the US in a terrorist act carried out in foreign country in a
civilian area (near Baghdad International Airport). The champagne would have no doubt been
flowing immediately upon receiving this news in the US Congress, the Israeli Knesset, Riyadh
royal palace and in Idlib among al Nusra and al Qaeda militants.
It remains to be seen what the reasons were behind Trump's decision to okay the assasination
of such an influential and important leader. Certainly the need to to demonstrate to his base
(and his Israeli and Saudi financiers) plays into his anti-Iranian crusade. But there are other
reasons that better explain Trump's actions that are more related to the influence of the US in
the region; the geopolitical chess game in the Middle East transcends any single leader or any
drone attack.
In Syria, for example, the situation is extremely favorable to the government in Damascus,
with it only being a matter of time before the country is again under the control of the
central government. General Soleimani and Iran have played a central role in ridding the
country of the scourge of terrorism, a scourge directed and financed by the US and her regional
allies.
In Iraq , the political situation is less favorable to the US now than it was back in 2006.
Whatever progress in relations between Baghdad and Tehran has also been due to General
Soleimani, who, together with the PMUs and the Iraqi army, freed the country from ISIS (which
was created and nurtured by Western and Saudi intelligence, as revealed by Wikileaks).
It would seem that the US sanctions against Iran have not really had the intended effect,
instead only serving to consolidate the country's stance against imperialism. The US, as a
result, is experiencing a crisis in the region, effectively being driven out of the Middle
East, rather than leaving intentionally.
In this extraordinary and unprecedented situation, the Russians and Chinese are offering
themselves variously as military, political and economic guarantors of the emerging Eurasian
mega-project (the recent naval exercises between Beijing, Moscow and Tehran serving as a
tangible example of this commitment). Naturally, it is in their interests to avoid any extended
regional conflict that may only serve to throw a monkey wrench into their vast Eurasian
mega-project.
Putin and Xi Jinping face tough days ahead, trying to council Iran in avoiding an excessive
response that would give Washington the perfect excuse for a war against Iran.
The prospects of a region without terrorism, with a reinvigorated Shia Crescent, led by Iran
at the regional level and accompanied by China and Russia at the economic (Belt and Road
Initiative) and military level, offer little hope to Riyadh, Tel Aviv and Washington of being
able to influence events in the region and this is likely going to be the top argument that
Putin and Xi Jinping will use to try to deter any Iranian overt response.
Deciding to kill the leader of the Quds Force in Iraq proves only one thing: that the
options available to Trump and his regional allies are rapidly shrinking, and that the regional
trends over the next decade appear irreversible. Their only hope is for Tehran and her allies
to lash out at the latest provocation, thereby justifying the regional war that would only
serve to benefit Washington by slowing down regional unification under Iranian leadership.
We must remember that whenever the US finds itself in a situation where it cannot control a
country or a region, its tendency is to create chaos and ultimately destroy it.
By killing General Soleimani, the US hopes to wreak havoc in the region so as to slow down
or altogether scupper any prospect of integration. Fortunately, China, Russia and Iran are well
aware that any conflict would not be in any of their own interests.
No drone-launched missiles will be enough to save the US from decades of foreign-policy
errors and their associated horrors; nor will they be enough to extinguish the memory of a
hero's tireless struggle against imperialism and terrorism.
Trump has from the beginning of his presidential campaign appealed to the worst and most
fascistic elements in American political life. At a time when the US has no credible peer
military rival, he added hundreds of billions of dollars to the Pentagon budget, and the pudgy
old chicken hawk lionized war criminals. Up until now, however, Trump shrewdly calculated that
his base was tired of wasting blood and treasure on fruitless Middle Eastern wars, and he
avoided taking more than symbolic steps. He dropped a big missile on Afghanistan once, and
fired some Tomahawk Cruise missiles at Syria. But he drew back from the brink of more extensive
military engagements.
Now, by murdering Qasem Soleimani , the
head of the Jerusalem (Qods) Brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, Trump has
brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran. Mind you, Iran's leadership is too
shrewd to rush to the battlements at this moment, and will be prepared to play the long game.
My guess is that they will encourage their allies among Iraqi Shiites to get up a massive
protest at the US embassy and at bases housing US troops.
They will be aided in this task of mobilizing Iraqis by the simultaneous US assassination of
Abu Mahdi
al-Muhandis , the deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Forces. Al-Muhandis is a senior
military figure in the Iraqi armed forces, not just a civilian militia figure. Moreover, the
Kata'ib Hizbullah that he headed is part of a strong political bloc, al-Fath, which has
48 members in parliament and forms a key coalition partner for the current, caretaker prime
minister, Adil Abdulmahdi. Parliament won't easily be able to let this outrage pass.
The US officer corps is confident that the American troops at the embassy and elsewhere in
Baghdad are sufficient to fight off any militia invasion. I'm not sure they have taken into
account the possibility of tens of thousands of civilian protesters invading the
embassy, who can't simply be taken out and shot.
Trump may be counting on the unpopularity among the youth protesters in downtown Baghdad,
Basra, Nasiriya and other cities of Soleimani and of al-Muhandis to blunt the Iraqi reaction to
the murders. The thousands of youth protesters cheered on hearing the news of their deaths,
since they were accused of plotting a violent repression of the rallies demanding an end to
corruption.
Iraq, however, is a big, complex society, and there are enormous numbers of Iraqi Shiites
who support the Popular Mobilization Forces and who view them as the forces that saved Iraq
from the peril of the ISIL (ISIS) terrorist organization. The Shiite hard liners would not need
all Iraqis to back them in confronting the American presence, only a few hundred thousand for
direct crowd action.
You also have to wonder whether Trump and his coterie aren't planning a coup in Iraq. In the
absence of a coup, the Iraqi parliament will almost certainly be forced, after this violation
of Iraqi national sovereignty, to vote to expel American troops. This is foreseeable. So either
the assassination was a drive-by on the way out, or Trump's war cabinet doesn't plan on having
to leave Iraq.
The mainstream media are carefully
sidestepping the method behind America's seeming madness in assassinating Islamic Revolutionary Guard general
Qassim Suleimani to start the New Year. The logic behind the assassination this was a long-standing application
of U.S. global policy, not just a personality quirk of Donald Trump's impulsive action. His assassination of
Iranian military leader Suleimani was indeed a unilateral act of war in violation of international law, but it
was a logical step in a long-standing U.S. strategy. It was explicitly authorized by the Senate in the funding
bill for the Pentagon that it passed last year.
The assassination was intended to escalate
America's presence in Iraq to keep control the region's oil reserves, and to back Saudi Arabia's Wahabi troops
(Isis, Al Quaeda in Iraq, Al Nusra and other divisions of what are actually America's foreign legion) to
support U.S. control o Near Eastern oil as a buttress o the U.S. dollar. That remains the key to understanding
this policy, and why it is in the process of escalating, not dying down.
I sat in on discussions of this policy as
it was formulated nearly fifty years ago when I worked at the Hudson Institute and attended meetings at the
White House, met with generals at various armed forces think tanks and with diplomats at the United Nations. My
role was as a balance-of-payments economist having specialized for a decade at Chase Manhattan, Arthur Andersen
and oil companies in the oil industry and military spending. These were two of the three main dynamic of
American foreign policy and diplomacy. (The third concern was how to wage war in a democracy where voters
rejected the draft in the wake of the Vietnam War.)
The media and public discussion have
diverted attention from this strategy by floundering speculation that President Trump did it, except to counter
the (non-)threat of impeachment with a wag-the-dog attack, or to back Israeli lebensraum drives, or simply to
surrender the White House to neocon hate-Iran syndrome. The actual context for the neocon's action was the
balance of payments, and the role of oil and energy as a long-term lever of American diplomacy.
The balance of payments dimension
The major deficit in the U.S. balance of
payments has long been military spending abroad. The entire payments deficit, beginning with the Korean War in
1950-51 and extending through the Vietnam War of the 1960s, was responsible for forcing the dollar off gold in
1971. The problem facing America's military strategists was how to continue supporting the 800 U.S. military
bases around the world and allied troop support without losing America's financial leverage.
The solution turned out to be to replace
gold with U.S. Treasury securities (IOUs) as the basis of foreign central bank reserves. After 1971, foreign
central banks had little option for what to do with their continuing dollar inflows except to recycle them to
the U.S. economy by buying U.S. Treasury securities. The effect of U.S. foreign military spending thus did not
undercut the dollar's exchange rate, and did not even force the Treasury and Federal Reserve to raise interest
rates to attract foreign exchange to offset the dollar outflows on military account. In fact, U.S. foreign
military spending helped finance the domestic U.S. federal budget deficit.
Saudi Arabia and other Near Eastern OPEC
countries quickly became a buttress of the dollar. After these countries quadrupled the price of oil (in
retaliation for the United States quadrupling the price of its grain exports, a mainstay of the U.S. trade
balance), U.S. banks were swamped with an inflow of much foreign deposits which were lent out to Third World
countries in an explosion of bad loans that blew up in 1972 with Mexico's insolvency, and destroyed Third World
government credit for a decade, forcing it into dependence on the United States via the IMF and World Bank).
To top matters, of course, what Saudi Arabia
does not save in dollarized assets with its oil-export earnings is spent on buying hundreds of billion of
dollars of U.S. arms exports. This locks them into dependence on U.S. supply o replacement parts and repairs,
and enables the United States to turn off Saudi military hardware at any point of time, in the event that the
Saudis may try to act independently of U.S. foreign policy.
So maintaining the dollar as the world's
reserve currency became a mainstay of U.S. military spending. Foreign countries to not have to pay the Pentagon
directly for this spending. They simply finance the U.S. Treasury and U.S. banking system.
Fear of this development was a major reason
why the United States moved against Libya, whose foreign reserves were held in gold, not dollars, an which was
urging other African countries to follow suit in order to free themselves from "Dollar Diplomacy." Hillary and
Obama invaded, grabbed their gold supplies (we still have no idea who ended up with these billions of dollars
worth of gold) and destroyed Libya's government, its public education system, its public infrastructure and
other non-neoliberal policies.
The great threat to this is dedollarization
as China, Russia and other countries seek to avoid recycling dollars. Without the dollar's function as the
vehicle for world saving in effect, without the Pentagon's role in creating the Treasury debt that is the
vehicle for world central bank reserves the U.S. would find itself constrained militarily and hence
diplomatically constrained, as it was under the gold exchange standard.
That is the same strategy that the U.S. has
followed in Syria and Iraq. Iran was threatening this dollarization strategy and its buttress in U.S. oil
diplomacy.
The oil industry as buttress of the
U.S. balance of payments and foreign diplomacy
ORDER IT NOW
The trade balance is buttressed by oil and
farm surpluses. Oil is the key, because it is imported by U.S. companies at almost no balance-of-payments cost
(the payments end up in the oil industry's head offices here as profits and payments to management), while
profits on U.S. oil company sales to other countries are remitted to the United States (via offshore
tax-avoidance centers, mainly Liberia and Panama for many years). And as noted above, OPEC countries have been
told to keep their official reserves in the form of U.S. securities (stocks and bonds as well as Treasury IOUs,
but not direct purchase of U.S. companies being deemed economically important). Financially, OPEC countries are
client slates of the Dollar Area.
America's attempt to maintain this buttress
explains U.S. opposition to any foreign government steps to reverse global warming and the extreme weather
caused by the world's U.S.-sponsored dependence on oil. Any such moves by Europe and other countries would
reduce dependence on U.S. oil sales, and hence on U.S. ability to control the global oil spigot as a means of
control and coercion, are viewed as hostile acts.
Oil also explains U.S. opposition to
Russian oil exports via Nordstream. U.S. strategists want to treat energy as a U.S. national monopoly. Other
countries can benefit in the way that Saudi Arabia has done by sending their surpluses to the U.S. economy
but not to support their own economic growth and diplomacy. Control of oil thus implies support for continued
global warming as an inherent part of U.S. strategy.
How a "democratic" nation can wage
international war and terrorism
The Vietnam War showed that modern
democracies cannot field armies for any major military conflict, because this would require a draft of its
citizens. That would lead any government attempting such a draft to be voted out of power. And without troops,
it is not possible to invade a country to take it over.
The corollary of this perception is that
democracies have only two choices when it comes to military strategy: They can only wage airpower, bombing
opponents; or they can create a foreign legion, that is, hire mercenaries or back foreign governments that
provide this military service.
Here once again Saudi Arabia plays a
critical role, through its control of Wahabi Sunnis turned into terrorist jihadis willing to sabotage, bomb,
assassinate, blow up and otherwise fight any target designated as an enemy of "Islam," the euphemism for Saudi
Arabia acting as U.S. client state. (Religion really is not the key; I know of no ISIS or similar Wahabi attack
on Israeli targets.) The United States needs the Saudis to supply or finance Wahabi crazies. So in addition to
playing a key role in the U.S. balance of payments by recycling its oil-export earnings are into U.S. stocks,
bonds and other investments, Saudi Arabia provides manpower by supporting the Wahabi members of America's
foreign legion, ISIS and Al-Nusra/Al-Qaeda. Terrorism has become the "democratic" mode of today U.S. military
policy.
What makes America's oil war in the Near
East "democratic" is that this is the only kind of war a democracy can fight an air war, followed by a
vicious terrorist army that makes up for the fact that no democracy can field its own army in today's world.
The corollary is that, terrorism has become the "democratic" mode of warfare.
From the U.S. vantage point, what
is
a "democracy"? In today's Orwellian vocabulary, it means any country supporting U.S. foreign policy. Bolivia
and Honduras have become "democracies" since their coups, along with Brazil. Chile under Pinochet was a
Chicago-style free market democracy. So was Iran under the Shah, and Russia under Yeltsin but not since it
elected Vladimir Putin president, any more than is China under President Xi.
The antonym to "democracy" is "terrorist."
That simply means a nation willing to fight to become independent from U.S. neoliberal democracy. It does not
include America's proxy armies.
Iran's role as U.S. nemesis
What stands in the way of U.S.
dollarization, oil and military strategy? Obviously, Russia and China have been targeted as long-term strategic
enemies for seeking their own independent economic policies and diplomacy. But next to them, Iran has been in
America's gun sights for nearly seventy years.
America's hatred of Iran is starts with its
attempt to control its own oil production, exports and earnings. It goes back to 1953, when Mossadegh was
overthrown because he wanted domestic sovereignty over Anglo-Persian oil. The CIA-MI6 coup replaced him with
the pliant Shah, who imposed a police state to prevent Iranian independence from U.S. policy. The only physical
places free from the police were the mosques. That made the Islamic Republic the path of least resistance to
overthrowing the Shah and re-asserting Iranian sovereignty.
The United States came to terms with OPEC
oil independence by 1974, but the antagonism toward Iran extends to demographic and religious considerations.
Iranian support its Shi'ite population an those of Iraq and other countries emphasizing support for the poor
and for quasi-socialist policies instead of neoliberalism has made it the main religious rival to Saudi
Arabia's Sunni sectarianism and its role as America's Wahabi foreign legion.
America opposed General Suleimani above
all because he was fighting against ISIS and other U.S.-backed terrorists in their attempt to break up Syria
and replace Assad's regime with a set of U.S.-compliant local leaders the old British "divide and conquer"
ploy. On occasion, Suleimani had cooperated with U.S. troops in fighting ISIS groups that got "out of line"
meaning the U.S. party line. But every indication is that he was in Iraq to work with that government seeking
to regain control of the oil fields that President Trump has bragged so loudly about grabbing.
Trump's idea that America should "get
something" out of its military expenditure in destroying the Iraqi and Syrian economies simply reflects U.S.
policy.
That explains the invasion of Iraq for oil
in 2003, and again this year, as President Trump has said: "Why don't we simply take their oil?" It also
explains the Obama-Hillary attack on Libya not only for its oil, but for its investing its foreign reserves
in gold instead of recycling its oil surplus revenue to the U.S. Treasury and of course, for promoting a
secular socialist state.
It explains why U.S. neocons feared
Suleimani's plan to help Iraq assert control of its oil and withstand the terrorist attacks supported by U.S.
and Saudi's on Iraq. That is what made his assassination an immediate drive.
American politicians have discredited
themselves by starting off their condemnation of Trump by saying, as Elizabeth Warren did, how "bad" a person
Suleimani was, how he had killed U.S. troops by masterminding the Iraqi defense of roadside bombing and other
policies trying to repel the U.S. invasion to grab its oil. She was simply parroting the U.S. media's depiction
of Suleimani as a monster, diverting attention from the policy issue that explains why he was assassinated
now
.
The counter-strategy to U.S. oil,
and dollar and global-warming diplomacy
This strategy will continue, until foreign
countries reject it. If Europe and other regions fail to do so, they will suffer the consequences of this U.S.
strategy in the form of a rising U.S.-sponsored war via terrorism, the flow of refugees, and accelerated global
warming and extreme weather.
Russia, China and its allies already have
been leading the way to dedollarization as a means to contain the balance-of-payments buttress of U.S. global
military policy. But everyone now is speculating over what Iran's response should be.
The pretense or more accurately, the
diversion by the U.S. news media over the weekend has been to depict the United States as being under
imminent attack. Mayor de Blasio has positioned policemen at conspicuous key intersections to let us know how
imminent Iranian terrorism is as if it were Iran, not Saudi Arabia that mounted 9/11, and as if Iran in fact
has taken any forceful action against the United States. The media and talking heads on television have
saturated the air waves with warnings of Islamic terrorism. Television anchors are suggesting just where the
attacks are most likely to occur.
The message is that the assassination of
General Soleimani was to protect us. As Donald Trump and various military spokesmen have said, he had killed
Americans and now they must be planning an enormous attack that will injure and kill many more innocent
Americans. That stance has become America's posture in the world: weak and threatened, requiring a strong
defense in the form of a strong offense.
But what is Iran's actual interest? If it
is indeed to undercut U.S. dollar and oil strategy, the first policy must be to get U.S. military forces out of
the Near East, including U.S. occupation of its oil fields. It turns out that President Trump's rash act has
acted as a catalyst, bringing about just the opposite of what he wanted. On January 5 the Iraqi parliament met
to insist that the United States leave. General Suleimani was an invited guest, not an Iranian invader. It is
U.S. troops that are in Iraq in violation of international law. If they leave, Trump and the neocons lose
control of oil and also of their ability to interfere with Iranian-Iraqi-Syrian-Lebanese mutual defense.
Beyond Iraq looms Saudi Arabia. It has
become the Great Satan, the supporter of Wahabi extremism, the terrorist legion of U.S. mercenary armies
fighting to maintain control of Near Eastern oil and foreign exchange reserves, the cause of the great exodus
of refugees to Turkey, Europe and wherever else it can flee from the arms and money provided by the U.S.
backers of Isis, Al Qaeda in Iraq and their allied Saudi Wahabi legions.
The logical ideal, in principle, would be
to destroy Saudi power. That power lies in its oil fields. They already have fallen under attack by modest
Yemeni bombs. If U.S. neocons seriously threaten Iran, its response would be the wholesale bombing and
destruction of Saudi oil fields, along with those of Kuwait and allied Near Eastern oil sheikhdoms. It would
end the Saudi support for Wahabi terrorists, as well as for the U.S. dollar.
Such an act no doubt would be coordinated
with a call for the Palestinian and other foreign workers in Saudi Arabia to rise up and drive out the monarchy
and its thousands of family retainers.
ORDER IT NOW
Beyond Saudi Arabia, Iran and other
advocates of a multilateral diplomatic break with U.S. neoliberal and neocon unilateralism should bring
pressure on Europe to withdraw from NATO, inasmuch as that organization functions mainly as a U.S.-centric
military tool of American dollar and oil diplomacy and hence opposing the climate change and military
confrontation policies that threaten to make Europe part of the U.S. maelstrom.
Finally, what can U.S. anti-war opponents
do to resist the neocon attempt to destroy any part of the world that resists U.S. neoliberal autocracy? This
has been the most disappointing response over the weekend. They are flailing. It has not been helpful for
Warren, Buttigieg and others to accuse Trump of acting rashly without thinking through the consequences of his
actions. That approach shies away from recognizing that his action did indeed have a rationale -- do draw a line
in the sand, to say that yes, America WILL go to war, will fight Iran, will do anything at all to defend its
control of Near Eastern oil and to dictate OPEC central bank policy, to defend its ISIS legions as if any
opposition to this policy is an attack on the United States itself.
I can understand the emotional response or
yet new calls for impeachment of Donald Trump. But that is an obvious non-starter, partly because it has been
so obviously a partisan move by the Democratic Party. More important is the false and self-serving accusation
that President Trump has overstepped his constitutional limit by committing an act of war against Iran by
assassinating Soleimani.
Congress endorsed Trump's assassination
and is fully as guilty as he is for having approved the Pentagon's budget with the Senate's removal of the
amendment to the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act that Bernie Sanders, Tom Udall and Ro Khanna inserted
an amendment in the House of Representatives version, explicitly not authorizing the Pentagon to wage war
against Iran or assassinate its officials. When this budget was sent to the Senate, the White House and
Pentagon (a.k.a. the military-industrial complex and neoconservatives) removed that constraint. That was a red
flag announcing that the Pentagon and White House did indeed intend to wage war against Iran and/or assassinate
its officials. Congress lacked the courage to argue this point at the forefront of public discussion.
Behind all this is the Saudi-inspired 9/11
act taking away Congress's sole power to wage war its 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force, pulled
out of the drawer ostensibly against Al Qaeda but actually the first step in America's long support of the very
group that was responsible for 9/11, the Saudi airplane hijackers.
The question is, how to get the world's
politicians U.S., European and Asians to see how America's all-or-nothing policy is threatening new waves
of war, refugees, disruption of the oil trade in the Strait of Hormuz, and ultimately global warming and
neoliberal dollarization imposed on all countries. It is a sign of how little power exists in the United
Nations that no countries are calling for a new Nurenberg-style war crimes trial, no threat to withdraw from
NATO or even to avoid holding reserves in the form of money lent to the U.S. Treasury to fund America's
military budget.
[2]
Michael Crowly, "'Keep the Oil': Trump Revives Charged Slogan for new Syria Troop Mission,"
The New
York Times
, October 26, 2019.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/us/politics/trump-syria-oil-fields.html
. The article adds: "'I said
keep the oil,' Mr. Trump recounted. 'If they are going into Iraq, keep the oil. They never did. They never
did.'"
as if it were Iran, not Saudi Arabia that mounted 9/11,
Saudi Arabia mounted 9/11? LOL. As if Michael Hudson is much too smart and well connected to not know that
this is bullshit, so why write it? Oh wait, there's more
Behind all this is the Saudi-inspired 9/11 act taking away Congress's sole power to wage war its 2002
Authorization for Use of Military Force, pulled out of the drawer ostensibly against Al Qaeda but actually
the first step in America's long support of the very group that was responsible for 9/11, the Saudi airplane
hijackers.
This article appears to be a bullshit banquet. I shall have to reassess my thoughts on Hudson. If you aren't
part of the solution you're part of the problem.
So maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency became a mainstay of U.S. military spending.
The main reason for the U.S. military is dollar protection. Idealogical wars(for Israel) don't get very far
without the money.
Fear of this development was a major reason why the United States moved against Libya, whose foreign
reserves were held in gold, not dollars
, an which was urging other African countries to follow suit in
order to free themselves from "Dollar Diplomacy." Hillary and Obama invaded, grabbed their gold supplies (we
still have no idea who ended up with these billions of dollars worth of gold) and destroyed Libya's
government, its public education system, its public infrastructure and other non-neoliberal policies.
I still don't know why the Libyan war doesn't get the attention it should like Iraq's WMD? The lie of "We
were trying to protect brown people in the middle east/north Africa" still stands with most Americans.
@NoseytheDuke
If Hudson got some minor detail wrong, it ultimately isn't that important as we are all struggling to see
through a glass darkly to find the truth in the daily deluge of lies. None of us have connected all of the dots
perfectly, though Hudson has connected more than most, more than you or I. And there are layers of narrative
about September 11, 2001. The idea that it was Saudi-inspired may not be the deepest level of the story, but
neither is it entirely false. And the Saudis provided the manpower for the attacks on the Twin Towers, just as
they are providing the boots on the ground, the Wahabi crazies, e.g., ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra and others, used
by the US/Israeli interests as a proxy army to take out Assad. This is Hudson's larger point.
Hudson gives us
a panoramic economic view of the reasons that neoliberal policies have of necessity become militarized (from
the Empire's point of view), why for instance the attempt to take out Assad had to be made. It is all about
maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency and keeping a steady income stream flowing into the US
Treasury, to fund the Empire's wars as well as domestic expenditures. He also explains why this is a war that
the US ultimately will not win. Michael Hudson is to be lauded for his laying out the big picture in clear,
economic terms. Not only is he not a part of the problem (although you might be, my trollish friend) he is a
national treasure and his writing should be read and discussed by all Americans.
The USA now faces two big problems. Iraqis want American troops out and most Americans agree. Now the
spinmasters (like Trump) must explain why American troops must stay. The US military now faces a tough
logistics problem. Bases in Iraq are supplied via trucks driven by local Iraqis. Most drivers will refuse to
work in sympathy with protestors or fear of them. Resupply by airlift is not practical, so thousands more
American troops will be needed as drivers who will be vulnerable to attack.
Once again, as usual, Michael Hudson comes up aces in his analysis. He gets it. It is always about the
Benjamins! As for the Trumptard, our cowardly, compromised, corrupt Congress Critters should fugeddibout their
farcical trumped up "impeachment" and any ridiculous "trial" in the Senate. It is high time to bring back the
Nuremberg Trials. The bloated, bloviating, narcisisstic, ignorant boob and war criminal is ready for his
closeup! The same goes for the enablers, whisperers and political ventriloquists who manipulate the dummy.
Great analysis with the exception of the bits about the climate warming hoax. One of these daysnot long
nowthis fakery will be completely exposed, and then, a lot of peopleincluding most certainly Mr. Hudsonwill
have a lot of egg on their faces. We can only pray for the decline of Saudi Arabia, the ending of NATO, the
de-dollarization of the world, the withdrawal of all US military from the ME (and most of the rest of the
world), and the final debunking of man-made global warming.
America's hatred of Iran is starts with its attempt to control its own oil production, exports and
earnings. It goes back to 1953, when Mossadegh was overthrown because he wanted domestic sovereignty over
Anglo-Persian oil.
It was the British who wanted Mossadegh overthrown because of their profits in the Anglo Iranian Oil Co..
The US was suckered in by the threat of Iran going communist.
1952: Mosaddeq Nationalization of Iran's Oil Industry Leads to CoupEdit event
Iranian President Mohammad Mosaddeq moves to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in order to ensure
that more oil profits remain in Iran. His efforts to democratize Iran had already earned him being named Time
Magazine's Man of the Year for 1951. After he nationalizes it, Mosaddeq realizes that Britain may want to
overthrow his government, so he closes the British Embassy and sends all British civilians, including its
intelligence operatives, out of the country.
Britain finds itself with no way to stage the coup it desires, so it approaches the American intelligence
community for help. Their first approach results in abject failure when Harry Truman throws the British
representatives out of his office, stating that "We don't overthrow governments; the United States has never
done this before, and we're not going to start now."
After Eisenhower is elected in November 1952, the British have a much more receptive audience, and plans for
overthrowing Mosaddeq are produced. The British intelligence operative who presents the idea to the Eisenhower
administration later will write in his memoirs, "If I ask the Americans to overthrow Mosaddeq in order to
rescue a British oil company, they are not going to respond. This is not an argument that's going to cut much
mustard in Washington. I've got to have a different argument. I'm going to tell the Americans that Mosaddeq is
leading Iran towards Communism." This argument wins over the Eisenhower administration, who promptly decides to
organize a coup in Iran.
(see August 19, 1953). [STEPHEN KINZER, 7/29/2003]
Entity Tags: Dwight Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, Muhammad Mosaddeq
Timeline Tags: US confrontation with Iran, US-Iran (1952-1953
The evolutionary purpose of the human animal is to remove the carbon from the earth's crust and return it to
the atmosphere ..all the while the abundant cheap energy allowing overpopulation, eventually overshoot, and
then extinction. The carbon build up in the atmosphere will then usher in a new golden age of plant
life .eventually returning the carbon to the earth's crust and starting the animal-plant rotation cycle anew.
It's almost poetic ..your houseplant's genes will outlive yours.
Writing such an article without any consideration of the Zionist dimension is quite a feat. Probably it was
done on purpose to muddy the waters. Admit to some part of the story to try and bury another one.
CAGW
(catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) is a lie. To the extent that the world is warming, it is mostly
because of natural causes.
The Saudis and others are not American clients. They function in unison and synergeticaly with other
globalist elites. They play the role that is assigned to them, but the same can be said about all other
factions of these elites. These different factions are clients of each other, so to speak. There is a
hierarchy; we know who sits at the top. It's neither the Saudis nor any Anglo-Saxons walking around and making
noises in beltway circles.
Still, the guy is an economist purporting financial knowledge. (OTOH, he is evidently not rich.) He may care
to comment on the present situation in connection with the Fed's repo bailout and its 90% monetization of US
treasury debt.
America's war of terror is not about "oil"; it is about Israel. The ongoing US war in the Middle East is pushed
and promoted by the Israeli regime, the Zionist media (owned by Jews), and wealthy Jews on behalf of Israel.
The US does not need to control the oil. It is already in control of most of it, in Suadi Arbia, Qatar Kuwait,
UAE, etc. The so-called "US war for oil" is an old and rusty thesis fabricated by Zionist Jews and designed to
deflect attention away from Israel.
It's true that the US grip is slipping and it has been acting here and there to douse the fires that pop up.
However, as things become harder to manage-not like the old days-the question becomes how radical will the US
become in trying to hold on? It's a nuclear power with all sorts of military hardware that can inflict a huge
amount of damage and death. How far will it be willing to go to avoid being dislodged? Would it go nuclear? The
US may become a very dangerous country indeed as it throws whatever it has to keep it's position. Scary times
ahead.
Fantastic Article! The wars are always bankers wars. Follow the money
I got into understanding the
financial sector roughly 10 years ago from various economists (Michael included). I've been telling my friends
the same thing for a very long time. The fiat money system is what has enabled all the wrong in the world i.e.
exponential money printing, exponential population growth. With exponential population growth you have the
requirement for food, shelter, water (all natural finite resources).
Bravo, Michael, that was meant as to the one step further. You are the outsider insider with balls today. The
key strategy of what holds up the US is the toxic pollution in thin air.
Putin, Xi, alternatively, second
row Germany France's elites are up for the next move. Unilateralism is over.
Rational and logic dictates pulling in global population counts, migrations, resources, the long term
species survival into the accounting. No US matter, a global essentiality to which should live up local
policies. There are myriad variables as to the outcome, what is predictable, is that a status quo on today's
terms has come apart. Change is upon the power paradigms.
Nothing New here, these type of things go back to our Yangtze Patrol in China for Standard Oil and our Marines
kicking butt in the Caribbean and Central America for United Fruit in the 1920s and before.
@Toxik
Good to see an analysis that goes beyond the usual Trump Derangement- and Israel!- Syndromes. Then again, for
individual actors individual motivations (" wag-the-dog attack, or to back Israeli lebensraum drives, or
simply to surrender the White House to neocon hate-Iran syndrome.") reasonably play primary, co-equal or
supporting roles. It is almost as if people can have a number of intersecting motivations and loyalties.
Michael Hudson is an idiot, albeit a useful one. Or possibly he is crypto. In either case instead of naming the
jew, he rants about global warming and anti-semite conspiracies concerning jewish lebensraum.
In order to
seize Iraqi, Libyan or Syrian oil in general it is wise to leave the infrastructure intact so production can
immediately be resumed. In all of Wesley Clark's 7 countries in 5 years the oil production was decimated.
Why destroy the oil infrastructure? Because the primary goal was not oil, but destruction of society,
culture, economy, and ultimately genocide and Palestinian style ethnic cleansing. Hudson simply cannot point
out the obvious racial supremacist motivations of his judeo-masonic communist masters.
One theory behind the assassination is that both victims had become theats to their respective Iraqi and
Iranian leadership, and that both Iran and Iraq were in on the hit. Amadinijad is a crypto-jew and Iran is
chock full of Masonic architecture.
I still don't know why the Libyan war doesn't get the attention it should
The move or not into Lybia by Erdogan is pertinent as to Libia and it's greater realm these days. It is part
of the bargaining as to how Putin and Xi now are part of global decision making. If Erdogan moves, the top
layer of decision making globally can be confirmed
bi-polar
. As in coordinated decision making and the
nexus into the potential to impose coordinated policies that the US
" and you cannot do anything about it"
cannot deflect.
The impotence of it all no player brings something new to the table, the global masses are in for more
suppression (veganism?). Quality populations, managed proportional quotas, migrations based on quality of life,
global asset management, honest accounting, are into the mist of the generational future.
At first glance they seem to have found the perpetuum mobile:
Monopoly extorted petrodollar can be invested
in furthering the monopoly.
At second, it΄s a Ponzi (surprise).
-"[] the Prince who relies on mercenaries will never be safe; (for) they are braggarts among friends and
cowards among the enemy."
Forcing others to undercut you at any cost hollows out the domestic economy,
IOW the "outsourcings" are an inevitable consequence.
When they did it to Germany it caused the Great Depression (that much was "unintended").
This time?
What this translates to is the stakes keep getting higher, the returns diminishing,
and even with good will and I rate (not J. Ed) Hoover as the last one with that claim
there is no halfway palatable way out.
Even if the Orange Golem wanted to do the "right" thing (fat chance), he couldn΄t;
not with 23T funded debt, ~260T unfunded liabilities (to include pensions) and nothing to export anyone would
want.
There΄s nothing we can do either just watch it crash and burn.
I wish there was a LOL option for entire articles.
Leftists never back up claims that US wars are for oil with any facts. For example,
they can never point to oil industry lobbyists lobbying for war. But we do see a huge crossover with Jewish
Zionist ideologues and those that actively plan and promote war policy.
Leftists never back up claims that US wars are for oil with any facts. For example, they can never point
to oil industry lobbyists lobbying for war.
But we do see a huge crossover with Jewish Zionist ideologues
and those that actively plan and promote war policy
.
Another mixed bag; some interesting points made here, yet accompanied by nonsensical premises or statements,
such as:
" reverse global warming and the extreme weather caused by the world's U.S.-sponsored dependence on
oil."
and
" the very group that was responsible for 9/11, the Saudi airplane hijackers."
I have come across this phenomenon numerous times already; experts providing valid but controversial
information in their field of expertise, who feel a need for then embedding self-negating passages alongside
it, as a trade-off; for instance also with gratuitously contrived references to allegedly faked moon landings,
or Hollywood's fantastical holocaust narrative. This is a very similar tactic to that of "poisoning the well".
@whattheduck
Follow the money and you find Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, and Paul Singer, Trump's biggest donors. Their
concern is not with oil or keeping the dollar as the reserve currency.
@Weston Waroda
Obscuring the real perpetrators of 9/11 is not a minor detail whether done intentionally or by accident.
Anything and everything that even appears to give credence to the official bullshit narrative about who really
did 9/11 is harmful to the nation and the entire world. Exposing the 9/11 perps is the most powerful key that
is capable of unlocking the grip on the throat and regaining the reins of the USA. He could have written, "as
if were Iran that mounted 9/11" without including, "not Saudi Arabia". The Devil, as always, is in the details.
And then you wrote the following utter nonsense, "And the Saudis provided the manpower for the attacks on the
Twin Towers". Read more, comment less.
This article appears to be a bullshit banquet. I shall have to reassess my thoughts on Hudson.
That's very very far from the truth the article is in fact extremely enlightening as to the mechanics of US
imperialism by way of petrodollar hegemony the Giant Ponzi Scheme inner workings laid bare
It's too bad you are monomaniacally fixated on one single issue that you cannot appreciate good knowledge
that doesn't pander to your hot button
I naturally don't agree with the silly notion about the Saudi 'hijackers' nor do I agree with the equally
silly conclusion that global warming is
definitely
caused by burning hydrocarbons, rather than much more
powerful natural mechanisms and cycles that have been around for eons
Prof Hudson may or may not be on board with these sentiments also,
but he chooses his battles carefully
as
one probably must in order to be taken seriously by a wider and more mainstream [brainwashed] audience
Consider for a moment that all of his
authoritative
explanations about the economic dimension of our
current scam system would be immediately dismissed by the pinheads that control our narratives, as the ravings
of a climate denier and 911 truther what good would that do ?
@nokangaroos
As for Israel, this is not elective either not even for "Eretz Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates".
It΄s
about the water, plain and simple. The groundwater they have been using since independence is fossil (ice age),
not replenished and good as gone; as is the Jordan river.
They are already stealing water from the Palestinians, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, and it isn΄t anywhere near
enough.
They MUST have Southern Lebanon and the Bekaa, or it΄s game over.
And who is in the way of that? Well Hassan Nasrallah and his merry company!
Ergo, Iran must go. What΄s so hard to understand?
(Like "the greatest army in the world" "the most moral army in the world" should take to wearing pink tutus,
methinks)
So there also is no hope for peace from this side.
@restless94110
"Great analysis with the exception of the bits about the climate warming hoax. "plus, "calling for a new
Nurenberg-style [sic] war crimes trial." Nuremberg was a farce, show-trial to give Stalin cover for grabbing
eastern and central Europe. For the U.S. to be in the dock in a "new Nuremberg-style war crimes trial," it's
people and cities will have to have been bombed to smithereens and its women raped by the victor-armies. Whose
armies will have pulled that off?
Saudi Arabia mounted 9/11? LOL. As if Michael Hudson is much too smart and well connected to not know
that this is bullshit, so why write it?
You're the one who's full of shit, pal.
In 2016, several US Senators called on then President Obama to release 28 pages of official 9/11 report that
they claim reveal aspects of Saudi state involvement in the attacks. That is to say, intelligence agencies of
the United States government officially acknowledge this fact. So, yes, it is technically correct to say,
"Saudi Arabia mounted 9/11." And this is before we get to the Dancing Israelis, which, again, is not a
conspiracy theory, but an officially acknowledged reality.
@Weston Waroda
Hudson gets some things right, but he shoots himself in the foot with his "Saudi inspired 9/11" reference. This
is a major flaw and to describe it as minor is simply wrong or worse.
The only role played by the Saudis was
that of patsy and in doing so they gave just a slither of cover to the actual perpetrators. Such cover, as it
was, has long since been blown out of the water. That people can still repeat
the Saudis did it
line is
quite ridiculous, national treasures or not.
We've known for aeons that the US approach to the rest of the world is about oil and its role in keeping the
intrinsically valueless dollar afloat. Hudson isn't needed for that and his article reeks of sophisticated
damage limitation, concentrating as it does on the reasons why the US does the disgusting things it does.
Right now it is much more relevant to dwell on the unjustifiable brutality, immorality and illegality of the
US in its dealings with the rest of the world.
He may care to comment on the present situation in connection with the Fed's repo bailout and its 90%
monetization of US treasury debt.
Yes, I too would be interested in hearing a coherent analysis on the extraordinary money printing going on
now I understand it's up to half a trillion in a single month it sounds like somebody is trying to plug a
massive leak in the dam a la the little Dutch boy
Is the deluge coming ?
I also think you dismiss the professor's article based on minor quibbles I don't agree with man-made climate
change either, but it doesn't take away from the meat of the article, which is a lot of excellent insight into
the inner workings of the imperialist money machine
@eah
This is not a mutually exclusive thing. Why can't it be both a war for Zionism and a war for oil? It's
absolutely both! There is no reason to believe that the Zionist lobby and the petrodollar don't exist together
in one unholy marriage.
Michael Hudson fails the "9/11 litmus test " by making statements such as "the Saudi-inspired
9/11 act " and implying several times in his essay that the Saudis did 9/11.
@NoseytheDuke
This one hurts. My man Hudson proves here he is an active disinformation agent. As you note, he is too smart to
be a dupe. Starting to think that he and PCR are advanced limited hangout. Their role is to shunt us towards
the next prepared phase of the globalist script, which is the collapse of the west and its bogus "salvation" by
the "multipolar" NWO led by Russia and China. They want us to beg for this next turn of the screw. They want us
to beg for Putin and Xi to "liberate" us. Create problem, offer solution. What they have coming down the
pipeline two iterations from now is worse than we can imagine.
Oil and economics are part of the equation governing U.S. ME policy, but so are Israeli geopolitics, religion
and culture. Making economics the sole focus oversimplifies and over-reduces the holistic reality of our
grossly misdirected, hijacked foreign policy.
The synthetic American Second Founding ethos of civic nationalism along with the synthetic mythos of
"Judeo-Christianity" are a major element of why America sides with Israel and not the Arabs, Persians or other
regional powers. The Jewish-exacerbated and inflamed cultural enmity that Westerners feel toward Muslims, in
large part due to mass immigration championed by Jews and false-flag terror from the Dancing Shlomos on 9/11 to
ISIS today, is the other side of this pincer movement of cultural and political influence.
The author isn't wrong, but he's an economist. When all you have is a hammer
Although the shale resource estimates presented in this report will likely change over time as additional
information becomes available,
it is evident that shale resources that were until recently not included
in technically recoverable resources constitute a substantial share of overall global technically
recoverable oil and natural gas resources
.
Canada has a series of large hydrocarbon basins with thick, organic-rich shales that are assessed by this
resource study.
The claim that the US has an urgent need to secure oil supplies in the Middle East is not really supported
by the evidence vis-a-vis oil production and reserves.
Reminder the same people who want you to fight Iran also want you to live in a pod and eat bugs. Even in the
best case where you actually manage to get back alive, minus a limb or three, what awaits you is a glorified
drawer and maggot patties
@9/11 Inside job
However , Michael Hudson does write of " Saudi Arabia's Wahabi troops (Isis, Al Qaeda in Iraq , Al
Nusra) and other divisions of what are actually America's foreign legion " .
But it wasn't. There was no live TV coverage of the first WTC attack.
Pres. Bush lied about his initial knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, presumably to give them more time to
succeed. ABC News reported that Bush had been informed about the first WTC attack even before he left his
resort hotel that morning.
You are free to think, however, that it was the Saudis who paid for the glue on Bush's chair in that Florida
classroom on 9/11. Maybe they even paid Ari Fleischer to hold up that sign for Bush while the WTC was burning:
DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET
Why was his Press Secretary telling President Bush to keep his mouth shut for the time being? How did
Fleischer even know what Card had whispered in Bush's ear unless he was in on the plot?
All the talk about the Israelis, Jews, or the Saudis -- and now the dead Iranian general Soleimani -- being
responsible for 9/11, but nobody wants to talk about the Americans who were on duty that day, all of whom
dropped the ball in one way or another, starting with Pres. Bush, who sat in his chair rather than taking
immediate action to defend the United States against ongoing terrorist attacks.
Allowing an enemy or false flag attack to succeed is treason.
9/11 was the treasonous event that opened up this entire ugly can of worms in the Middle East, and
elsewhere, Mr. Gettysburg Partisan.
@Toxik
That is true. Just like the Brit WASP Empire. It was always about more money for the 1 to 5%, and if the white
trash the vast, vast majority of the natives of the British Isles got hammered over and over, so be it.
@John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
It is not some of the folks who say that 9/11 is an Israeli false flag, it is all of the folks except for the
Israeli trolls. (And there are a lot of those!)
@NoseytheDuke
In the course of several threads Ron Unz has referred to the Twin Towers coming down at free fall speed into
their own footprints as key evidence against the official story. My recollection is that you have said much the
same. Correct?
So I ask what you make of this link provided by LK, one of the chosen for elephant stamps,
"FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, performed the first technical review of what brought down
the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Even in its report, FEMA acknowledges (inconveniently for the official story, which
cannot account for this fine destruction of the Twin Towers) that roughly 90% of the Twin Towers' mass fell
outside their footprints. Indeed, the entire plaza was covered with steel pieces and assemblies. Some of the
structural steel was thrown as far away as the Winter Gardens -- 600 feet"
You clearly care a great deal about 9/11 truth, and Ron's language is that of one convinced that the
official story is wrong in ways that matter so I seek to know whether you are given pause and reason to doubt
your own certainties by that evidence by the 3000.
Economic hit man Hudson reminds us of how many people Chase Manhattan killed in Vietnam
but somehow claims he doesn't know how the US stole Gaddafi's 44 tons of gold.
The poverty draft works in the US because we let the poor fight the wars for the rich and corporations. Tell
me who started the Iraq war, the Mullahs in Iran or the Mullahs in DC?
Hudson works the alternative media to disable dissent. The Democrats and Republicans will send internet
dissenters to psychiatric hospitals if they complain too much on the internet. The Iran war really means that
everyone needs to go along with the party line or get banned total agreement between right wingers and left
wingers.
The wars in the mideast are not for oil, they are for Israel and Israels greater Israel agenda, and since
zionists control the FED and IRS the wars for Israel, which were instigated the last time by the joint Israeli
and ZUS attack on WTC and blamed on the Arabs to give the ZUS the excuse to destroy the mideast for Israel.
@Fluesterwitz
Perceptive as many of Dr Hudson's remarks are, the article is itself a wag-the-dog story inasmuch as, were it
not for US support for Israel, oil production in the ME would have remained under Western control at low prices
indefinitely.
It is not the case that oil prices quadrupled in early '74 because of the US quadrupling the cost of wheat,
which, if I recall correctly, had mainly to do with crop shortages in the USSR, as f.o.b. USGulf prices were
bid up dramatically from around $1.65 a bushel to nearly $7, and not by the US government or its proxies, but
by grain traders. The price of oil quadrupled independently and because of the US yet again backing of Israel
in its wars of aggression against the Arab nations.
There's also Dr Hudson's conspicuous misdirection about 9/11, blaming it on the absurd, fairytale narrative
for childish minds about nineteen Arabs who couldn't handle a Cessna 150 magically flying jetliners into
buildings magically exempted from the laws of physics during 9/11, making it clear he takes readers here for
morons. There are several dozen lines of relevant and substantial evidence overwhelmingly disproving the
official narrative and implicating Israel. If anything, Dr Hudson's participation in these elaborate efforts at
concealing the truth about 9/11 provide powerful evidence that he's a disinformation agent poisoning the well
by cognitive infiltration of sites opposing the ME wars.
We don't blame everyday Jews for any of this any more than we blame Italians for crimes of the Mafia, so
let's not hear hateful lies that we want these wars ended because we're the haters.
@John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
I agree JB Its a multi faceted MOnkey F that has as many end games, as the number of Think tanks " Thinking
of every angle in the quest for Rule." Nokangaroo has it down with water also. The US isn't just happy owning
the America's they want Europe too, as they play the strong arm game for Israel. Whereas Russia , seems like
it just wants Russia , the Slavs, and wishes to trade its goods in mostly Peace. Wanna be -Israel wants the
whole Mid East and the natural resources to itself and China wants a whole lot of the Worlds natural resources
through trade and loans that can't be paid back, or it seems to be. They are all the NWO players, but they have
different ideas on Splitting the booty.
@Haxo Angmark
Tend to agree and I can see Mr Hudson's logic, which explains why the US wants to control (by allies or
proxies) Middle East oil despite being self-sufficient but if that was the only reason, why aren't they
flattening wind farms and solar plants all over the world? I assume the Danes don't pay for their offshore
electricity in dollars.
I'm aware though that oil is still pretty unique in that it's the most portable form
of energy. No one is going to build a battery-powered aircraft carrier.
Maybe it's 50/50 between 'defending Israel' by attacking any functioning unfriendly ME state and keeping the
petrodollar, which would explain the attack on Libya, surely no threat to Israel.
Two little quibbles. Climate has always been changing. The desire to fill banks and government coffers for
essentially the air you breathe is what is new.
The second thing is the Democrats are not anti war. Think of the two parties as participants in a scripted
WWE wrestling match. To make matters worse most anti war groups have financially back by a non profit, who is
backed by more non profits. Wouldn't be that surprising is end of the donor road leads to the likes of the
Atlantic Council and its members. We're living in a matrix.
M. Hudson says : "The assassination was intended to escalate America's presence in Iraq to keep control the
region's oil reserves,"
Well, that's one "expert" opinion.
Here's
another :
" ..More than 13 years after Saddam's last hurrah on a Baghdad gallows, the US still has upwards of 30,000
troops and contractors in the immediate vicinity of the Persian Gulf. But why?
..it should be obvious by now that it's not the oil, either. At the moment the US is producing nearly 13
million barrels per day and is the world's leading oil producer well ahead of Saudi Arabia and Russia; and is
now actually a net exporter of crude for the first time in three-quarters of a century.
Besides, the Fifth Fleet has never been the solution to oil security. The cure for high prices is high
prices as the great US shale oil and Canadian heavy oil booms so cogently demonstrate, among others.
And the route to global oil industry stability is peaceful commerce because virtually every regime
regardless of politics and ideology needs all the oil revenue it can muster to fund its own rule and keep its
population reasonably pacified.
Surely, there is no better case for the latter than that of Iran itself with an economy burdened by
decades of war, sanctions and mis-rule and an 80-million population that aspires to a western standard of
living.
So left to its own devices, Tehran would produce 5 million barrels per day from its abundant reserves.
That's barely one-tenth of its present meager output, which is owing to Washington's vicious sanctions against
any and all customers for its oil and potential investors in modernizing and expanding it production
capacity "
@BuelahMan
It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion.
But my take is the article was about the reason for the recent assassination, not the reason for the
invasion of SW Asia, the Middle East, SE Europe, and N Africa, which began in 1978, BTW.
The article did contain a few throw-away lines which were contentious and not necessary for his point.
All in all, I thought it was great. Thanks Michael.
@Wizard of Oz
Wizard of Oz says : ""FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, performed the first technical review of
what brought down the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Even in its report, FEMA acknowledges (inconveniently for the
official story, which cannot account for this fine destruction of the Twin Towers) that roughly 90% of the Twin
Towers' mass fell outside their footprints"
Riddle me this: why in god's name would you believe
anything
that FEMA, or, for that matter, any other government agency [e.g. N.I.S.T.] says did or did not happen on 9/11?
Do you also believe
anything
Trump/ Pompeo etc. are claiming as reasons for the [alleged]
assassination?
@John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
This is true, it seems unlikely these wars are
purely
for the benfit of Zionism and Israel, granted they
are a major component but there are also Gentile interests here.
The only difference is that these wars
benefit Israel as a whole, its people and all. They only serve to beenfit a small handful of Gentiles though
and the rest of us goyim are seeing nothing but losses, this is why there is often a tendency to place the
blame solely on the Jews and push the Gentiles aside as simply
shabbos goyim
, these Gentiles are
actually benefiting but at the expense of their own people.
Michael Hudson has a lot to say about economics. I wish he would stick to that. I can't believe that anyone
with his IQ and interest in politics could be so deluded about 9/11. It's almost like running into a
field-theorist who happens to be a flat-earther.
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty
comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto
nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars
against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.
In the beginning of World War I, Woodrow Wilson had adopted initially a policy of neutrality. But the Morgan
Bank, which was the most powerful bank at the time, and which wound up funding over 75 percent of the financing
for the allied forces during World War I pushed Wilson out of neutrality sooner than he might have done,
because of their desire to be involved on one side of the war.
@Carlton Meyer
Trump has already threatened Iraqis with crippling sanctions if they insist American forces leave Iraq. And in
a bizarre twist to this blackmail, Iraq will be forced to "compensate" the Americans for their "investment".
Any sane individual would think it is Iraq that's owed compensation after a criminal war based on lies
destroyed a once prosperous and secular country. The American criminal gangster protection racket is about to
go full throttle.
@ Ron Unz: When I want to forward this article, or other articles on this site, and i click on emailnothing
happens. Two days ago, and years before, I'd click on email, give my name, email, type in Capcha, and get a
notice, Mail Sent. Now, nothing.
@YetAnotherAnon
It has been argued that Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi΄s "Great Man-Made River" (a 40-year irrigation project) was of
no minor concern, as the Jews could have sat on their produce until it hatched
The reason behind the oil increase has nothing to do with the US (undocumented) quadrupling of the price of its
grain exports. It is rather linked to the blind (like today) support of ZioAmerica and the West for Israel in
the 1973 war. After the oil price quadrupling, the OAPEC countries threatened that they would cut their
production an additional 5 per cent per month, 'until Israeli withdrawal is completed from the whole Arab
territories occupied in June 1967 and "the legal rights of the Palestinian people are restored".
The 1973 oil shock was not a shock for everyone. While it had a devastating impact on world industrial growth,
it brought enormous benefits to major US and European banks and above all it was a godsend for oil majors, the
so-called seven sisters.These oil companies were able to invest in the north sea oil fields only when the oil
price quadrupled.
In early 1973, the bilderberg group discussed an imminent "400 per cent future rise in OPEC's price". At
bilderberg they knew beforehand the oil price was going to be quadrupled.
@Wizard of Oz
'Cause when you blow up a four hundred meter high building you can't get it to fall exactly in its own
footprint, no matter how hard you try. The firemen were told "another plane is coming" as the order to get out
when they finished evacuating the employees from buildings which were already 60% vacant. (And the buildings
had been vacant for some time which is why Silverstein bought them on the cheap, and why they were sold,
essentially for scrap.)
Without the dollar's function as the vehicle for world saving in effect, without the Pentagon's role in
creating the Treasury debt that is the vehicle for world central bank reserves the U.S. would find itself
constrained militarily and hence diplomatically constrained, as it was under the gold exchange standard.
Fascinating as it always is with this author, I wish Professor Hudson had enlarged on the block quoted
snippet above, or given a link to where he had explained it thoroughly for those of us less quick on the
uptake. He obviously has a great deal of knowledge about these things and the promise of unique insights
motivates me to concentrate. I could be quite negative if I held him to the fire for the absolute truth of
everything he has written in the piece, but such dogmatism would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Most of what Prof, Hudson says is basically correct if you pull back from the detailed allegations he makes.
My criticisms would be he does have a tendency to write as if conscious intention is at work in the way America
acts, and the elite thus understands all the implications of what they are doing. If one is looking at
international politics the debt can be important, but in the final analysis (loans to Germany and its debts
before WW2 were from losing WW1) some nation states view others as a potential threat to be neutralised.
Moreover, countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, or rather the Persian and Arabs, have a very long history of
enmity. Both are heavily dependant on oil prices for their ability to keep funding proxy wars. Saudi Arabia
tried to put the frackers of the United States Of Americanow the world's largest exporter of petroleumout of
business and failed. It would be silly to say the low interest rates in the US were intended to stop the
fighting in Syria, but they might have had that effect. Bethany McLean says fracking is afloat on a tsunami of
free money that cannot last.
[MORE]
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-02-04/venezuelas-collapse-is-a-window-into-how-the-oil-age-will-unravel/
The shift can be best understood through the concept of Energy Return on Investment (EROI), pioneered
principally by the State University of New York environmental scientist Professor Charles Hall, a
ratio which measures how much energy is used to extract a particular quantity of energy from any
resource. Hall has shown that as we are consuming ever larger quantities of energy, we are using more
and more energy to do so, leaving less 'surplus energy' at the end to underpin social and economic
activity. As the surplus energy available to sustain economic growth is squeezed, in real terms the
biophysical capacity of the economy to continue buying the very oil being produced reduces leading
the market price to collapse.
That in turn renders the most expensive unconventional oil and gas projects potentially
unprofitable, unless they can find ways to cover their losses through external subsidies of some kind,
such as government grants or extended lines of credit.
My understanding of ME geopolitics is that Britain created states to separate (gerrymander) the Arab
masses from the oil wealth of the region. Hence Kuwait ect. In 1953 a threadbare Britain told America
that without the income from Iranian Oil the financial status of the UK would be desperate. The US, which
had originally opposed a coup, went along with and funded one. America then deciding that Iran could be
Uncle Sam;s cop on the ME beat
gave
the Shah so much weaponry that the Arab nations became
extremely alarmed. The Shah's second (first was half German) wife told a story about how when she went to
tell their cook what she wanted for dinner her would turn his eyes away because she was wearing a bikini.
He also secretly prayed. It was a very religious country and yet the Shah's father had banned the veil in
1936.
Saudi Arabia gave 40 billion dollars to Saddam's Iraq to fight the Iran Iraq war against the Islamic
regime in Tehran. After a good start Saddam's army was halted and then turned back by the Iranians
ruthless use of their relatively huge population of young men as cannon fodder. The debts Saddam incurred
fighting against the Persians gave him a grudge against the family dictatorship oil wealthy countries and
that was a major reason he invaded Kuwait. If Iraq has so much oil of its own, then why would Saddam have
needed to invade a tiny neighbour?
On loan guarantees and the settlements issue Bush sent the Lobby packing with a flick of his eyebrow
and brought Israel to Madrid only having to give Israel revocation of UN Resolution 3379 (Zionism is
racism). All great stuff. It started the process that led to the Camp David 2000 Summit and Barak making
an offer for a final settlement that was if very hard to accept for the Palestinian side, still a serious
offer that they might have taken and successfully built on.
Bush the Elder and Scowcroft saw the problem of a US army in Iraq, so the just evicted Saddam from
Kuwait, but the US army in Saudi Arabia they did not seem to worry about even though it would have to be
there as long as Saddam ran Iraq, and the 1979 Grand Mosque seizure showed there was a strong dislike of
the Saud regime's westernisation. Bush the Elder sent the Lobby packing with a flick of his eyebrow and
brought Israel to Madrid only having to give Israel revocation of UN Resolution 3379. Down the line there
was the Camp David 2000 Summit and Barak making an offer for a final settlement that was serious.
The Saudi ambassador at the time of 9/11 lobbied hard for an invasion to overthrow Saddam. American
strategists regard Saudi Arabia as a the richest prize in the world and a client state so they had to
invade Iraq and neutralize it as a threat Saudi Arabia in order to be able to withdraw their army (that
had been there since Saddam had been kicked out of Kuwait, but left in power in Iraq) from Saudi Arabia.
Osama bin Laden's main complaint and the cause of domestic unrest in Saudi Arabia was disgust with the
Saud regime's decision to allow the U.S. military into the country in 1990 to deter an attack by Saddam
Hussein. To retain Saudi Arabia within the US's orbit, it was necessary to overthrow Saddam. Yes Iraq has
oil, but not that much. As already mentioned the Middle East was drawn up so the oil is where the Arab
masses cannot get at it without an invasion of another country.
Recently, researchers and academics have revisited the attack on the USS Liberty and have uncovered credible
evidence that the vicious murderous onslaught was a false flag perpetrated by Iranian jets disguised with the
markings of America's best friend in a diabolical attempt to drive a wedge between bosom buddies and shatter
all of judeo-christian civilization. Furthermore, very credible witnesses who can't be named at this time to
insure their safety overheard the swarthy men with rifles on the grassy knoll overlooking Dealy Plaza speaking
Farzi back in 1963. What more evidence could anyone possibly need as to exactly who is threatening world peace
and stability? As to 9/11, everyone knows it was perpetrated by those sneaky Iranians impersonating Saudis and
then trying to promote the event as an inside job perpetrated by our best friend and ally.
This one hurts. My man Hudson proves here he is an active disinformation agent.
No, he cannot touch the third rail!
Hudson is a balance of payments specialist, and he knows full
well how the Petrodollar system works. He has exposed it.
He did good work on Panama papers episode. It is up to us to carefully parse what Hudson is saying, and the
fact that we have to do this implies just how dangerous ZOG has become.
The Saudi's are PART OF ZOG. I have had to repeat this ad-nauseum. You can follow the money. MI6 abets Saudi
Coup at the behest of oil interests e.g. BP/Shell. Compliant Saudi Kingdom is installed and later America takes
over security guarantees via 73 Kissinger agreement. The Petrodollar/Tbill economy is born Hudson has
explicitly described this mechanism, it is up to you to peer through the veil. Super Imperialism is his first
work on this balance of payment charade that forms our world.
Wahabbism is part of the construct as it enshrines Saudi Kingdom as the leader of Islam (their brand) and
Mecca. Zion/Globo-homo is actually State Sponsored Usury, and their real god is Moloch and Mammon.
I get it that people are tired of the Saudi's did 911, when instead it was a matrix of ZOG, including Mossad
and Sayanim in America along with "international globo-homo interests, including the deep-state."
The common denominator is that all of these players are tethered to international federal reserves notes
(international corporate banking), or finance capital that won WW2.
If the globo-homo cabal can maneuver the polity to win WW2, then it can maneuver to have Hudson
disappeared/executed or however you want to put it.
Hudson is very smart, and is using code language for us to follow, while still exposing the truth of things.
The Saudi's did 911 wink wink nudge nudge.
It would be nice if we could get the truth in one sitting without having to sift through BS, but that is not
the way the world works today.
With regards to PCR, he pretty much has larger stones than Hudson, and does not couch his language as
carefully. PCR will call out the Jew and his usury and you know these two men talk to each other.
Hudson knows full well what is going on. What do you think his important career would look like if he named
the Jew?
Michael Hudson, with whom I often disagree, provides an excellent analysis of one reason behind Suleimani's
assassination, the USA establishment's determination to effectively control the world's energy no matter what
the cost,
Unfortunately Hudson fails to consider the role of Israel. The Israelis cannot establish the local
regional hegemony they want as long as Iran, a traditional regional power, is a functioning nation. Israel is
desperate to destroy Iran. Therefore, Israel's traitorous, Zionist fifth-column in the USA will do everything
in its power to encourage and defend any politician who promotes aggression against Iran and to attack any
politician who stands against this insanely immoral and counterproductive policy. Zionist's in this country
currently have a stranglehold on the USA's policy in North Africa, the Levant, the Near East. And Southwest
Asia. I don't see how this can change unless the people of the United States are brutally forced to deal with
the consequences of this policy and finally become aware of the espionage and lobbying groups responsible for
it.
Wow. I am usually a big fan of Hudson's but this analysis is just an effort to conceal the truth. While it's
true that "dollar hegemony" and and the 'control of oil' factor large in washington's geopolitical
considerations, those considerations could have been adequately addressed by simply observing the "nuke's deal"
which would have allowed Iran to sell oil and gas to Europe in dollars, as was intended.
So why did Trump blow up the deal???
He blew it up for the same reason he made Jerusalem the capital of Israel, and the same reason why he gave
Israel the green light to settle the west Bank. He blew up the nukes deal because that is what is main
deep-pocket constituents wanted him to do and because he believes that his best path to greater personal power
is by placating his zionist constituents. This is the choice Trump has made. and he is one false flag away
from realizing his dream of nearly absolute power.
Hudson's article is a diversion from the ugly truth that is unfolding before our eyes
If people want to know about money and the maneuverings of the cabal, then E Michael Jones serves that role.
Jones has decided to name the Jew, and of course they are doing their best to demonetize and demonize him.
Hudson won't go there -- get over it. Others have also complained about Hudson in this regards. If you look
very carefully you can see that Hudson is not being disingenuous.. he is not a disinfo agent, he is dropping
clues.
People like PCR and myself can still admire the man and we can also admit Hudson is not as much of an Alpha
male as we are.
The world is made up of different kinds of people, including some men who are more girly, reticent and
careful.
@bjondo
I have no idea I have an open mind and just look at facts not religion or place of birth.
December 2, 2018
Bush Family Links to Nazi Germany: "A Famous American Family" Made its Fortune from the Nazis
The Bush family links to Nazi Germany's war economy were first brought to light at the Nuremberg trials in
the testimony of Nazi Germany's steel magnate Fritz Thyssen.
Jan 2, 2012 Bush & Rockefeller family's funded NAZI war effort and laundered NAZI money
IG Farban which is the German company that held the patent for Zyklon B was being funded by Rockefeller
owned Standard Oil. Union Banking Corp whose Director and Vice president was Prescott Bush (father of George)
was money laundering for the Nazis and after the war ended its assets were seized for trading with the enemy.
Recently, researchers and academics have revisited the attack on the USS Liberty and have uncovered
credible evidence that the vicious murderous onslaught was a false flag perpetrated by
Iranian
jets
disguised with the markings of America's best friend in a diabolical attempt to drive a wedge between bosom
buddies and shatter all of judeo-christian civilization.
LoL.
It was Israeli Jets, and sneaky Mossad wanted U.S. to bomb Egypt, so "greater Israel" the Zion project could
come into effect. LBJ was in on the charade. By this point in history, the U.S. was fully infiltrated at the
highest levels.
Through deception do war -- is that what you are doing, being deceptive? The Iranians have never been our
enemy.
Also, there is no such thing as JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY. That is a made up term so Jews can dupe Christian Goyim.
It takes lots of usury to fund deception of this magnitude.
The New TESTAMENT supersedes the old. Christian doctrine of super-session IS OPERATIVE, and means that any
sect emphasizing old testament is a Judaiser, and hence should be shunned.
If you catch yourself saying the words Judeo-Christianity, then do a face-palm and realize you have been
hoaxed and are repeating deception.
@plantman
To me it seems the US and it's lackeys are continually and repeatedly provoking Iran by committing actions
which are acts of war or merit strong retaliation, which could cascade and escalate into causes of war. This
recent assassination is similar to the hijacking of Iranian oil tankers earlier this year. This pattern has
been present and escalating in intensity since immediately after the Iraq war. There was a partial hiatus under
Obama because he personally disliked the zionists so much. We will be at war with Iran sooner or later, just as
with Iraq, if republicans keep the White House.
Hudson is obviously avoiding talking about the Zionist angle,
probably for his own security -- I'll wager he doesn't have tenure yet. He talks about the OPEC embargo of the 70s
without mentioning Israel. It's openly known that this was in retaliation for western support of Israel during
the Yom Kippur war. There's no way he could be that uninformed.
@sarz
Sara says: "Michael Hudson has a lot to say about economics. I wish he would stick to that. I can't believe
that anyone with his IQ and interest in politics could be so deluded about 9/11"
Well, if it's any
consolation, his "government knows best", grandiose economic "theories"are no less delusional than his. 9/11
theories
This essay provides a glimpse of the satanic levels of Greed and Psychopathy of the whitrash civilisation
(previously it was the British, and now the baton is with the AmeriKKKans). This spiritually and morally cursed
cesspool's "success" in this world has been predicated on such unabashed Evil. Surely it will not be worth it
as they will find themselves writhing in a Fiery torment, soon enough.
I think what this world desperately
needs is whitey "genocide." The quotes signify the fact that since I am a true monotheist, I can never ever
condone that level of bloodshed. So, what is required is reducing the number of whiteys in the world, so as to
curtail their demonic Evil.
@Cowboy
Excellent points. Not so sure about Free Masons though.
And recall that most of the big oil field drilling
/ management contracts went to Russia, China, & Europe after the US / Israel invasions, not the US.
Zionists love guys like Hudson who all too conveniently attempts to deflect attention away from Israel.
US oil companies make about six cents off a single gallon of gasoline, on the other hand there's US Big
Government, taxes per gallon
:
That's before federal taxes of ca. 20 cents per single gallon
@eah
No disrespect, but the EIA report is not entirely correct.
First, While the US is a large producer of hydrocarbons this is not the same as oil. For example, the
Permian Basin produces about 98% condensates which must be blended with overseas oil the produce products in US
oil refineries. As a result the US must import heavy oil, such as Urals heavy for blending purposes. See the
Peak Prosperity website for details.
Second, globalism is not just about ownership of products but also about the control of their rates of
production and the control of the transport routes. America is trying to selectively stop production and if
this fails stop transport from those countries that are not part of the US$/Zionist economy.
Third, technically recoverable oil is not the same as economically recoverable oil. As the Our Finite World
website points out, recoverable oil is limited by what the population can pay for it or products produced or
delivered using that oil. Remember the strong correlation between energy use and GDP.
Fourth, Production of primarily condensates and gas from most fracking operations is overall an economic
loss for most investors and poses external economic and environmental costs not factored into the cost/benefit
analysis of the corporations.
Fifth, the EIA and US DOE are greatly overestimating the lifetime of the fracking boom which will start
declining in the 2022-2025 time-frame.
I will admit that the US needs to export excess natural gas (Freedom gas) from the fracking operations.
Currently, the Permian producers have to pay for the gas to be taken away or flare it at a rate of about
3bcm/year. The dramatic 100% drop in the price of natural gas in Western Europe has derailed the grand plan for
LNG export, or at least caused the countries that entered into long term contracts, such as Poland and Ukraine,
for delivery to pay much more for gas than those that rely on pipeline transported gas.
Currently, natural gas sells for $146/100 cm. In contrast, Cheniere gas prices are 115% of Henry Hub price +
liquefaction fee of around $3 per million British thermal units (mmBtu). This corresponds to as LNG price of
about $320/1000cm. To compete against Russian and Norge natural gas the US government is indirectly subsidizing
those countries receiving "Freedom Gas" via foreign aid to take the gas!
The solution turned out to be to replace gold with U.S. Treasury securities (IOUs) as the basis of
foreign central bank reserves. After 1971, foreign central banks had little option for what to do with their
continuing dollar inflows except to recycle them to the U.S. economy by buying U.S. Treasury securities.
Correct Nixon goes off of international trading gold standard in 1971. This forces dollar accumulation in
central banks to recycle back to the U.S. to buy TBills (debt). Foreign economies can no longer buy gold to
balance international trade.
Saudi Arabia and other Near Eastern OPEC countries quickly became a buttress of the dollar. After these
countries quadrupled the price of oil (in retaliation for the United States quadrupling the price of its
grain exports, a mainstay of the U.S. trade balance),
In 1971, OPEC negotiated a higher posted price and a 55% minimum profit share in the Tehran Agreement.
But the dollar's falling purchasing power after the 1971 Nixon shock had already put a big strain on the
Agreement's fixed posted prices. US support for Israel during the October 1973 Yom Kippur War was the final
straw. A resulting embargo lasted until March 1974, but after it was removed low and stable posted prices
failed to return.
U.S. banks were swamped with an inflow of much foreign deposits which were lent out to Third World
countries in an explosion of bad loans that blew up in 1972 with Mexico's insolvency, and destroyed Third
World government credit for a decade, forcing it into dependence on the United States via the IMF and World
Bank).
Foreign deposits of surplus dollars were flowing into "private banks' and these private banks then agitated
to have Mexico redefined as "emerging market" instead of third world. This then allowed predatory
"international" loans to go forth. See Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hitman. Part of Mexinvasion of
Mestizo's into the U.S. can be tracked to this event. Our finance class is an internal enemy and a parasite.
(Never allow your debt to be denominated in a foreign currency this is an Iron Law of Economics, not
taught in Skools.)
To top matters, of course, what Saudi Arabia does not save in dollarized assets with its oil-export
earnings is spent on buying hundreds of billion of dollars of U.S. arms exports. This locks them into
dependence on U.S. supply o replacement parts and repairs, and enables the United States to turn off Saudi
military hardware at any point of time, in the event that the Saudis may try to act independently of U.S.
foreign policy.
The Saudis are not going against their MI6 masters, and besides are dependent on foreign technology to
extract their oil, and get said oil to dollarized markets. By the time Kissinger shows up in 1973, the pattern
is already in place. The oil shock in 1974 is due to Kissinger Saudi 1973 agreement, which legitimated OPEC
cartel (monopoly). The 1973 Agreement codified the petrodollar Tbill economy that MIC and "liberalism"
globo-homo now depends on.
So maintaining the dollar as the reserve currency became a mainstay of U.S. military spending. Foreign
countries to not have to pay the Pentagon directly for this spending. They simply finance the U.S. Treasury
and U.S. banking system.
Returning petrodollars fund some 800 U.S. overseas military bases. The return path is through purchasing of
TBills, and then said TBills are held in offshore accounts. Dollars then spin out of TBill and spent to enter
into dollarized economies worldwide. This is a form of inflation tax on the world. When U.S. deficit spends new
TBills, then they find returning petrodollars dollars, or said TBill can be monetized by the FED (which has
been happening in recent years.) U.S. government then spends new deficit dollars on MIC. Saudi also recycles
dollars through CIA to buy from MIC. Is it any wonder that China and Russia are working diligently to
de-dollarize their trading affairs?
That is the same strategy that the U.S. has followed in Syria and Iraq. Iran was threatening this
dollarization strategy and its buttress in U.S. oil diplomacy.
Iran is part of Russia/China axis that is de-dollarizing and hence is threatening globo homo deep state
finance capitalism (ZOG). Iran is in the way of Greater Zion, and is central to Belt and Road, and will not bow
down to Globo Homo.
The U.S. is on the wrong side of history, especially after it got brain infected and parasitized in 1912 by
the (((usual suspects))).
The poverty draft works in the US because we let the poor fight the wars for the rich and corporations.
Tell me who started the Iraq war, the Mullahs in Iran or the Mullahs in DC?
More accurate question would be
The poverty draft works in the US because we let the poor fight the wars for the rich and corporations.
Tell me who started the Iraq war, the Mullahs in Iran or the Rabbis in DC
?
That's a brazen hardLeft lie . and the central dynamic isn't oil per se; it's the petrodollar.
1) It's not a hard Left lie, it's a globalist lie. It is the justification for further de-industralization
of the "bad 1st world" who do "all the polluting" and ship it to the 3rd world where peoople are paid slave
wages.
2) If you control the oil, you control the currency/petrodollar.
I do agree that it is indirect, but at the end of the day, it's the same thing. Iraq was invaded because its
oil was primarily going to the EU, and Saddam wanted Euros for it, not US dollars.
More than a decade ago, Iran opened its oil bourse. It was prepared to take any currency for oil sales. It has,
in fact, taken gold from India as payment.
Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution was to trade oil for a different product. Doctors from Cuba, beef and other
foodstuffs from Brazil and Argentina, for example.
All of the above are examples of de-dollarization, and will never be tollerated. They all link to another facet
of the program: all opponents are the new Hitler. In some respects, this is correct. The German economy was
turned around using its version of Lincoln's greenbacks and trading commodity for commodity, often raw material
for manufactured goods. The (((banks))) were nowhere in that equation, therefore, Hitler had to be demonized,
just as Israel began demonizing Saddam in the early 1980s with the fictitious Saddam's WMD, before a nuclear
reactor was even commissioned. It's all about currency control, or as the vile Congresswoman Omar would put it
"the Benjamins".
CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) is a lie.
No, it's not a lie, it's a hypothesis.
To quote the UN International Panel on Climate Change, Third Report, Chapter 14, Section 14.2.2.2, (2001):
In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear
chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
@NoseytheDuke
I suspect that Prof. Hudson is exaggerating on it being Saudi inspired, however, there is more than a break
even chance they were involved. What you, and others are missing is the reference to legislation. I am
acquainted with a lawyer who worked for the city at the tome of 9/11. When the Patriot Act came out of nowhere
to be passed less than 3 months after 9/11, a controversial city by-law had been proposed. I casually asked,
how long it took to produce a draft by-law, and the response was, typically 4-6 months, as the proposed by-law
had to be cross referenced with all other by-laws to ensure that it neither conflicted with, nor used terms
that would cause confusion in interpretation of the by-law or any court decision.
So, if it takes 4-6 months for a city by-law, how long do you think it might take to cross-reference the
Patriot Act and/or the Authorization for Use of Military Force legislation to check against the Constitution,
all other laws, and all court rulings that would touch on the matter? Hence, the author's "pulled out of the
drawer ostensibly against Al Qaeda ", which is the whole point of his article the fix is in.
Well, if it's any consolation, his "government knows best", grandiose economic "theories"are no less
delusional than his. 9/11 theories
There goes the Lol-bertarian one born free-dumb again.
If you ignore gravity, you fall down and bump your head.
Human relations are NOT PURELY TWO WAY. This is as axiomatic as gravity. You have to make pretend to be a
lolbertarian, and only little girls and the deluded make pretend about things.
The plain fact of the matter is that human relations include three parties. When you get into trouble, you
will be one of the first to go whining to a sheriff, or some authority (the king) to help.
Civilization is impossible without an honest third party interlocutor. Did I say IMPOSSIBLE.
How this third party interlocutor is controlled or placed into our governing hierarchy is an entirely
different subject.
Everybody's eyes should focus on good government, not some sort of lolbertarian fantasy of a world with only
two way relations and some sort of nebulous laughable "human action," or making gold as a god.
Hudson is doing a good job of showing how the god of money, MOLOCH has infested the mind of man, and has
become our "king."
It will actually take some sort of facism or king to overcome the democrap/finance capital construct which
lolbertarans make excuses for. Dupes.
@Wally
Don't forget BLM land grabs in Nevada and Oregon, and the Soleimani style assassination of Levoy Finicum.
Here is a recent comment I made that b blocked at MofA:
Now we need for Trump to assassinate Lavrov in Berlin and create another Russian martyr that would cause
Germany to end the SOFA and throw the US occupation out after 75 years!
These latest revelations that Soleimani had been invited on behalf of the USA to Bahgdad shows how
deprave the USA has become. The latest Douma "chemical weapons" revelations and the following Trump cruise
missile retaliation illustrates how entire chains of fake action/retaliation chains are created. I think we
have to assume that the entire Katayusha rocket attack and the "dead contractor" are fake/staged. The
retaliation bombing was true, but its justification was faked. The attack on the US Embassy was clearly
staged by US agents provocatuer who were allowed into the green zone.
These plausibly deniable war provocations have an long history. In Germany's case in 1939 it was Polish
atrocities like
Bromberg
.
Germany, like Iraq, still has a constitution crafted by the usual suspects during occupation. Iraq, like
Germany, will never get rid of the Yankee parasites without a fight.
Since then, and upon further consideration, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Italy and most of the planet would
love to expel the US occupation and free themselves. Many would do well to completely destroy their old
Judeo-Masonic constitutions and write something free of talmudic mind control.
Tim Kelly and Joe Atwill have a
recent podcast
where they discuss the occupation of Japan by 33 degree Douglas MacAuthur. It turns out that
MacAurthur hired a 22 year old jewess to write the Feminist Civil Rights clauses into the still valid
occupation constitution. The demographic collapse of Japan, Germany and all the occupied countries was a
deliberate multi-generational conspiracy, just like the one against Iran.
@Smith
Indirectly. All wars are economic wars, only the bankers, and what they own, benefits. The Rothschilds are the
kings of banking, and bankrollers/owners of Israel. The Greater Israel/Rothschild project is to control all of
the oil in the ME. Ignore all of the "tribes of Israel" and "historic homeland" nonsense. It's about wealth and
power.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/greater-israel-maps.htm
@FB
Hudson's account of the way the US Empire funds its occupation of the world is correct. The World accepts newly
printed US dollars -- ink money as it is sometimes known, in exchange for oil and other goods and assets, and
then hands those dollars back to the US Fed in exchange for bonds yielding a below-inflation rate of interest.
What, depending on you point of view, is a nice side benefit of this arrangement is that corporations, their
share holders and other financially astute investors get to borrow money (directly or indirectly) at what are
near zero or even below zero real interest rates. In that circumstance, naturally, an ever increasing
proportion of all wealth accumulates in the hands the great corporations, investors, and others astute enough
to understand and take advantage of the ongoing scam.
Overall, one would not object too much to American global hegemony, even an American hegemony funded by the
debasement of currency, destruction of savings, and the obscene wealth of the plutocratic few, provided that
said hegemony was exercised in the interests of the people of what the US used to call "The Free World."
But clearly American hegemonists don't give a damn for the American people, let alone the people of the
tributary nations. On the contrary, they seem intent on destroying not only the peoples of subject nations but
their own people too, both culturally and literally, racial genocide being effected by a combination of
repressed fertility and mass replacement immigration.
@Krollchem
I'm aware there are different kinds/grades of crude.
Third, technically recoverable oil is not the same as
economically recoverable oil.
Yes, the lives of young men are so much cheaper, right? -- I guess that's where the term "cannon fodder"
comes from -- anyway, technically vs economically can also be seen as
a matter of national energy policy
,
like e.g. the strategic petroleum reserve -- does the US really need to spend more on its military than all
other countries combined?
Simple question: what is the proximate cause of the tension with Iran? -- answer: it's Iran's nuclear
program, specifically the allegation they intend to produce weapons grade enriched uranium (or plutonium) and
then make a bomb -- another question: how is this a threat to the US, a nation with > 10k nuclear weapons, and
more importantly,
the means to deliver them
? -- answer: it's not -- Israel sees it as a threat -- and re
that, I'll say what I've said before: if MAD (mutually assured destruction) was good enough for the US and the
USSR during the Cold War, it's good enough for the Jews and Iranians today --
it's time to out Israel as a
nuclear power
.
The US has no urgent need for Middle East oil; that's not what this is about.
Islam is not the angloamerican's problem, it's their creation (as in they made it into a
problem). It serves their interest in keeping the oil rich Middle Eastern countries divided
among tribal and sectarian lines and ruled by backward cryptotheocratic despotic dynasties.
The fundamentalist extremist jihadists can be sicked on Europe, Southern Russia and Western
China, to upset society when required by strategic interests.
You totally disregard my objection that there is no need for the Russians to become
aggressive towards (the rest of) Europe. Good trade relations are their best interest. If and
when Europe would socially and economically collapse, they would rather keep the problems
out, instead of getting sucked in themselves.
I agree with you 100% on Trump and Syrian oil. It is smoke and mirrors forced by the
resistance of the Elites. I think Trump knows - and accepts - that grabbing to oil is not
viable and that the US will be forced eventually to relinquish it, but it would be
domestically too difficult to do so at the moment.
i wonder if they're turkish or usa arms that were given these goons? the usa is being
attacked by weapons that gave to the friendly moderate headchoppers? the irony is rich if
so...
And as soon as the SDF fighters make that final break from the US...then it's game
over...it is really inevitable...the die is already cast...
yeah, perhaps. President Assad has an interesting perspective on occupation ...a
much more profound and apparently longer view (from a recent interview )
Journalist:returning to politics, and to the United States, in particular,
President Donald Trump announced his intention to keep a limited number of his troops in
Syria while redeploying some of them on the Jordanian borders and on the borders of the
Israeli enemy, while some of them will protect the oil fields. What is your position in this
regard, and how will the Syrian state respond to this illegitimate presence
President Assad:Regardless of these statements, the reality is that the
Americans are occupiers, whether they are in the east, the north or the south, the result is
the same. Once again, we should not be concerned with his statements, but rather deal with
the reality. When we are finished with the areas according to our military priorities and we
reach an area in which the Americans are present, I am not going to indulge in heroics and
say that we will send the army to face the Americans. We are talking about a super power. Do
we have the capabilities to do that? I believe that this is clear for us as Syrians. Do we
choose resistance? If there is resistance, the fate of the Americans will be similar to their
fate in Iraq. But the concept of resistance needs a popular state of mind that is the
opposite of being agents and proxies, a patriotic popular state which carries out acts of
resistance. The natural role of the state in this case is to provide all the necessary
conditions and necessary support to any popular resistance against the occupier. If we put to
one side the colonial and commercial American mentality which promotes the colonization of
certain areas for money, oil and other resources, we must not forget that the main agents
which brought the Americans, the Turks and others to this region are Syrians acting as agents
of foreigners – Syrian traitors. Dealing with all the other cases is just dealing with
the symptoms, while we should be addressing the causes. We should be dealing with those
Syrians and try to reformulate the patriotic state of the Syrian society – to restore
patriotism, restore the unity of opinion and ensure that there are no Syrian traitors. To
ensure that all Syrians are patriots, and that treason is no longer a matter of opinion, a
mere difference over a political issue. We should all be united against occupation. When we
reach this state, I assure you that the Americans will leave on their own accord because they
will have no opportunity to remain in Syria; although America is a superpower, it will not be
able to remain in Syria. This is something we saw in Lebanon at a certain point and in Iraq
at a later stage. I think this is the right solution
I think Trump has been being loud and blunt about America taking Syria's oil precisely
because he knows that it is neither legal nor viable. If he can establish the narrative that
all it is now about is oil then the US will be forced to do as Trump has wanted all along and
leave Syria.
Reverse psychology.
The role the American President is supposed to be playing for the empire right now
is pushing the narrative of a need for more humanitarian murder and
downplaying/dismissing any suggestion that the US is in Syria for any reason other than pure
altruism. Trump outright stating that the US is going to take the oil is utterly destroying
the only narratives that the US can use to stay in Syria.
That is much more clever than I had ever given Trump credit for being.
> [Lt.Col. Vindman] told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as
an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy and an improper attempt to coerce
a foreign government into investigating a U.S. citizen. <
That the WaPo scribe lets it stand without pointing out that, constitutionally, the
president sets foreign policies is even worse. An earlier NYT piece about an NSC staffer
who Trump likes and had asked about the Ukraine had a similar bad
construct :
> Any involvement by Mr. Patel in Ukraine issues would signal another attempt by Mr.
Trump's political loyalists to go around American policymakers to shape policy toward Kiev.
<
Former U.S. supplied proxy forces kill other former U.S. supplied proxy forces with U.S.
supplied weapons (video):
Cᴀʟɪʙʀᴇ Oʙsᴄᴜʀᴀ @CalibreObscura -
8:24
PM · Nov 2, 2019
TFSA hitting a YPG/SDF vehicle (Humvee?) with a likely originally US-supplied BGM-71 TOW
ATGM. video
> [Lt.Col. Vindman] told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as
an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy and an improper attempt to
coerce a foreign government into investigating a U.S. citizen. <
That the WaPo scribe lets it stand without pointing out that, constitutionally, the
president sets foreign policies is even worse. An earlier NYT piece about an NSC
staffer who Trump likes and had asked about the Ukraine had a similar bad
construct :
> Any involvement by Mr. Patel in Ukraine issues would signal another attempt by Mr.
Trump's political loyalists to go around American policymakers to shape policy toward Kiev.
<
Former U.S. supplied proxy forces kill other former U.S. supplied proxy forces with U.S.
supplied weapons (video):
Cᴀʟɪʙʀᴇ Oʙsᴄᴜʀᴀ @CalibreObscura
- 8:24 PM · Nov 2,
2019
TFSA hitting a YPG/SDF vehicle (Humvee?) with a likely originally US-supplied BGM-71 TOW
ATGM. video
From Caitlin Johnstone's piece...
"We were told that the US must intervene in Syria because the Syrian government was
massacring its people. We were told that the US must intervene in Syria in order to promote
freedom and democracy in the Middle East. We were told that the US must intervene in Syria
because Assad used chemical weapons. We were told that the US must occupy Syria to fight
ISIS. We were told that the US must continue to occupy Syria to counter Iranian influence. We
were told the US must continue to occupy Syria to protect the Kurds. Now the US must continue
to occupy Syria because of oil."
US is in Syria for Israel. Keeping the Syrian oil now is about covering the cost of US
long term occupation of the Syrian border for Israel.
Now to see if Trump can come out of the Iraq color revolution holding Iraq's oil. Whatever
the outcome in Iraq, the current operation against it has prevented Iraq making any noises
about what US is doing in Syria and US access of border crossings into Syria.
Iran warned months ago it would take further action to free itself from JCPOA restrictions
if Europe was not going to stand up to USA bullying and that is supposed to happen later this
week. That would likely mean the initiation of the "snap back" process to reimpose UN
sanctions.
We should see some sort of resolution of the Israeli election. Netanyahu's former Defense
Minister is the key decision-maker. Will he bend the knee or force a third election?
I might be willing to explore how democracy is being endangered (by endorsing anything) if I
could find any example of democracy beyond a ham-radio club or boy scout patrol.
The deep state, and every state shallow deep or in-between, "limits" democracy... This is
the essence of all states. And this limitation means that the "democracy" is essentially a
fraud, a deception, a ringer, a method of "perception management" - a way of making the mark
believe in the con.
I don't mind this reality, it's normal and probably a good thing (think about it).
But I do object to the implications, such as, inter alia, that democracy exists in reality
on any significant scale, and that it's desirable - and worst of all, that's it's not a
costume - wizard of oz time boys and girls?
You bet... Now go watch the magic show and stop thinking...
Newer estimates bet on USD 1.7 trn -- much less than the earlier ones. The process will be
slow ("very cautious") and it's not disclosed if they will be negotiated at the LSE or Wall
Street.
The capitalists bet on China capitulating to a "capitalist reform" and opening up its
precious productive chains and financial sector to open exploitation by Western capital. It
didn't happen and now they will sack Saudi wealth. Saudi Arabia will have to "take one for
the team"; as a sweetener, they will probably receive nuclear energy technology from the
Americans (a technology which, as we already know, can be adapted to develop nuclear
weapons).
This notion of USA profiting from the oil is a smokescreen. It seems much more likely that
the oil will be used by, any profits received by, whatever local Syrian organization USA
approves of.
Notice that CJ doesn't cite Israel among the many reasons for USA to stay - despite
Trump's having done so (he did!). And, while she attacks USA's evil intentions, she's careful
not to support Assad ( "I'm not an Assadist -- he's a Caitlinist" ).
I see Joshua Landis' twitter says "In 2012, Erdogan asked al Assad to put Muslim Brothers
into his Cabinet. When al Assad refused, the former minister said, Erdogan made clear that he
would back all efforts to remove the president and replace him with Islamists."
"Turkey May Have Stepped Into Its Own 'Endless War' in Syria"
Ok... and now an entirely unrelated coincidence...Cosmic disaster: Massive fire ravages
astronomy center in Turkish capital (VIDEO)
Also worthy of note is Pat Lang's censorship of a comment that made about how bogus
Russiagate and Ukrainegate are.
Both the Left and the Right love the partisan food fight that distracts and entertains the
masses. LOL.
But it wasn't enough to simply delete the comment, he felt it necessary to smear me, first
as a bitter old pensioner, then as a marxist: A
rule about comments and commenters .
Gabbard. I read the OFF act today. Compared to AOC's Green New Deal, my take.
AOC is more mainstream than TG., third-wayer USA style, supports Sanders (OK.. in the pol
landscape..) and is more influential / accepted in the establishment. Gabbard far better, on
anti-war and other.
A brief look at climate + energy.
Both are pie-in-the sky and 'claim' meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the
United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.
AOC p.7.. TG similar.
Both propose an aim of "zero carbon emissions" or "net zero carbon" by 2035. (not the same
thing of course, but much is confused...)
AOC includes very sweeping societal aims (green jobs etc.), international collab,
education, and even:
ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair
competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies
Heh! in the US?
..but is prudent in its language, the phrase as much as technologically feasible is
used v. often. Ex.
working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is techno-
logically feasible ..
AOC promotes removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere aka,'new' carbon
capture tech (p. 9.)
*Vs.* TG, the language is clear, the position hard and logically consistent, a "zero
carbon economy, using only renewable generation by 2035", > all electric, as nuclear power
is also verboten.
/ -- How and where the electric energy is produced, stored, delivered to the end user, is
not addressed by either bills. Both are against nuclear. These are pol. discourses, and not
based on any analysis of 'energy' -- /
TG OFF act is more sympathetic imho in the sense that it details impacts on poor
communities and that these must be adressed, reversed. Many of the points in it are excellent
(but only tangentially linked to energy policy.. or climate..), she wants to stop / reverse
harm, vs. AOC who touts fantastico green jobs.
Jackrabbit "And, while she attacks USA's evil intentions, she's careful not to support Assad
("I'm not an Assadist -- he's a Caitlinist")."
This seems common amongst those that identify as green or progressive and not just on
Syria and Assad. Assange was similar.
Not long back, I was reading the twitter accounts of a few young and foolish journalists that
believed the crap put out by the likes of bellingcrap, so went to Syria to report on the
'revolution'. They ended up featuring in snuff movies but their twitter accounts are still
open.
Robert Reich:
Thanks to Trump's trade wars, US farm bankruptcies in Sept. soared to 24% -- highest level
since 2011. Nearly 40% of projected farm profit this year will come from trade aid,
disaster assistance, & federal subsidies. Farm aid has now cost more than double the
2009 auto bailout.
thanks b! it's always interesting and thought provoking..
regarding the M. K. BHADRAKUMAR article on nord 2, it seems to me that the coming together
of russia and europe is only a matter of time.. as much as the usa would like to impede this,
i can't see them being successful.. fact is russia is a part of europe! trying to keep them
separate can't work.. new world order...
@7 jackrabbit.. i think where you and i differ is in that you will take a shred of truth -
a molehill - and make a mountain out of it.. that's what it looks like with the cj analysis..
i have to say it seems you do the same with the deep state too.. sure there is some truth to
what you say, but i think your conclusions are wrong mostly because who make a mountain out
of a mole hill.. but regardless, i still appreciate how attached you are to your mountains -
but i just don't see it like you..
@12 noirette... thanks for sharing your perspective on all that! it seems to me AOC has
been given the fast track hard sell in the msm, where as TG has been given the cold
shoulder... someone is really preening AOC for future exploitation as i see it.. i could be
wrong.. i have said this before as well..
Forgetful Biden gave an interview with the WSJ. He speaks for Israel. The same Israel's plan
of some 45 years ago: break up the surrounding countries into warring statelets and we can
live and steal in peace; piece by piece.
[.] Leaving troops behind like [Trump's] doing now – he says that what he wants to do
is we're going to occupy the oil fields and we're going to take 'em. That's like a giant
300-foot recruiting poster for ISIS," Biden said, speaking to the Wall Street Journal.[.]
"Russia's position in the region has just been strengthened. [Syrian President
Bashar] Assad's position has been strengthened. Iran now has a pathway all the way to Syria
and even to Lebanon. If I'm the Israelis I'm not going to be very happy about that. So the
whole thing has been turned upside down and we're in there alone now, basically," the
former vice president said.[.]
Timber Sycamore
During his tenure as Barack Obama's vice president, Biden was a key supporter of sending
US arms to the militants fighting against Damascus. He was involved in the Central
Intelligence Agency's classified weapons supply and training programme, known as Timber
Sycamore, which equipped and trained thousands of fighters between 2012 and 2017, when it
was closed down by the Trump administration.
Those lapel flag pins with the stars and stripes should be replaced by the blue and white
star of David flag pins because it is what it is.
Western/Central Europe coming to terms with Russia and settling down for good relations
between neighbours should've been the obvious path back in 1990. I mean, they did it between
UK-France and Germany after 1945, it was only logical that they would do the same with Russia
- I mean, there's less bad blood between them, overall. Of course, countries like Poland
wouldn't be as enthusiastic, for obvious reasons, so it would've been better to come to a
common understanding before the former Soviet bloc joined EU, and definitely way better to
set up some spheres of influence before the Ukraine mess.
Jackrabbit: Pat Lang can be quite the old thin-skinned "Commies - bad" curmudgeon, which
is at best frustrating. On the other hand, I always have a kick at seeing him campaigning for
the dissolution of CIA and FBI, like in his latest post. I get that he's also arguing from an
efficiency point of view, and I'd agree with him about the efficiency gains, even if I'd be
more interested by the mere fact that US agencies would greatly reduced their fucking-up with
the rest of the world, if these agencies were gone for good. Heck, I could live with a USA
with more efficient agencies this way, since it would still mean them having to get rid of
their Full Spectrum Dominance and Global Hegemon wet-dream, and instead focusing on fighting
against clear and present danger and genuine threats against the US as a country, not as a
global economic and political empire. Heck, I'd be already relieved if not glad if the US
went back to Monroe doctrine and were to submit to a reverse-Monroe (as in the US stops
messing with the Old World once and for all and doesn't interfer with any country outside the
Americas).
@14 US farmers appreciate the $28bn aid package and most of them probably still like Trump.
Aid like that would be called socialism if any other country did it.
It struck me how careful she was about not being viewed as supporting Assad ... while the
elevation of Max B. to be the equal of Assange is just an unimportant detail?
MANY journalists that have suffered much worse than Max B. They don't get elevated to
being the equal of Assange. A few of them:
There's the woman who reported about ISIS (I think she was Turkish) who was killed.
There's Hitchens.
There's the woman who just reported on the paper trail of weapons purchased for the
Syrian "rebels". She's from Bulgeria, I think.
There's Khashoggi.
Assange's struggle is for ALL journalists. It's offensive when used to elevate ONE
journalist. Especially, I might add, THIS journalist who 1) has a deep and abiding connection
to Assange's Deep State adversaries and 2) has previously demonstrated his willingness to act
in a way that furthers Deep State goals.
Regarding that post by Pat Lang so derogatory in image illustrating, and following mockery
he made of pensioners who receive their well deserved pension check, I wonder what this man
who during life long benefitted from such a socialist system like the USAF to enjoy a labour
life fixed job , from recruiting to retirement ( whose only requirement was fullfill
orders...) and limitless access to free of charge education, which allowed him once retired
at such privileged ( with respect the rest of working masses ) young age, be able to profit
in the private sector from the knowledge and experience he gained in the public duty, has
against public pensions, being himself beneficciary of one ( at least I have not notice he
has refused it...and I fear it is not meager...) along with a free of charge full coverage
social health system financed by Us taxpayers including those who he makes mockery of.
For the few I know him, he is still angry about the few taxes he has to pay under Trump
rule feeling that some of what he pays could go to this pensioners....Of course, like every
selfish far-right wing in the military, forgetting that it was those pensioners through their
taxes who payed for their education and salary while in the military.
The more I know the man, I have nowhere to catch him from, and it is not only hiss patent
arrogance and bigotry, nad hatred for everything which could sound social, it is the absolute
lack of solidarity with other human beings ( including those who contributed to what he
is...) except those who form his own close circle, unit, or his own, recently reached, upper
class.
To me it smells of a new rich all that way from Virginia to here...Un asco!
Honestly, I can not see that astounding value some here find in his site, unless the
astounding value to extend the Trump presidency for 4 years more...
Has he pronounced himself about the already recognized stealing of Syrian oil recently? No,
there they are he and that Larry Johnson focussed in what more matters ( for them...) the
shenanigans on fake theater ( and they both know it, because of insiders of the IC..)of the
bipartisan mafiosi system which they beneffit from.
Bhadrakumar "The amazing part has been the dogged resistance by Germany to the US pressure
tactic to abandon Nord Stream 2."
Think Deutsche Bank, Volkswagen plus the rest of the crap US has been pulling to keep
Germany down.
German business had to rebel against this at some point.
working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution
and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is techno- logically
feasible ..
Someone needs to get out of their ivory tower once in a while. No diesel, no food. It's as
simple as that, unless farmers return to the days of huge crowds of cheap migrant workers and
millions of horses to pull small-scale equipment. I don't see many windmill and solar
promoters signing up to hoe cotton by hand. I wonder if all those horses would be allowed
because of horse farts. Maybe someone can invent a horse and cow fart collector.
Some of the first farm tractors were huge steam powered beasts. If steam tractors burned
wood pellets, would that be acceptable?. How big a battery it would take to operate a 300 Hp
tractor for 12 or more hours per day - as big as a house?
Well the good news is there is no actual evidence the sky is falling (Correlation is not
Causation). Man-made global warming is like "democracy" and "freedom". If any of these
actually existed, would the propaganda machines have to tell us a hundred times a day, every
day? In the end, reality has a tendency to shred fanciful plans and it doesn't care what
anybody believes.
@ Hoarsewhisperer who wrote at the end of the last Open Thread
"
I can't shake off the suspicion that cosmology is more about beating around the bush and
obfuscation than about fact-finding - especially the more recent Dark Matter trope...
"
I have only had one college course in Astronomy but I found a sure fire way to stop the
cosmologists in their tracks is to posit that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are not just "out
there" but just as much part of us as well...and where are the studies about that stuff in
us?
another climate change denier troll? the science isn't based on a "propaganda machine". you
know what is? the fossil fuel company funded propaganda campaign that pretends the science is
based on correlation.
" US farmers appreciate the $28bn aid package and most of them probably still like Trump.
Aid like that would be called socialism if any other country did it."
- And aid like that would be called socialism by farmers if it went to people with dark
complexions who live in large cities.
@Posted by: Trailer Trash | Nov 3 2019 17:13 utc | 22
Not to mention that all the allegedly "ecologic" measures which have been promoted so far
result equally if not more polluting than the existing ones. As a sample, this article about
the pollution which will come from solar pannels and electric cars batteries and their costs
of production and elimination who will push the carbon footpirnt to stratospheric levels.
The new "ecocapitalism" is a new form of oblying the working masses to change car more
often that they will be able to aforrd due the frozen wages and increasing of prices, and pay
more for basic goods like electricity and water, plus adding taxes that will be difficult to
justify in a coming environment of recession and economic crisis. This is only the new niche
of gainings some "smart" people of always have found to continue increasing their tax of
profit.
@pretzelattack
So, if one asks questions : 1) Is the climate actually changing (warming), rather than going
through a temporary cycle as in the thirties?
2) If there is a climate change is it totally due to human activities, or only partially, or
is it due to natural factors?
3) If the climate changes, ie warms by a degree or two centigrade, is that change a
catastrophic event or is it benign and requiring
minor adaptations by humans?
Does that make one a troll in your estimation?
These remarks about climate change are a reminder that, as a society, we have lost our
ability to reason together. The discussion is poisoned, largely, by vested
interests-including the fossil fuel industry- using enormous amounts of money to prevent us
from reaching conclusions based upon the objective measurement of empirical data and taking
action accordingly.
Instead of reason "the market" rules: the market buys scientists and publicists, controls
presses and dominates the media. In Congress or Parliament it owns majorities.
My guess is that climate change is real and represents a real threat but that ought not to be
a licence for every demagogue and chancer to impose 'solutions' through government or public
pressure. The future of humanity is too important a subject to be left to liars and
narcissists to play with; it is a matter for serious, considered, unpolluted discussion at
every level. In such discussion idiots will be revealed as such, loudmouths discovered to be
empty and irresponsible and the weight of truth, revealed in masses of observations testable
and available for examination, will lead to popular decision making on a matter too important
to be left to others.
Unlike Greyzone reporting, here we are given specific information about Max's arrest,
including the identify the person who made the charge, the statement that they made, and the
alleged existence of video evidence.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
And now thegreyzone.com is out with a follow-up to their reporting last week. Aaron
Maté interviews Max B.
Max B.: It's highly unusual, the whole thing is highly unusual, it's an obvious case of
political persecution and it should be a source of outrage but of course we've heard
nothing from the press ngo's. I guess Press Freedom Track, I just saw them say that uh, I
wasn't involved in reporting at the time so I was .. um .. so I don't count; they said
something like that on twitter in a response to Margret Kimberly. So it's revealing to see
the response but it's also encouraging to see the really organic grassroots solidarity that
I'm getting.
Aaron Mate: Well, you were involved in reporting at the time, broadly, 'cause you were
covering that protest; at the time, specifically, of the incident, you were around when
some food was being delivered inside, right?
Max B.: Well, all I can say is that I'm completely innocent, the charges are fake,
they're phony ...
The shadowproof reporting and this dodge from Max B. suggests to me that Max B. had
decided to help outside activists to deliver food to the activists inside. Thus, he had
joined the activists and was no longer acting as a reporter !
Max B.: The second component [the first being the arrest] of how I was treated - that's how
poor people in Washington D.C and across America are typically treated in the criminal
justice system. People were ALL denied phone calls, they were shackled for long periods. We
were held in cages in extremely cold temperatures for long periods ...
Persecution? Nah, just another day in the US criminal justice system.
Even if the charges against him are false, it's not clear that this is really a matter of
press freedom.
Peter...re the reason for US troops staying Syria...
I think the Al Tanf presence is for Israel's benefit...
But in northeast Syria I think another dynamic is at play...I think Trump really wanted to
get out completely and I think he still does...but he simply has not had the power to pull
this off...
The entire 'foreign policy' establishment plus their media servants went totally berserk
and Trump had to walk back at least some of his plan...
I don't think Syria's oil has much to do with it...Trump simply latched onto that [quick
improvisation there] to justify his reversal to his own base that is feeling frustrated that
their hero can't even fulfill one of his major promises...
As for the establishment's idea for Syria, I think it has more to do with the Kurds...they
are howling about 'betraying' the Kurds...but really it is about USING the Kurds for their
own dream of partitioning Syria...
They just can't let go of that...even as the taillights get dimmer and dimmer in the
distance...these people are not big on reality...
Plus, they do see a situation with the Kurds that they can exploit...some among the Kurds,
like their military commander Mazloum Abdi are totally devoted to the US and will play a
willing spoiler role in the northeast if given half a chance...
If this opportunity to continue at some level with the Kurds was not there, the US
military command would not go along with a harebrained scheme like staying in a region of
Syria that is now more or less controlled by the Syrian government...the shrunken US
footprint means you are isolated and really quite meaningless...
So the situation is still in flux...but here's the thing...the Kurdish political
leadership is a little smarter than people like Mazloum...they see that they have already
lost huge swaths of their heartland to Turkey...not just in the latest incursion, but also
Afrin before that and Euphrates Shield etc...
They realize they will lose everything if they do not start playing ball...with Russia
especially, the only honest broker in Syria...
So today we have a
report that a joint SDF-Russian 'coordination and operations center' has been established
in northern Raqqa province...
Notably, the SAA isn't included in this...probably at the insistence of the SDF, which
like I said is still not on board with reconciling with the SAA...although we note that in
the periphery of the Turkish 'Peace Spring' incursion zone the SDF fighters are fighting
alongside the SAA to repel Turkish-backed militants...
SAA has now also moved heavy weapons to the vicinity of the Ras al Ayn border town which
is in Turkish hands...
So the dynamics of the fighting are already forcing the SDF to throw in their lot with the
SAA...at some point the break will come and the shrinking US influence in the area is not
going to be worth anything tangible to the SDF fighters...
We see also that the US has now evacuated its biggest base with the longest airfield...
Sarrin...
That's where that huge convoy of empty trucks headed to...
So the situation on the ground does not bode well for some kind of continuing partnership
between the SDF and the remaining US forces...especially as the SAA consolidates its control
over the areas in which it has already entered...
So the way I see it, this is a desperate Hail Mary from the die-harders in the
regime-change business...they are grasping at straws, literally...the US footprint has
already shrunk so dramatically, and the SAA footprint taken its place that there is no going
back...
For now the US still have some support among the SDF fighters, as exemplified by that
Mazloum character...but as things progress neither the Kurd population in general, nor the
Arabs in the area are going to continue partnering with the US...for the simple reason that
the US has nothing to offer them...
And as soon as the SDF fighters make that final break from the US...then it's game
over...it is really inevitable...the die is already cast...
That the WaPo scribe lets it stand without pointing out that, constitutionally, the
president sets foreign policies is even worse. An earlier NYT piece about an NSC staffer who
Trump likes and had asked about the Ukraine had a similar bad construct
As Rumsfeld once claimed, "We create our own reality". However there is nothing real about
that so-called reality. More accurate would be "We create our own fantasy, are deluded by it,
and cling desperately to our belief in the reality of it".
@31 flankerbandit.. good overview.. i tend to see it in a similar manner.. thanks!
i got a kick out of one of the commenters on that southfront link -
"Latest News: Even though Vladimir Putin has promised to withdraw all Russian troops from
the US, Russian forces still does not want to leave the US completely, arguing that it wants
to secure oil fields in Texas from ISIS supported by Canada and Mexico, while helping Indians
and Indian Democratic Forces (IDF) who did not want to rejoin the US government and refused
an offer to dissolve the IDF and join the US army. Although initially Russian troops stopped
their support for the IDF.
Wait, there seems to be something wrong with this news! :)"
These remarks about climate change are a reminder that, as a society, we have lost our
ability to reason together. The discussion is poisoned, largely, by vested
interests-including the fossil fuel industry- using enormous amounts of money to prevent us
from reaching conclusions based upon the objective measurement of empirical data and taking
action accordingly.
Posted by: bevin | Nov 3 2019 18:37 utc | 29
Thanks for your well articulated remarks, Bevin. Climate-change science is not something
that can be researched by every Tom Dick and Harry in their kitchen, but, well, some people
still think they can. As a very wise person once remarked: The fool who thinks he is wise is
a fool indeed; but the fool who knows he is a fool, to that extent at least is wise.
Posted by: flankerbandit | Nov 3 2019 18:43 utc | 31
I agree with you 100% on Trump and Syrian oil. It is smoke and mirrors forced by the
resistance of the Elites. I think Trump knows - and accepts - that grabbing to oil is not
viable and that the US will be forced eventually to relinquish it, but it would be
domestically too difficult to do so at the moment.
i wonder if they're turkish or usa arms that were given these goons? the usa is being
attacked by weapons that gave to the friendly moderate headchoppers? the irony is rich if
so...
And as soon as the SDF fighters make that final break from the US...then it's game
over...it is really inevitable...the die is already cast...
yeah, perhaps. President Assad has an interesting perspective on occupation ...a
much more profound and apparently longer view (from a recent interview )
Journalist:returning to politics, and to the United States, in particular,
President Donald Trump announced his intention to keep a limited number of his troops in
Syria while redeploying some of them on the Jordanian borders and on the borders of the
Israeli enemy, while some of them will protect the oil fields. What is your position in this
regard, and how will the Syrian state respond to this illegitimate presence
President Assad:Regardless of these statements, the reality is that the
Americans are occupiers, whether they are in the east, the north or the south, the result is
the same. Once again, we should not be concerned with his statements, but rather deal with
the reality. When we are finished with the areas according to our military priorities and we
reach an area in which the Americans are present, I am not going to indulge in heroics and
say that we will send the army to face the Americans. We are talking about a super power. Do
we have the capabilities to do that? I believe that this is clear for us as Syrians. Do we
choose resistance? If there is resistance, the fate of the Americans will be similar to their
fate in Iraq. But the concept of resistance needs a popular state of mind that is the
opposite of being agents and proxies, a patriotic popular state which carries out acts of
resistance. The natural role of the state in this case is to provide all the necessary
conditions and necessary support to any popular resistance against the occupier. If we put to
one side the colonial and commercial American mentality which promotes the colonization of
certain areas for money, oil and other resources, we must not forget that the main agents
which brought the Americans, the Turks and others to this region are Syrians acting as agents
of foreigners – Syrian traitors. Dealing with all the other cases is just dealing with
the symptoms, while we should be addressing the causes. We should be dealing with those
Syrians and try to reformulate the patriotic state of the Syrian society – to restore
patriotism, restore the unity of opinion and ensure that there are no Syrian traitors. To
ensure that all Syrians are patriots, and that treason is no longer a matter of opinion, a
mere difference over a political issue. We should all be united against occupation. When we
reach this state, I assure you that the Americans will leave on their own accord because they
will have no opportunity to remain in Syria; although America is a superpower, it will not be
able to remain in Syria. This is something we saw in Lebanon at a certain point and in Iraq
at a later stage. I think this is the right solution
>Does that make one a troll in your estimation?
> Posted by: erik | Nov 3 2019 18:05 utc | 27
As in any religion, questions are not allowed. The constant shouting about oil company
anti-"The Sky Is Falling" campaigns is particularly silly. I have never seen a single ad or
even a spokesman on TV or radio saying man-made global warming isn't real. Not this year. Not
last year. Not ever. Global warming promoters have a giant podium and use it all day every
day to shout that they have no voice and drown out everyone else. It's not a good look.
I am no fan of oil companies. I very much resent that people who happen to live on top of
the oil are exposed to sometimes awful conditions. There's no need to make a mess, and not
cleaning up after oneself, harming people in the process, is unforgivable. That's something
oil company managers should have learned in kindergarten.
Currently there is no way to replace petroleum in many applications. People burning whale
oil lamps while watching whale populations decline knew they needed a better way, but would
have had no way to predict that better way would be petroleum. Funding basic research might
find a better way. Building more useless low-density intermittent windmills won't move
anybody off petroleum, except in a few unique situations.
I think Trump has been being loud and blunt about America taking Syria's oil precisely
because he knows that it is neither legal nor viable. If he can establish the narrative that
all it is now about is oil then the US will be forced to do as Trump has wanted all along and
leave Syria.
Reverse psychology.
The role the American President is supposed to be playing for the empire right now
is pushing the narrative of a need for more humanitarian murder and
downplaying/dismissing any suggestion that the US is in Syria for any reason other than pure
altruism. Trump outright stating that the US is going to take the oil is utterly destroying
the only narratives that the US can use to stay in Syria.
That is much more clever than I had ever given Trump credit for being.
>the weight of truth, revealed in masses of observations
> testable and available for examination, will lead to popular
> decision making on a matter too important to be left to others.
> Posted by: bevin | Nov 3 2019 18:37 utc | 29
Yes, actual observations, please, instead of models that don't work. The paleo record
seems to show that temperatures rise before CO2 increases. The modern record shows no
correlation, as in the recent multiyear "pause" in warming while CO2 was steady
increasing.
Claims that global warming causes every kind of unpleasant weather are silly. Too hot, too
cold, too wet, too dry, more snow, less snow, it's all caused by an increase in a trace
molecule. If the weather is unpleasant, it's "carbon". If the weather is good, there's no
comment. That's not very scientific.
regarding "securing syrian oil" - I'd say it was always more about blocking a possible
Iraq-Syria pipeline, which would give Iraq and potentially Iran a route to the Mediterranean
without either Saudi Arabia or Turkey or perhaps a Kurdistan being in the way.
flankerbandit
I have tossed this around myself when thinking about what is happening.
"I don't think Syria's oil has much to do with it...Trump simply latched onto that [quick
improvisation there] to justify his reversal to his own base that is feeling frustrated that
their hero can't even fulfill one of his major promises..."
Ending endless wars, expensive wars, bring the troops home, vs extra US military spending,
vetoing the congress resolution to pull out of the Yemen war, then there is the US deep state
aspect. And then Trumps past statements on the countries US has attacked.
Easy enough to pass off as as a person no deeper than his twitter persona for the seeming
inconsistencies.
Trump is overturning the norms or what developed as norms in the post WWII era. One of those
norms is that the US must try to give an appearance of moral leadership of the world.
Thinking outside the box of the post WWII era, a strategy can be seen in what Trump is
doing.
When it comes to foreign policy, Trumps focus is on oil and Israel. China ties in with the
focus on oil. Russia may well block what I believe to be Trump's strategy in the middle east
and if they do, I may never know for sure if I am right or wrong about the Trump admins
intentions.
But at the moment, I have to take it that Trump's moves are based around 'energy dominance'
and that includes owning other countries oil.
What you posit echoes what Climatologist Michael Mann wrote in Climate Wars .
In Assad's recent interview, on the Outlaw US Empire's illegal occupation and theft of
Syrian property, he's willing to be patient and take care of those areas Syria and its allies
can return to the national fold. Russia, Iran and Assad are all on the same page and of the
same mind when it comes to dealing with the illegal occupation, which they know is untenable
in the long run. In fact, it actually serves an excellent purpose in providing the impetus
for nations to dedollarize and beware of accepting any sort of aid it offers--this is
particularly important in Africa and Latin America. Monthly like clockwork, Lavrov or another
top Russian official calls for the Outlaw US Empire to remove its illegally deployed troops,
which reminds the world of what the Outlaw US Empire is and its aims being opposite of its
rhetoric--Truth is far more potent than propaganda.
"... Washington's basic purpose in deploying the US forces in oil and natural gas fields of Deir al-Zor governorate is to deny the valuable source of income to its other main rival in the region, Damascus. ..."
Before the evacuation of 1,000 American troops from northern
Syria to western Iraq, the Pentagon had 2,000 US forces in Syria.
After the drawdown of US
troops at Erdogan's insistence in order for Ankara to mount a ground offensive in northern Syria,
the US has still deployed 1,000 troops, mainly in oil-rich eastern Deir al-Zor province and
at al-Tanf military base.
Al-Tanf military base is strategically located in southeastern Syria on the border between Syria,
Iraq and Jordan, and it straddles on a critically important Damascus-Baghdad highway, which
serves as a lifeline for Damascus.
Washington has illegally occupied 55-kilometer area around
al-Tanf since 2016, and several hundred US Marines have trained several Syrian militant groups there.
It's worth noting that rather than fighting the Islamic State, the purpose of continued presence
of the US forces at al-Tanf military base is to address Israel's concerns regarding the expansion of
Iran's influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
Regarding the oil- and natural gas-rich Deir al-Zor governorate, it's worth pointing out
that Syria used to produce modest quantities of oil for domestic needs before the war roughly 400,000
barrels per day, which isn't much compared to tens of millions barrels daily oil production in the
Gulf states.
Although Donald Trump crowed in a characteristic blunt manner in a tweet after the withdrawal of
1,000 American troops from northern Syria that Washington had deployed forces in eastern Syria where
there was oil,
the purpose of exercising control over Syria's oil is neither to smuggle oil
out of Syria nor to deny the valuable source of revenue to the Islamic State.
There is no denying the fact that the remnants of the Islamic State militants are still found in
Syria and Iraq but its emirate has been completely dismantled in the region and its leadership is on
the run. So much so that the fugitive caliph of the terrorist organization was killed in the bastion
of a rival jihadist outfit, al-Nusra Front in Idlib, hundreds of kilometers away from the Islamic State
strongholds in eastern Syria.
Much like the "scorched earth" battle strategy of medieval warlords as in the case of the Islamic
State which early in the year burned crops of local farmers while retreating from its former strongholds
in eastern Syria
Washington's basic purpose in deploying the US forces in oil and
natural gas fields of Deir al-Zor governorate is to deny the valuable source of income to its other
main rival in the region, Damascus.
After the devastation caused by eight years of proxy war, the Syrian government is in dire need
of tens of billions dollars international assistance to rebuild the country. Not only is Washington
hampering efforts to provide international aid to the hapless country, it is in fact squatting over
Syria's own resources with the help of its only ally in the region, the Kurds.
Although Donald Trump claimed credit for expropriating Syria's oil wealth, it bears mentioning
that "scorched earth" policy is not a business strategy, it is the institutional logic of the deep
state.
President Trump is known to be a businessman and at least ostensibly follows a non-interventionist
ideology; being a novice in the craft of international diplomacy, however, he has time and again been
misled by the Pentagon and Washington's national security establishment.
Regarding Washington's interest in propping up the Gulf's autocrats and fighting their wars in regional
conflicts, it bears mentioning that in April 2016, the Saudi foreign minister
threatened
that the Saudi kingdom would sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other
assets if the US Congress passed a bill that would allow Americans to sue the Saudi government in the
United States courts for its role in the September 11, 2001 terror attack though the bill was eventually
passed, Saudi authorities have not been held accountable; even though 15 out of 19 9/11 hijackers were
Saudi nationals.
Moreover, $750 billion is only the Saudi investment in the United States, if we add its investment
in Western Europe and the investments of UAE, Kuwait and Qatar in the Western economies, the sum total
would amount to trillions of dollars of Gulf's investments in North America and Western Europe.
Furthermore, in order to bring home the significance of the Persian Gulf's oil in the energy-starved
industrialized world, here are a few stats from the OPEC data:
Saudi Arabia has the world's
largest proven crude oil reserves of 265 billion barrels and its daily oil production exceeds 10 million
barrels; Iran and Iraq, each, has 150 billion barrels reserves and has the capacity to produce 5 million
barrels per day, each; while UAE and Kuwait, each, has 100 billion barrels reserves and produces 3
million barrels per day, each; thus, all the littoral states of the Persian Gulf, together, hold 788
billion barrels, more than half of world's 1477 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.
No wonder then, 36,000 United States troops have currently been deployed in their numerous military
bases and aircraft carriers in the oil-rich Persian Gulf in accordance with the Carter Doctrine of
1980, which states: "Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain
control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United
States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military
force."
Additionally, regarding the Western defense production industry's sales of arms to the Gulf Arab
States,
a report
authored
by William Hartung of the US-based Center for International Policy found that the Obama administration
had offered Saudi Arabia more than $115 billion in weapons, military equipment and training during
its eight-year tenure.
Similarly, the top items in Trump's agenda for his maiden visit to Saudi Arabia in May 2017 were:
firstly, he threw his weight behind the idea of the Saudi-led "Arab NATO" to counter Iran's influence
in the region; and secondly, he announced an unprecedented arms package for Saudi Arabia. The package
included between $98 billion and $128 billion in arms sales.
Therefore, keeping the economic dependence of the Western countries on the Gulf Arab States in mind,
during the times of global recession when most of manufacturing has been outsourced to China, it is
not surprising that when the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia decided to provide training and arms
to the Islamic jihadists in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan against the government of Bashar
al-Assad in Syria, the Obama administration was left with no other choice but to toe the destructive
policy of its regional Middle Eastern allies, despite the sectarian nature of the proxy war and its
attendant consequences of breeding a new generation of Islamic jihadists who would become a long-term
security risk not only to the Middle East but to the Western countries, as well.
Similarly, when King Abdullah's successor King Salman decided, on the whim of the Crown Prince Mohammad
bin Salman, to invade Yemen in March 2015, once again the Obama administration had to yield to the
dictates of Saudi Arabia and UAE by fully coordinating the Gulf-led military campaign in Yemen not
only by providing intelligence, planning and logistical support but also by selling billions of dollars'
worth of arms and ammunition to the Gulf Arab States during the conflict.
In this reciprocal relationship, the US provides security to the ruling families of the Gulf Arab
states by providing weapons and troops; and in return, the Gulf's petro-sheikhs contribute substantial
investments to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to the Western economies.
Regarding the Pax Americana which is the reality of the contemporary neocolonial order,
according to a January 2017
infographic
by the New York Times, 210,000 US military personnel were stationed all over the world,
including 79,000 in Europe, 45,000 in Japan, 28,500 in South Korea and 36,000 in the Middle East.
Although Donald Trump keeps complaining that NATO must share the cost of deployment of US troops,
particularly in Europe where 47,000 American troops are stationed in Germany since the end of the Second
World War, 15,000 in Italy and 8,000 in the United Kingdom, fact of the matter is that the cost is
already shared between Washington and host countries.
Roughly, European countries pay one-third of the cost for maintaining US military bases in Europe
whereas Washington chips in the remaining two-third. In the Far Eastern countries, 75% of the cost
for the deployment of American troops is shared by Japan and the remaining 25% by Washington, and in
South Korea, 40% cost is shared by the host country and the US contributes the remaining 60%.
Whereas the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar pay
two-third of the cost for maintaining 36,000 US troops in the Persian Gulf where more than half of
world's proven oil reserves are located and Washington contributes the remaining one-third.
* * *
Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the
politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism.
I am always amazed (and amused) at
how much smarter "journalists" are
than POTUS. If ONLY Mr. Trump would
read more and listen to those who
OBVIOUSLY are sooo much smarter!!!!
Maybe then he wouldn't be cowed and
bullied by Erdogan, Xi, Jung-on,
Trudeau (OK so maybe that one was
too far fetched) to name a few.
Please note the sarcasm. Do I really
need to go in to the success after
success Mr. Trump's foreign policy
has enjoyed? Come on Man.
What a load of BOLOCKS...The ONLY, I
mean The Real and True Reason for
American Armored presence is one
thing,,,,,,,Ready for IT ? ? ? To
Steal as much OIL as Possible, AND
convert the Booty into Currency,
Diamonds or some other intrinsically
valuable commodity, Millions of
Dollars at a Time......17 Years of
Shadows and Ghost Trucks and Tankers
Loading and Off-Loading the Black
Gold...this is what its all
about......M-O-N-E-Y....... Say It
With Me.... Mon-nee, Money Money
Mo_on_ne_e_ey, ......
From the sale of US oil in Syria
receive 30 million. dollars per
month. Image losses are immeasurably
greater. The United States put the
United States as a robbery bandit.
This is American democracy. The
longer the troops are in Syria, the
more countries will switch to
settlements in national currencies.
"Our interests", "strategic
interests" is always about money,
just a euphemism so it doesn't
look as greedy as it is. Another
euphemism is "security' ,meaning
war preparations.
...The military power of the USA
put directly in the service of "the
original TM" PIRATE STATE.
U are
the man Norm! But wait... now things
get a little hazy... in the
classic... 'alt0media fake
storyline' fashion!
"President Trump is known to be a
businessman and at least ostensibly
follows a non-interventionist
ideology; being a novice in the
craft of international diplomacy,
however, he has time and again been
misled by the Pentagon and
Washington's national security
establishment."
Awww! Poor "DUmb as Rocks
Donnie" done been fooled agin!
...In the USA... the military men
are stirring at last... having been
made all too aware that their
putative 'boss' has been operating
on behalf of foreign powers ever
since being [s]elected, that the
State Dept of the once Great
Republic has been in active cahoots
with the jihadis ...
and that those who were sent over
there to fight against the
headchoppers discovered that the
only straight shooters in the whole
mess turned out to be the Kurds who
AGENT FRIMpf THREW UNDER THE BUS
ON INSTRUCTIONS FROM JIHADI HQ!
Arguably some of the most significant events since the eight-year long war's start have played out in Syria with rapid pace over
just the last month alone, including Turkey's military incursion in the north, the US pullback from the border and into Syria's oil
fields, the Kurdish-led SDF&# deal making with Damascus, and the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. All of this is why a
televised interview with Presiden39;st Bashar Assad was highly anticipated at the end of this week.
Assad's commentary on the latest White House policy to "secure the oil" in Syria, for which US troops have already been redeployed
to some of the largest oil fields in the Deir Ezzor region, was the biggest pressing question. The Syrian president's response was
unexpected and is now driving headlines, given what he said directly about Trump, calling him the "best American president" ever
because he's the "most transparent."
"When it comes to Trump you may ask me a question and I'll give you an answer which might seem strange. I tell you he's the best
American president," Assad said, according to a
translation provided by NBC.
"Why? Not because his policies are good, but because he is the most transparent president," Assad continued.
"All American presidents commit crimes and end up taking the Nobel Prize and appear as a defender of human rights and the 'unique'
and 'brilliant' American or Western principles. But all they are is a group of criminals who only represent the interests of the
American lobbies of large corporations in weapons, oil and others," he added.
"Trump speaks with the transparency to say 'We want the oil'." Assad's unique approach to an 'enemy' head of state which has just
ordered the seizure of Syrian national resources also comes after in prior years the US president called Assad "our enemy" and an
"animal."
Trump tweeted in April 2018 after
a new chemical attack allegation had surfaced: "If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand, the Syrian disaster
would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!"
A number of mainstream outlets commenting on Assad's interview falsely presented it as "praise" of Trump or that Assad thinks
"highly" of him; however,
it appears the Syrian leader was merely presenting Trump's policy statements from a 'realist' perspective , contrasting them from
the misleading 'humanitarian' motives typical of Washington's rhetoric about itself.
That is, Damascus sees US actions in the Middle East as motivated fundamentally by naked imperial ambition, a constant prior theme
of Assad's speeches , across administrations, whether US leadership dresses it up as 'democracy promotion' or in humanitarian terms
characteristic of liberal interventionism. As Assad described, Trump seems to skip dressing up his rhetoric in moralistic idealism
altogether, content to just unapologetically admit the ugly reality of US foreign policy.
I see Americans keep calling Assad and Putin a ''dictator'' Hey, jackasses, they were ELECTED in elections far less corrupt than what you have in the USSA
Assad is a very eloquent speaker. Witty, sharp and always calm when speaking with decadent press. Of course the MSM understood
what he DID mean, but they cannot help themselves, but parse anything to try hurting Trump.
If true. It means the Vatican (the oldest most important money there is) like Saudi Arabia and the UAE sure do seem to care
about stuff like purchasing power in their "portfolios" and a "store of value"?...
I see lots of EU participants taking their money to Moscow as well with that Arctic bonanza that says "come hither" if you
want your money to be worth something!!!
It's always been about oil. Spreading Freedumb, Dumbocracy and Western values, is PR spiel. The reality is, the West are scammers,
plunderers and outright thieves. Forget the billions Shell Oil, is holding for the Biafran people/region in Nigeria, which it
won't give to either the Bianfran states in the east, nor the Nigerian government, dating back to the secessionist state of Biafra/Nigerian civil war 1967-70. The west are nothing more than gang-bangers, but on the world stage.
Yet the department for trade and industry is scratching its head, wondering why their are so few takers for a post-Brexit trade
deal with the UK, where the honest UK courts have the final say? lol
Too bad it is political suicide for an American president to try to establish communication with Assad. He seems like a pretty
practical guy and who knows, it might be possible to work out a peaceful settlement with him.
economic warfare on the syrian civlian population through illegal confiscation of vital civilian economic assets, and as conducted
in venezeula, is called ________________
Assad is saying where before the UKK was a masked thief, with Trompas and his egotism alias exceptionalism, has not bothered
withthe mask. He is still a murderer and thief.
Now Assad has some idea why Trump is so popular with his base, they love him for not being politically correct, for "telling
it like it is". He's like the wolf looking at the sheep and telling them he's going to eat them and the sheep cheering because
he's not being a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Unfortunately in the case of Trump's sheeple, they don't even have a clue they're going to be eaten, the Trumptards all think
he's going to eat someone else like the "deep state" or the "dumbocrats". Meanwhile he's chewing away at their health care, their
export markets, piling up record deficits, handing the tax gold to the rich and corporations while they get the shaft, taking
away program after program that aided students, the poor, and the elderly, appointing lobbyists to dismantle or corrupt departments
they used to lobby against, and in general destroying the international good will that it's taken decades to build.
MOSCOW, October 26, 2019 – RIA Novosti – The Russian Ministry of Defense has
published satellite intelligence images , showing American oil smuggling from Syria.
Image 1: Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic as of October 26, 2019.
According to the ministry, the photos confirm that "Syrian oil, both before and after the
routing defeat of the Islamic State terrorists in land beyond the Euphrates river , under the
reliable protection by US military servicemen, oil was actively being extracted and then the
fuel trucks were massively being sent for processing outside of Syria."
Image 2: Daman oil gathering station, Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 42 km east of Deir
ez-Zor, August 23, 2019.
Here, in a picture of the Daman oil gathering station (42 kilometers east of the Deir-ez-Zor
province), taken on August 23, a large amount of trucks were spotted. "There were 90 automotive
vehicles, including 23 fuel trucks," the caption to the image said.
In addition, on September 5, there were 25 vehicles in the Al-Hasakah province, including 22
fuel trucks. Three days later, on September 8, in the vicinity of Der Ez-Zor, 36 more vehicles
were recorded (32 of them were fuel trucks). On the same day, 41 vehicles, including 34 fuel
trucks, were in the Mayadin onshore area.
Image 3: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Al-Hasakah province, 8 km west of Al-Shaddadi,
September 5, 2019.
As the official representative of the Defense Ministry Igor Konashenkov noted, the Americans
are extracting oil in Syria with the help of equipment, bypassing their own sanctions.
Igor Konashenkov:
"Under the protection of American military servicemen and employees of American PMCs, fuel
trucks from the oil fields of Eastern Syria are smuggling to other states. In the event of
any attack on such a caravan, special operations forces and US military aircraft are
immediately called in to protect it," he said.
According to Konashenkov, the US-controlled company Sadcab , established under the so-called
Autonomous Administration of Eastern Syria , is engaged in the export of oil, and the income of
smuggling goes to the personal accounts of US PMCs and special forces.
The Major General added that as of right now, a barrel of smuggled Syrian oil is valued at
$38, therefore the monthly revenue of US governmental agencies exceeds $30 million.
Image 4: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 10 km east of Mayadin,
September 8, 2019.
"For such a continuous financial flow, free from control and taxes of the American
government, the leadership of the Pentagon and Langley will be ready to guard and defend oil
fields in Syria from the mythical 'hidden IS cells' endlessly," he said.
According to Konashenkov, Washington, by holding oil fields in eastern Syria, is engaged in
international state banditry.
Image 5: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 14 km east of Mayadin,
September 8, 2019.
The reason for this activity, he believes, "lies far from the ideals of freedom proclaimed
by Washington and their slogans on the fight against terrorism."
Igor Konashenkov:
"Neither in international law, nor in American legislation itself – there is not and
cannot be a single legal task for the American troops to protect and defend the hydrocarbon
deposits of Syria from Syria itself and its own people, " the representative of the Defense
Ministry concluded.
A day earlier, the Pentagon's head, Mark Esper declared that the United States is studying
the situation in the Deir ez-Zor region and intends to strengthen its positions there in the
near future "to ensure the safety of oil fields."
The Ruskies are mad - Trump is stopping them from taking the oil, it belongs to the Kurds
for their revenue and if US wants to help them have it so what....US is staying to secure
those oilfields against ISIS taking it again!
If everyone listened to the President when he talks there wouldn't be any spin that anyone
could get away with.
The oil is on Kurdish land. This part of Syria is just a small sector of Kurdish territory
that has been stolen from them by dividing it between four "countries", each of which has
oil. This is why the territory was stolen and why the Kurds have become the world's best
fighters.
Putin brokered a deal to stop Turkey wiping the Kurds by having their fighting force
assimilate with the Syrian military and required Russian observers access to ensure the Turks
keep their word and not invade to wipe all the Kurd civilians in order to also take their
Syrian oil.
So the corrupt US generals get caught in the act. Their senators and reps on the payroll
are going to need some more of that fairy tale PR for POTUS to read to us at bedtime.
If we are to believe that this is to protect the oil fields then the oil revenue should be
going to Syria, even though the Kurds are on the land. Follow the money to find the truth
because there is no one you can trust on this stage.
MSM are simply not covering this story. Or the other story about the supposed gas attack
at Douma where evidence was adulterated and/or ignored completely under US pressure.
Expect the same from MH17.
WTF is going on with our leaders and corporate MSM....can no one in a leadership position
distinguish between lies and the truth? Or fantasy and reality? Where are the 'journalists'
who will stand up and tell the truth in MSM? They no longer exist.
18 wheel fuel trucks around here hold 10K gal. 50 truck loads 500K of un processed oil if
it's true? I though they just got there. but no telling who might steal under those
conditions.
That was August. this is now. The Russians must have really wanted that oil to finance
their occupation. Trump is preventing ISIS from using the oil as their piggy bank.
Wasn't Erdogan doing the same not too long ago? Shortly after Erdogan became close friends
with Putin. Does this mean Trump and Putin will become close friends as well? Or is this
simply a common practice between two people who undeservingly place relatives in government
positions? First Turkey hands over Al Baghdadi (he received medical treatment in Southern
Turkey in a private clinic owned by Erdogan's daughter guarded by MIT agents) so that they
can continue to commit genocide against Kurds in Turkey and Syria... and now the US is
stealing Syrian oil like how the Turks initially were doing. What a mess and a
disappointment. Hopefully Erdogan visits DC and unleashes his security guards beating any
person freely walking the streets while Trump smiles and describes him as a great leader.
Watch in coming weeks as the tanker convoys are proven to be rogue operations from an out
of control CIA / Cabal network. Trump removed the troops, and now Russia is shining a light
on it.
No coincidence another article on ZH brung attention to the Ukrainian wareehouse arsos..12
in 2 yrs..2017-2018 where stored munition were carted away...not to fight rebels n Donbass
but sold to Islamic groups in Syria..it was one of Bidens pals..one keeps the wars going
while the others steal siphon of resources..whatever isn't nailed down..I've never seen
anything like this..Democrats are truly CRIME INC
w/o that oil..Syria can never reconstruct itself..Usually in a War or ,after that is, the
victors help rebuild..what we see is pillaging and salting the earth and walk away.. as the
Romans did to enemies like Carthage..it will resemble Libya ...a shambles
So the smuggling is protected by air cover and special forces? Light up the fields using
some scud missiles. I'm sure Iran or Iraq have a few they could lend Syria. Can't sell it if
its burning.
Brits and Americans have pillaged, as any other empire, wherever they conquered.
After WW1 the 'Allies' robbed Germany of all foreign currency and its entire gold. This
triggering hyperinflation and mega crisis.
During WW2 central bank gold was pillaged from countries that were 'liberated' across
Europe.
In more recent history, the gold of Iraq, Ukraine and Libya was flown to Fort Knox.
All well documented.
This is common practice by empires. Just please stop pretending you were the good
guys , spreading freedom and democracy, because that's really a mockery and the
disgusting part of your invasions.
During WW2 central bank gold was pillaged from countries that were 'liberated'.
Exactly, that's where the US got its 8,000 tons of gold. Before WWII, the US had 2000 tons
of gold, after WWII it had 8,000 tons. Even today the US always steals the gold of the
countries it "liberates"
Help me understand why the USA would want to smuggle oil from Syria. When the USA has more
oil than all of the middleast.
Now I can see why Russia would blame the USA if smuggling Oil from Syria. Russia needs
that oil really bad. So to get the USA away from the Syrian oil fields they would of course
create a reason for the rest of the world that the USA is Dishonerable and must not be
trusted with Syrian oil. It is just too obvious to me, what Russia is trying to
accomplish.
Huh? The US is stealing the oil to deprive the Syrian people energy they need to rebuild
the country we destroyed. This is collective punishment of Syrians because they won't
overthrow Assad.
Collective punishment is a crime against humanity according to international law. There's
your impeachable offense. But don't worry, that kind of crime is ok with Shifty Schiff and
the rest of the Israel ***-kissers in Congress.
The US is NOT stealing the oil - the American Military have become PIRATES - no different
than Somali Red Sea Pirates or looters in Newark stealing diapers and TV's
This is nothing new. We've been stealing oil from dozens of countries for the past 75
years since WWII. The only difference is that Trump is being blatant about it which in a way
is weirdly refreshing.
It appears that the US (25% of global oil consumption/waste?) has but 3 choices. 1. Become
Trading partners with Russia and Iran. 2. Get serious on Energy Transition execution. 3. War,
Terror and more regime change 4. Deploy the Alan Parsons Project. https://youtu.be/Ei_GZnrr1nw?t=23
What say You?
Usually 1 and 3 are combined in the resource rich country aren't they? Then it goes wrong
some way down the road when the new regime 'turn', and things get worse than before
Here you go, chew on this. The day there are the initial 2 mile long lines at gasoline
stations, not just in the US but all over the world . . . that day we will still see
announcements of record oil production globally.
This is species killing stuff. Wall Street popular saying . . . no one rings a bell at the
top. Well, no one is going to give you any warning whatsoever that oil scarcity deaths start
that month. You will know nothing of it. You will be told it is all from some temporary
factor that will soon be fixed.
So if you see something now that looks like a warning sign, it's probably not legit.
Perhaps. OPEC is producing at 2011 levels. The world is kept at bay from peak oil only by US
shale production. And US shale production is on shaky legs, just trying to stay ahead of the
red queen.
I just don't see this blind optimism that US shale will continue upward for the next 5 to
6 years.
I well remember when it was said that: "When Saudi Arabia peaks, the world peaks". That
was just not correct. But now it is obvious that when the US of A peaks, the world peaks.
Sanctions are not affecting Venezuela's oil production. It is collapsing for another
reason. And it will take them a decade or more to recover when they finally settle their
economic problems.
But there will always be political problems. They are likely to get worse, not better.
Peak oil will be when the most oil is produced, not what could be produced if there were
no political problems anywhere in the world.
Opec will not save the world and neither will USA . The problem is that all the increase in
the last few years is from shale or LTO ,call it what you will . Problem is that this is
mostly + 45 API so poor in middle distillates . In reality peak oil is when the^ black goo^
peaks . NGL's ,NGPL,s ,bio fuels, LTO and the term ^all liquids^ are used as a fig leaf to
hide the real peak of the ^black goo ^ . We are past peak as far as the ^black goo^ is
concerned .
"The problem is that all the increase in the last few years is from shale or LTO ,call it
what you will . Problem is that this is mostly + 45 API so poor in middle distillates . "
In 2005 (!) on Bloomberg tv channel someone said, in other words, that the most valuable
oil to make kerosene of is increasingly difficult to get. I guess that kerosene is a middle
distillate.
The shale oil boom might last for many decades, for what it is worth
The shale oil boom might last for many decades, for what it is worth.
Shale production may continue for a decade, or a bit longer, but not decades. However,
that is not the point. The point is, how long can shale continue to increase
production.
The legacy decline for shale varies between 5% and 6% per month! The EIA's Drilling
Productivity Report says US Shale production will increase by 85,000 barrels per day in
September. Probably not, but that is not the point. To get an increase of 85,000 barrels per
day, they had to have new well production of 649,000 barrels per day. That is because they
had 564,000 barrels per day of legacy decline. For every one barrel per day of increased
production, they had to produce 7.64 barrels per day of new oil because they had 6.64
barrels per day of legacy decline.
The more they produce the more they have to produce just to stay even.
For every one barrel per day of increased production, they had to produce 7.64 barrels per
day of new oil.
This is the key point regarding shale oil production. The higher the production, the more
new production is needed to increase production. It's essentially an exponential function.
Shale oil production will not increase for much longer because it's not physically possible
to drill/frack at a sustained exponential rate.
Shale production is not oil production, it's mining.
You need 3 drilling teams, 4 fracking teams and get over long time a constant production.
When you want to increase (say you have enough acres, as enough ore in a iron mine) you hire
2 new teams, as in mining employing a new excavator and conveyor belts.
So, like in a mine, when you fire a team production drops almost immediately.
The big ones (XON) in the Permian do Shale oil mining exactly like this – they have
own drilling and fracking team, working constantly.
The same thing as mining is when you have to drill your b-class acres. As in a mine when
the ore veins run out in thickness.
So either close your mine, hire more teams to maintain production or life with decreasing
production at constant costs when the qulity is declining.
I've left out technical progress. This is just a cost reducer (need less drilling /
fracking teams to do the same output).
Eulenspiegel, your mining example is not a good comparison at all. That is because new mines
don't decline in production by 6% per month.
Here is the exponential function of shale oil. They must produce new oil at the decline
rate just to stay even. Growth in production is only accomplished if they produce more oil
than declined that month.
But if they do produce more oil than the decline rate, then the decline will be even
higher the next month. That is, if they had to produce 649,000 barrels of new oil in
September to grow production by 85,000 barrels, then to grow oil by a like amount in October,
they will have to produce more than 649,000 barrels. The more they increase production each
month, then the more they will have to produce the next month just to stay even.
When production increases, the monthly loss through legacy decline also increases.
Therefore just producing the same increase as they did last month will not do. They must
always continue to increase by more than they did last month just to stay even.
Ron, in my opinion it is a better model than conventional oil.
In conventional oil, you can pump 20 years after drilling. For 50 you'll have to do more
things like water flooding etc. So increasing production is just drilling a few more holes
(and install the additional infrastructure).
In mining, you have a decline rate of 100% / day.
You send a team in, they mine 100 tons of ore in their shift, move out and production after
their shift is 0.
When you want more ore, you have to send in a team next day again.
Having 1 minint team gives you constant ore / day. Firing them gives you sudden production
of 0.
So with LTO you send a fracking team in to create 1 well, produce oil for a few months
(I'm exaggerating) and then you have 0 production again.
So you have to send in the team again. And again.
If you use 1 team drillling constantly new holes. you'll have nearly constant production
(after the first ramp up time of overlaying declining productions, in reality a few
years).
Increasing production means more teams constantly drilling new holes (as in mining: drill
hole, fill with explosives, boom, carry away ore, repeat).
The big question for the peak shale oil is here: How many drilling/fracking teams can be
payed and supplied with anything they need for working efficient. It's not just hiring
teams.
To employ more teams they need more road capacity, sand capacity, water transport, take
away pipelines, more stuff you know better than me.
As in deep mining: The elevator capacity / tunnel train capacity limits the maximum
possible production. For increasing production, you have to increase everything, and then
hire new teams.
So the question is: How much money do they invest to stretch all these capacities.
Well the world's conventional oil production certainly peaked a while ago. Even if one treats
Venezuela and Canada as conventional because their production was usually in forecasts, the
USA fracking has to be considered a separate thing. The industry cycle is different, the
grade produced is different, the economics are "different." The tail is *very* different as
without new drilling the entire patch would disappear in less than three years. Blap, gone to
stripper wells.
This is the age of Trump. I know for us simpletons it makes sense the average would be
production. I'm not sure how Trump would do it, but I'll bet the tangerine could make 2019
peak the best ever. A world depression followed by war.
No, but OPEC + Russia + Canada, about 58% of world oil production, is down 667,000 barrels
per day, April to July. I doubt that the other 42% of world oil production is up anywhere
near that amount.
The 2019 7 month average for OPEC + Russia + Canada is 1,629,000 barrels per day below
their 2018 average.
I have posted that chart up top, just below OPEC+ Russia.
Every week we watch these invenstory draws/builds and every week the commentariat is out
to explain how they drive the price fluctuations. Except there's -80% correlation between oil
price and USD Index. Implying that events that have nothing to do with these blessed
draws/builds have much greater pull on price changes... More here: "
Failure of price forecasting: the unit of account conundrum "
It looks like an accumulation at the time crude oil wti.
After the price will cross any border of the triangle with powerful candle we can open
BUY/SELL entry. Potential profit will be in 3...5 times bigger than risk.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was
the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was
the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the
winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going
direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way -- in short, the period was so far
like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being
received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only. - Charles
Dickens
"... It is bizarre that Qatar was the one country/sheikdom in the Gulf that openly stood by Iran ..."
"... Shale is already deeply unprofitable and always has been. Big-dollar investors like pension funds have continued funding it due to (a) hype and (b) lack of alternative putative sources of return, but it's finally starting to sink in that shale has no future. ..."
Lambert
here: "Both MBS and MBZ consider the last-minute cancellation of the US retaliatory strike [for
Iran shooting down a US drone] a personal affront and humiliation because Trump did not accept
and follow their positions and demands for action. Both MBS and MBZ are now convinced that not
only the US demonstrated weakness and lack of resolve, but that Pres. Trump was personally not
committed to fighting Iran on behalf of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikhdoms." Oh, let's you
and him fight!
By Yossef Bodansky, Director of Research at the International Strategic Studies
Association (ISSA) and Senior Editor of Defense & Foreign Affairs publications (including
the Global Information System: GIS), was, for more than a decade, the Director of the US House
of Representatives Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare.
Originally published at OilPrice.com .
All attention is focused on the twists-and-turns of the very noisy US-Iran dispute in the
Persian Gulf, but all the while the People's Republic of China (PRC) is rapidly and quietly
consolidating a dominant presence in the area
with the active support of Russia.
Beijing, as a result, is fast acquiring immense influence over related key dynamics such as
the price of oil in the world market and the relevance of the petrodollar. The PRC and the
Russians are capitalizing on both the growing fears of Iran and the growing mistrust of the US.
Hence, the US is already the main loser of the PRC's gambit.
The dramatic PRC success can be attributed to the confluence of two major trends:
(1) The quality and relevance of what Beijing can offer to both Iran and the Saudi-Gulf
States camp; and
(2) The decision of key Arab leaders -- most notably Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
bin 'Abd al-'Aziz al Sa'ud (aka MBS) and his close ally, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi,
Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan (aka MBZ) -- to downgrade their traditional close
ties with the US, and reach out to Beijing to provide a substitute strategic umbrella.
Hence, the PRC offer to oversee and guarantee the establishment of a regional collective
security regime -- itself based on the Russian proposals and ideas first raised in late July
2019 -- is now getting considerable positive attention from both shores of the Persian Gulf.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, and Oman appear to be becoming
convinced that the PRC could be the key to the long-term stability and prosperity in the
Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula.
Iran is also considering the expansion of security cooperation with Russia as an added
umbrella against potential US retaliation.
Overall, according to sources in these areas, the US was increasingly perceived as an
unpredictable, disruptive element.
The profound change in the attitude of the Saudi and Emirati ruling families, who for
decades have considered themselves pliant protégés of the US, took long to
evolve. However, once formulated and adopted, the new policies have been implemented
swiftly.
The main driving issue is the realization by both MBS and MBZ that, irrespective of the
reassuring rhetoric of US Pres. Donald Trump and Jared Kushner, their bitter nemesis -- Qatar
-- is far more important to the US than the rest of the conservative Arab monarchies and
sheikhdoms of the GCC. The last straw came in early July 2019 in the aftermath of the visit of
the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, to Washington, DC.
Sheikh Tamim received an extravagant reception from both Pres. Trump in person and
official Washington. Trump lavished praises on Qatar and the Emir , and emphasized the
US renewed commitment "to further advancing the high-level strategic cooperation between our
two countries".
There are good reasons for the US preference of Qatar.
The Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar is by far the most important US base in the entire greater
Middle East. Qatar is mediating between the US and several nemeses, including Afghanistan,
Iran, and Turkey. Qatar is providing "humanitarian cash" to HAMAS in the Gaza Strip, thus
buying quiet time for Israel. Qatar has given generous "political shelter" to numerous leaders,
seniors, and commanders of questionable entities the US would like to protect but would never
acknowledge this (including anti-Russia Chechens and other Caucasians, and anti-China Uighurs).
Related:
Gibraltar Releases Iranian Tanker
Qatari Intelligence is funding and otherwise supporting the various jihadist entities
which serve as proxies of the CIA and M?T ( Milli ?stihbarat Te?kilat?: the Turkish
National Intelligence Organization) in the greater Middle East (mainly Syria, Iraq, Libya,
Jordan, Yemen) and Central Asia (mainly Afghanistan-Pakistan, China's Xinjiang and Russia's
Caucasus and the Turkic peoples of eastern Siberia).
On top of this, Qatar is purchasing billions of dollars' worth of US-made weapons; and
paying cash on-time (unlike the habitually late Saudis who now cannot afford to pay what
they've already promised).
Moreover, the Middle East is awash with rumors that Qatari businessmen saved the financial
empire of the Kushner family by investing at least half-a-billion dollars in the 666 5th Avenue
project in New York. The rumors are very specific in that the investment was made for political
reasons on instruction of the Emir . In the conspiracies-driven Arab Middle East, such
rumors are believed and serve as a viable motive for the policies of the Trump White House: an
ulterior motive the Saudis and Gulfies cannot challenge.
"They discussed coordination of forthcoming regional crises and diplomatic initiatives.
They agreed that the current dynamic vis-à-vis the US could lead to either a US
capitulation and withdrawal, or to a major escalation all over the greater Middle East.
Soleimani believed the latter option was more likely. Therefore, Soleimani and Zarif
discussed how to better utilize the Russian and PRC umbrella to not only shield Iran against
US onslaught, but to also convince the Arab states to stay out of the fighting."
A lot of focus on the Arabs but only a brief mention of the Israelis. I suspect this is
why Soleimani believes escalation is likely: the Israelis are the main driving force pushing
the U.S. take out Iran. My question: How tight is Adelson and Netanyahu's grip on the strange
orange man?
'How tight is Adelson and Netanyahu's grip on the strange orange man?'
I think the refusal to retaliate against Iran for shooting down a drone has already given
an answer to this question. If my guess is correct then we can expect a new outbreak of the
wars between the Deep State and the various populist factions now gaining ground. It seems
the folk are tired of the burdens of empire in spite of being propagandized by their betters
day and night. Better watch out for another major terrorist attack, I suppose.
It is bizarre that Qatar was the one country/sheikdom in the Gulf that openly stood by
Iran, if only because of the idiotic Saudi attempted embargo of it, while at the same time
Qatari funded mercenaries in Syria fought Iranian backed Hezbollah forces there.
As bizarre
as Russia sending S-400s to Turkey last month and Turkish-allied militants shelling a Russian
observation post in Syria yesterday. Also, maybe Qatar's importance to the US is its regional
support for Iran.
China's largest oil company backed out of a large Venezuelan crude purchase last week and
it will be interesting to see if they continue to violate US sanctions on Iran.
Shale is already deeply unprofitable and always has been. Big-dollar investors like
pension funds have continued funding it due to (a) hype and (b) lack of alternative putative
sources of return, but it's finally starting to sink in that shale has no future.
If the bubble doesn't pop by itself, a Chinese end-run would likely do so, thereby
ratcheting the stakes up in the Middle East that much higher. Then we're back to Soleimani's
"latter option".
Different take from MOA, particularly re Russians stationed in Iran which none may call
bases.
None of this in msm but of course, because this is news the contradiscts official narrative.
Msm is reporting Iran oil trans shipped between tankers to bust sanctions but if China takes
large, say 2 million b/d, can't be hid what will us do?
Probably not much if in China ships.
More tariffs?
"... I thought all these foreign countries were international." He explained that "international" means countries that are not really countries. They're Liberia and Panama, countries that only use the US dollar, not their own currency. So the oil industry doesn't have a currency risk. They are flags of convenience and they don't have any income tax. ..."
"... He explained to me that Standard Oil sold its oil at a very low price from the Near East to Liberia or Panama or Lagos, or wherever they have a flag of convenience and no income tax. Then they would sell it at a very high price to its refineries in Europe and America, at such a high price that these "downstream" affiliates don't make any income. So there's no tax to pay. ..."
"... Standard Oil and other U.S. oil companies – and also mining companies – don't earn an income there, because they sell it so low, all the profits are reported to be taken in Liberia or Panama. These are non-countries. ..."
"... Here is a report. I'm from the State Department (I assumed that this meant CIA). "We want to calculate how much money the US could get if we set up bank branches and became the bank for all the criminal capital in the world." He said, "We figured out we can finance, (and he said this in an elevator), we can finance the Vietnam War with all the drug money coming into America, all of the criminal money. Can you make a calculation of how much that might be?" ..."
"... I found that the entire US balance of payments deficit in the 1960s, since the Vietnam War, the entire balance of payments deficit was military spending abroad. The private sector's trade and investment was exactly in balance; tourism, trade and investment were exactly in balance. All the deficit was military. ..."
"... Mr. Barsanti said that McNamara said that Arthur Andersen would never get another government contract if it published my report. ..."
"... There were three people, known as the Columbia Group, saying the Vietnam War was going to destroy the American monetary system as we know it. The group was composed of Terence McCarthy, my mentor; Seymour Melman, a professor at Columbia University's School of Industrial Engineering where Terence also taught; and myself. We would basically go around the New York City giving speeches. ..."
I worked at Chase Manhattan until 1967, then finally I had to quit to finish the
dissertation. I spent a year on that. At Chase I had become the specialist in the oil
industry's balance of payments. When the Vietnam War began and escalated, President Johnson
in January 1965, right after I joined the bank in December 1964, passed the voluntary –
in reality, compulsory – foreign investment rules blocking American companies from
investing more than 5% of the growth of the previous year's investment. The oil industry
objected to that. They came to David Rockefeller and said we've got to convince the
government that we're ripping off other countries so fast, we're able to exploit them so
rapidly, that it really helps the US balance of payments to let us continue investing more
abroad. Can you help us show this statistically?
So David Rockefeller asked me to do a study of the balance of payments of the oil
industry. Rockefeller said, "We don't want to have Chase's oil and gas department do it,
because they would be thought of as lobbyists. Nobody knows who you are, so you're neutral.
We want to know what the real facts are, and if they're what we think they are, we'll publish
what you write; if we don't like it we'll keep it to ourselves, but please just give us the
facts." He said, "You can ask the oil companies all the questions you want. They will fill
out the forms you design for a statistical accounting format. We'll give you a year to write
it all up." To me this was wonderful. Oil was the key sector internationally. It turned out I
found out that the average dollar that actually was invested abroad by oil companies was
recaptured by the US economy within 18 months. The payback period was that fast.
The report that I wrote was put on the desk of every senator and every representative in
the United States and I was celebrated for being the economist of the oil industry. So this
taught me everything about the balance of payments which, as I said, is a topic that's not
taught in any university. So I finished that, finished the dissertation, and then I developed
a methodology for the overall US balance of payments. Most of the balance of payment
statistics were changed when they designed the gross national product accounts. The accounts
now treat exports and imports as if they were paid for fully for cash. So if you make a
million dollars worth of grain exports, you are assumed to bring a million dollars into the
economy. And if you export a million dollars of arms, of military, it all comes back.
What I found out is that only a portion actually of exports actually comes back. And
imports have an even lower balance-of-payment costs as compared to their nominal valuation.
For instance, all of America's oil imports are from American oil companies, so if you pay a
hundred dollars for oil, maybe thirty dollars of that is profit, thirty dollars is
compensation to American management, thirty dollars is the use of American exports to
physical equipment, oil drilling equipment and others to produce the oil.
The closest people that I worked with for the study were at the Standard Oil Company,
which was always very close to the Rockefellers, as you know. So I went over the statistics
and I said, "In the balance of payments, I can't find where Standard Oil makes the profit.
Does it make the profit by producing oil at the production end? Or does it make it selling it
at the gas stations, at the retail sales end?" The treasurer of Standard Oil said, "Ah I can
tell you where we make them. We make them right here in my office." I asked how. "What
countries could I find this in? I don't find it in Europe, I don't find it in Asia, I don't
find it in Latin America or Africa." He said, "Ah, do you see at the very end of the
geography headings for international earnings, there's something called international?"
I said, "Yes that always confused me. Where is it? I thought all these foreign countries
were international." He explained that "international" means countries that are not really
countries. They're Liberia and Panama, countries that only use the US dollar, not their own
currency. So the oil industry doesn't have a currency risk. They are flags of convenience and
they don't have any income tax.
He explained to me that Standard Oil sold its oil at a very
low price from the Near East to Liberia or Panama or Lagos, or wherever they have a flag of
convenience and no income tax. Then they would sell it at a very high price to its refineries
in Europe and America, at such a high price that these "downstream" affiliates don't make any
income. So there's no tax to pay. For all US oil investment in Europe, there's no tax to pay
because the oil companies' accountants price it so high, and pay so little per barrel to
third world countries such as Saudi Arabia, that they only get a royalty. Standard Oil and
other U.S. oil companies – and also mining companies – don't earn an income
there, because they sell it so low, all the profits are reported to be taken in Liberia or
Panama. These are non-countries.
That gave me the clue about what people these days talk about money laundering. In the
last few months that I worked for Chase Manhattan in 1967, I was going up to my office on the
ninth floor and a man got on the elevator and said, "I was just coming to your office,
Michael. Here is a report. I'm from the State Department (I assumed that this meant CIA). "We
want to calculate how much money the US could get if we set up bank branches and became the
bank for all the criminal capital in the world." He said, "We figured out we can finance,
(and he said this in an elevator), we can finance the Vietnam War with all the drug money
coming into America, all of the criminal money. Can you make a calculation of how much that
might be?"
So I spent three months figuring out how much money goes to Switzerland, from drug
dealings, what's the dollar volume of drug dealings. They helped me with all sorts of
statistics on that, and said, "We can become the criminal capital of the world and it'll
finance the dollar and this will enable us to afford the spending to defeat communism in
Vietnam and elsewhere. If we don't do that, the bomb throwers will come to New York."
So I became a specialist in money laundering! Nothing could have better prepared me to
understand how the global economy works! I had all the statistics, I had the help of the
government people explaining to me how the CIA worked with drug dealing and other criminals
and kidnappers to raise the money so it would be off the balance sheet funding and Congress
didn't have to approve it when they would kill people and sponsor revolutions. They were
completely open with me about this. I realized they'd never done a security check on me.
So I wanted to do a study of the balance of payments of the whole United States. I went
to work for Arthur Andersen, which was at that time was one of the Big Five accounting firms
in the United States. Later it was convicted of fraud when it got involved in the Enron
scandal and was closed down. But I was working before the other people went to jail, before
they closed down Arthur Andersen. So I spent a year applying my balance of payments analysis
to the US balance of payments. When I finally finished, I found that the entire US balance of
payments deficit in the 1960s, since the Vietnam War, the entire balance of payments deficit
was military spending abroad. The private sector's trade and investment was exactly in
balance; tourism, trade and investment were exactly in balance. All the deficit was
military.
So I turned in my statistics. My boss Mr. Barsanti, came in to me three days later and
he said, "I'm afraid we have to fire you." I asked, "What happened?" He said, "Well, we sent
it to Robert McNamara." (who was the Secretary of Defense and then became an even more
dangerous person with the World Bank, which probably is more dangerous to the world than the
American military. But that's another story). Mr. Barsanti said that McNamara said that
Arthur Andersen would never get another government contract if it published my report.
In all of the Pentagon Papers that later came out of McNamara's regime, there's no
discussion at all of the balance-of-payments cost of the Vietnam War. This is what was
driving America off gold. At Chase Manhattan from 1964 until I left, every Friday the Federal
Reserve would come out with its goal, its weekly statistics. We could trace the gold stock.
Everybody was talking about General de Gaulle cashing in the gold, because Vietnam was a
French colony and the American soldiers and army would have to use French banks, the dollars
would go to France and de Gaulle would cash it in for gold.
Well, Germany actually was cashing in more gold than de Gaulle, but they didn't make
speeches about it. So I could see that the war spending was going to drive America off gold.
There were three people, known as the Columbia Group, saying the Vietnam War was going to
destroy the American monetary system as we know it. The group was composed of Terence
McCarthy, my mentor; Seymour Melman, a professor at Columbia University's School of
Industrial Engineering where Terence also taught; and myself. We would basically go around
the New York City giving speeches.
"... I'm going to go against the grain of the belt and road initiative theory above, and I admit the US is often hostile to Chinese relations with Europe, especially infrastructure. That might be so because the US hopes to compete in that market, just as to control eurasian access would give it a hegemonic position in new trade through the region. So I think that it is not aimed at stopping that initiative, it is about finding ways to control it. ..."
"... I think that the amplification of differences between Iran and US is an antagonism not viewable by the US public as other than part of either longstanding differences or due to US policy error, but I think that it should be considered that this confrontation is actually being framed up to place the US frontline, something the US itself maybe unwittingly invites by its own rhetoric and posturing of dominance. ..."
"... If the above is the true scenario, then I see little room for de-escalation left. ..."
"... Mental retarded is one form of mental disability. This isn't quite the whopper as "wiping Israel off the map " was. I do expect to see limited strikes against Iran within the next week. Predictions are usually wrong though as events are increasingly unpredictable. I sometimes think that the simple act of predicting something which is actually planned can cause the plan to change. Kind of like Quantum physics where observation of a quantum wave can change its quantum state. Observation alters reality. ..."
"... Trump needs Adelson's continued financial support to get reelected, and he wants a ROI, so I think something happens. Big or small? I expect a limited strike, at least I hope so. Something Iran can ignore at least cause only a token retaliation to save face and not cause escalation. ..."
"... TEHRAN – The Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday that U.S. officials' claims seeking negotiations with Tehran is an act of "deception," saying such an offer is merely aimed at disarming the Iranian nation of its "elements of power." ..."
"... "Having failed to achieve its goal through pressure, the enemy is coming forward with an offer of talks, while assuming the Iranian nation is simple-minded," the Leader said, according to a Press TV report of his statements. ..."
"... Thanks for posting that link to the ProPublica investigation of the 2016 incident when Iran captured the US sailors in its waters. The whole story is quite large and I haven't finished it yet, but already it paints a very disturbing picture of the US Navy. ..."
Language isn't a problem as Pepe Escobar reports on The
Big Picture on the cusp of the G-20, which revolves round what appears to be the sold
front posed by RIC--Russia, India, China. A tidbit:
"What matters is that the Xi-Modi bilateral at the SCO was so auspicious that Foreign
Secretary Vijay Gokhale was led to describe it as "the beginning of a process, after the
formation of government in India, to now deal with India-China relations from both sides in a
larger context of the 21st century and of our role in the Asia-Pacific region." There will be
an informal Xi-Modi summit in India in October. And they meet again at the BRICS summit in
Brazil in November."
Clearly when the Big Picture's considered--as it ought to always--Iran's seen as the
weak-link in BRI/Eurasian integration by Outlaw US Empire planners, which is the actual
target beyond Iran. Given the number of nations climbing onboard the BRI Train, Trump won't
get many nations aboard his coalition. Aside from Saudi, UAE, Occupied Palestine, and UK, how
many nations have swallowed TrumpCo's lie that Iran's responsible for the current crisis?
Canada, Ukraine, Poland, Albania, Brazil, Netherlands, The Baltic States?
I'm going to go against the grain of the belt and road initiative theory above, and I admit
the US is often hostile to Chinese relations with Europe, especially infrastructure. That
might be so because the US hopes to compete in that market, just as to control eurasian
access would give it a hegemonic position in new trade through the region. So I think that it
is not aimed at stopping that initiative, it is about finding ways to control it.
This rubs off on Syria, which is the Mediterranean access point. To control Syria gives
control of that access point, it would remove direct Russian Mediterranean access also, as
well as buffer Israel. I think EU is more interested in securing the Mediterranean than any
new Eurasian trade route, except for similar reasons to US in terms of control and profit. As
stands I don't see EU achieving any great new trade by that route. So that ties Europe more
closely with US in my opinion. If you look at relations towards Russia, say Cyprus or Ukraine
or sanctions, they do not demonstrate a great friendship or trust, just a balance of power
and certain understandings.
I think that the amplification of differences between Iran and US is an antagonism not
viewable by the US public as other than part of either longstanding differences or due to US
policy error, but I think that it should be considered that this confrontation is actually
being framed up to place the US frontline, something the US itself maybe unwittingly invites
by its own rhetoric and posturing of dominance.
If the above is the true scenario, then I see little room for de-escalation left. To cede at this point by US
would be tantamount to giving Russia, China and Iran hegemony of the region, and I just don't think that is on the books, I
don't think China or Russia will be able to provide the reassurance western or US allied nations or states would accept. For
the US the main state it would not abandon would be Israel, but I don't think the US would just give up the hegemony that it
still has in the region just like that either.
"... [F]inding ways to control it" differs little from "stopping that initiative,"
particularly within the context of the stated #1 policy goal of the Outlaw US Empire--Full
Spectrum Domination. (Oh, and welcome to the forum.)
Pardon me for asking a few questions. First, have you read the White Paper (doc format)
issued by China's Politburo explaining to the Outlaw US Empire why it ceased trade
negotiations and set forth its conditions for their resumption? Second, Have you read Michael
Hudson's short
appraisal of that paper as it integrates with his analysis of the overall Outlaw US
Empire project?
Lastly, please elaborate on what you mean here: "... I don't think China or Russia will be
able to provide the reassurance western or US allied nations or states would accept." I look
forward to your reply.
Mental retarded is one form of mental disability. This isn't quite the whopper as "wiping
Israel off the map " was. I do expect to see limited strikes against Iran within the next week. Predictions are
usually wrong though as events are increasingly unpredictable. I sometimes think that the
simple act of predicting something which is actually planned can cause the plan to change.
Kind of like Quantum physics where observation of a quantum wave can change its quantum
state. Observation alters reality.
Anyways, assuming the strikes happen what happens afterward should be interesting. As
Trump said this wont include boots on the ground so it will be an air show. There is the law
of unintended consequences that applies, so who can say for sure.
But Trump needs Adelson's continued financial support to get reelected, and he wants a
ROI, so I think something happens. Big or small? I expect a limited strike, at least I hope
so. Something Iran can ignore at least cause only a token retaliation to save face and not
cause escalation.
"The Iranian Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei has reminded Iranian officials of what Imam Khomeini
said during the US-Iran crisis in the 80s. He said: "The behaviour of the US can be compared
to the story of a lion in Persian stories. Carter most probably didn't know about this story.
Although it pains me to compare Carter to a lion, the story fits him perfectly. When a Lion
faces his enemy, it roars and breaks wind to scare his enemy. The lion ends by shaking his
tail, hoping for a mediator. Today the US is mimicking the lion's behaviour: the shouting and
the threats (roaring) don't scare us, and the US's continual announcement of new sanctions is
to us just like the lion breaking wind"."
TEHRAN – The Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday
that U.S. officials' claims seeking negotiations with Tehran is an act of "deception," saying
such an offer is merely aimed at disarming the Iranian nation of its "elements of power."
Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei made the remarks in response to numerous offers of negotiations
recently put forward by U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo amid a
campaign of "maximum pressure" against Tehran.
"Having failed to achieve its goal through pressure, the enemy is coming forward with an
offer of talks, while assuming the Iranian nation is simple-minded," the Leader said,
according to a Press TV report of his statements.
"The Iranian nation will definitely make progress, but without you and on the condition that
you don't approach it," he said to U.S. officials.. .
here
Thanks for posting that link to the ProPublica investigation of the 2016 incident when
Iran captured the US sailors in its waters. The whole story is quite large and I haven't
finished it yet, but already it paints a very disturbing picture of the US Navy.
The dysfunctions and failures in the hierarchies read more like an old and rigid
institution than like anything one thinks of as military characteristics. I guess, then, the
truth is that the US Navy is such an institution - antiquated, privileged, and beyond
accountability.
I am not a fan of the US military but it still feels strangely sad to read of such decay.
One hates to see degradation in anything. It explains why warships run into things as if
blind, and why sailors seem impossibly incompetent. I have no doubt that the generals and
admirals of the world make their appraisals of US incompetence accordingly, and probably, as
professionals themselves, equally sadly.
It's off-topic but a very important article that I hope we see more discussion of in an
open thread or one relating to US military. That link again, this one to the source:
In 2016, 10 sailors were captured by Iran. Trump is making it a political issue. Our
investigation shows that it was a Navy failure, and the problems run deep.
by Megan Rose, Robert Faturechi, and T. Christian Miller June 24, 2:15 p.m. EDT
@ Grieved 102 I am not a fan of the US military but it still feels strangely sad to read of such
decay.
The Navy doesn't hit moving ships any longer, they've shifted to stationary ones -- alliding.
Jun 25, 2019
US warship allides with moored bulker in Montreal
A US Navy Freedom-class littoral combat ship (LCS) struck a moored commercial vessel in
Montreal as it was about to sail out for its new homeport of Mayport, Florida, on Friday,
June 21.
Eyewitnesses reportedly saw USS Billings, which is scheduled to be commissioned in August,
allide with the moored bulk carrier Rosaire A. Desgagnes as the former departed the wharf
at Montreal with an escort of tugs.
The warship was said to have lost control and ended up hitting the bulk carrier after its
mooring lines were let go. . .Billings' starboard side bridge wing suffered visible minor
damage. .
here
Save you the trouble, allide: To impact a stationary object.
Thank you Don Bacon #79 I have noticed that it is almost always the Navy that f#ucks up or
hoists the false flag, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Vincennes, playing chicken with enormous container
carriers in the sea of Japan, perhaps even the Japanese oil tanker in early June. The list is
much longer than this small excerpt.
Only last week another of USA great new destroyers clips a moored container vessel in
Canada. They are a maritime menace.
Is it a psychosis or a deliberate mission by narcissistic ships commanders? Something is
seriously out of control in the US Navy.
Navy Times, Jan 13 Worse than you thought: inside the secret Fitzgerald probe the Navy doesn't want you to
read
A scathing internal Navy probe into the 2017 collision that drowned seven sailors on the
guided-missile destroyer Fitzgerald details a far longer list of problems plaguing the
vessel, its crew and superior commands than the service has publicly admitted.
Obtained by Navy Times, the "dual-purpose investigation" was overseen by Rear Adm. Brian
Fort and submitted 41 days after the June 17, 2017, tragedy.
. . .Their report documents the routine, almost casual, violations of standing orders on a
Fitz bridge that often lacked skippers and executive officers, even during potentially
dangerous voyages at night through busy waterways.
When Fort walked into the trash-strewn CIC in the wake of the disaster, he was hit with the
acrid smell of urine. He saw kettlebells on the deck and bottles filled with pee. Some
radar controls didn't work and he soon discovered crew members who didn't know how to use
them anyway.
Fort found a Voyage Management System that generated more "trouble calls" than any other
key piece of electronic navigational equipment. Designed to help watchstanders navigate
without paper charts, the VMS station in the skipper's quarters was broken so sailors
cannibalized it for parts to help keep the rickety system working.. .
here
The US attempt to destroy the Iranian economy by bringing its oil exports to zero, thereby
causing untold suffering and death, is an act of war, and should be treated as such, think
sanctions on Iraq causing the deaths of 500,000 children. It is impossible to expect any self
respecting nation to even engage in a conversation when the US holds a gun to Iran's head. So
much for the hubris of the US hegemon that they feel insulted whenever a weaker country says
no, that they feel their credibility is at stake, then they double down on the threats.The US
only wants vassals, such an attitude can only result in war.
The US attempt to destroy the Iranian economy by bringing its oil exports to zero, thereby
causing untold suffering and death, is an act of war, and should be treated as such, think
sanctions on Iraq causing the deaths of 500,000 children. It is impossible to expect any self
respecting nation to even engage in a conversation when the US holds a gun to Iran's head. So
much for the hubris of the US hegemon that they feel insulted whenever a weaker country says
no, that they feel their credibility is at stake, then they double down on the threats.The US
only wants vassals, such an attitude can only result in war.
Oscar Peterson@48 - "...Targeting Saudi or UAE oil infrastructure is possible, but that
will be hard (and risky) if deniability is a goal..."
The second Iran is forced to resort to hitting Saudi or UAE oil infrastructure, we'll see
the Pepe
Escobar-described $1.2 quadrillion global financial Ponzi of fake money (derivatives)
implode and financial markets everywhere will be locked shut. In a matter of hours, not
days.
Now the Swiss banker's claim may be off by a few hundred trillion either way, but it
really doesn't matter. That's way too much money for some kind of secretive global financial
bailout - in fact, there isn't that much REAL money available in the whole world. The guy
that bought oil futures for pennies at $1000/bbl will now be a trillionaire. Except there
won't be anyone that can or will pay him. "But it's a futures contract - someone has to
buy his $1000/bbl oil. That's the rulez!" Yeah, he may as well have bought a stack of
Zimbabwe $10 trillion dollar notes instead and been a hundred trillionaire, for what that's
worth.
Pepe uses extremes to make his point, but oil doesn't really need to go to $1000/bbl. or
even $500/bbl. - $200/bbl oil will lock the oil derivative markets. Which will keep all
linked financial derivative markets (virtually all of them) locked or wiped out. The big
banks will be herding cats at that point and imploding themselves, and nobody will care about
fighting anyone in the Persian Gulf. Besides, all CENTCOM and USSOCOM personnel will be
needed back here in the United States to protect the government from the people.
Iran won't be affected much because the U.S. and Israel made sure they were never
allowed in the global financial sandbox. Poor countries with massive IMF loans? Yeah, they
won't care - the little people never saw a dime of that, anyway. Russia is as prepared as
possible and will do fine. China? Sorry. They're going down with everyone else. I'll let
everyone know how the food riots in the U.S. turn out. That's if I survive until 2025 when
the internet comes back up and if the planet isn't ruled by talking apes. Wait... that last
part already happened. Forget it.
I guess I'll just head north to steal a few barrels of tar sands from Canada. James: how
do I get there from Minnesota on foot? I won't have Google Maps. Nobody will. Do you have any
spare barrels?
US threats and the drone shoot down did effect oil shipments from the gulf:
"Insurance rates also soared after those incidents, with companies charging at least
$180,000 in premiums to go to the Persian Gulf. They were about $30,000 early this year
before tensions began to escalate."
As a result:
"Oil tanker owners are raising the prices they charge to export Middle East crude as tensions
surge in a region that accounts for about a third of all seaborne petroleum shipments."
Rates for transporting 2 million-barrel cargoes from Saudi Arabia to China jumped to
almost $26,000 a day on Thursday, more than double where they were at the start of June,
according to Baltic Exchange in London."
Meanwhile, the punishing sanctions on Iran has been crafted and applied by an Israeli
immigrant to the United States named Sigal Mandelker who is the Israeli-American dual
national who runs the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI) at the Dept. of
the Treasury.
$150,000 in increased insurance costs on a 2 million bpd tanker = very tiny increase in oil
cost. It isn't nothing, but the primary issue is availability...
Together, five of China's leading crude petroleum suppliers (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Angola,
Iraq plus Oman) represent over half (55.2%) of overall Chinese crude oil imports for
2018.
China's top 10 crude petroleum providers supply almost four-fifths (79%) of its imported
crude oil.
Fastest-Growing Suppliers of China's Imported Crude Oil
The value of Chinese purchases of crude oil from its 15 top suppliers amounted to a subtotal
$216.7 billion in 2018, up by an average 50.7% from the $143.8 billion worth of imported
crude from those same 15 providers during 2017.
Libya: Up 248.1% since 2017
United States: Up 112.8%
Malaysia: Up 79.9%
Congo: Up 76.7%
Brazil: Up 76.6%
Kuwait: Up 67.8%
Iraq: Up 62.3%
United Arab Emirates: Up 60.8%
Russia: Up 58.6%
Colombia: Up 50.6%
Saudi Arabia: Up 44.6%
Oman: Up 40%
Iran: Up 25.8%
Angola: Up 23.6%
Venezuela: Up 6.2%
"... This is classic overproduction based on time-preference mis-coordinating the use of capital due to artificially-low interest rates. It has nothing to do with a normally functioning market. ..."
All of President Trump's foreign policy can be summed up by two
themes,
making the world safe for Israel and controlling the price of energy.
He calls the latter "Energy Dominance."
And to those who still believe Trump has a
plan, these two things are the only ones consistently in evidence.
His reactions to things contrary to his plan, however, are purely limbic.
These two themes converge completely with Iran.
Trump wants Iran neutered to force
Jared Kushner's
now-delayed
again
, "Deal of the Century" onto the Palestinians while also taking Iran's oil off the market to
support surging U.S. domestic production in the hopes of taking market share permanently.
Everything Trump does is in support of these two themes while throwing some red meat at his base
over China, Mexico and the border.
It was never his intention to leave Syria back in December, really. Look how easy was it for John
Bolton and the Joint Chiefs to convince him to stay because how else would we cut Iran's exports to
zero if we didn't stop the land route through Iraq?
This is why we're still harboring ISIS cells in the desert crossing around Al-Tanf at the
Jordan/Iraq/Syria border, to stop Iranian oil from coming into the country.
This feeds right into hurting all of Syria's allies to strengthen Israel's position.
To paraphrase the song from Aladdin, "It's stupid, but hey, it's home."
If the average Trump voter truly understood the lengths we are going to starve the Syrian army from
having enough energy to finish wiping out the Al-Qaeda-linked groups in Idlib and Homs provinces they
would burn their MAGA hats and stay home next November.
But they don't so Trump's approval rating keeps climbing.
On the other hand, people mostly understand exactly what the "Bay of Fat Pigs" operation in
Venezuela was all about, protecting domestic oil production and getting control of Venezuela's.
The sad truth is that many Americans consider this comeuppance for being stupid enough to elect
Nicolas Maduro President.
But this is the guts of Trump's "Energy Dominance" policy. Use tariffs, sanctions, threats and
hybrid warfare to destroy the competition and therefore MAGA.
It would be sad if it wasn't so pathetic.
And the irony is that the whole plan is predicated on sustainable and nigh-exponential growth of
U.S. domestic production.
There's only one problem with that. It's completely unsustainable.
The greatness of the U.S. production story is evident if you only look at the number of barrels
produced. But that story turns into a nightmare the minute you look one inch deeper to see what the
cost of those barrels are and what profit, if any, they produce.
Heading into 2019, the industry promised to stake out a renewed focus on capital discipline and
shareholder returns. But that vow is now in danger of becoming yet another in a long line of unmet
goals.
"Another quarter, another gusher of red ink," the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial
Analysis, along with the Sightline Institute, wrote in a joint report on the first quarter earnings
of the shale industry.
The report studied 29 North American shale companies and found a combined $2.5 billion in
negative free cash flow in the first quarter. That was a deterioration from the $2.1 billion in
negative cash flow from the fourth quarter of 2018. "
This dismal cash flow performance came
despite a 16 percent quarter-over-quarter decline in capital expenditures," the report's authors
concluded.
You can't hide a lack of profitability forever with financial engineering folks. Even Elon Musk is
beginning to figure this out. And, once that reaches critical mass, to quote one of my favorite
philosophers, The Tick, "Gravity is a harsh mistress."
What was that old joke?
"So if we're selling dollars for ninety-cents how do we make money?"
"Volume."
If that doesn't sum up where we are today in the energy space I don't know what does.
All of this is a product of the Fed's ridiculous zero-bound interest rate policy allowing
energy drillers to issue obscene amounts of low-quality shares and lower-quality debt packaged in such
a way to yield the magic 7.5% most pension funds need to maintain their defined benefit payouts
without going broke.
This cycle is only partially derailed by the Fed raising rates a couple of points to 2.75%.
All Trump cares about is getting a 4% GDP print before next year's election to prove his critics
wrong. This is why he wants the Fed to lower rates.
It will keep the shale boom going pumping massive amounts of oil which we can't ship to the
coasts to sell to people who don't want it.
And even if all of the new pipeline capacity alleviates the internal glut that doesn't mean there's
a market for more of it. Remember, shale produces ultra light sweet crude which most refiners have to
blend with heavier feedstock so there really is an upper limit as to how much of this stuff the market
wants.
The current and persistent discount of West Texas to Brent, which is still over $9 per barrel is a
measure of this since most oil is priced in relation to Brent, even heavy sour grades like Russian
Urals,
which
we're importing more of to feed domestic refineries
strapped for stock now that we've embargoes
Venezuelan oil.
Rystad puts it into context, noting that the most productive gas facility in the U.S. Gulf of
Mexico Shell's Mars-Ursa complex produces about 260 to 270 MMcfd of gross natural gas.
In
other words, the most productive gas project in the Gulf of Mexico only produces about 40 percent
of the volume of gas that is being flared and vented in West Texas and New Mexico every single day.
Given this situation I think we've reached that part of the story where someone just let a really
big one rip and no one is willing to acknowledge it.
Dood Natural Gas is Awesome!
This is classic overproduction based on time-preference mis-coordinating the use of capital
due to artificially-low interest rates. It has nothing to do with a normally functioning market.
But this situation can go on a lot longer thanks to the realities outside of the U.S. shale
industry.
When the Fed finally does lower interest rates it won't be to save the energy producers in North
Dakota. It will be to save the banking system from a dollar liquidity shock that will implode Europe.
The market's reaction to Friday's horrific jobs report was pure front-running that rate cut
mixed with
safe-haven
behavior knowing that the global growth story is dead.
The U.S. yield curve imploded another 6 basis points. Gold popped to a 2019 high, the Dow put in a
major reversal and the euro rallied after a massive run-up in euro-bonds before the New York open
reversed some of that.
And there's Trump demanding lower oil prices on Twitter which is just feeding the problems of the
shale drillers already underwater. Rock meet hard place.
Dollars for eight-five cents? MOAR volume!
So Trump has gotten what he wants but not for the reasons he wants it. With growth dying thanks, in
part, to his random acts of financial terror, oil prices are now in free fall.
I identified the signals for
my Patrons in a Market
Report on May 26th
, noting a back-to-back-to-back set of reversals I deemed "
hugely
bearish.
" Sometimes, it's just that easy. More often than not the market is telling you
what you need to know, if you would only turn off the spin-machines and read the tape.
But the sad truth is that once the Fed lowers rates the drillers will be encouraged to go
back to the credit well one more time because there will be even more demand for their crappy paper.
In a yield-starved world everyone is trying to stave off the day of reckoning for as long as possible.
And right now, U.S. pension managers are a shale drillers' best friend. And so is an ECB trapped
like an egg in a vice between a faltering German economy and political system undermining what's left
of growth across Europe.
But not a U.S. President intent on creating a world few want and fewer benefit from while wasting a
precious energy by the cubic shit load for a couple hundred thousand votes more than a year from now.
"... No other country in the Middle East is as important in countering America's rush to provide Israel with another war than Iraq. Fortunately for Iran, the winds of change in Iraq and the many other local countries under similar threat, thus, make up an unbroken chain of border to border support. This support is only in part due to sympathy for Iran and its plight against the latest bluster by the Zio-American bully. ..."
"... For the Russo/Sino pact nations, or those leaning in their direction, the definition of national foreign interest is no longer military, it is economic. Those with resources and therefore bright futures within the expanding philosophy and economic offerings of the Russo/Sino pact have little use any longer for the "Sorrows of Empire." These nation's leaders, if nothing more than to line their own pockets, have had a very natural epiphany: War is not, for them, profitable. ..."
"... Lebanon and Syria also take away the chance of a ground-based attack, leaving the US Marines and Army to stare longingly across the Persian Gulf open waters from Saudi Arabia or one of its too few and militarily insignificant allies in the southern Gulf region. ..."
"... As shown in a previous article, "The Return of the Madness of M.A.D," Iran like Russia and China, after forty years of US/Israeli threats, has developed new weapons and military capabilities, that combined with tactics will make any direct aggression towards it by American forces a fair fight. ..."
"... When Trump's limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war with Iran more than they want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren political prostitute instead, even America's marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master's blood lust for war. ..."
"... I do particularly agree that elimination of Sadam was the greatest mistake US committed in Middle East. Devastating mistake for US policy. In the final evaluation it did create the most powerful Shi_ite crescent that now rules the Levant. Organizing failing uprising in Turkey against Erdogan was probably mistake of the same magnitude. Everything is lost for US now in the ME. ..."
"... The article evaluating the situation in ME is outstanding and perfect. Every move of US is a vanity. There is no more any opportunity to achieve any benefit for US. Who is responsible for all those screw ups ? US or Israel? ..."
"... However, the other side of the military coin is economic -- specifically sanctions on Iran (& China). Here ( I suspect) the US has prospects. Iran has said it has a "PhD" in sanctions busting. I hope that optimism is not misplaced. That US sanctions amount to a declaration of war on Iran is widely agreed. Sadly, it seems the EU in its usual spineless way will offer Iran more or less empty promises. ..."
"... I don't know if Russia and China have been showing restraint or still don't feel up to taking Uncle on very publicly or even covertly. The author assumes they might be willing to step up now for Iran, but the action in places like Syria suggests they might not. ..."
"... "War is a Racket" by Gen Smedley Butler (USMC – recipient of two Medals of Honor – no rear echelon pogue) is a must read. As true today as it was back when he wrote it. ..."
"... "The Axis of Sanity" – I like it, I like it! Probably quite closely related to the "reality-based community". ..."
"... "Karim al-Mohammadawi told the Arabic-language al-Ma'aloumeh news website that the US wants to turn Ain al-Assad airbase which is a regional base for operations and command into a central airbase for its fighter jets. ..."
"... He added that a large number of forces and military equipment have been sent to Ain al-Assad without any permission from the Iraqi government, noting that the number of American forces in Iraq has surpassed 50,000. ..."
"... Sea assault? Amphibious troop deployment? Are you serious? This is not WWII Normandy, Dorothy. That would be an unmitigated massacre. Weapons have improved a bit in the last 70 years if you have not noticed. ..."
"... first is a conspiracy of Israeli owned, Wall Street financed, war profiteering privatizing-pirate corporations These corporations enter, invade or control the war defeated place and privatize all of its infrastructure construction contracts from the defeated place or state (reason for massive destruction by bombing) and garner control over all the citizen services: retail oil and gas distribution, food supplies, electric power, communications, garbage and waste collection and disposal, street cleaning, water provisioning. traffic control systems, security, and so on.. Most of these corporations are privately owned public stock companies, controlled by the same wealthy Oligarchs that control "who gets elected and what the elected must do while in sitting in one of the seats of power at the 527 person USA. ..."
"... This article by Mr. Titley is the most hopeful article I've yet read demonstrating the coming death of US hegemony, with most of the rest of the civilized world apparently having turned against the world's worst Outlaw Nation. ..."
"... Netanyahu and the Ziocons better think twice about their longed for dream of the destruction of Iran. The Jews always push things too far. Karma can be a bitch. ..."
No other country in the Middle East is as important in countering America's rush to provide Israel with another war than Iraq.
Fortunately for Iran, the winds of change in Iraq and the many other local countries under similar threat, thus, make up an unbroken
chain of border to border support. This support is only in part due to sympathy for Iran and its plight against the latest bluster
by the Zio-American bully.
In the politics of the Middle East, however, money is at the heart of all matters. As such, this ring of defensive nations is
collectively and quickly shifting towards the new Russo/Sino sphere of economic influence. These countries now form a geo-political
defensive perimeter that, with Iraq entering the fold, make a US ground war virtually impossible and an air war very restricted in
opportunity.
If Iraq holds, there will be no war in Iran.
In the last two months, Iraq parliamentarians have been exceptionally vocal in their calls for all foreign military forces- particularly
US forces- to leave immediately. Politicians from both blocs of Iraq's divided parliament
called
for a vote to expel US troops and promised to schedule an extraordinary session to debate the matter ."Parliament must clearly
and urgently express its view about the ongoing American violations of Iraqi sovereignty," said Salam al-Shimiri, a lawmaker
loyal to the populist cleric
Moqtada al-Sadr
.
Iraq's ambassador to Moscow, Haidar Mansour Hadi, went further saying that Iraq "does not
want a new devastating war in the region." He t old a press conference in Moscow this past week, "Iraq is a sovereign
nation. We will not let [the US] use our territory," he said. Other comments by Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi agreed.
Other MPs called for
a timetable for complete US troop withdrawal.
Then a motion was introduced
demanding
war reparations from the US and Israel for using internationally banned weapons while destroying Iraq for seventeen years and
somehow failing to find those "weapons of mass destruction."
As Iraq/Iran economic ties continue to strengthen, with Iraq recently signing on for billions of cubic meters of Iranian natural
gas, the shift towards Russian influence- an influence that prefers peace- was certified as Iraq sent a delegation to Moscow to negotiate
the purchase of the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft system.
To this massive show of pending democracy and rapidly rising Iraqi nationalism, US Army spokesman, Colonel Ryan Dillon, provided
the kind of delusion only the Zio-American military is known for, saying,
"Our continued presence in Iraq will be conditions-based, proportional to need, in coordination with and by the approval of
the Iraqi government."
Good luck with that.
US influence in Iraq came to a possible conclusion this past Saturday, May 18, 2019, when it was reported that the Iraqi parliament
would vote
on a bill compelling the invaders to leave . Speaking about the vote on the draft bill, Karim Alivi, a member of the Iraqi parliament's
national security and defense committee, said on Thursday that the country's two biggest parliamentary factions -- the Sairoon bloc,
led by Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and the Fatah alliance, headed by secretary general of the Badr Organization, Hadi al-Ameri --
supported the bill. Strangely, Saturday's result has not made it to the media as yet, and American meddling would be a safe guess
as to the delay, but the fact that this bill would certainly have passed strongly shows that Iraq well understands the weakness of
the American bully: Iraq's own US militarily imposed democracy.
Iraq shares a common border with Iran that the US must have for any ground war. Both countries also share a similar religious
demographic where Shia is predominant and the plurality of cultures substantially similar and previously living in harmony. Both
also share a very deep seeded and deserved hatred of Zio- America. Muqtada al-Sadr, who, after coming out first in the 2018 Iraqi
elections, is similar to Hizbullah's Hassan Nasrallah in his religious and military influence within the well trained and various
Shia militias. He is firmly aligned with Iran as is Fattah Alliance. Both detest Zio- America.
A ground invasion needs a common and safe border. Without Iraq, this strategic problem for US forces becomes complete. The other
countries also with borders with Iran are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. All have several good
reasons that they will not, or cannot, be used for ground forces.
With former Armenian President Robert Kocharian under arrest in the aftermath of the massive anti-government 2018 protests, Bolton
can check that one off the list first. Azerbaijan is mere months behind the example next door in Armenia,
with protests increasing and indicating
a change towards eastern winds. Regardless, Azerbaijan, like Turkmenistan, is an oil producing nation and as such is firmly aligned
economically with Russia. Political allegiance seems obvious since US influence is limited in all three countries to blindly ignoring
the massive additional corruption and human rights violations by Presidents Ilham Aliyev and
Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow .
However, Russian economic influence pays in cash. Oil under Russian control is the lifeblood of both of these countries.
Recent developments and new international contracts with Russia clearly show whom these leaders are actually listening to.
Turkey would appear to be firmly shifting into Russian influence. A NATO member in name only. Ever since he
shot down his first-
and last – Russian fighter jet, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has thumbed his nose at the Americans. Recently
he refused to succumb to pressure and will receive Iranian oil and, in July, the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft/missile system. This
is important since there is zero chance Putin will relinquish command and control or see them missiles used against Russian armaments.
Now, Erdogan is considering replacing his purchase of thirty US F-35s with the
far superior Russian SU- 57 and a few S-500s for good measure.
Economically, America did all it could to stop the Turk Stream gas pipeline installed by Russia's Gazprom, that runs through Turkey
to eastern Europe and will provide $billions to Erdogan and Turkey
. It
will commence operation this year. Erdogan continues to purchase Iranian oil and to call for Arab nations to come together against
US invasion in Iran. This week, Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar renewed Turkey's resolve, saying his country
is preparing for potential American
sanctions as a deadline reportedly set by the US for Ankara to cancel the S-400 arms deal with Russia or face penalties draws
near.
So, Turkey is out for both a ground war and an air war since the effectiveness of all those S-400's might be put to good use if
America was to launch from naval positions in the Mediterranean. Attacking from the Black Sea is out since it is ringed by countries
under Russo/Sino influence and any attack on Iran will have to illegally cross national airspace aligned with countries preferring
the Russo/Sino alliance that favours peace. An unprovoked attack would leave the US fleet surrounded with the only safe harbours
in Romania and Ukraine. Ships move much slower than missiles.
Afghanistan is out, as the Taliban are winning. Considering recent peace talks from which they walked out and next
slaughtered a police station near the western border with
Iran, they have already won. Add the difficult terrain near the Iranian border and a ground invasion is very unlikely
Although new Pakistani President Amir Khan has all the power and authority of a primary school crossing guard, the real power
within the Pakistani military, the ISI, is more than tired of American influence
. ISI has propagated the Taliban for years and often gave
refuge to Afghan anti-US forces allowing them to use their common border for cover. Although in the past ISI has been utterly mercenary
in its very duplicitous- at least- foreign allegiances, after a decade of US drone strikes on innocent Pakistanis, the chance of
ground-based forces being allowed is very doubtful. Like Afghanistan terrain also increases this unlikelihood.
Considerations as to terrain and location for a ground war and the resulting failure of not doing so was shown to Israel previously
when, in 2006 Hizbullah virtually obliterated its ground attack, heavy armour and battle tanks in the hills of southern Lebanon.
In further cautionary detail, this failure cost PM Ehud Olmert his job.
For the Russo/Sino pact nations, or those leaning in their direction, the definition of national foreign interest is no longer
military, it is economic. Those with resources and therefore bright futures within the expanding philosophy and economic offerings
of the Russo/Sino pact have little use any longer for the "Sorrows of Empire." These nation's leaders, if nothing more than to line
their own pockets, have had a very natural epiphany: War is not, for them, profitable.
For Iran, the geographic, economic and therefore geo-political ring of defensive nations is made complete by Syria, Lebanon and
Iraq. Syria, like Iraq, has every reason to despise the Americans and similar reasons to embrace Iran, Russia, China and border neighbour
Lebanon. Syria now has its own Russian S-300 system which is already bringing down Israeli missiles. It is surprising that Lebanon
has not requested a few S-300s of their own. No one knows what Hizbullah has up its sleeve, but it has been enough to keep the Israelis
at bay. Combined with a currently more prepared Lebanese army, Lebanon under the direction of Nasrallah is a formidable nation for
its size. Ask Israel.
Lebanon and Syria also take away the chance of a ground-based attack, leaving the US Marines and Army to stare longingly across
the Persian Gulf open waters from Saudi Arabia or one of its too few and militarily insignificant allies in the southern Gulf region.
Friendly airspace will also be vastly limited, so also gone will be the tactical element of surprise of any incoming attack. The
reality of this defensive ring of nations means that US military options will be severely limited. The lack of a ground invasion
threat and the element of surprise will allow Iranian defences to prioritize and therefore be dramatically more effective. As shown
in a previous article, "The Return
of the Madness of M.A.D," Iran like Russia and China, after forty years of US/Israeli threats, has developed new weapons
and military capabilities, that combined with tactics will make any direct aggression towards it by American forces a fair fight.
If the US launches a war it will go it alone except for the few remaining US lapdogs like the UK, France, Germany and Australia,
but with anti-US emotions running as wild across the EU as in the southern Caspian nations, the support of these Zionist influenced
EU leaders is not necessarily guaranteed.
Regardless, a lengthy public ramp-up to stage military assets for an attack by the US will be seen by the vast majority of the
world- and Iran- as an unprovoked act of war. Certainly at absolute minimum Iran will close the Straits of Hormuz, throwing the price
of oil skyrocketing and world economies into very shaky waters. World capitalist leaders will not be happy. Without a friendly landing
point for ground troops, the US will either have to abandon this strategy in favour of an air war or see piles of body bags of US
servicemen sacrificed to Israeli inspired hegemony come home by the thousands just months before the '20 primary season. If this
is not military and economic suicide, it is certainly political.
Air war will likely see a similar disaster. With avenues of attack severely restricted, obvious targets such as Iran's non-military
nuclear program and major infrastructure will be thus more easily defended and the likelihood of the deaths of US airmen similarly
increased.
In terms of Naval power, Bolton would have only the Mediterranean as a launch pad, since using the Black Sea to initiate war will
see the US fleet virtually surrounded by nations aligned with the Russo/Sino pact. Naval forces, it should be recalled, are, due
to modern anti-ship technologies and weapons, now the sitting ducks of blusterous diplomacy. A hot naval war in the Persian Gulf,
like a ground war, will leave a US death toll far worse than the American public has witnessed in their lifetimes and the US navy
in tatters.
Trump is already
reportedly
seething that his machismo has been tarnished by Bolton and Pompeo's false assurances of an easy overthrow of Maduro in Venezuela.
With too many top generals getting jumpy about him initiating a hot war with Iraq, Bolton's stock in trade-war is waning. Trump basks
in being the American bully personified, but he and his ego will not stand for being exposed as weak. Remaining as president is necessary
to stoke his shallow character. When Trump's limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war
with Iran more than they want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren
political prostitute instead, even America's marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master's blood lust for war.
In two
excellent articles in Asia times by Pepe Escobar, he details the plethora of projects, agreements, and cooperation that are
taking place from Asia
to the Mid-East to the Baltics . Lead by Russia and China this very quickly developing Russo/Sino pact of economic opportunity
and its intentions of "soft power" collectively spell doom for Zio-America's only remaining tactics of influence: military intervention.
States, Escobar:
"We should know by now that the heart of the 21 st Century Great Game is the myriad layers of the battle between
the United States and the partnership of Russia and China. The long game indicates Russia and China will break down language and
cultural barriers to lead Eurasian integration against American economic hegemony backed by military might."
The remaining civilized world, that which understands the expanding world threat of Zio-America, can rest easy. Under the direction
of this new Russo/Sino influence, without Iraq, the US will not launch a war on Iran.
This growing Axis of Sanity surrounds Iran geographically and empathetically, but more importantly, economically. This economy,
as clearly stated by both Putin and Xi, does not benefit from any further wars of American aggression. In this new allegiance to
future riches, it is Russian and China that will call the shots and a shooting war involving their new client nations will not be
sanctioned from the top.
However, to Putin, Xi and this Axis of Sanity: If American wishes to continue to bankrupt itself by ineffective military adventures
of Israel's making, rather than fix its own nation that is in societal decline and desiccated after decades of increasing Zionist
control, well
That just good for business!
About the Author:Brett Redmayne-Titley has published over 170 in-depth articles over the past eight years for news
agencies worldwide. Many have been translated and republished. On-scene reporting from important current events has been an emphasis
that has led to his many multi-part exposes on such topics as the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, NATO summit, Keystone XL
Pipeline, Porter Ranch Methane blow-out, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Erdogan's Turkey and many more. He can be reached at: live-on-scene
((at)) gmx.com. Prior articles can be viewed at his archive: www.watchingromeburn.uk
When Trump's limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war with Iran more than they
want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren political prostitute
instead, even America's marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master's blood lust for war.
I believe you are far
too generous in your estimation of his ability to distinguish between flavors of any type. Otherwise, your analysis is insightful
and thorough.
The U.S. is in the same position today that we were aboard Nimitz back in 1980. Too far from Tehran to start a war or even to
find our people. We are perhaps in even a far worse position in that today, Iran holds no hostages. There's nothing so 'noble'
as 44 hostages to inspire war today. This here is merely at the behest of Israel and the deep state profit centers for mere fun
and games and cash and prizes. Iran, overall, is nothing. Obama put Iran away for what, a billion-five? And Jared, Bolton and
Pompeo dredged it all back up again? Care to guess the first-night expense of a shock and awe on Tehran? It's unthinkable.
I used to like Israel. The Haifa-Tel Av-iv-Jerusalem-Galili loop was pretty cool. The PLO hadn't quite started their game,
we could move freely about the country. It's where the whole thing started. And, unlike Italy and Spain, they treated us Americans
ok. They were somewhat war torn. But now? They're a destructive monolith, they're good at hiding it and further, they make disastrous
miscalculations. Eliminating Saddam was huge. Turns out, Saddam was the only sane one. The last vestiges of Saddam's nuclear program
went up in the attacks on the Osirak reactor that Israel bombed in 1981. Why did they push for the elimination of Saddam afterwards?
Why the lies? Miscalculation.
This here with Iran won't travel further than threats and horseshit. I hope. Lots of bleating and farting. Someone agrees.
Oil dropped three or four bucks today.
"the resulting failure of not doing so was shown to Israel previously when, in 2016 Hezbollah virtually obliterated its ground
attack, heavy amour and battle tanks in the hills of southern Lebanon."
I do particularly agree that elimination of Sadam was the greatest mistake US committed in Middle East. Devastating mistake
for US policy. In the final evaluation it did create the most powerful Shi_ite crescent that now rules the Levant. Organizing
failing uprising in Turkey against Erdogan was probably mistake of the same magnitude. Everything is lost for US now in the ME.
Threatening Iran is now simply grotesque.
Concerning the article. The article evaluating the situation in ME is outstanding and perfect. Every move of US is a vanity.
There is no more any opportunity to achieve any benefit for US. Who is responsible for all those screw ups ? US or Israel?
However, the other side of the military coin is economic -- specifically sanctions
on Iran (& China). Here ( I suspect) the US has prospects. Iran has said it has a "PhD" in sanctions busting. I hope that optimism
is not misplaced. That US sanctions amount to a declaration of war on Iran is widely agreed. Sadly, it seems the EU in its usual
spineless way will offer Iran more or less empty promises.
Is the author unaware of the nation of Saudi Arabia and the fact that they are new BFFs with Israel. They have come out quite
openly they'd like to see Iran attacked. That whole Sunni Wahabism vs. Shia thing is a heck of alot older than this current skirmish.
Being that SA has a border w/ the Persian Gulf and that Kuwait who is even CLOSER may be agreeable to be a staging area, why
the hand wringing about this nation & that nation, etc. The US would be welcome to stage an air and sea assault using Saudi bases
followed up by amphibious troop deployment if need be. But given the proximity they could probably strong arm Kuwait to act as
a land bridge, in a pinch.
So will we expect the follow up article discussing this glaring omission, or am I missing some great development re: S.Arabia's
disposition and temperament regarding all this.
The transformed relationship between Russia and Turkey illustrates perfectly the shifting sands of strategic alliances as we cross
the desert towards destiny. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
I don't know if Russia and China have been showing restraint or still don't feel up to taking Uncle on very publicly or even
covertly. The author assumes they might be willing to step up now for Iran, but the action in places like Syria suggests they
might not.
As for the costs of taking on Iran, while one cannot underestimate the cocksuredness of Uncle to take on Iran with a 2003 "Iraq
will be a cakewalk" attitude, the resulting air war will likely not be as costly to Uncle as the author believes, but the thought
of flag-draped coffins in the thousands will certainly deter a land invasion. If there is any action at all, it will be air interdiction
and missile attack.
It is curious that Uncle has not already resorted to his favorite tactic of declaring a No-Fly zone already but instead merely
hinted that airliner safety cannot be guaranteed; this is likely just another form of sanction since Iran receives money for each
airliner that transits its airspace, and a couple of Uncle's putative allies supply Iran with ATC equipment and services.
Uncle's Navy has already demonstrated a willingness to shoot down an airliner in Iranian airspace, so it is no idle threat,
kind of like the mobster looking at a picture of your family and saying, "Nice family you have there; it would be a shame if anything
happened to them."
"War is a Racket" by Gen Smedley Butler (USMC – recipient of two Medals of Honor – no rear echelon pogue) is a must read.
As true today as it was back when he wrote it.
If the US launches a war it will go it alone except for the few remaining US lapdogs like the UK, France, Germany and Australia,
but with anti-US emotions running as wild across the EU as in the southern Caspian nations, the support of these Zionist influenced
EU leaders is not necessarily guaranteed.
Stasi " Merkel muss weg " (Merkel must go) is too weak to even think about taking Germanstan into such a foolish adventure.
Maybe the Kosher Kingdom of simpletons, especially under American-born Turkish "Englishman" (((Boris Kemal Bey))), another
psycho like (((Baron Levy's))) Scottish warmonger Blair.
Iraqi MP: US after Turning Ain Al-Assad into Central Airbase in Iraq
FARSNEWS
"Karim al-Mohammadawi told the Arabic-language al-Ma'aloumeh news website that the US wants to turn Ain al-Assad airbase
which is a regional base for operations and command into a central airbase for its fighter jets.
He added that a large number of forces and military equipment have been sent to Ain al-Assad without any permission from
the Iraqi government, noting that the number of American forces in Iraq has surpassed 50,000.
Al-Mohammadawi said that Washington does not care about Iraq's opposition to using the country's soil to target the neighboring
states.
In a relevant development on Saturday, media reports said that Washington has plans to set up military bases and increasing
its troops in Iraq, adding the US is currently engaged in expanding its Ain al-Assad military base in al-Anbar province."
The US would be welcome to stage an air and sea assault using Saudi bases followed up by amphibious troop deployment if
need be. But given the proximity they could probably strong arm Kuwait to act as a land bridge, in a pinch.
Sea assault? Amphibious troop deployment? Are you serious? This is not WWII Normandy, Dorothy. That would be an unmitigated
massacre. Weapons have improved a bit in the last 70 years if you have not noticed.
Also minor point, LOL, but Kuwait is a "landbridge" between Saudi Arabia and Iraq Unless you are proposing the US attacks
Iraq (again!) which it would have to do to achieve a "landbridge" to Iran. Another good reason Iraq is acquiring the S-400.
More minor points: 1. South Iraq is ALL shiite. 2. Kuwait is SMALL i.e. a BIG target for thousands of missiles
@Ilyana_Rozumova
your question of responsibility is very intuitive.. two general answers.. both need deep analysis..
first is a conspiracy of Israeli owned, Wall Street financed, war profiteering privatizing-pirate corporations These corporations
enter, invade or control the war defeated place and privatize all of its infrastructure construction contracts from the defeated
place or state (reason for massive destruction by bombing) and garner control over all the citizen services: retail oil and gas
distribution, food supplies, electric power, communications, garbage and waste collection and disposal, street cleaning, water
provisioning. traffic control systems, security, and so on.. Most of these corporations are privately owned public stock companies,
controlled by the same wealthy Oligarchs that control "who gets elected and what the elected must do while in sitting in one of
the seats of power at the 527 person USA.
2nd is the impact of the laws that deny competition in a nation sworn to a method of economics (capitalism) that depends on
competition for its success. Another group of massive in size mostly global corporations again owned from Jerusalem, NYC, City
of London, etc. financed at wall street, use rule of law to impose on Americans and many of the people of the world, a blanket
of economic and anti competitive laws and monopoly powers. These monopolist companies benefit from the copyright and patent laws,
which create monopolies from hot thin air. These laws of monopolies coupled to the USA everything is a secret government have
devastated competitive capitalism in America and rendered American Universities high school level teaching but not learning bureaucracies.
Monopolies and state secrets between insider contractors were suppose to deny most of the world from competing; but without
competition ingenuity is lost. Monopoly lordships and state secrets were supposed to make it easy for the monopoly powered corporations
to overpower and deny any and all would be competition; hence they would be the only ones getting rich.. But China's Huawei will
be Linux based and Tin not Aluminium in design, far superior technology to anything these monopoly powered retards have yet developed
especially in the high energy communications technologies (like 5G, Artificial Intelligence, and Robotics). In other words copyrights,
patents and the US military were suppose to keep the world, and the great ingenuity that once existed in the person of every American,
from competing, but the only people actually forced out of the technology competition were the ingenious, for they were denied
by copyright and patents to compete. Now those in power at the USA will make Americans pay again as the corporations that run
things try to figure out how to catch up to the Chinese and Russian led Eastern world. Modi's election in India is quite interesting
as both China and Russia supported it, yet, Modi says he is going to switch to the USA for copyrighted and patented stuff?
on the issue of continued USA presence in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, ..
"Our continued presence in Iraq will be conditions-based, proportional to need, in coordination with and by the approval of
the Iraqi government." <that's a joke, first off, I never desired to be in Iraq, and I do not desire USA military or American
presence in Iraq, do You? <blatant disregard for the needs of America.. IMO. Bring the troops home. If the USA would only leave
Iraq to the Iraqis and get to work making America competitive again they would once again enjoy a great place in the world. But
one thing i can tell you big giant wall street funded corporations, and reliance on degree credentials instead of job performance,
will never be the reason America is great.
This article by Mr. Titley is the most hopeful article I've yet read demonstrating the coming death of US hegemony, with most
of the rest of the civilized world apparently having turned against the world's worst Outlaw Nation.
Trump has allowed madmen
Bolton and Pompeo to get this country into an awful mess – all for the sake of Israel and the Zionists.
He needs to find a face-saving
way to get out before Washington gets its long needed comeuppance. But how can Trump accomplish this as long as Bolton, in particular,
continues to be the man who most has his ear? If Titley is correct, then Trump had better start listening to his military leaders
instead.
Netanyahu and the Ziocons better think twice about their longed for dream of the destruction of Iran. The Jews always push
things too far. Karma can be a bitch.
"If President Trump had ever read Mackinder -- and there's no evidence he did -- one might
assume that he's aiming at a new anti-Eurasia integration pivot centered on the Persian Gulf.
And energy would be at the heart of the pivot.
If Washington were able to control everything, including "Big Prize" Iran, it would be
able to dominate all Asian economies, especially China. Trump even said were that to happen,
"decisions on the GNP of China will be made in Washington."...
...Arguably the key (invisible) takeaway of the meetings this week between Foreign
Ministers Sergey Lavrov and Wang Yi, and then between Lavrov and Pompeo, is that Moscow made
it quite clear that Iran will be protected by Russia in the event of an American showdown.
Pompeo's body language showed how rattled he was.
What rattled Pomp: "Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, be it
small-scale, medium-scale or any other scale, will be treated as a nuclear attack on our
country. The response will be instant and with all the relevant consequences,"
Trump may not have read Mackinder but Kissinger sure would have.
Overproduction of capital – seeking a high, no risk return – is a certainty.
Especially with continuing QE. There is no end game now. That capital will find its way into
derivative casino capital gambling – of which only 2% ends up as a commodity changing
hands. The rest is hidden toxic exposure making the banking system untenable. Other outlets
include mergers and acquisitions (toward oligopolies of power); leveraged buyouts; and asset
stripping destroying any last real productive capacity for short term 'Global Death Protocol'
(GDP returns – one of the sensible points Monbiot made it is no substitute Human
Development Index). Pension fund raiding: there is thought to be a $30 tn black hole already
– now they want to release $90tn 'locked assets' without even the slightest chance of
ever getting an ROI. Overproduced capital will also find its way in to the tech bubble
– funding our AI-redundancy. Oil-rent, commodity-rent, bio-pharma-rent, agi-rent, and
tech-rent seems to be a major part of the capitalist death throes. But you cannot rent a host
humanity by making them redundant. Now they also want to rent nature back to us. Add in
spiralling exponential debt; EROI and a slow-burn falling net-energy crisis; and
authoritarian states merging with bureaucratised corporate capital down to the local
infrastructure level its humanity versus corporate state insanity.
And the bleated hope of sheep is that a nativist leader – like Jeremy Corbyn –
will come along and save us. Reality is going to have to hit the majoritarian massif really
hard in the face to wake people up to the systemic fragility of globalised capitalism.
Unfortunately, its internecine internal contradictions may prove fatal before that. My hope
is that something better may rise from the ashes: a humanist society contra all the fatal
contradictions of relentless coercive capital accumulation. Given the level of political and
ecological acumen we encounter on a daily basis I'm presently not too optimistic. But that
can change, rapidly. Consciousness is not timebound or limited by causality (see below). Now!
would be a good time for a consciousness evolutionary explosion a Big Bang of a new reality.
Depending on what the Big Bang of the old leaves intact! There will be a solution. It might
not be optimal though. I presently can't see any smooth transition taking place. Carpe deum
and enjoy the ride over the ever quickening rapids of the net energy falls!
I'm sure that so long as the world wide economy remains on its feet that there will be huge
increases in demand for oil for transportation.
But nobody seems to give any thought here to things that will reduce demand. Cars will be
driving themselves soon. Think about trains. Before too much longer, railroaders will be able
to move stuff on trains almost as nimbly as truckers do today, at least on city to city basis
when the cities are at least a couple of hundred miles apart. Long distance trucking may be a
thing of the past within, like camera film and typewriters, within a couple of decades. These
possibilities are worthy of thought if you are in the oil biz for the long haul.
Every country that imports oil is going to have a powerful incentive to reduce demand for
it to the extent it can as depletion sooner or later pushes one exporting country after
another into the importer category. Countries in the Middle East with oil and gas to export
are going to find it so profitable to build wind and solar farms that they will be building
them like mushrooms popping up after a spring rain, because they can sell some or maybe even
most of the oil and gas they are burning now to generate electricity, thereby earning a big
profit on their solar and wind farm investment.
My thinking is that these changes will actually PROLONG our dependence on oil, taken all
around, by helping hold the price down so we can afford to run existing legacy equipment, and
have affordable petrol based chemicals, etc. I don't think anybody currently in the biz needs
to worry about selling out anytime soon, lol. But considerations such as these may have a
huge impact on exploration and development starting within a decade or so.
Times change. Doom doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it.
Very important that OPEC increase the flow of Oil. World Markets are fragile, price of Oil
getting too high. Thank you!
The real target of this tweet is unmistakably Saudi Arabia, the one OPEC member with enough
idle capacity to make a difference to the producer group's output. It's also the one over which
the U.S. has the most leverage.
Straightforward economic considerations would see Saudi Arabia dismiss the request out of
hand, but political calculations make its choice more difficult.
OPEC production fell by around 1.5 million barrels a day between December and February, and
probably dropped further in March. Saudi Arabia made by far the biggest voluntary reduction .
It contributed almost two thirds of the group's total output cut as measured against individual
baselines in February, and made deeper cuts than it had promised it would implement each month
this year.
They lost control of Saudi Arabia, after trying to take down MBS and then betraying him by unexpectedly allowing waivers on
Iranian oil in November.
The U.S. cannot take down Iran without Venezuelan oil. What is worse, right now they don't have access to enough heavy oil
to meet their own needs.
Controlling the world oil trade is central to Trump's strategy for the U.S. to continue its empire. Without Venezuelan oil,
the U.S. is a bit player in the energy markets, and will remain so.
Having Russia block the U.S. in Venezuela adds insult to injury. After Crimea and Syria, now Venezuela, Russia exposes the
U.S. as a loud mouthed-bully without the capacity to back up its threats, a 'toothless tiger', an 'emperor without clothes'.
If the U.S. cannot dislodge Russia from Venezuela, its days as 'global hegemon' are finished. For this reason the U.S. will
continue escalating the situation with ever-riskier actions, until it succeeds or breaks.
In the same manor, if Russia backs off, its resistance to the U.S. is finished. And the U.S. will eventually move to destroy
Russia, like it has been actively trying to do for the past 30 years. Russia cannot and will not back off.
Venezuela thus becomes the stage where the final act in the clash of empires plays out. Will the world become a multi-polar
world, in which the U.S. becomes a relatively isolated and insignificant pole? Or will the world become more fully dominated by
a brutal, erratic hegemon?
Globalization was fueled by cheap oil. end of cheap oil means the end of globalization.
It looks like people started to notice the "gangster capitalism" nature of Trump administration.
If also raises the speculation that the end of "cheap oil" might signify the end of neoliberalism as a social system. At least
the "classic" version. Whether Trump inspired the evolution of neoliberalism into "national neoliberalism" improves the survival
chances of this social system remains to be seen.
Notable quotes:
"... The whole "political play" going on now seems to be Trump pressuring Saudi Arabia (and OPEC) for the assumable extensive spare capacity that they have. But the problem is, the reality is high oil prices were needed to avoid a deficit in the whole scheme of things. I still guess reality will be hard late 2019/20 as has always been my prediction. ..."
"... To avoid blackmail when it comes to oil the future; sooner or later there is going to be a transition to natural gas (for some decades) and renewable in the West and Asia first. That is how the story goes in my view. The transition to renewable is most likely not going to be smooth, but hurt someone (some part of the population and some countries maybe). Interesting future energy and other resources (e.g lithium, cobalt, nickel and rare magnet ingredients needed for batteries) are going to be even more in focus than today I guess. ..."
I think there are a lot of people that need a delusion check. Because a surplus of oil is
advocated by "western trustable sources" against the natural investment circle of the oil
industry does not automatically mean that the market balance is under control; it is in fact
never going to work.
The whole "political play" going on now seems to be Trump pressuring
Saudi Arabia (and OPEC) for the assumable extensive spare capacity that they have. But the
problem is, the reality is high oil prices were needed to avoid a deficit in the whole scheme
of things. I still guess reality will be hard late 2019/20 as has always been my prediction.
It is difficult to change my mind about the oil market; after all it is not supersonic
speed in this mature market. The digitalisation of data gathering (seismic and reservoir
control) together with horizontal wells represent probably huge gains and I would guess alone
can explain why for example Russia has been doing so well the last decade.
The next point is
that the world is not running out of oil yet, but potential oil reserves are not under
western control (most potential reserves are in Africa, Middle East, Ex USSR countries and
the Arctic). And that makes for an unstable political future between the west and the rest of
the world.
To avoid blackmail when it comes to oil the future; sooner or later there is going to be a
transition to natural gas (for some decades) and renewable in the West and Asia first. That
is how the story goes in my view. The transition to renewable is most likely not going to be
smooth, but hurt someone (some part of the population and some countries maybe). Interesting
future energy and other resources (e.g lithium, cobalt, nickel and rare magnet ingredients
needed for batteries) are going to be even more in focus than today I guess.
I think not all
followed the link
article is big.
Maybe someone will be interested
I will write here in several posts.
I hope someone will be interested.
I continue:
The fluctuations of this second parameter, associated with economic crises and recessions
observed in the period under review, make it possible to evaluate the contribution of the
notorious "energy efficiency" to the global increase in energy consumption. In a situation of
almost "zero growth" of the world economy, which occurred in the period 2008–2009, the
consumption of primary energy decreased by 0.8% per year. At the same time, for each percent
of economic growth, it is necessary to "pay off" by increasing the consumption of primary
energy by about 0.6%.
In an expected way, an improvement in energy efficiency was reflected in monetary
indicators: in 2017, each TOE of consumed energy generated $ 8,617 of global GDP, which
corresponds to 1.7% of annual growth over the period 2007–2017.
Of course, the world's primary energy is not evenly distributed across countries. Even the
top five leaders in the use of primary energy: China, the United States, the European Union,
India and Russia – have completely different consumption patterns, which are associated
with the historical, geographical, economic and political differences of these countries.
Thus, as of 2017, China has already been the largest global consumer of primary energy:
its energy consumption has reached 3.132 billion TOE, which is equal to 23% of the global
consumption of primary energy. The growth of Chinese energy consumption is also impressive:
in the period from 1990 to 2013, per capita energy consumption in China increased from 0.602
TOE to 2.14 TOE -- that is, almost four times. Since then, energy consumption growth in China
has somewhat slowed down, and by 2017, per capita energy consumption there was only 2.26 TOE,
which is not only still significantly lower than per capita energy consumption in countries
with developed capitalist economies, but and corresponds to an increase in energy consumption
of about 1.5% per year (and an economic growth of 2% per year).
If we consider the inertia of this historical trend and additionally take into account the
fact that the new policy of the ruling CPC implies a transition to stimulating consumer
demand within the country, then we can assume that by 2050 per capita energy consumption in
China should reach 5-5.5 TOE. This figure takes into account, in addition, the observed
impact of energy efficiency (the same 0.8% per year), but suggests that GDP per capita in
China will grow to about the equivalent of $ 50,000 by 2050. At the same time, it should be
understood that in a part of the population, a conservative forecast is adopted, according to
which the population of China will reach a peak by 2030 and decrease to 1.36 billion by 2050.
Taking into account these factors, China's energy demand in 2050 will exceed 7,000 million
TOE, i.e., it will grow 2.23 times and make up more than half of the current volume of
primary energy production. Information that, according to fertility data, the population of
China in 2018 decreased by 1.27 million people, has not yet been officially confirmed, and it
is clear that the above figure can be significantly adjusted downward, but in any case, China
will pull the world energy "blanket" on themselves.
The United States is the second largest consumer of primary energy in the world. In 2017,
the US energy consumption amounted to 2,235 million TOE, which corresponds to 17% of world
primary energy consumption. US per capita energy consumption peaked at 8.01 TOE in 2000,
which was a historic peak. For the period from 2007 to 2009, per capita energy consumption in
the United States decreased from 7.7 to 7.04 TOE, and in 2017 it reached the level of 6.87
TOE. Nevertheless, the United States continues to be the most "voracious" consumer of primary
energy per capita, and their ability to further reduce the achieved level is very slim if
they are not linked to the global restructuring of their economic and social structure, which
is highly unlikely without a deep national crisis. An additional factor is the steady growth
of the US population, which has no tendency to slow down until 2050.
Still continuing (3):
The European Union is the third largest consumer of primary energy in the world. In 2017, the
energy consumption of the European Union amounted to 1,689 million TOE, which is equivalent
to 13% of world primary energy consumption. Historically, EU per capita energy consumption
was the highest before the onset of the 2008 crisis and amounted to 3.71 TOE in 2006. In the
future, the European Union immediately fell into a double crisis: the global economic year
2008–2009 and its own financial one, connected with the debts of the Mediterranean
countries, first of all – Greece. This led to the fact that energy consumption per
capita in the EU was reduced to a minimum of 3.2 TOE in 2014. By 2017, per capita energy
consumption in the EU was only partially recovered and reached 3.29 TOE. At the same time,
its value has a very pronounced country differentiation, and if for Germany in 2017 this
figure was 3.86 TOE, for France – 3.61 TOE, then for the UK – 2.72 TOE, for
Poland – 2.71 TOE, for Portugal – 2.23 TOE, and for Romania – 1.69 ToE. In
general, this level of per capita energy consumption quite adequately reflects the EU's
longstanding efforts towards supporting energy efficiency, but also vividly shows the limits
of what can be achieved within the framework of a concept combining a set of measures for
energy saving and green energy replacement. As we see, as a result of the implementation of
such programs, the European Union did not become "European China" at all, although it became
less like "European America" in the energy issue.
Thus, it can be assumed that in the long-term trend, the per capita energy consumption of
EU countries will decrease slightly, only by copying the general trend of slow increase in
energy efficiency.
India is the fourth largest consumer of primary energy in the world. In 2017, energy
consumption in India increased to 754 million TOE, which is 5.6% of the world. India, like
China, is characterized by very rapid economic growth, which was expressed in terms of per
capita energy consumption: more than twice since 1990, when it amounted to 0.225 TOE, to
0.562 TOE in 2017. If per capita energy consumption in India continues to follow the same
pace, by 2050 it should reach a mark of 1.21 TOE, while India's GDP per capita will reach
approximately 19 thousand dollars. It is expected that by 2050 the population of India will
grow to 1.72 billion people. That is, it can be expected that by 2050 India's energy demand
will exceed 2 billion THN – or it will grow 2.65 times, overtaking even China in terms
of relative growth, and in absolute figures ahead of the European Union.
And finally, the Russian Federation, which is the fifth of the world's largest energy
consumers. In 2017, primary energy consumption in Russia amounted to 698 million TOE, which
accounted for 5.2% of world primary energy consumption. In 1990, when Russia was still part
of the USSR, per capita energy consumption in Russia was 5.8 TOE. Over the past years, Russia
has already passed its historic low, when the economy of the new country was torn to shreds
by neoliberal "shock therapy", the short-sighted policy of rapid privatization and the total
introduction of the "wild" market – including in the energy sector. This was reflected
in the fact that the minimum energy consumption per capita in Russia was achieved by 1998 and
amounted to 4.03 TOE. Smaller values of per capita consumption, apparently, are
simply impossible in a cold and harsh Russian climate, since heat supply is a vital function
in it – therefore, a value of 4.03 TOE can be considered the level of "basic survival"
in Russia. An interesting fact: in Canada, where the climate is very similar to that of
Russia, per capita energy consumption is 9.5 TOE as of 2017. At the same time, no one in
Canada speaks of "cheap electricity" or "too high costs for heat supply," realizing that this
is the necessary conditions for the survival of the country's population.
Since 1998, per capita energy consumption in Russia has been steadily growing and reached
a level of 4.83 Toe in 2017, which corresponds to about 0.8% per year. Most likely, this
trend will continue in the future, since the living standards of the Russian population are
still lower than the living standards in the European Union or the United States, and the
Russian level of per capita consumption lags behind the level of the late USSR, even taking
into account the accumulated "bonuses" in energy efficiency.
World energy: forecast
As noted above, the parameters of GDP and total energy consumption – just as the
parameters of per capita GDP and per capita energy consumption – in the current economy
have a strong correlation.
Moreover, almost all the leading countries of the world fit into a very clearly traceable
ratio, which corresponds to 10 thousand dollars of per capita GDP for every one TOE per
capita consumption. Smaller values of this parameter are characteristic of a
number of underdeveloped and developing countries, which leads to a "average" value of $
8,617 per 1 TOE for global GDP.
There are deviations and "up" on the scale of specific energy – this is already
mentioned in the text of Russia, Canada and the United States.
For Canada, Russia and the Scandinavian countries, you can build a separate branch of the
graph, on which for the "northern" economies it turns out that for every 10 thousand dollars
of per capita GDP they need to spend about 2 TOE per capita consumption – twice as much
as for those living in tropical or subtropical climate of China or India.
The phenomenon of "overconsumption" of the United States, as is clear, has a different
nature – it is associated with the actual "imperial" energy tax for the whole world,
which allows the United States to still maintain excessive energy consumption, which is in no
way connected with the country's climate the political structure of the United States, which
is the world hegemon.
It is important to emphasize that, if we exclude from consideration the "imperial" United
States and "northern" Russia and Canada, then the correlation between oil consumption and the
GDP of a particular country acquires almost 100% of its character. For example, Japan, not
mentioned above, was the sixth largest energy consumer in the world in 2017 and surpassed
most EU countries in terms of both per capita GDP and per capita oil consumption! Although,
it would seem, the southern conditions of Japan, almost completely located in the subtropical
and tropical zones, suggest lower figures for per capita oil consumption.
In 2017, energy consumption in Japan amounted to 456 million TOE, which amounted to 3.4%
of world primary energy consumption. Historical peak energy consumption per capita in Japan
reached in 2005 and amounted to 4.15 TOE. Since then, energy consumption in Japan has tended
to decline, as the country's national economy fluctuated between a hidden recession and sheer
economic stagnation. The effect of the largest nuclear accident at the Fukushima nuclear
power plant in 2011 is indicative in this respect: despite the radical restructuring of the
energy sector in Japan caused by this catastrophe and the almost complete closure of nuclear
power plants in the country, the consumption of primary energy in the Land of the Rising Sun
has not undergone such a sharp falls: almost all the "fallen out" volumes of atomic energy
were promptly replaced by increased consumption of oil and natural gas. And the general trend
of growth or reduction of primary energy consumption still showed a correlation with only
three parameters: the country's population, the level of per capita GDP of the national
economy and the general trend of improving energy efficiency, which in the case of Japan
describes the same energy saving parameter of 0.8% per year .
By 2016, per capita energy consumption in Japan decreased to 3.55 TOE, which was even
lower than per capita consumption in 1990, with a fundamentally higher GDP and a practically
stable population (an increase of only 3 million people with 123 million in 1990). In 2017,
per capita energy consumption in Japan grew only slightly to 3.6 TOE, which is quite
consistent with the very modest growth of the national economy.
As already mentioned, the practical economic result of "green" energy, observed for the
period 2007–2017, can be optimistically described as "zero" or "poorly distinguishable
from statistical error". Of course, one can complain that the sun and wind today give only 2%
of the global primary energy production and you need to "just give them more time (and
money)", but the sad reality is this: supposedly "promising" new energy sources affect the
economy. Their implementation in the countries of the European Union did not affect the
picture of energy efficiency and did not alter the ratio between GDP and tons of oil
equivalent spent on its production, while the global crisis and the debt crisis of the EU
itself turned out to be much more significant factors.
Still continuing (4):
A simple forecast follows from these sad conclusions: even if over the next decade the volume
of "green" energy again grows 4 times, then its share will reach only 8%. However, even this
level is an almost unrealizable dream: according to most forecasts – for example, the
IEA in 2017 and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) in 2018 – the actual
relative growth of renewable energy sources will be only about 2–20 years before 2030.
2.5 times. Unknown conclusion: even by 2030, the share of oil, natural gas and coal will be
at least 75% of the total primary energy level, which will be related to nuclear and
hydropower and the continuing relative waste from the use of wood energy and biomass. During
the years 2030-2040, the year can be almost fantastic, and all this will be due to the
difficulties that must be achieved in the field of oil, gas and coal in the balance sheet.
energy.
An extremely unpleasant situation with such a pessimistic forecast is expected with world
oil production. At the moment, its growth was concentrated in only nine oil-producing
countries. As an example, oil production in China is expected in 2015, after which it was not
even possible to achieve an increase in Chinese oil production.
Today, this "growing oil subsoil" includes the following countries (the estimated year of
oil production and data source are shown in brackets): Canada (peak in 2049, BP), USA (2042,
EIA), Iraq (2042, BP) , Kuwait (2040, BP), Iran (2039, BP), United Arab Emirates (2037, BP),
Russia (2033, IEA), Saudi Arabia (2030, BP), Brazil (2024, BP).
The exit from almost all the "growing" sources of oil production in the world is caused by
a drop in production from 2030 to 2040, which means the global energy crisis of humanity. and
there is "tasty", and there is energy, and all this economic strategy of modern
civilization.
Of course, partial replacement with liquid motor fuel, which is easily obtained from
petroleum, can be carried out using natural gas, as well as using chemical reforming in
various types of liquid hydrocarbons and molecular hydrogen.
However, this situation is hardly optimistic. In 2015, the world's peak production was
observed. Currently, natural gas production growth is concentrated in only ten countries (the
estimated year of natural gas production and data source are shown in parentheses): Canada
(2074, IEA), USA (2063, EIA), Iran (2046, BP), Qatar (2043 , BP), Saudi Arabia (2037, BP),
Algeria (2027, BP), China (2027, BP), Australia (2026, BP), Russia (2026, BP), Norway (2023,
IEA).
It is easy to see that already after 2030, the natural gas market will, like the oil market,
be practically monopolized by four or five countries, each of which will be able to easily
manipulate prices by simply adjusting its own production, since other players simply will not
have any -or free capacity. Unfortunately, in the case of Russian oil, and when analyzing the
prospects for Russian gas in such an oligopolistic market, it can be noted that Russia will
be in the "first echelon" of losers, at whose expense they will try to solve world problems
with the energy balance.
Of course, a partial replacement of natural gas and oil can be expected in the form of a
return to more "dirty" and expensive coal. By the way, it was precisely such a strategy that
China and India chose in the 1990s, who, without having wide access to the oil and natural
gas market, relied on their own deposits of hard coal. The incidental damage to ecology and
human health in this case was the price paid for the rapid industrialization paid by Indian
and Chinese society.
However, even on the "coal" path, humanity has its own problems. Today, the rapid growth
of coal production is possible only in four (!) Countries of the world. All other countries
have already passed their peak of hard coal mining, some of them more recently, such as the
USA (2008), China (2013) or South Africa (2014).
According to estimates by international energy agencies, today, growth in coal production
is possible only in the following countries (in brackets is the expected year of peak coal
mining and source of data): Russia (2112, BP), India (2052, BP), Australia (2032, IEA) ,
Indonesia (2031, BP).
I apologize for
posting an article here
– It was designed for a reader in Russia.
Ending:
Mirovaya energiya: stsenariy
I
World Energy Scenario
The inertial scenario of the development of mankind suggests that by 2050 the world
consumption of primary energy will increase one and a half times and will be about 20 billion
TOE. This indicator takes into account both the observed effects of energy conservation and a
very conservative estimate of future economic growth – within 2–2.5% of the
annual increase in global GDP.
However, crisis tendencies will be waiting for us much earlier than in 2050: it seems that
the gap between supply and demand on the global energy market will be formed by the early
2030s, when global energy consumption will approach the level of 16-17 billion TNE . As
already mentioned, peak years for world production of oil, natural gas and coal are coming in
the very near future. According to the IEA, the peak of world oil production will come as
early as 2022, when all of humanity will be able to provide about 4,530 million TOE with oil.
According to the same forecast, coal will be at its peak in 2028, when at the expense of it
it will be possible to get about 6 billion THE (which corresponds to about 8.4 billion tons
of physical coal mining, due to its lower energy value). And finally, global natural gas
production will peak in 2036, when this energy carrier can provide 3.9 billion ToE.
It is easy to understand that, taking into account the predicted share of oil, coal and
natural gas in primary energy of about 75% by 2030, the sum of peak production (14,430 TOE)
almost fully corresponds to ¾ the lower bar of estimated consumption in 2030 (16,000
TOE) . It should be understood that the peak values for oil and hard coal in
the world will be reached before 2030, after which these energy carriers will only decrease
in the volume of physical production. In part, this effect can be compensated for through the
involvement of more low-margin fields (as it happened with shale oil and gas), but the limits
of such compensatory mechanisms are not unlimited. In addition, a significant increase in the
price of primary energy in itself is a sign of the crisis of the existing economic structure,
which clearly links social stability with economic growth, and economic growth is fueled
precisely by the available (both physically and in price) energy.
Of course, the increase in the price of oil, natural gas and coal will improve the
economic prospects of "green" energy (simply due to the banal high cost of any energy
available to humanity), but this also means that within future economies huge amounts of
energy will simply be spent on maintaining the internal structure economies and the
livelihoods of the critically needed primary energy sector.
An idea of this kind of economic structure may well be given by the economic
model of the USSR, where such a bias towards the enterprises of "Group A" was dictated by
military and state construction, while consumer goods of the enterprises of "Group B" were in
short supply. However, in the USSR this mechanism was a reflection of the planned economy, in
the case of the supposed "peak" scenario of 2030, it would be formed by purely market
mechanisms within the framework of the "classical" capitalist economy.
It is clear that this implies a "contraction" of the final consumption of the population,
which will be caused by the forced flow of capital to the high-yielding primary energy
production sectors, forced and natural in the framework of the capitalist economy. At the
same time, the "welfare society" of the model countries of the "collective West", such as the
European Union and, in particular, the United States, will collapse. Faced with this kind of
crisis, the "overconsuming" Western countries will unambiguously join the battle for the
remnants of mineral energy resources. Such events and wars are likely to surpass even the
current "oil conflicts" in the Middle East, North Africa and Latin America, in which the
United States and its European allies are directly involved.
Probably, Russia will again be hit, which remains the "last natural storeroom" for large
reserves of sufficiently cheap oil, natural gas and coal. Most likely, the "energy predators"
will try once again to control the richest natural resources of our country, which, under
various pretexts, will strive to declare "the heritage of all mankind". In fact, we will talk
about the banal energy robbery of our country, which will hide behind the fig leaf of
propaganda.
Another disappointing conclusion follows from the energy "poverty" of the "world of the
future": Russia today has to prepare for the fact that our "four hard-earned oil equivalent
per capita", which, as noted above, is the basic condition for survival in Russia's severe
climate should be in the future provided for the population of the country from sources other
than oil, natural gas and coal. The challenges facing the world are facing Russia, but what
the United States is the reason for the rejection of overconsumption turns out to be another
challenge for Russia in the face of cold and death by starvation.
Unfortunately, the "world of the future" does not promise to be a pleasant and comfortable
place to live. And we should prepare for such a negative scenario today.
Thank you for the thought provoking thoughts Opritov Alexander.
It is useful to hear these ideas from the perspective of those from various countries, such
as yours.
The data dovetails closely with what has been presented from other sources, by and large.
The geopolitical ramifications of these challenges is obviously paramount.
I am concerned that countries will be pressured to go to war over the shortfall in energy,
through desperation.
A few points about different countries-
The USA could likely decrease it energy use/capita considerably (perhaps 30%), without
severe economic repercussion. But it is not taking the issue seriously.
Some countries like Korea will have a very hard time decreasing consumption. They are
cold, and heavily industrialized. And rely almost entirely on imported fossil fuel.
I expect India, and China, to lean heavily toward suppliers of fuel as they plan their
position in the world and choose allies. Iran and Australia both seem to be prime suppliers
considering proximity.
Concerns over global warming will be swamped by concerns over energy shortage, despite the
severity of the change, such as food supply disruption and forced migration. These climate
problems will likely be much more severe after energy shortage problems develop due to the
lag in CO2 effects.
Mostly I agree with you.
It's hard to imagine the future.
Much will depend on politicians and the willingness of peoples to reduce consumption for the
sake of an acceptable standard of living in the future.
Passing the peak of energy consumption will lead to a decrease in global GDP.
I believe that in order to save people, they will live in multi-storey buildings, perhaps
without an elevator (of course, it may not be soon for 50 years), the transport will be
public, there will not be enough private cars.
In addition to the peak of hydrocarbons, the peak of copper, gold, silver, tin, and a lot
more is coming. How to solve these problems I don't want to dream
Post scriptum. The problem of CO2 and the problem of global warming in Russia is not a
popular topic. So much that everyone refuses to discuss it and even think about it.
Approximately as an alien topic.
I should have added Russia to the list of few countries that both India and China (and many
others) will be turning to eager for more energy supply.
Secondly, regarding global warming, Russia may experience a large degree of immigration
pressure in later decades.
Fracking has helped the USA boost oil production, but that is pressuring to get oil out of
older wells. Once those have been sucked dry, we'll need to import lots more. You read news
about occasional big new discoveries in the USA, but read the details to see that each
amounts only to a few days of oil consumption in the USA.
The world still runs on oil and the USA wants to control it all. If you doubt the
importance, look at a freeway or airport or seaport to see oil at work.
How they can claim that US tight oil will be produced in larger quantities if they predict stagnant oil prices and at those price
the US production is unprofitable.
So from now on it's all condensate, and very little heavy and medium oil.
I like BP propaganda: "The abundance of oil resources, and risk that large quantities of recoverable oil will never be extracted,
may prompt low-cost producers to use their comparative advantage to expand their market share in order to help ensure their resources
are produced." That's not only stupid but also gives up the intent...
Notable quotes:
"... In the ET scenario, global demand for liquid fuels crude and condensates, natural gas liquids (NGLs), and other liquids increases by 10 Mb/d, plateauing around 108 Mb/d in the 2030s. ..."
"... All of the demand growth comes from developing economies, driven by the burgeoning middle class in developing Asian economies. Consumption of liquid fuels within the OECD resumes its declining trend. ..."
"... The increase in liquid fuels supplies is set to be dominated by increases in NGLs and biofuels, with only limited growth in crude ..."
In the ET scenario, global demand for liquid fuels crude and condensates, natural gas liquids (NGLs), and other liquids
increases by 10 Mb/d, plateauing around 108 Mb/d in the 2030s.
All of the demand growth comes from developing economies, driven by the burgeoning middle class in developing Asian economies.
Consumption of liquid fuels within the OECD resumes its declining trend. The growth in demand is initially met from non-OPEC
producers, led by US tight oil. But as US tight oil production declines in the final decade of the Outlook, OPEC becomes the main
source of incremental supply. OPEC output increases by 4 Mb/d over the Outlook, with all of this growth concentrated in the 2030s.
Non-OPEC supply grows by 6 Mb/d, led by the US (5 Mb/d), Brazil (2 Mb/d) and Russia (1 Mb/d) offset by declines in higher-cost, mature
basins.
Consumption of liquid fuels grows over the next decade, before broadly plateauing in the 2030s
Demand for liquid fuels looks set to expand for a period before gradually plateauing as efficiency improvements in the transport
sector accelerate. In the ET scenario, consumption of liquid fuels increases by 10 Mb/d (from 98 Mb/d to 108 Mb/d), with the majority
of that growth happening over the next 10 years or so. The demand for liquid fuels continues to be dominated by the transport sector,
with its share of liquids consumption remaining around 55%. Transport demand for liquid fuels increases from 56 Mb/d to 61 Mb/d by
2040, with this expansion split between road (2 Mb/d) (divided broadly equally between cars, trucks, and 2/3 wheelers) and aviation/marine
(3 Mb/d). But the impetus from transport demand fades over the Outlook as the pace of vehicle efficiency improvements quicken and
alternative sources of energy penetrate the
transport system . In contrast, efficiency gains when using oil for non-combusted uses, especially as a feedstock in petrochemicals,
are more limited. As a result, the
non-combusted use of oil takes over as the largest source of demand growth over the Outlook, increasing by 7 Mb/d to 22 Mb/d
by 2040.
The outlook for oil demand is uncertain but looks set to play a major role in global energy out to 2040
Although the precise outlook is uncertain, the world looks set to consume significant amounts of oil (crude plus NGLs) for several
decades, requiring substantial investment. This year's Energy Outlook considers a range of scenarios for oil demand, with the timing
of the peak in demand varying from the next few years to beyond 2040. Despite these differences, the scenarios share two common features.
First, all the scenarios suggest that oil will continue to play a significant role in the global energy system in 2040, with the
level of oil demand in 2040 ranging from around 80 Mb/d to 130 Mb/d. In all scenarios, trillions of dollars of investment in oil
is needed Second, significant levels of investment are required for there to be sufficient supplies of oil to meet demand in
2040. If future investment was limited to developing existing fields and there was no investment in new production areas, global
production would decline at an average rate of around 4.5% p.a. (based on IEA's estimates), implying global oil supply would be only
around 35 Mb/d in 2040. Closing the gap between this supply profile and any of the demand scenarios in the Outlook would require
many trillions of dollars of investment over the next 20 years.
Growth in liquids supply is initially dominated by US tight oil, with OPEC production increasing only as US tight oil declines
Growth in global liquids production is dominated in the first part of the Outlook by US tight oil, with OPEC production gaining
in importance further out. In the ET scenario, total US liquids production accounts for the vast majority of the increase in global
supplies out to 2030, driven by US tight oil and NGLs. US tight oil increases by almost 6 Mb/d in the next 10 years, peaking at close
to 10.5 Mb/d in the late 2020s, before falling back to around 8.5 Mb/d by 2040. The strong growth in US tight oil reinforces the
US's position as the world's largest producer of liquid fuels. As US tight oil declines, this space is filled by OPEC production,
which more than accounts for the increase in liquid supplies in the final decade of the Outlook.
The increase in OPEC production is aided by OPEC members responding to the increasing abundance of global oil resources by reforming
their economies and reducing their dependency on oil, allowing them gradually to adopt a more competitive strategy of increasing
their market share. The speed and extent of this reform is a key uncertainty affecting the outlook for global oil markets (see pp
88-89).
The stalling in OPEC production during the first part of the Outlook causes OPEC's share of global liquids production to fall
to its lowest level since the late 1980s before recovering towards the end of the Outlook.
Low-cost producers: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq and Russia
The abundance of oil resources, and risk that large quantities of recoverable oil will never be extracted, may prompt low-cost
producers to use their comparative advantage to expand their market share in order to help ensure their resources are produced.
The extent to which low-cost producers can sustainably adopt such a 'higher production, lower price' strategy depends on their
progress in reforming their economies, reducing their dependence on oil revenues.
In the ET scenario, low-cost producers are assumed to make some progress in the second half of the Outlook, but the structure
of their economies still acts as a material constraint on their ability to exploit fully their low-cost barrels.
The alternative 'Greater reform' scenario assumes a faster pace of economic reform, allowing low-cost producers to increase their
market share. The extent to which low-cost producers can increase their market share depends on: the time needed to increase production
capacity; and on the ability of higher-cost producers to compete, by either reducing production costs or varying fiscal terms.
The lower price environment associated with this more competitive market structure boosts demand, with the consumption of oil
growing throughout the Outlook.
Growth in liquid fuels supplies is driven by NGLs and biofuels, with only limited growth in crude oil production
The increase in liquid fuels supplies is set to be dominated by increases in NGLs and biofuels, with only limited growth in
crude.
So Trump imposed sanction on the USA too. Of he hopes that Strategic petroleum reserve will
compensate for shortages... If Venezuela color revolution develops into Libya scenario, which
they could oil output can be suppressed for years to come. In other words Trump really has
chances to became Republican Obama.
Moreover, not only are the effects of the sanctions more far-reaching, but also more
immediate than first thought. At first, the U.S. seemed to exempt shipments that were underway,
outlining a sort of phased approach that would allow a handful of American refiners to
gradually unwind their oil purchase from Venezuela. The phased approach, which was supposed to
be extended into April, would help "to minimize any immediate disruptions," U.S. Secretary of
Treasury Steven Mnuchin said in late January.
But that now does not appear to be what is unfolding. PDVSA has demanded upfront payment,
likely because it fears not being paid at all or having the revenues steered to the opposition.
Indeed, the U.S. effort to steer PDVSA and its revenues into the hands of the U.S.-backed
opposition leader Juan Gauidó appears to be a decisive turning point.
Oil tankers linked to Chevron, Lukoil and Respsol are delayed, redirected or sitting
offshore because of lack of payment. The WSJ says that several of those tankers had recently
sent oil to Corpus Christi, Texas, but are now anchored off the coast of Maracaibo sitting
idle. "This is an absolute disaster," Luis Hernández, a Venezuelan oil union leader,
told the WSJ. "There's almost no way to move the oil."
Unable to sell any oil, Maduro's regime could quickly run out of cash. The result could be a
humanitarian catastrophe, a merciless and destructive objective that the Trump administration
seems to have in mind. The U.S. government is essentially betting that by driving the country
into the ground, the military and the people will turn on Maduro. It could yet turn out that
way, but it could also deepen the misery and exact an unspeakable toll on the Venezuelan
population, the very people the Trump administration says it is trying to help.
In the meantime, oil exports are likely heading into a freefall. The WSJ says that labor
problems, including "mass defections of workers" are accelerating declines. PDVSA could soon
run out of refined fuel.
Officials with knowledge of the situation told the WSJ that Venezuela's oil production has
likely already fallen well below 1 million barrels per day (mb/d), down more than 10 percent
– at least – from December levels.
Wood Mackenzie estimates that production
probably stands a little bit higher at about 1.1 mb/d, but that it could soon fall to 900,000
bpd.
... ... ...
That would push up oil prices significantly. But the U.S. government has blown past the
point of no return, leaving it with no other options except to escalate. That means that
Venezuela is set to lose a lot more oil than analysts thought only two weeks ago .
Will loss of Vezuellian oil exports to the USA be compensated from the USA strategic
reserve? Who will compensate this oil? Canada ? Or Trump administration decoded that temporary rise of oil prices is OK in
view of more strategic goal ?
Notable quotes:
"... As for Venezuela's over-reliance on oil exports to support its economy, this is the result of past government policies before Chavez came to power. The US treated Venezuela as a petrol station and pro-US governments in the country turned it into a petrol station. ..."
Bart Hansen@20 - Oil production costs are complex, secret and mostly lies. With that caveat,
Venezuela was thought to have about $10 - $15 production costs on average. That includes
their light and medium crude, and zero investment in repair of their distribution networks.
Well over half of Venezuela's reserves are Orinco extra-heavy, sour crude. Essentially tar
sands, but buried 500m - 1500m deep that require solvent or steam extraction. So (guess)
maybe $30-range/bbl for production. Those tar sand oils produced are so heavy that they need
pre-processing and dilution before they can be refined or exported. Naphtha or other refined
products are used as dilutent and cost maybe $55/bbl today, but were around $75/bbl last
October.
U.S. refineries were pretty much the only ones paying cash for their 500,000 b/d of
Venezuelan crude. Trump's sanctions not only ban those imports, but also ban the 120,000 b/d
of naphtha and other dilutents we sold them.
Interesting to note that part of Trump's beat-down of the Venezuela little people is a ban
on the 120,000 b/d of dilutent last week. That will completely shut down their exports. They
could find another source of naphtha, but that source will be looking for $6.6 million a day
hard cash for it.
Maduro needs to sell Venezuela's gold to buy naphtha to export oil for ANY revenue. The
$2.5 billion the Bank of England can't find and won't deliver is meant to hasten the food
riots and CIA-orchestrated coup. But Mercy Corps is setting up concentration camps on the
Colombian border and we're delivering food aid, so the U.S. is really the hero, here. God
bless America! Obey, or die.
Red Ryder @ 30: Venezuela's economy is as much ruined by US economic sanctions against the
country and (at US behest) Saudi Arabia's flooding of the global oil market that sent oil
prices down in order to crash the economies of other countries like Iran and Russia that were
presumed to be dependent on oil exports, as by mismanagement or poor leadership on Chavez or
Maduro's part.
On top of that, major food importers and producers (several of which are owned by
companies or individuals hostile to Chavez and Maduro) have been withholding food from
supermarkets to manipulate prices and goad the public into demonstrating against the
government.
As for Venezuela's over-reliance on oil exports to support its economy, this is the
result of past government policies before Chavez came to power. The US treated Venezuela as a
petrol station and pro-US governments in the country turned it into a petrol
station.
Chavez did try to encourage local food production and carried out some land redistribution
to achieve this. But his efforts did not succeed because importing food was cheaper than
producing it locally and farm-workers apparently preferred jobs in the oil industry that paid
better and were more secure.
I do not know how the collectives were organised, whether they had some independent
decision-making abilities or not, or whether they were organised from top down rather than
bottom up, so I can't say whether their organisational structures and the internal culture
those encouraged worked against them.
Feb 2, 2019 The REAL Reason The U.S. Wants Regime Change in Venezuela. The U.S. and its
allies have decided to throw their weight behind yet another coup attempt in Venezuela. As
usual, they claim that their objectives are democracy and freedom. Nothing could be farther
from the truth.
Feb 3, 2019 Venezuela's Oil Enough for World's 30 Year Energy Needs
The long bankrupt fiat financial system is pushing the Deep State to target Venezuela for
the latter's natural resources that dwarfs that of its satellite province Saudi Arabia.
"... US need for heavy oil is also due to declines in conventional oil production. Fracking "oil" ( high in condensates) has been used to mask the peak (real) oil declines and also has a lower energy content/barrel and must be blended with heavy oil for the refineries to process it. Thus, "Prices of heavier U.S. grades like Mars Sour, an offshore medium U.S. crude, and Heavy Louisiana Sweet crude have risen as buyers scramble for supply". ..."
"... Mars currently trades at a premium to U.S. crude at $58.19 vs $53.69 for West Texas Intermediate (WTI)". Currently, the US also imports 500,000 barrels of Venezuelan crude a day to meet refinery blending requirements. ..."
"... All other shale fracking regions than the Permian have peaked or are in decline as shown by http://aheadoftheherd.com/Newsletter/2018/Shale-is-dead-long-live-conventional-oil.pdf ..."
He neglects other factors such as:
(1) poor soil management practices;
(2) demographics such as some 3 million Columbian citizens fleeing the Fascist Columbian
military attacks and putting extra stress on the social programs;
(3) Increasing US needs for Venezuela heavy crude to blend with the light fractions coming
from fracking operations (e.g. Eagle Ford light "oil" condensates;
(4) US military need for War to support funding levels (e.g. Smidley Butler's "war is a
racket";
(5) batshit crazy neocon and neoliberal ideology and world domination.
The EROI issue is worse that many consider. See Gail Tverberg article "How the Peak Oil
Story Could Be "Close," But Not Quite Right". The article points out that wellhead costs do
not capture the downstream costs of production and tax capture that bust further reduce the
EROI. https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/01/peak-oil-story-close-not-quite-right.html
US need for heavy oil is also due to declines in conventional oil production. Fracking
"oil" ( high in condensates) has been used to mask the peak (real) oil declines and also has
a lower energy content/barrel and must be blended with heavy oil for the refineries to
process it. Thus, "Prices of heavier U.S. grades like Mars Sour, an offshore medium U.S.
crude, and Heavy Louisiana Sweet crude have risen as buyers scramble for supply".
The economics of the US fracking light oil condensates industry is much worse when you
consider the offloading of pollution costs (drinking water), health effects, wear and tear of
highways from trucking the oil, water and fracking sands (one pound/barrel), climate change
from massive methane flaring, volatile organic compounds (VOC) release and earthquake damage
from deep injection of the water cut fluids.
"... UN should be probing Washington and allies for regime-change crimes Identical condemnations from the US and allies and the synchronicity show that Venezuela is being targeted for regime change in a concerted plot led by Washington. ..."
"... It is so disappointing that Americans yet to come to realization that this criminal Jewish Mafia does not standing at the end of the old republic. He is DEEPLY involved, but his STYLE is different. He kills and terrorize the same as Regan, Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama who have killed millions of people. His sanction is the KILLING MACHINE to topple governments TO STEAL THEIR RESOURCES FOR THE DUMMIES. I have NO respect for the liars who are trying to paint a criminal as someone 'standing against' the deep state. TRUMP IS PART OF THE DEEP STATE, ONLY DUMMIES DO NOT GET IT. ..."
"... No matter the situation in Venezuela, whatever the US government and media are saying is just hostile propaganda as they couldn't give a rat's ass about the people living there. The Libyan people were doing well out of their oil, as were the Iraqis, living in reasonable wealth and security, and look at them now after the US decided to meddle in their affairs. Now after all that, even if something the US government says may be true, why believe it? How many times do you need to be fooled to stop being a fool? ..."
"... The nuttiest member of the Trump administration is UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Her latest neo-nazi stunt was to join protestors last week calling for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. She grabbed a megaphone at a tiny New York rally and told the few "protesters" (organized by our CIA) to say the USA is working to overthrow their President. This was so bizarre that our corporate media refused to report it. ..."
"... Why does everyone make Trump out to be a victim, poor ol Trump, he's being screwed by all those people he himself appointed, poor ol persecuted Trump. Sounds like our Jewish friends with all the victimization BS. ..."
"... By now Trump must be near bat shit crazy. Imagine hundreds of vampires descending on every exposed artery and vein. Does he have a chance in 2020? Not with the people who are around him today ..."
"... Regardless of what the MSM reports, the population is fed-up with all the malarkey, and the same old faces. ..."
"... If he can he should issue an executive order allowing important items like immigration to go directly to public referendum, by passing congress. We're tired of idiots with personal grudges holding our President hostage. Stern times calls for sterner measures. ..."
"... Juan Guaidσ is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington's elite regime change trainers. While posing as a champion of democracy, he has spent years at the forefront of a violent campaign of destabilization. ..."
Agent76 says:
January 30, 2019 at 7:21 pm GMT 100 Words Jan 24, 2019 Catastrophic Consequences What's Really Happening in Venezuela
In this video, we give you the latest breaking news on the current situation in Venezuela with Maduro, the election, and Trump's
response.
UN should be probing Washington and allies for regime-change crimes Identical condemnations from the US and allies and the
synchronicity show that Venezuela is being targeted for regime change in a concerted plot led by Washington.
@Sergey Krieger Negotiations are not necessarily a sign of weakness. However, Maduro should negotiate with the puppet masters,
not with the puppet. I don't think that killing that pathetic Guaido is a good strategy: you don't want to make a martyr out of
nonentity.
And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I support American diplomatic and
economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all, Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves.
FUCK YOU! Venezuela is not "our" back yard. And the oil does not belong to "us".
[Donald Trump, for all that and for his various faults and miscues, is in reality the only thing standing in the way of the end
of the old republic. ]
It is so disappointing that Americans yet to come to realization that this criminal Jewish Mafia does not standing at the
end of the old republic. He is DEEPLY involved, but his STYLE is different. He kills and terrorize the same as Regan, Carter,
Clinton, Bush, Obama who have killed millions of people. His sanction is the KILLING MACHINE to topple governments TO STEAL THEIR
RESOURCES FOR THE DUMMIES. I have NO respect for the liars who are trying to paint a criminal as someone 'standing against' the
deep state. TRUMP IS PART OF THE DEEP STATE, ONLY DUMMIES DO NOT GET IT.
The ignorant Jewish mafia 'president' IS MORE DANGEROUS because he like his 'advisors' is totally ILLITERATE. It is a family
business dummies.
Are dummies going to hold petty people like Bolton who lie to get money from MEK to buy a new suit and new shoes, is responsible
for the policy of the Trump regime where he wages WARS, economic sanction, to starve children to surrender? Then NO ONE Trusts
you. MEK people are not more than 20, but are funded by the US colony, Saudi Arabia where MBS transfers money to the Jewish mafia
family funding US wars.
Maduro has EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to arrest Juan Guiado, a gigolo who is taking orders from a US and an illiterate 'president',
where its dark history known to every living creature on earth. US has massacred millions of people in all continents including
Latin America.
Maduro has every single right to arrest him and put on trail and execute him as a traitor and an enemy of the state. How many
years the people in Venezuela should suffer for the US 'regime change' and its crimes against humanity in Venezuela to STEAL ITS
RESOURCES.
"So let me get this straight: The Russians brought America to its knees with a few facebook ads, but Uncle Sam's concerted and
ongoing efforts to overthrow governments around the world and interfere with elections is perfectly fine? Because democracy? Riiiiiiight."
:
[The last Venezuelan Presidential election was a joke. ]
YOU ARE A JOKE ZIONIST IDIOT.
The Making of Juan Guaidσ: How the US Regime Change Laboratory Created Venezuela's Coup Leader
[Juan Guaidσ is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington's elite regime change trainers. While posing as
a champion of democracy, he has spent years at the forefront of a violent campaign of destabilization.]
Illiterate Jewish Mafia 'president' must be kicked out of the office. Hands of Israel is all over the SELECTION.
The ignorant 'president' is MORE DANGEROUS THANT OTHER CRIMINAL US REGIMES because on top of being a criminal, he is ILLITERATE
as well.
[In 2009, the Generation 2007 youth activists staged their most provocative demonstration yet, dropping their pants on public
roads and aping the outrageous guerrilla theater tactics outlined by Gene Sharp in his regime change manuals.This far-right group
"gathered funds from a variety of US government sources, which allowed it to gain notoriety quickly as the hardline wing of opposition
street movements," according to academic George Ciccariello-Maher's book, "Building the Commune."
That year, Guaidσ exposed himself to the public in another way, founding a political party to capture the anti-Chavez energy
his Generation 2007 had cultivated.]
@By-tor See, this is the typical lie. Socialism fails, so the socialist blames the outside wrecker for causing the problem.
If Moscow freezes, then it is because of the wreckers. If Moscow starves, then it is because of the wreckers.
If Venezuela collapses, then it is because of "sanctions," not the failure of the new socialist economy.
America has the right to lock anyone out of its economy that it wants, for whatever reasons. This should not matter because
that nation can still trade with the rest of the world, like China. Venezuela could get everything it wants by simply selling
oil to China in exchange for goods. The problem is, there is not enough oil production to do so and other nations are reluctant
to replace American investment for fear of losing their assets as well.
Think about how wrong-headed the Chavez policy has been. If the Venezuelans have problems with their local ruling class and
want to get rid of them fine do so. But, why go after the American oil company? The Americans don't care who rules Venezuela as
long as their contracts are honored. Chavez could have then been a true socialist an allocate a greater dividend to Venezuelans
that was previously being hoarded by the ruling class an arrangement similar to what Alaskans have with American oil companies.
But no there was an immediate seizure of assets because the only purpose of socialism is to make the socialist leaders rich.
And Chavez and Maduro became very rich indeed.
@AnonFromTN I would happily martyr gorbachov , Yeltsin and all their gang. I think everybody would have been far better of
then. Same is applied to the puppet. Nikolai II was martyred and things got a lot better. What is important is winning and final
outcome, while making some martyrs in the process.
@Harold Smith Trump's personnel picks are mind-boggling. I cannot see how he disapproves Eliot Abrams for deputy SoS with
one breath, then blandly allows Pompeo to appoint him an envoy to a trouble-spot. Bolton, Pompeo, Goldberg et al.
NEOCON America does not want Russian bombers in South America.
Real America doesn't give a f*ck. Bombers are so last century, might as well put up machine-gun equipped Union Pacific Big
Boys to make it marginally more steampunk and become a real danger for the USA.
@Tyrion 2 There is not a single complaint here that did not exist before the election or before Pres Chavez.
There are poor management leaders all over the globe. That';s their business. Hey we have some right here in the US I take
it your solution is a military coup or better yet a coup fostered by the EU or the OAS, or maybe ASEAN or SDG . . .
It would be nice if someone simply asked Trump why it is he originally wanted to get along with Russia and pull out of the middle
east and generally opposed the "neoconservative" approach and now seems to be hiring neocons and doing what they want. Is he trying
to placate Sheldon Adelson and Adelson's lackeys, or what? I don't know of his being asked about this directly.
Venezuelan lawmaker Jose Guerra dropped a bombshell on Twitter Tuesday: The Russian Boeing 777 that had landed in Caracas the
day before was there to spirit away 20 tons of gold from the vaults of the country's central bank. Guerra is a former central
bank economist who remains in touch with old colleagues there. A person with direct knowledge of the matter told Bloomberg News
Tuesday that 20 tons of gold have been set aside in the central bank for loading. Worth some $840 million, the gold represents
about 20 percent of its holdings of the metal in Venezuela.
No matter the situation in Venezuela, whatever the US government and media are saying is just hostile propaganda as they
couldn't give a rat's ass about the people living there. The Libyan people were doing well out of their oil, as were the Iraqis,
living in reasonable wealth and security, and look at them now after the US decided to meddle in their affairs. Now after all
that, even if something the US government says may be true, why believe it? How many times do you need to be fooled to stop being
a fool?
No, Chavez had popular legitimacy. Maduro has nothing but force to keep himself in power now. Yes, there's easy definition
for the above but Chavismo is decrepit.
Pressure for a reasonable Presidential election is based on that.
The Trumptards blindly support me. I can do no wrong.
There are not enough independent thinkers to make a difference as the two main sides bitterly fight each other over every
minute, meaningless issue.
I can pretty much do as I please without consequence ..like pay off all my buddies and pander to the jews/globalist/elites.
I'd add: and by doing the last, I could cut a deal with the real TPTBs as to for what happens after I leave White House.
Chavez had popular support . He felt the need to intimidate opponents from the beginning. Like Bill Bellicheck and Tom
Brady feeling the need to cheat.
Makes sense. They owe a big chunk of money to Russia and a payment of 100 million is coming due. Russia gets security for future
payments while it holds their gold in a safe place. They may ship the rest to China if they are smart
The nuttiest member of the Trump administration is UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Her latest neo-nazi stunt was to join
protestors last week calling for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. She grabbed a megaphone
at a tiny New York rally and told the few "protesters" (organized by our CIA) to say the USA is working to overthrow their
President. This was so bizarre that our corporate media refused to report it.
She's being paid no doubt by the usual suspects. She is personally 1 million in debt and has signed with a Speakers agency
to give speeches for 200,000 a pop.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (WCIV)
"Haley is currently quoting $200,000 and the use of a private jet for domestic speaking engagements, according to CNBC
In October 2018, when Haley resigned, she said, she would be taking a "step up" into the private sector after leaving the U.N.
According to a public financial disclosure report based on 2017 data, at the rate quoted for her engagements, just a handful would
pay down more than $1 million in outstanding debt that was accrued during her 14 years
3. There are not enough independent thinkers to make a difference as the two main sides bitterly fight each other over every
minute, meaningless issue.
Well people you need to explore this move to take over Venezuela in the context of what having that oil control will mean for
the US and Israel in the increasingly likely event we blow up Iran and up end the ME for Israel.
So what could happen that might make control of oil rich Venezuela necessary? Why has Venezuela become a Bolton and Abrams
project? Why is Netanyahu putting himself into the Venezuela crisis ?
We, otoh, would need all the oil we could get if we blew up the ME, specifically Iran, figuratively or literally. The US signed
a MOU with Israel in 1973 obligating us to supply Israel with oil ( and ship it to them) if they couldn't secure any for themselves.
@Hibernian I hate those two guys so much, and the owner Kraft also. I'm hoping for a helmet to helmet collision for Brady
early in the second quarter with his bell ringing for the rest of the game. (Evil grin)
@Tyrion 2 Yes, the int'l monitors said the elections were fair as Maduro received over 60% of the vote. You think the 'deplorables'
of venezuela elected the known US-Wall Street neo-liberal puppet Guaido? No, the US Tape Worm groomed this twerp, all-the-while
his backers and paymasters in the American neo-Liberal ruling class claim Russian meddling in the 2016 US elections. The shamelessness
and hypocrisy is astounding.
@Tyrion 2 Pres Hugo Chavez's admin was very controversial. And the conditions you speak of have plagued Venezuela even before
Pres Chavez came to government.
This really is none of our affair. We don't have a mandate to go about the planet tossing out whoever we think is crazy. He
is not a threat to the US. There's no indication that he intends to harm US businesses.
Their polity means their polity. You'll have to do better than he's crazy, mean, a despot, etc. That's for them to resolve.
@Commentator Mike Seems some will never learn the definition of insanity, especially the NeoCons who have been running America
for far too long. I recommend John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" for the less informed among us here today. Maybe
at some point they will get a clue.
I heartily dislike and find despicable the socialist government of Maduro, just as I did Hugo Chavez when he was in power.
I have some good friends there, one of whom was a student of mine when I taught in Argentina many years ago, and he and his
family resolutely oppose Maduro. Those socialist leaders in Caracas are tin-pot dictator wannabees who have wrecked the economy
of that once wealthy country; and they have ridden roughshod over the constitutional rights of the citizens. My hope has been
that the people of Venezuela, perhaps supported by elements in the army, would take action to rid the country of those tyrants.
Hard to take this guy seriously when he spouts Fox News level propaganda.
Why does everyone make Trump out to be a victim, poor ol Trump, he's being screwed by all those people he himself appointed,
poor ol persecuted Trump. Sounds like our Jewish friends with all the victimization BS.
Its clear that voting no longer works folks, this is an undemocratic and illegitimate "government" we have here. We let them
get away with killing JFK, RFK, MLK, Vietnam, we let them get away with 9/11, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria. They've made a
mess in Africa. All the refugees into Europe, all the refugees from Latin America that have already come from CIA crimes, more
will come.
We wouldn't need a wall if Wall St would stop with their BS down there!
You can't just blame Jews, yes there are lots of Jews in Corporate America, bu t not all of them are, and there are lots of
Jews who speak out against this. We were doing this long before Israel came into existence. You can't just blame everything one
one group, I think Israel/Zionist are responsible for a lot of BS, but you can't exclude CIA, Wall St, Corporations, Banks, The
MIC either. Its not just one group, its all of them. They're all evil, they're imperialists and they're all capitalists. I think
Israel is just a capitalist creation, nothing to do with Jews, just a foothold in he middle east for Wall St to have a base to
control the oil and gas there, they didn't create Israel until they dicovered how much oil was there, and realized how much control
over the world it would give them to control it. Those people moving to Israel are being played, just like the "Christian Zionists"
here are, its a cult. Most "Jews" are atheists anyhow, and it seems any ol greedy white guy can claim to be a Jew. So how do you
solve a "Jewish Problem" if anybody can claim to be a Jew? I think solving the capitalist problem would be a little easier to
enforce.
All of the shills can scream about communists, socialists and marxists all they want. Capitalism is the problem always has
been always will be. Its a murderous, immoral, unsustainable system that encourages greed, it is a system who's driving force
is maximizing profits, and as such the State controlled or aligned with Corporations is the most advanced form of capitalism because
it is the most profitable. They're raping the shit out of us, taking our money to fund their wars, so they can make more money
while paying little to no taxes at all. Everything, everyone here complains about is caused by CAPITALISM, but nobody dares say
it, they've been programmed since birth to think that way.
We should nationalize our oil and gas, instead of letting foreigners come in and steal it, again paying little or no taxes
on it, then selling the oil they took from our country back to us. Russia and Venezuela do it, Libya did it, Iraq did it, and
they used the money for the people of the country, they didn't let the capitalists plunder their wealth like the traitors running
our country. We're AT LEAST $21 trillion in the hole now from this wonderful system of ours, don't you think we should try something
else? Duh!
It is the love of money, the same thing the Bible warned us about. Imperialism/globalism is the latest stage of capitalism,
that is what all of this is about, follow the money. Just muh opinion
@Tyrion 2 From the people fool not by the C.I.A. declaring that well we like the other fellow best for president,after all
using the logic you fail to have Hillary could have said call me madam president and leave the orange clown out in the dark,stupid,stupid
people
"And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I support American diplomatic and
economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all, Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves."
OMG, Cathey really said that. Is he always such a shit? He certainly has Venezuela completely wrong.
@AnonFromTN This phylosophical questions should not led to no actions. Modern Russia is actually in much better position now
than it was in 1913. True. There is never final. Sorry for wrong words choice. Dialectics.
@Wizard of Oz The scenario you describe is an accurate. And requires me to make judgments about a dynamic I am unfamiliar
with -- no bite. Several sides to this tale and I have heard and seen it before.
I may however make a call.
In 2017 2/3 of the states in the region chose not to interfere. They have not changed their minds on intervention.
ohh by the way I did ask and here's the familial response:
But reading the data sets makes it clear that what they want is some humanitarian relief. B y and large I have the family telling
me to mind my own business, but they would like a meal, some medicine and some water.
By now Trump must be near bat shit crazy. Imagine hundreds of vampires descending on every exposed artery and vein. Does he
have a chance in 2020? Not with the people who are around him today.
Regardless of what the MSM reports, the population is fed-up with all the malarkey, and the same old faces.
In Trump's remaining 2 years he must throw off the parasites, bring in real men, and go to work on infrastructure, health
care, and real jobs. He has to out the naysayers, the creeps and the war mongers. Throw Bolton from the train, and divorce Netanyahu
and Israel. Appeal directly to the public.
If he can he should issue an executive order allowing important items like immigration to go directly to public referendum,
by passing congress. We're tired of idiots with personal grudges holding our President hostage. Stern times calls for sterner
measures.
@RobinG That would be an easy, almost optimistic explanation: some people are venal enough to say or write anything for money.
Pessimistic explanation is that some people who can read and write are nonetheless dumb or brainwashed enough to sincerely believe
the BS they are writing.
Can you define what capitalism is ? Once that idea is refined, finessed, and compared to multiple color changes of capitalism,
it becomes easier who to fit in the plastic infinitely expandable box of ideas of capitalism starting with the chartered company
to patient laws to companies making military hardwares paid by tax payers to tax cut by government to seizure of foreign asset
by US-UK to protection of the US business by military forces to selling military gadgets to the countries owned by families like
Saudi royals Gulf monarchs and to the African ( American installed ) dictators to printing money .
A great article I posted in another thread few days ago dives deep into who Juan Guaido is and his past grooming for the past
10+ years:
Juan Guaidσ is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington's elite regime change trainers. While posing
as a champion of democracy, he has spent years at the forefront of a violent campaign of destabilization.
"Whoever believed that Trump will drain the swamp must feel disappointed."
The thing is, Trump just didn't fail to drain the swamp, he "took the ball and ran with
it." Apparently he's an enthusiastic imperialist who gets off on the illegitimate use of
military force. (His attack on the Shayrat airbase in Syria should end any debate about
that).
Supposedly he's been wanting to attack Venezuela for a while:
I can understand Trump's die-hard supporters' argument that Trump is being coerced into
doing evil things (although I don't agree with it), but how can they explain Trump's apparent
enthusiasm?
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that Trump's anti-war/anti-interventionist
tweets from 2013 were insincere and his whole presidential campaign was a brazen fraud.
Edit: I just saw your comment #71; so you apparently see it the same way I do.
@By-tor Maduro is just Venezuelan Mugabe. Has it really come to this? That people on Unz
will support any random lunatic as long as he mouths off about America or Israel every now
and again?
Oh, but the sanctions! Proper economic sanctions were only very recently applied. The
Venezuelan economy was already utterly wrecked by their joke of a government.
Liken the US not trading with Venezuela to a medieval siege if you like, but I suggest you
read up on medieval sieges first. Hint: they weren't merely a government run boycott.
@onebornfree Some all to rare common sense – a writer who understands that both big
government Trump and the big government "opposition" to Trump are not, never were , and never
will be, "the answer":
"The Real Problem Is The Politicization Of Everything"
" While on the market and in radically decentralized systems, disagreements and
polarization are not a problem, centralized political decision-making has in its nature that
only one view can prevail. Suddenly, who is in the White House or whether regulation X or Y
is passed does matter a great deal, and those with a different opinion than you on it may
seem like actual enemies. Within voluntary settings, one can live with people that one
disagrees with. All parties curate a way of life that works while living in peace with
others.
To regain civility in human interactions and finally treat other human beings as human
beings again, we would do well to get politics out of human affairs."
For those who think this coup attempt was sudden, here is something from my blog:
Oct 9, 2018 – Ambassador Supports Coup
Few Americans know that our nation imposed harsh economic sanctions on Venezuela because
the Neocons want to overthrow its democratic government. They hate that oil rich Venezuela
insists on controlling its oil production rather than allowing big American corporations to
run things. Almost three years ago, Neocon puppet Barack Obama declared a national emergency
to impose sanctions by designating Venezuela an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to
national security, and Trump continued sanctions.
The nuttiest member of the Trump administration is UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Her latest
neo-nazi stunt was to join protestors last week calling for the overthrow of the
democratically elected government of Venezuela. She grabbed a megaphone at a tiny New York
rally and told the few "protesters" (organized by our CIA) to say the USA is working to
overthrow their President. This was so bizarre that our corporate media refused to report it.
Jimmy Dore assembled this great video of CNN presenting their expert calling the President of
Venezuela paranoid for saying the USA wants to overthrow his government. A few hours later, a
different CNN report documented recent efforts by the USA to overthrow his government!
@Tyrion 2 This is not about Maduro, or Guaido, who is likely an even bigger shit, as he
clearly serves foreign masters. Don't you think it should be up to the people of Venezuela to
change their president? The US meddling is against every rule of behavior of countries
towards other countries. How would you feel if Burkina Faso told you who should be the
president of the US? That's exactly how every Venezuelan who has dignity feels, regardless of
their opinion of Maduro and his coterie.
@Tyrion 2 The US has been plotting against Venezuela since the last Wall Street puppet
Pres. Rafael Caldera was defeated by Chavez and ownership of oil assets returned to Venezuela
thereby cutting out anf angering the NYC-London predatory globalist cabal. Trump's hitmen are
now preventing the Venezuelan state from accessing credit and from withdrawing its own money
and gold foolishly deposited in US and London banks. The Venezuelan corporate elite act
against the general population. You do not fully understand the situation.
Ethnonationalist stuff is ridiculous, it's stupid on the face of it, it's ridiculous,
I've said it from day one. Ethnonationalism is a dead end, it's for losers. Economic
nationalism and civic nationalism bind you together as citizens, regardless of your race,
regardless of your ethnicity, regardless of your religion
@Digital Samizdat Digital Samizdat -- As civic nationalism is no kind of nationalism and
presents no obstacle to race replacement, I imagine Jewry will be happy with it. Jewry will
also be happy that
Bannon the race realist ('It's been almost a Camp of the Saints-type invasion into
Central and then Western and Northern Europe') has been successfully neutered.
"... In February 2017, it was reported that Abrams was Secretary of State Rex Tillerson 's first pick for Deputy Secretary of State , but that Tillerson was subsequently overruled by Trump. Trump aides were supportive of Abrams , but Trump opposed him because of Abrams' opposition during the campaign. ..."
"... On January 25, 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appointed Abrams as the United States' Special Envoy to Venezuela ." ..."
There he was, right there on the stage to the right side of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
who was briefing the press on America's position concerning the recent coup in Venezuela. I
rubbed my eyes -- was I seeing what I thought I was seeing?
It was Elliot Abrams. What was HE doing there? After all, back in February 2017, after
then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had pushed for his nomination as Deputy Secretary of
State, it was President Trump himself who had vetoed his appointment.
Here is how the anodyne account in Wikipedia describes it:
In February 2017, it was reported that Abrams was Secretary of State Rex Tillerson 's first pick
for Deputy Secretary of
State , but that Tillerson was subsequently overruled by Trump. Trump aides were
supportive of Abrams , but Trump opposed him because of Abrams' opposition during the
campaign. [emphasis mine]
Abrams during the 2016 campaign had been a NeverTrumper who vigorously opposed Donald Trump
and who had strongly attacked the future president's "Make America Great Again," America First
foreign policy proposals.
Abrams, a zealous Neoconservative and ardent globalist was -- and is -- one of those foreign
policy "experts" who has never seen a conflict in a faraway country, in a desert or jungle,
where he did not want to insert American troops, especially if such an intervention would
support Israeli policy. He was deeply enmeshed in earlier American interventionist miscues and
blunders in the Middle East, even incurring charges of malfeasance.
Apparently, President Trump either did not know that or perhaps did not remember Abrams's
activities or stout opposition. In any case, back in 2017 it took an intervention by a
well-placed friend with Washington connections who provided that information directly to Laura
Ingraham who then, in turn, placed it on the president's desk And Abrams' selection was
effectively stopped, torpedoed by Donald Trump.
But here now was Abrams on stage with the Secretary of State.
What was that all about?
Again, I went to Wikipedia, and once again, I quote from that source: " On January 25,
2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appointed Abrams as the United
States' Special Envoy to Venezuela ."
Despite President Trump's resolute veto back in February 2017, Abrams was back, this time as
a Special Envoy, right smack in the department that President Trump had forbade him to serve
in. Did the president know? Had he signed off on this specially-created appointment? After all,
the very title "Special Envoy on Venezuela" seems something dreamed up bureaucratically by the
policy wonks at State, or maybe by Mike Pompeo.
Then there was the widely reported news, accompanied by a convenient camera shot of National
Security Adviser John Bolton's note pad (which may or may not have been engineered by him),
with the scribble: "5,000 troops to Colombia."
What gives here?
Last week suddenly there was a coup d'etat in Venezuela, with the head of the national
assembly, Juan Guiado, proclaiming himself as the country's new and rightful president, and the
theoretical deposition of then-current President Nicolas Maduro. And we were told that this
action was totally "spontaneous" and an "act of the Venezuelan people for democracy," and that
the United States had had nothing to do with it.
If you believe that, I have an oil well in my backyard that I am quite willing to sell to
you for a few million, or maybe a bit less.
Of course, the United States and our overseas intelligence services were involved.
Let me clarify: like most observers who have kept up with the situation in oil-rich
Venezuela, I heartily dislike and find despicable the socialist government of Maduro, just as I
did Hugo Chavez when he was in power. I have some good friends there, one of whom was a student
of mine when I taught in Argentina many years ago, and he and his family resolutely oppose
Maduro. Those socialist leaders in Caracas are tin-pot dictator wannabees who have wrecked the
economy of that once wealthy country; and they have ridden roughshod over the constitutional
rights of the citizens. My hope has been that the people of Venezuela, perhaps supported by
elements in the army, would take action to rid the country of those tyrants.
And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I
support American diplomatic and economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all,
Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves.
But potentially sending American troops -- as many as 5,000 -- to fight in a country which
is made up largely of jungle and impassible mountains, appears just one more instance, one more
example, of the xenophobic internationalism of men like Bolton and the now state department
official, Abrams, who believe American boots on the ground is the answer to every international
situation. Experience over the past four decades should indicate the obvious folly of such
policies for all but the historically blind and ideologically corrupt.
While we complain that the Russians and Chinese have propped up the Maduro government and
invested deeply in Venezuela, a country within our "sphere of influence" in the Western
Hemisphere (per the "Monroe Doctrine") -- we have done the very same thing, even more
egregiously in regions like Ukraine that were integrally part of historical Russia, and in
Crimea, which was never really part of Ukraine (only for about half a century) but historically
and ethnically Russian. Did we not solemnly pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, under George H. W.
Bush, that if the old Soviet Union would dissolve and let its some fourteen socialist
"republics" go their own way, leave the Russian Federation, that we, in turn, would not advance
NATO up to the borders of Russia? And then we did the exact opposite almost immediately go back
on our word and move our troops and advisers right up to the borders of post-1991 Russia?
From mid-2015 on I was a strong supporter of Donald Trump, and, in many ways, I still am. In
effect, he may be the only thing that stands in the way of a total and complete recouping of
power by the Deep State, the only slight glimmer of light -- that immovable force who stands up
at times to the power-elites and who has perhaps given us a few years of respite as the
managerial class zealously attempts to repair the breach he -- and we -- inflicted on it in
2016.
My major complaint, what I have seen as a kind of Achilles' Heel in the Trump presidency,
has always been in personnel, those whom the president has surrounded himself with. And my
criticism is measured and prudential, in the sense that I also understand what happens -- and
what did happen -- when a billionaire businessman, a kind of bull-in-the-china shop (exactly
what was needed), comes to Washington and lacks experience with the utterly amoral and
oleaginous and obsequious political class that has dominated and continues to dominate our
government, both Democrats and, most certainly, Republicans.
The wife of a very dear friend of thirty-five years served in a fairly high post during the
Reagan administration. Before her untimely death a few years ago, she recounted to me in stark
detail how the minions and acolytes of George H. W. Bush managed to surround President Reagan
and subvert large portions of the stated Reagan Agenda. Reagan put his vice-president
effectively in charge of White House personnel: and, as they say, that was it, the Reagan
Revolution was essentially over.
In 2016 a number of friends and I created something called "Scholars for Trump." Composed
mostly of academics, research professors, and accomplished professionals, and headed by Dr.
Walter Block, Professor of Economics at Loyola-New Orleans, and Dr. Paul Gottfried,
Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, in Pennsylvania, we attempted
to gather real professed believers in the stated Trump agenda. We received scant mention
(mostly negative) in the so-called "conservative" press, who proceeded to smear us as
"ultra-right wingers" and "paleo-conservatives." And, suddenly, there appeared another
pro-Trump list, and that one composed largely of the same kinds of professionals, but many if
not most of whom had not supported Donald Trump and his agenda during the primary
campaigns.
What was certain was that many of the amoral time-servers and power elitists had decided
that it was time for them to attach themselves to Trump, time for them to insinuate themselves
into positions of power once again, no matter their distaste and scorn for that brash
billionaire upstart from New York.
Remember the (in)famous interview that the President-elect had with Mitt Romney who
desperately wanted to be Secretary of State? Recall the others also interviewed -- some of whom
we remembered as Donald Trump's opponents in the campaign -- who came hat-in-hand to Trump
Tower looking for lucrative positions and the opportunity once again to populate an
administration and direct policy? And, yes, work from within to counteract the stated Trump
agenda?
It would be too facile to blame the president completely: after all, the professional policy
wonks, the touted experts in those along-the-Potomac institutes and foundations, were there
already in place. And, indeed, there was a need politically, as best as possible, to bring
together the GOP if anything were to get through Congress. (As we have seen, under Paul Ryan
practically none of the Trump Agenda was enacted, and Ryan at every moment pushed open
borders.)
Our contacts did try; we did have a few associates close to the president. A few -- but only
a few -- of our real Trump Agenda supporters managed to climb aboard. But in the long run we
were no match for the machinations of the power elites and GOP establishment. And we discovered
that the president's major strength -- not being a Washington Insider -- was also his major
weakness, and that everything depended on his instincts, and that somehow if the discredited
globalists and power-hungry Neoconservatives (who did not give Trump the time of day before his
election) were to go too far, maybe, hopefully, he would react.
And he has, on occasion done just that, as perhaps in the case of Syria, and maybe even in
Afghanistan, and in a few other situations. But each time he has had to pass the gauntlet of
"advisers" whom he has allowed to be in place who vigorously argue against (and undercut) the
policies they are supposed to implement.
Donald Trump, for all that and for his various faults and miscues, is in reality the only
thing standing in the way of the end of the old republic. The fact that he is so violently and
unreservedly hated by the elites, by the media, by academia, and by Hollywood must tell us
something. In effect, however, it not just the president they hate, not even his rough-edged
personality -- it is what he represents, that in 2016 he opened a crack, albeit small, into a
world of Deep State putrefaction, a window into sheer Evil, and the resulting falling away of
the mask of those "body snatchers" who had for so long exuded confidence that their subversion
and control was inevitable and just round the corner.
President Trump will never be forgiven for that. And, so, as much as I become frustrated
with some of the self-inflicted wounds, some of the actions which appear at times to go
flagrantly against his agenda, as much as I become heartsick when I see the faces of Elliot
Abrams -- and Mitt Romney -- in positions where they can continue their chipping away at that
agenda, despite all that, I continue to pray that his better instincts will reign and that he
will look beyond such men, and just maybe learn that what you see first in Washington is
usually not what you'll get.
I cannot imagine a more evil person to be allowed back into govt than this man, who is
more evil than he looks.
It is over, in my mind, with the trump admin; nothing has been done about the long list of
crimes committed by the obama gang during the election and after. Nothing has been done about
seth rich, I would add michael hastings, and the long list of clinton "suicides" and the
clinton crimes. the list is endless with no progress.
The dimos in doj, fbi, etc have completely out-manuevered trump and he really has no junk
yard dog to protect him-guliani is a joke, even if he is sober as he claims to be.
Linh Dinh on this website (June 12, 2016) predicted both the election outcome and its
meaninglessness. He had by then, of course, been blackballed by Scholars, Inc., and is now
helping to run a recycling operation back in Vietnam. But he has emerged as one of the top
Unz columnists, most of his Heritage American attackers who couldn't see past their DNA
having slunk away.
Conversely, go read the comment thread under Mr. Buchanan's latest. People who used to
fall for the "we/us/our" conflation of their country and Uncle Sam are waking up, due largely
to the President in whom you still place your scholarly hope. We may not be scholars, but we
understand that the blood of people in places like Iraq, Libya, Syria, and soon enough
Venezuela is on the hands of those who endorse the warmongering imperialism of Exceptionalia.
Your scholarly enabling, such as:
"And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I
support American diplomatic and economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all,
Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves."
is naive at best. As a scholar, did you support the "economic pressure" rationalized by
Secretary of State Albright that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of them
children?
Those of you who still expect the Unz readership to give two sh ** s about Donald Trump or
anyone else in the Washington Puppet Show are fast losing your relevance around here.
Yup, Personnel is Policy; always has been. The scale of it all really precludes the kind of
benefit-of-the-doubt explanation the author struggles to formulate. It's not that Trump tried
to do the right thing but some war-hawks, jews, and Wall-Street shysters got through
regardless. Those were the only people that needed apply because Trump wasn't considering
anybody else. One simply has to conclude that the people that currently surround him are
indeed "his kind of people". And let's not forget that after a crash course in the realities
of government he replaced Tillerson and notorious torturer McMaster because they were not
hawkish, not pro-Israel, enough .
What evidence is there that your definition of "doing the right thing" coincides with
Trump's anyway. Yes he made some non-interventionist noises during the campaign, but that was
mostly during the primary before he'd kissed Adelson's ring in exchange for the shekels. But
he was also "a very militaristic guy" who was all for "taking the oil" and who nonstop hated
on Iran. Face it, it was just the Obama playbook: throw an incoherent mishmash to the proles
in the hope that they remember only those parts they liked.
Isn't Trump's CV rather more illuminating on who he is than his campaign rhetoric: casino
operator and pro-wrestling MC. He gets off on playing the rubes.
From mid-2015 on I was a strong supporter of Donald Trump, and, in many ways, I still
am. In effect, he may be the only thing that stands in the way of a total and complete
recouping of power by the Deep State
Donald Trump, for all that and for his various faults and miscues, is in reality the
only thing standing in the way of the end of the old republic.
.despite all that, I continue to pray that his better instincts will reign and that he
will look beyond such men, and just maybe learn that what you see first in Washington is
usually not what you'll get.
The US military has kept some 3000 soldiers in Columbia for years. Maybe that has grown to
5000, but Bolton's yellow pad note was a simple trick to fool simpletons. Invading Venezuela
would require at least 50,000 US troops.
Americans are quick to denounce socialists, especially those in the US military who thrive
in a socialist US military. Most Americans do not realize that their police, firefighters,
schools, most universities, roads, water, and electricity are products of socialism. If you
have an emergency in the USA, you dial 9-11 for socialists to help you. Everyone thinks that
is great!
From my blog:
Jan 27, 2019 – A Clumsy Slow Coup
Corporate America media has not reported basic facts about the attempted takeover of
Venezuela. The Deep State has tried to overthrow the popular, elected government of Venezuela
for a decade as it gradually nationalized its oil production. Several coup attempts failed so
the USA imposed sanctions to punish the people for voting wrong. Sanctions caused shortages
and inflation but the elected government remains in power.
In the past, the USA conducted coups by bribing Generals to conduct a quick military
takeover, and always denied participation. The Trump administration gave up on deception and
began a clumsy, slow coup. I suspect Trump's new CIA appointed attorney general told Trump
that he had the power to appoint foreign presidents, so last week he openly appointed a new
president for Venezuela. The Venezuelan army openly backs the existing president so nothing
changed. The UN did not recognize Trump's puppet president nor did any other major world
power. These facts do not appear in our corporate media, although the internet provides
reality via a Paul Craig Roberts article. (posted at unz.com)
Trump has now ordered other nations to send payments for oil purchases to a bank account
controlled by his new president. This infuriates foreign governments because they know oil
shipments will stop if they fail to pay the legitimate government of Venezuela, and oil
prices will rise worldwide as they scramble to buy oil elsewhere. Meanwhile, a massive
humanitarian and refugee crisis is building as the result of this economic embargo.
I do not know how the fracking is going in the winter. I have read somewhere, that yields
from fracking are going down. also that fracking companies are moving down to Texas.Also I do
not know the state of strategic reserves, But I definitely suspect that moves in Venezuela
were planed long before. so I have to presume that this is all about price of oil.
Trump quite a while ago, quite eagerly said something about moving on Venezuela.
Trump can be easily triggered by any economic subject by which US gains. But I do suspect
that in this case it could be economic necessity. (What would be a real shame.)
@Taras77 I agree Taras. Although I much enjoyed reading Boyd Cathey's essay, sadly, I
think he remains too optimistic. With the D's back in charge of the House, and the R's
impotent in the Senate, (McConnell as majority leader is a joke), Trump's stated agenda is
all over. He got nothing in his first two years besides the traditional GOP tax cut for the
rich. And he waited far too long to get serious about the wall. Yes, Koch-man Paul Ryan
opposed it, but surely Trump could have tried harder to get enough R votes to override him.
His only option now, unless Pelosi budges a little, would be to declare a National Emergency
on Feb 15. There is no way he could shut down the government again. Let's see how that goes.
However I disagree with Realist's comment. With Trump being attacked viciously on all
sides, I don't understand how anyone could think he is part of the Deep State. I think Victor
Davis Hanson got it right when he called Trump a "Tragic Hero."
Whoever believed that Trump will drain the swamp must feel disappointed. The US foreign
policy is run by the swamp now, like it always was. The US uses full range of classical
gangster tactics against Venezuela: blackmail, theft of assets, threats, etc. The US tries to
instigate yet another "color revolution" to bring yet another puppet to power in yet another
country. The only difference is, Maduro resists. But that's the difference in the victim
country, not in DC.
I do not know how the fracking is going in the winter. I have read somewhere, that yields
from fracking are going down. also that fracking companies are moving down to Texas.Also I do
not know the state of strategic reserves, But I definitely suspect that moves in Venezuela
were planed long before. so I have to presume that this is all about price of oil.
Trump quite a while ago, quite eagerly said something about moving on Venezuela.
Trump can be easily triggered by any economic subject by which US gains. But I do suspect
that in this case it could be economic necessity. (What would be a real shame.)
@Ilyana_Rozumova It is not clear whether you are saying that Trump is trying to raise or
lower oil prices.
If he wants to lower oil prices then why is he making it difficult for Iran to sell its
oil?
If he wants to raise oil prices then why does he want the big US oil companies in
Venezuela to sort out that country's oil business and raise exports?
I suspect he, and those around him, have no idea what they want to achieve. They are
simply trying to demonstrate their "power" and ability to change regimes. To give the Monroe
Doctrine a bit of oxygen. To scare the European vassals.
@Taras77 Correct, Trump is a member of the Deep State. Trump's election and big talk is a
charade. It is hard to believe anyone would not see Trump as a chimera after all his
bullshit.
Also I do not know the state of strategic reserves, But I definitely suspect that moves
in Venezuela were planed long before
Trump is doing the same thing he did in his businesses ..using 'other people's
money.assests' to cover his ass.
Now picture this ..sanctions on Iran, sanctions on Russia, sanctions on Venezuela + rising US
interest rates + a slowing economy + half of US oil reserves sold to cover government
spending.
Hope people get use to riding a bike when this perfect storm hits.
U.S. sells 11 million barrels of oil from reserve to Exxon, five other
firmshttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oil-reserve/u-s-sells-11-million-barrels-of-oil-from-reserve-to-exxon-five-other-firms-idUSKCN1LG2WT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Six companies, including ExxonMobil Corp, bought a total of 11
million barrels of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a Department of Energy
document showed on Friday, in a sale timed to take place ahead of U.S. sanctions on Iran that
are expected to remove oil from the global market.
Sale of the oil from the reserve was mandated by previous laws to fund the federal government
and to fund a drug program, but the Trump administration took the earliest available time to
sell the crude under the law.
The sale's timing "would appear to reflect President Donald Trump's concern regarding oil
market tightness associated with the reinstatement of Iran oil sanctions," analysts at
ClearView Energy Partners said after the sale was announced on August 20.
@Carlton Meyer A slight correction is needed here. The UK, Germany, Israel and France has
signed onto this.
Just as all four of them were more than willing to help smash Libya to dust so they could
steal their oil fields and all that gold Gaddafi had hoarded up for his independent gold back
African currency.
I think what is happening in Venezuela is not an isolated event. It is connected to a broad
"connect the dots" South American strategy. The other dots are:
1) Bolsonaro's election victory.
2) Changes in structural relationship with Argentina, Chile, Colombia.
3) Cuba isolation.
4) Bolivia isolation.
5) And finally the recent unexpected dam collapse in Brazil, followed by IDF's offer to fly
in hundreds of soldiers to help.
S America is about to become the next Middle East (Syria). Weapons proliferation. War
profiting. Mass scale disruption. Already a profound refugee crisis. And all the traditional
war hawks there – with IDF leading the charge.
"And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and
I support American diplomatic and economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all,
Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves."
So in effect, you wish for the success of the globalists in their relentless struggle with
the concept of national sovereignty and the rule of law, and you support American imperialist
efforts to overthrow yet another democratically elected government, no matter how many people
have to die in the process. After all, the victim country is relatively close and its huge
oil reserves make for a reasonable pretext.
Venezuela, the Deep State, and Subversion of the Trump Presidency
Also on UR, link to,
Bolton: We're Taking Venezuela's Oil
Yesterday, Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton made the US position clear in a
FoxNews interview: Washington will overthrow the Venezuelan
RON PAUL LIBERTY REPORT
@Johnny Rico "How many barrels a day does Venezuela pump?"
Something like 50,000 barrels per day. And pumped is perhaps the wrong word more like mined.
Venezuelan oil is locked up in surface tar sands along the Orinoco River and of very low
quality, rich in metals such as vanadium which catalyze sulfur into sulfuric acid rotting out
engines and turbines if not cleaned up. It is actually sold as a emulsion with about 25%
water to get the stuff to flow. The Canadian tar sands now produce something like 500,000
barrels per day. Try driving through the Alberta tar sands to see mommie earth ravaged
without conscience and birds murdered en masse landing on their vast polluted effluent ponds
but then the loathsome colonial denizens of our Canadian satrap to the north don't care as
long as we let them have a couple of hockey teams and legal pot.
Whoever believed that Trump will drain the swamp must feel disappointed. The US foreign
policy is run by the swamp now, like it always was. The US uses full range of classical
gangster tactics against Venezuela: blackmail, theft of assets, threats, etc. The US tries to
instigate yet another "color revolution" to bring yet another puppet to power in yet another
country. The only difference is, Maduro resists. But that's the difference in the victim
country, not in DC.
@Tyrion 2 Venezuela is under US sanctions that substitute for a medieval siege, and
Venezuela's comprador ruling class are Wall Street loyalists, not nationalists. The US is
trying to starve the population of Venezuela and economically ruin them wherein a US puppet
gov't will enable predatory Americans to buy coveted resources on the cheap. This usurpation
of int'l law and criminality was pulled off by Obama-Nuland-Soros in Ukraine in 2014. The
majority of Venezuelan 'deplorables' who are bearing the brunt of US sanctions know well what
Uncle Sham's man-on-the-ground Guaido is up to, and have, hopefully, organized and armed
themselves with rifles to defend their lives and property from invaders.
@Amon It's possible that Venezuela will be another Libya. But I question whether the US
Imperialists could get away with weeks of saturation bombing on a country in the same
hemisphere, just to its south. I find it hard to believe that the rest of South America would
take this lying down. Then there's the presence of Russia and China, who both have
substantial investments in the country. Will they just sit on their hands too?
With its jungles and mountains, any US invasion would be more like Vietnam, I think. This
could be, and I hope it is, a Bridge Too Far for the Empire. Empires always eventually
overreach.
But, bbbuuuttt, I thought we were gonna be energy independent and export oil all over the
globe. What need have we of some heavy crude in Venezuela if this forecast is at hand? Just
hedging the BS ya know.
Maduro and Chavez are as socialist as I am capitalism fan. They are indeed populist dictators
and regime is still capitalistic. They just rely upon lumpens and military to hold onto
power. Things wound not change for the better and probably for worse if coup succeeds though.
Now, it is neither USA nor author's business to interfere into other countries affairs as
Americans quite obviously only make things worse and what if when USA finally kicks the
bucket as United country others start interfering in USA affairs ? I actually see it coming
considering demographic and cultural realities on the ground in USA. Once $usd is gone as
reserve currency the process as Gorbachiv stated would start.
Last week suddenly there was a coup d'etat in Venezuela,
actually the use of the term coup d'etat is incorrect. A coup occurs when the military
disposes the government and replaces it with a military government.
This has not yet occurred. It has not yet been successful, what is actually happening is
the beginning of a civil war, the outcome which is not clear.
The situation bears a certain similarity with the beginning of the Syrian civil War.
If it follows the Ukrainian scenario like what took place in 2014, then I would expect
some type of situation where foreign mercenaries are employed to create divisions in the
population, like firing on the opposition supporters. It is highly likely that some sort of
false flag incident will be use to fire up the situation.
If the military were to revolt and replace it with civilian rule it would be called a
pronunciamiento
Trump just congratulated self-proclaimed US puppet Guaido in Venezuela. So, he can no longer
pretend to be an innocent bystander: he showed himself to be a willing participant in the
criminal activities of the swamp.
Three notes on the bright side. One, the Empire is getting ever more reckless, no longer
bothers even with fig leaves. That looks like an overreach typical of empires in their death
throws. Two, Maduro, despite his obvious failings, appears to be prepared to defend his
country against banditry. So, maybe he is not just a piece of shit, like Yanuk in Ukraine.
We'll see soon enough. Three, Erdogan, who the same gangsters tried to overthrow not too long
ago, remembers that and voiced his support of Maduro in no uncertain terms, despite Turkey
being a NATO member.
Chinese crude oil imports up +9.9% higher in full year 2018 compared to FY 2017.
The month of December up +29.9% higher than Dec 2017
2019-01-14 OilyticsData
Another big crude import number from China (2nd consecutive month of imports above 10 MMB/D).
Low oil prices and startup of mega refineries such as RongSheng and Hengli is helping to keep
these numbers near record levels.(Source; GAC China)
Chart https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dw3fk2GXcAUZ_Vu.jpg
Oilytics https://twitter.com/OilyticsData
Questionable, but still interesting perspective. Ignore marketing crap -- clearly there is marketing push within this presentation
-- she wants your subscriptions. "This is Main Street vs Wall Street" dichotomy sounds plausible. Neoliberalism is, in essence, is the
restoration of power of financial oligarchy.
But the idea of secret open bailout might explain why shale oil became so prominent despite high cost of producing it: Wall Street
was subsidised via backchannels for bringing price downand supporting shale companies by the US goverment
$21 trillion in "missing money" at the DOD and HUD that was discovered by Dr. Mark Skidmore and Catherine Austin Fitts in 2017
has now become a national security issue. The federal government is not talking or answering questions, even though the DOD recently
failed its first ever audit.
Fitts says, "This is basically an open running bailout. Under this structure, you can transfer assets out of the federal government
into private ownership, and nobody will know and nobody can stop it. There is no oversight whatsoever. You can't even know who is
doing it. I'm telling you they just took the United States government, they just changed the governance model by accounting policy
to a fascist government. If you are an investor, you don't know who owns those assets, and there is no evidence that you do. . .
. If the law says you have to produce audited financial statements and you refuse to do so for 20 years, and then when somebody calls
you on it, you proceed to change the accounting laws that say you can now run secret books for all the agencies and over 100 related
entities."
In closing, Fitts says, "We cannot sit around and passively depend on a guy we elected President. The President cannot fix this.
We need to fix this. . . . This is Main Street versus Wall Street. This is honest books versus dirty books. If you want the United
States in 10 years to resemble anything what it looked like 20 years ago, you are going to have to do it, and there is no one else
who can do it. You have to first get the intelligence to know what is happening."
Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Catherine Austin Fitts, Publisher of "The Solari Report." Donations:
https://usawatchdog.com/donations/
Greg, with all due respect I don't you understand what CAF is saying. Forget about a dollar reset. The fascists, using
the Treasury, Exchange Stabilization Fund, HUD, DOD and any agency they choose, have turned the US government into a gigantic
money laundering operation. And they maintain two sets of books - the public numbers are a complete sham. Any paper assets held
by private citizens are not secure, are likely rehypothecated, and when convenient can be frozen or siezed by these fascists in
Washington. There is no limit to how many dollars the FED can create secretly and funnel out through the ESF/Treasury to prop
up and bail out any bank, black ops, pet project, mercenary army or paper assets they choose. The missing $21 trillion is probably
a drop in the bucket as there is no audit and no honest books for us to examine. In sum, all paper asset pricing in dollars is
a fraud and a sham. Any paper assets you think you own, whether it be stocks, bonds, or real estate are pure illusion: they can
be repriced or stolen at any time; in reality, you own nothing. To the man and woman on the street I say this: get out of paper,
get out of these markets and convert to tangibles in your physical possession - and do it secretly and privately, avoid insurances,
records, paper trails. This mass defrauding of the American people by this corrupt government in Washington will come crashing
down when the US dollar is displaced from reserve status; this is what China and Russia and the BRICS are setting the stage for:
world trade without the US dollar. When this happens, your dollars will become virtual toilet paper and all of your paper assets
will go poof.
"We have to fix this". Ok how does the individual fix this? Private armies are running around doing whatever private armies
do and I, the one man, is suppose to fix this. Please, will someone tell us what we are suppose to do, specific instructions not
a mix of large words that say " we must fix this", damn, we need a leader. Greg you ask almost every person you interview what
the middle class should be doing to protect themselves and you never get a "real" answer, just a dance around. Also you ask numerous
people what this coming change is going to look like and again, just silence or dance music, no answers. Damn we need a leader.
Your trying very hard to give us information that will help us weather the coming storm, so thank you for all you do, and you
do more than anyone else out there.
Question, why in part do I feel I am being lied to? Is it subscription hustle or is it, don't you believe your lying eyes!
Without knowing exactly what is what, anyone who would've watched Herbert Walker Bush's funeral with reactions from those who
received cards, whether they be Bush family, the Clintons, the Obamas and entourage. Jeb Bush went from being proud and patriotic
to panic like the funeral that he was at was for the whole family.
Joe Biden looked like he had a major personal accident and no way to get to the bathroom for cleanup.
George W. Bush after being asked a question, of which the answer was, "Yep" then proceeded to appear resigned and stoic! What
ever was on those cards essentially amounted to, for all those receiving a card, "the gig is up" and it appears they all damn
well knew it.
So, Catherine Austin Fitts, explain your, "Trump is colluding with the Bushies," I would say, that Canary in this mine of inquiry
is dead. I'm just an old disabled Vietnam vet of plebeian background and certainly not a revolving door Washington DC Beltway
patrician, so any explanation needs to be delivered in slow, logical step-by-step progression for I have not mastered the art
of selling the sizzle in hopes that the dupes will later pay for the steak. I prefer, Greg, when you actually get more combative
with Ms. Fitts. Make America, great again and do so, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.
35 min: Fitts gives a great synopsis of the problem. She never deviates in all of her interviews. greg doesn't seem to understand
at all. She repeats herself MULTIPLE TIMES and greg is still asking the same irrelevant PREPPER questions. IT DOES NOT MATTER
WHAT ASSETS YOU HOLD GREG, AND THAT INCLUDES GOLD!!!! WHEN YOU'RE EXISTING IN A TYRANNICAL SYSTEM THAT STEALS AT WILL FROM ITS'
CONSTITUENCY YOU CAN'T actually OWN ANYTHING!!!! lord! only so many ways to say
She lost credibility when she said Trump has "made a deal with the Bushes." That defies logic. The Bushes made a deal with
Trump! Trump has gained full control of the military with a $ 1 1/2 trillion war chest. Trump and Putin are putting the China
toothpaste back in the tube.
This woman clearly knows nothing about the plan..she has not even mentioned that the world bank president has resigned who
was appointed by obumma. And that is HUGE. She was in government in the corruption, but she doesn't know how things will be fixed..she's
not in that loop of current things in the new reset..shes coming from her own perceptions
This woman always make me sick to my stomach. She comes out and says a bunch of scary stuff and offers no solution. If it's
too much for just one person, then we the people need to take control. We don't need a central bank. We need local and state banks
like the Bank of North Dakota then we can migrate over to them and then shut down the Fed.
2019-01-11 (Bloomberg) Saudi and Canadian cuts are leaving world hungry for heavy crude
Refiners along the Gulf Coast and in the Midwest invested billions of dollars in cokers and
other heavy-oil processing units over the past three decades anticipating supplies of light
oil would become scarce while heavy crude from Canada's oil sands, Venezuela and Mexico would
grow. Instead, the opposite occurred.
The shale revolution, as well as new offshore supplies form Brazil and West Africa, caused a
surge of light oil, while supplies from Venezuela to Mexico declined. Canada's growth has
been stymied by delays in getting new pipelines built.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/saudi-and-canadian-cuts-are-leaving-world-hungry-for-heavy-crude-1.1197259
India – Consumption of Petroleum Products (Without LPG or PetCoke)(kt/day)
December 2018 up +7.01% higher than December 2017
Average full year 2018 up +6.80% higher than full year 2017
Chart https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwoYp5xWsAA_vRh.jpg
India Light Distillates Consumption (shown in chart)
Average full year 2018 up +9.74% higher than full year 2017
Chart https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwoY_yjX4AA-S9K.jpg
India Middle Distillates Consumption
Average full year 2018 up +3.92% higher than full year 2017
You guys insist on continuing to think money isn't created from thin air by the Fed and
actually means something in the context of a substance that feeds you food. If you have to
have it, and you do have to have it, things will be done for you to get it. Borrowed money
that was created from thin air . . . who cares if you can't pay it back? You have to eat.
Consumption of oil is up. OPEC and Russia have reduced output. The price falls, because
there is no meaning to anything created from thin air when applied to something that depends
on physics.
You won't know anything until you find yourself sitting in a line waiting for gasoline.
You won't see it coming. You won't predict it. It will just happen someday.
Some truth to that Watcher. Simplistic thinking in investors. If we aren't making much money,
the US won't be making much money, so the price of oil must go lower. Not just simplistic,
flat out stupid.
And the number of people who think oil supply is limited is fairly scarce in relation to
the population as a whole. Probably less than the number of people who think chocolate milk
comes from brown cows.
"... Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some point the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and borrowing capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they would become bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics manufacture, herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial Civilisation. ..."
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with
Russia."
Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some
point the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and
borrowing capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they
would become bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics
manufacture, herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial
Civilisation.
In anticipation of increasing Crude Oil imports, Nixon stopped the convertibility of
Dollars into Gold, thus making the Dollar entirely fiat, allowing them to print as much of
the currency as they needed.
They also began a system of obscuring oil production data, involving the DoE's EIA and the
OECD's IEA, by inventing an ever-increasing category of Undiscovered Oilfields in their
predictions, and combining Crude Oil and Condensate (from gas fields) into one category (C+C)
as if they were the same thing. As well the support of the ethanol-from-corn industry began,
even though it was uneconomic. The Global Warming problem had to be debunked, despite its
sound scientific basis. Energy-intensive manufacturing work was off-shored to cheap
labour+energy countries, and Just-in-Time delivery systems were honed.
In 2004 the price of Crude Oil rose from $28 /barrel up to $143 /b in mid-2008. This
demonstrated that there is a limit to how much business can pay for oil (around $100 /b).
Fracking became marginally economic at these prices, but the frackers never made a profit as
over-production meant prices fell to about $60 /b. The Government encourages this destructive
industry despite the fact it doesn't make any money, because the alternative is the end of
Industrial Civilisation.
Eventually though, there must come a time when there is not enough oil to power all the
cars and trucks, bulldozers, farm tractors, airplanes and ships, as well as manufacture all
the wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicles, as well as the upgraded
transmission grid. At that point, the game will be up, and it will be time for WW3. So we
need to line up some really big enemies, and develop lots of reasons to hate them.
Thus you see the demonisation of Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela for reasons that don't
make sense from a normal perspective.
It is partially tied direct to the economy of the warmongers as trillions of dollars of
new cold war slop is laying on the ground awaiting the MICC hogs. American hegemony is
primarily about stealing the natural resources of helpless countries. Now in control of all
the weak ones, it is time to move to the really big prize: The massive resources of Russia.
They (US and their European Lackeys) thought this was a slam dunk when Yeltsin, in his
drunken stupors, was literally giving Russia to invading capitalist. Enter Putin, stopped the
looting .........connect the dots.
Chinese refineries that used to purchase U.S. oil regularly said they had not resumed buying
due to uncertainty over the outlook for trade relations between Washington and Beijing, as well
as rising freight costs and poor profit-margins for refining in the region.
Costs for shipping U.S. crude to Asia on a supertanker are triple those for Middle eastern
oil, data on Refinitiv Eikon showed.
A senior official with a state oil refinery said his plant had stopped buying U.S. oil from
October and had not booked any cargoes for delivery in the first quarter.
"Because of the great policy uncertainty earlier on, plants have actually readjusted back to
using alternatives to U.S. oil ... they just widened our supply options," he said.
He added that his plant had shifted to replacements such as North Sea Forties crude,
Australian condensate and oil from Russia.
"Maybe teapots will take some cargoes, but the volume will be very limited," said a second
Chinese oil executive, referring to independent refiners. The sources declined to be named
because of company policy.
A sharp souring in Asian benchmark refining margins has also curbed overall demand for crude
in recent months, sources said.
Despite the impasse on U.S. crude purchases, China's crude imports could top a record 45
million tonnes (10.6 million barrels per day) in December from all regions, said Refinitiv
senior oil analyst Mark Tay.
Russia is set to remain the biggest supplier at 7 million tonnes in December, with Saudi
Arabia second at 5.7-6.7 million tonnes, he said.
19 hours ago This is an
economic/political tight rope for both countries. China is the largest auto market in the
world with numerous manufacturers located inside its borders. Apple sales will disappoint
inside China after Meng's arrest over Iran sanctions (Huawei is a world heavy weight in terms
of sales), and this has already begun inside China due to national pride. Canada has already
seen one trade agreement postponed over her detention. US firm on the main have already
issued orders to not have key employees travel to their Chinese plants unless absolutely
necessary for fear of retaliation. Brussels is actively working on a plan to bypass US
Iranian sanctions, which are deeply unpopular in Europe.
The key to this solution might be in automotive. Oil is possibly on the endangered bargaining
list. Russia is a key trading partner (for years) with China and, along with Saudi Arabia and
Iran (or even without Iran) will be able to supply their needs. Our agricultural sector,
particularly in soybeans, has been hit hard, forcing the US govt. into farm subsidies. Brazil
just recorded a record harvest in soybeans. The US could counter with lifting Meng from
arrest in return for an agricultural break, but those negotiations won't make the mainstream
news. Personally, I think her arrest was a very ill-thought move on the part of law
enforcement, as the benefits don't even begin to outweigh the massive retaliation to US firms
operating inside their borders. It is almost akin to arresting Tim Cook of Apple or Apple's
CFO. You don't kill a bug with a sledge hammer.
Besides that, Saudi Arabia requires the organization to maintain a high level of oil
production due to pressure coming from
Washington to achieve a very low cost per barrel of oil. The US energy strategy targets
Iranian and Russian revenue from oil exports, but it also aims to give the US a speedy economic
boost. Trump often talks about the price of oil falling as his personal victory. The US
imports
about 10 million barrels of oil a day, which is why Trump wrongly believes that a decrease in
the cost per barrel could favor a boost to the US economy. The economic reality shows a strong
correlation
between the price of oil and the financial growth of a country, with low prices of crude oil
often synonymous of a slowing down in the economy.
It must be remembered that to keep oil prices high, OPEC countries are required to maintain
a high rate of production, doubling the damage to themselves. Firstly, they take less income
than expected and, secondly, they deplete their oil reserves to favor the strategy imposed by
Saudi Arabia on OPEC to please the White House. It is clearly a strategy that for a country
like Qatar (and perhaps Venezuela and Iran in the near future) makes little sense, given the
diplomatic and commercial rupture with Riyadh stemming from
tensions between the Gulf countries.
In contrast, the OPEC+ organization, which also includes other countries like the Russian
Federation, Mexico and Kazakhstan, seems to now to determine oil and its cost per barrel. At
the moment, OPEC and Russia have agreed to cut production by 1.2 million barrels per day,
contradicting Trump's desire for high oil output.
With this last choice Qatar sends a clear signal to the region and to traditional allies,
moving to the side of OPEC+ and bringing its interests closer in line with those of the Russian
Federation and its all-encompassing oil and gas strategy, two sectors in which Qatar and Russia
dominate market share.
In addition, Russia and Qatar's global strategy also brings together and includes partners
like Turkey (a future
energy hub connecting east and west as well as north and south) and Venezuela. In this
sense, the meeting between
Maduro and Erdogan seems to be a prelude to further reorganization of OPEC and its members.
It's crazy to think of all of the natural gas burned off by the world's oil producers. I
think of those oil platforms that have a huge burning flame on top. This is the kind of ****
that reminds us that the people who control the world care not for the people who live here.
Can't make a buck from it? ******* burn it.
Consider though that those oil producers are only in it for the money; it's not an
avocation with them. I imagine if there was a way to salvage the natural gas, it would be
done. Mo Muny would dictate it.
This could be the beggining of a level 5 popcorn event. It started a year or two ago and
when I saw it everybody laughed. Well look at it now. Saudi wants to defect. They have had
nothing but problems with the House of Sodomy for quite some time now.
If this leads to war in the Persian Gulf Edgar Cayce called it. The empire will burn that
place down before losing it. They may fail but something is going to go down.
Are the Sauds still full heartedly pushing the Zionist mission in Yemen?
As an Iranian-American I have been waiting for something big to happen with Iran. I am
really tired of waiting. I hope that Iran will grow some balls and fight the coalition. I
know that there are 80 million lives in danger, including my mom going back to Iran for a
short term. But this has been like a long torture and unending nightmare.
There is no multipolarity yet, but a bipolar hype of the world dominance run by US and its
vassals. An awakening will be harsh, when these realize their emperor goes naked.
This article is from May 2018 but it read as if it was written yesterday.
Notable quotes:
"... He estimates that sanctions will cut Iran's exports by up to 500,000 barrels a day later this year. "It could well be much more in 2019," he said. ..."
"U.S. political pressure is clearly a dominant factor at this OPEC meeting, limiting the scope of Saudi actions to rebalance the
market," said Gary Ross, chief executive of Black Gold Investors and a veteran OPEC watcher.
channelnewsasia.com 10 May 2018
Donald Trump could hardly have chosen a more treacherous economic moment to tear up the "decaying and rotten deal" with Iran.
The world crude market is already tightening very fast. Joint production curbs by Opec and Russia have cleared the four-year glut
of oil. There is no longer an ample safety buffer against supply shocks. The geopolitical "premium" on prices has returned. Tensions
run high:
The Maduro regime in Venezuela is entering its last agonies, and the country's oil industry is imploding. North America has run
into an infrastructure crunch. There are not yet enough pipelines to keep pace with shale oil output from the Permian Basin of west
Texas, and it is much the same story in the Alberta tar sands. The prospect of losing several hundred thousand barrels a day of Iranian
oil exports would not have mattered much a year ago. It certainly matters now.
World leaders respond to President Trump's move to reimpose economic sanctions on Iran while pulling the United States out of
the international agreement aimed at stopping Tehran from obtaining a nuclear bomb.
Oil price shock is looming
It is the confluence of simmering political crises in so many places that has driven Brent crude to $US77 a barrel, up 60 per
cent since last June. "We believe an oil price shock is looming as early as 2019 as several elements combine to form a 'perfect storm',"
said Westbeck Capital. It predicts $US100 crude in short order, with $US150 coming into sight as the world faces a crunch all too
reminiscent of July 2008. The fund warns that the investment collapse since 2014 is about to deliver its sting. Declining fields
are not being replaced. Output from conventional projects has until now been rising but will fall precipitously by 1.5 million barrels
a day next year. By then global spare capacity will be down to a lethally thin 1 per cent. US shale cannot plug the gap. "The mantra
after 2014 of lower for longer has lulled oil analysts into a torpor," Westbeck said. Needless to say, a spike to $US150 would precipitate
a global recession.
The US might hope to weather such a traumatic episode now that it is the world's biggest oil producer but it would be fatal for oil-starved
Europe. Such a scenario would test the unreformed euro to destruction. Britain, France and Germany may earnestly wish to preserve
the Iran deal but they can do little against US financial hegemony and the ferocity of "secondary sanctions". The US measures cover
shipping, insurance, and the gamut of financial and logistical support for Iran's oil industry.
In the end, there are infinitely greater matters at stake than barrels of oil.
Any European or Asian company that falls foul of this will be shut out of the US capital markets and dollarised international payments
system. The EU has talked of
beefing up the 1996 Blocking Regulation used to shield European companies from extraterritorial US sanctions against Libya. But
this is just bluster. No European company with operations in the US would dare flout the US Treasury. "A choice for corporate Europe
between the US and Iran is unequivocally going to fall the way of the US," said Richard Robinson from Ashburton Global Energy Fund.
Rise in oil prices turns malign
He said Europe will have to slash its imports from Iran by 60 per cent because groups such as ENI or Total will refuse to ship
the oil, whatever the strategic policy of the EU purports to be. This dooms the nuclear deal (JCPOA) since Iran will not abide by
the terms if the EU cannot deliver on its rhetoric, let alone come through with the $US200 billion ($251 billion) of foreign investment
coveted by Tehran.
David Fyfe from oil traders Gunvor said we do not yet have enough details from Washington to judge how quickly companies will
have to act. He estimates that sanctions will cut Iran's exports by up to 500,000 barrels a day later this year. "It could well
be much more in 2019," he said.
Late last year it was still possible to view rising oil prices as benign, the result of a booming world economy. This year it
has turned malign. Global growth has rolled over. The broad IHS index of raw materials has been falling since February.
Europe's catch-up spurt fizzled out in the first quarter. Japan's GDP probably contracted. The higher oil price is itself part
of the cause.
$US500 billion extra 'tax'
Even at current levels, it acts as an extra $US500 billion "tax" this year for consumers in Asia, Europe and America. Not all
of the windfall enjoyed by the petro-powers is recycled quickly back into global spending.
One cause of the slowdown is the credit squeeze in China, which is ineluctably feeding through into the real economy with a delay.
Proxy indicators suggest that true growth has fallen below 5 per cent.
My own view is that monetary tightening by the US Federal Reserve - and declining stimulus from the European Central Bank - is
doing more damage than widely presumed.
Higher US interest rates are pushing up borrowing costs for much of the world. Three-month dollar Libor rates used to price $US9
trillion of global contracts have risen 76 basis points since January.
The Fed is shrinking its balance sheet, draining international dollar liquidity at a quickening pace. If the Fed is not careful,
it will tip the US economy into a stall.
Ominously, we are seeing the first signs of a US dollar rally, tantamount to a "short squeeze" on Turkey, Argentina and Indonesia,
among other emerging market debtors.
Toxic combination
The combination of a slowing economy and an oil supply shock is toxic, even if the "energy intensity" of world GDP is now half
the level of 30 years ago.
Opec and Russia can of course lift their output cap at any time, though that alone will not restore the full 1.8m barrels a day
of original curbs. Venezuela is now in unstoppable free-fall.
The Saudis have pledged to uphold the "stability of oil markets" and to help "mitigate the impact of any potential supply shortages".
Kuwait and Abu Dhabi could add a little. Yet cyclical forces may be moving even beyond their control.
In the end, there are infinitely greater matters at stake than barrels of oil. Trump is throwing US power behind Saudi Arabia
in the epic Sunni-Shia battle for dominance over the Middle East, and behind Israel in its separate battle with Iran.
What can go wrong?
Both conflicts are on a hair trigger. Israel attacked an Iranian air base in Syria last month and killed
seven revolutionary guards. This is a dangerous escalation from proxy conflict to direct hostilities. The JCPOA nuclear deal may
be all that restrains the Iranian side from lashing out.
Saudi Arabia's impetuous young leader Mohammad bin Salman is itching to settle the score of all scores with Iran, the Iranian
revolutionary guard are in turn itching to launch a one-year dash for nuclear weapons, and Trump is itching for regime change. What
can go wrong?
"... Everyone knows it's the US presence in the Middle East which creates terrorists, both as proxies of and in resistance to the US imperial presence (and often one and then the other). So reading Orwellian language, Pompeo is saying the US wants to maximize Islamic terrorism in order to provide a pretext for creeping totalitarianism at home and abroad. ..."
"... The real reason is to maintain the petrodollar system, but there seems to be a conspiracy of silence never to mention it among both supporters and opponents of Trump. ..."
"... everyone knows why the usa is in the middle east.. to support the war industry, which is heavily tied to the financial industry.. up is down and down is up.. that is why the usa is great friends with ksa and israel and a sworn enemy of iran... what they don't say is they are a sworn enemy of humanity and the thought that the world can continue with their ongoing madness... ..."
"... The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF ..."
Trump also floated the idea of removing U.S. troops from the Middle East, citing the lower price of oil as a reason to withdraw.
"Now, are we going to stay in that part of the world? One reason to is Israel ," Trump said. "Oil is becoming less and less
of a reason because we're producing more oil now than we've ever produced. So, you know, all of a sudden it gets to a point
where you don't have to stay there."
It is only Israel, it is no longer the oil, says Trump. But the nuclear armed Israel does not need U.S. troops for its protection.
And if it is no longer the oil, why is the U.S. defending the Saudis?
Trump's Secretary of State Mike Pompeo disagrees with his boss. In a Wall Street journal op-ed today he claims that
The U.S.-Saudi Partnership
Is Vital because it includes much more then oil:
[D]egrading U.S.-Saudi ties would be a grave mistake for the national security of the U.S. and its allies.
The kingdom is a powerful force for stability in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is working to secure Iraq's fragile democracy
and keep Baghdad tethered to the West's interests, not Tehran's. Riyadh is helping manage the flood of refugees fleeing Syria's
civil war by working with host countries, cooperating closely with Egypt, and establishing stronger ties with Israel. Saudi
Arabia has also contributed millions of dollars to the U.S.-led effort to fight Islamic State and other terrorist organizations.
Saudi oil production and economic stability are keys to regional prosperity and global energy security.
Where and when please has Saudi Arabia "managed the flood of refugees fleeing Syria's civil war". Was that when it
emptied its jails of violent criminals and sent them to wage jihad against the Syrian people? That indeed 'managed' to push
millions to flee from their homes.
Saudi Arabia might be many things but "a powerful force for stability" it is not. Just ask 18 million Yemenis who, after years
of Saudi bombardment, are near to death for lack of
food .
Pompeo's work for the Saudi dictator continued today with a Senate briefing on Yemen. The Senators will soon vote on a resolution
to end the U.S. support for the war. In his prepared remarks Pompeo wrote:
The suffering in Yemen grieves me, but if the United States of America was not involved in Yemen, it would be a hell of a lot
worse.
What could be worse than a famine that threatens two third of the population?
If the U.S. and Britain would not support the Saudis and Emirates the war would end within a day or two. The Saudi and UAE
planes are maintained by U.S. and British specialists. The Saudis still
seek 102 more U.S. military personal to
take care of their planes. It would be easy for the U.S. to stop such recruiting of its veterans.
It is the U.S. that
holds up an already
watered down UN Security Council resolution that calls for a ceasefire in Yemen:
The reason for the delay continues to be a White House worry about angering Saudi Arabia, which strongly opposes the resolution,
multiple sources say. CNN reported earlier this month that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, "threw a fit" when
presented with an early draft of the document, leading to a delay and further discussions among Western allies on the matter.
There is really nothing in Trump's list on which the Saudis consistently followed through. His alliance with MbS brought him
no gain and a lot of trouble.
Trump protected MbS from the consequences of murdering Jamal Khashoggi. He hoped to gain leverage with that. But that is not
how MbS sees it. He now knows that Trump will not confront him no matter what he does. If MbS "threws a fit" over a UN Security
Council resolution, the U.S. will drop it. When he launches his next 'adventure', the U.S. will again cover his back. Is this
the way a super power is supposed to handle a client state?
If Trump's instincts really tell him that U.S. troops should be removed from the Middle East and Afghanistan, something I doubt,
he should follow them. Support for the Saudi war on Yemen will not help to achieve that. Pandering to MbS is not MAGA.
Posted by b on November 28, 2018 at 03:12 PM |
Permalink
Comments Pompeo: "Saudi Arabia has also contributed millions of dollars to the U.S.-led effort to fight Islamic State and other
terrorist organizations."
Everyone knows it's the US presence in the Middle East which creates terrorists, both as proxies of and in resistance to
the US imperial presence (and often one and then the other). So reading Orwellian language, Pompeo is saying the US wants to maximize
Islamic terrorism in order to provide a pretext for creeping totalitarianism at home and abroad.
The real reason is to maintain the petrodollar system, but there seems to be a conspiracy of silence never to mention it among
both supporters and opponents of Trump.
There is really nothing in Trump's list on which the Saudis consistently followed through. His alliance with MbS brought him
no gain and a lot of trouble.
He did get to fondle the orb - although fuck knows what weirdness was really going on there.
thanks b... pompeo is a very bad liar... in fact - everything he says is about exactly the opposite, but bottom line is he is
a bad liar as he is thoroughly unconvincing..
everyone knows why the usa is in the middle east.. to support the war industry, which is heavily tied to the financial
industry.. up is down and down is up.. that is why the usa is great friends with ksa and israel and a sworn enemy of iran... what
they don't say is they are a sworn enemy of humanity and the thought that the world can continue with their ongoing madness...
oh, but don't forget to vote, LOLOL.... no wonder so many are strung out on drugs, and the pharma industry... opening up to
the msm is opening oneself up to the world george orwell described many years ago...
Take a wafer or two of silicon and just add water. The oil obsession has been eclipsed and within 20 years will be in absolute
disarray. The warmongers will invent new excuses.
A hypothetical: No extraordinary amounts of hydrocarbons exist under Southwest Asian ground; just an essential amount for domestic
consumption; in that case, would Zionistan exist where it's currently located and would either Saudi Arabia, Iraq and/or Iran
have any significance aside from being consumers of Outlaw US Empire goods? Would the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes/Picot
Secret Treaty have been made? If the Orinoco Oil Belt didn't exist, would Venezuela's government be continually targeted for Imperial
control? If there was no Brazilian offshore oil, would the Regime Change effort have been made there? Here the hypotheticals end
and a few basic yet important questions follow.
Previous to the 20th Century, why were Hawaii and Samoa wrested from their native residents and annexed to Empire? In what
way did the lowly family farmers spread across 19th Century United States further the growth of its Empire and contribute to the
above named annexations? What was the unspoken message sent to US elites contained within Frederic Jackson Turner's 1893 Frontier
Thesis ? Why is the dominant language of North America English, not French or Spanish?
None of these are rhetorical. All second paragraph questions I asked of my history students. And all have a bearing on b's
fundamental question.
b says, "And it its no longer the oil, why is the U.S. defending the Saudis?"
The US has a vital interest in protecting the narrative of 9/11. The Saudis supplied the patsies. Mossad and dual-citizen neocons
were the architects of the event. Hence, the US must avoid a nasty divorce from the Saudis. The Saudis are in a perfect blackmailing
position.
Of course, most Americans have no idea that the U.S. Shale Oil Industry is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme because of the
mainstream media's inability to report FACT from FICTION. However, they don't deserve all of the blame as the shale energy
industry has done an excellent job hiding the financial distress from the public and investors by the use of highly technical
jargon and BS.
S.A. is a thinly disguised US military base, hence the "strategic importance" and the relevance of the new Viceroy's previous
experience as a Four Star General. It's doubtful that any of the skilled personnel in the SA Air Force are other than former US/Nato.
A few princes might fancy themselves to be daring fighter pilots. In case of a Anglo-Zio war with Iran SA would be the most forward
US aircraft carrier. The Empire is sustained by its presumed military might and prizes nothing more than its strategically situated
bases. Saud would like to capture Yemen's oil fields, but the primary purpose of the air war is probably training. That of course
is more despicably cynical than mere conquest and genocide.
Trump is the ultimate deceiver/liar. Great actor reading from a script. The heel in the Fake wrestling otherwise known as US politics.
It almost sounds as if he is calling for an end of anymore significant price drops now that he has got Powell on board to limit
interest rate hikes. After all if you are the worlds biggest producer you dont want prices too low. These markets are all manipulated.
I cant imagine how much insider trading is going on. If you look at the oil prices, they started dropping in October with Iran
sanctions looming (before it was announced irans shipments to its 8 biggest buyers would be exempt) and at the height of the Khashoggi
event where sanctions were threatened and Saudi was making threats of their own. In a real free market prices increase amidst
supply uncertainty.
Regardless of what he says he wants and gets now, he is already planning a reversal. Thats how the big boys win, they know
whats coming and when the con the smaller fish to swim one way they are lined up with a big mouth wide open. Controlled chaos
and confusion. For every winner there must be a loser and the losers assets/money are food for the Gods of Money and War
As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. My money is on the US to be in Yemen to protect them
from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis while in reality we will be there to secure the enormous oil fields
in the North. Perhaps this was what the Khashoggi trap was all about. The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to
deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF
@ Pft who wrote: "The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order
to feed international finance/IMF"
BINGO!!! Those that control finance control most/all of everything else.
Saudi Arabia literally owns close to 8% of the United States economy through various financial instruments. Their public investment
funds and dark pools own large chunks from various strategic firms resting at the apex of western power such as Blackstone. Trump
and Pompeo would be stupid to cut off their nose to spite their face... It's all about the petrodollar, uncle sam will ride and
die with saudi barbaria. If push comes to shove and the saudis decide to untether themselves from the Empire, their sand kingdom
will probably be partitioned.
The oil certainly still plays an important role, the u.s. cannot maintain the current frack oil output for long. For Tronald's
term in office it will suffice, but hardly longer. (The frack gas supplies are much more substantial.)
Personal interests certainly also play a role, and finally one should not make u.s. foreign policy more rational than it is.
Much is also done because of traditions and personal convictions. Often they got it completely wrong and the result was a complete
failure.
Let us watch what Trump does with this or if the resolution makes it to daylight:
Senate advances Yemen resolution in rebuke to Trump
The Senate issued a sharp rebuke Wednesday to President Trump, easily advancing a resolution that would end U.S. military support
for the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen's civil war despite a White House effort to quash the bill.
The administration launched an eleventh-hour lobbying frenzy to try to head off momentum for the resolution, dispatching
Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Capitol Hill in the morning and issuing a veto threat
less than an hour before the vote started.
But lawmakers advanced the resolution, 63-37, even as the administration vowed to stand by Saudi Arabia following outcry
over the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
"There's been a lot of rhetoric that's come from the White House and from the State Department on this issue," said Sen.
Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. "The rhetoric that I've heard and the broadcasts that we've
made around the world as to who we are have been way out of balance as it relates to American interests and American values."
[/] LINK
TheHill
But Mattis says there is no smoking gun to tie the Clown Thug-Prince to Kashoggi's killing.
TheHill
And Lyias @ 2 is a bingo. Always follow the fiat.
Soon, without any announcements, if they wish to maintain selling oil to China, KSA will follow Qatar. It will be priced in
Yuan...especially given the escalating U.S. trade war with China.
2019 holds interesting times. Order a truckload of popcorn.
Midwest For Truth , Nov 28, 2018 7:29:46 PM |
link
You would have to have your head buried in the sand to not see that the Saudi "Kings" are crypto-Zionistas. Carl Sagan once said,
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.
We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even
to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." And Mark Twain also
wrote "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Gee, not one taker amongst all these intelligent folk. From last to first: 1588's Protestant Wind allowed Elizabeth and her cronies
to literally keep their heads as Nature helped Drake defeat the Spanish Armada; otherwise, there would be no British Empire root
to the USA, thus no USA and no future Outlaw US Empire, the British Isles becoming a Hapsburg Imperial Property, and a completely
different historical lineage, perhaps sans World Wars and atomic weapons.
Turner's message was with the Frontier closed the "safety valve" of continental expansion defusing political tensions based
on economic inequalities had ceased to be of benefit and future policy would need to deal with that issue thus removing the Fear
Factor from the natives to immigrants, and from wide-open spaces to the inner cities. Whipsawing business cycles driving urban
labor's unrest, populist People's Party politics, and McKinley's 1901 assassination further drove his points home.
Nationwide, family farmers demanded Federal government help to create additional markets for their produce to generate price
inflation so they could remain solvent and keep their homesteads, which translated into the need to conduct international commerce
via the seas which required coaling stations--Hawaii and Samoa, amongst others--and a Blue Water Navy that eventually led to Alfred
T. Mahan's doctrine of Imperial Control of the Oceans still in use today.
As with Gengis Khan's death in 1227 that stopped the Mongol expansion to the English Channel that changed the course of European
history, and what was seen as the Protestant Wind being Divine Intervention, global history has several similar inflection points
turning the tide from one path to another. We don't know yet if the Outlaw US Empire's reliance on Saudi is such, but we can see
it turning from being a great positive to an equally potential great negative for the Empire--humanity as a whole, IMO, will benefit
greatly from an implosion and the relationship becoming a Great Negative helping to strip what remains of the Emperor's Clothing
from his torso so that nations and their citizens can deter the oncoming financialized economic suicide caused by massive debt
and climate chaos.
Vico's circle is about to intersect with Hegel's dialectic and generate a new temporal phase in human history. Although many
will find it hard to tell, the current direction points to a difficult change to a more positive course for humanity as a whole,
but it's also possible that disaster could strike with humanity's total or near extinction being the outcome--good arguments can
be made for either outcome, which ought to unsettle everyone: Yes, the times are that tenuous. But then, I'm merely a lonely historian
aware of a great many things, including the pitfall inherent in trying to predict future events.
"The suffering in Yemen grieves me, but if the United States of America was not involved in Yemen, it would be a hell of a lot
worse." And I'll bet Pompeo said that with a straight face, too. lmfao
And as for "...keep[ing] Baghdad tethered to the West's interests and not Tehran's," I'm guessing the "secretary" would have
us all agree "yeah, fk Iraqi sovereignty anyway. Besides, it's not like they share a border with Iran, or anything. Oh,
wait..."
p.s. Many thanks for all you have contributed to collective knowledge, b; I will be contacting you about making a contribution
by snail mail (I hate PayPal, too).
"... a powerful force for stability in the Middle East."
"Instability" more like it.
Paid for military coup in Egypt. Funding anti-Syrian terrorists. Ongoing tensions with Iran. Zip-all for the Palestinians.
WTF in Yemen. Wahhabi crazy sh_t (via Mosque building) across Asia. Head and hand chopping Friday specials the norm -- especially
of their South-Asian slave classes. Ok, so females can now drive cars -- woohoo. A family run business venture manipulating the
global oil trade and supporting US-petro-$ hegemony recently out of goat herding and each new generation 'initiated' in some Houston
secret society toe-touching shower and soap ceremonies before placement in the ruling hierarchy back home. But enough; they being
Semites makes it an offence to criticize in some 'free' democratic world domains.
Instead of the "rebuke to Trump" meme circulating around, I found
this statement to be more accurate:
"'Cutting off military aid to Saudi Arabia is the right choice for Yemen, the right choice for our national security, and the
right choice for upholding the Constitution,' Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action,
declared in a statement. ' Three years ago, the notion of Congress voting to cut off military support for Saudi Arabia would
have been politically laughable .'" [My Emphasis]
In other words, advancing Peace with Obama as POTUS wasn't going to happen, so this vote ought to be seen as an attack on Obama's
legacy as it's his policy that's being reconsidered and hopefully discontinued.
Trump, Israel and the Sawdi's. US no longer needs middle east oil for strategic supply. Trump is doing away with the petro-dollar
as that scam has run its course and maintenance is higher than returns. Saudi and other middle east oil is required for global
energy dominance.
Energy dominance, lebensraum for Israel and destroying the current Iran are all objectives that fit into one neat package.
Those plans look to be coming apart at the moment so it remains to be seen how fanatical Trump is on Israel and MAGA. MAGA
as US was at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. Remember when he said he wanted out of Syria. My money
is on the US to be in Yemen before too long to protect them from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis, while in
reality it will be to secure the enormous oil fields in the North. Perhaps this was what the Khashoggi trap was all about.
The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international
finance/IMF .
@16 karlof1.. thanks for a broader historical perspective which you are able to bring to moa.. i enjoy reading your comments..
i don't have answers to ALL your questions earlier.. i have answers for some of them... you want to make it easy on us uneducated
folks and give us less questions, like b did in his post here, lol.... cheers james
The US Senate has advanced a measure to withdraw American support for a Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen.
In a blow to President Donald Trump, senators voted 63-37 to take forward a motion on ending US support.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defence Secretary Jim Mattis had urged Senators not to back the motion, saying it would
worsen the situation in Yemen.
...
The vote in the Senate means further debate on US support for Saudi Arabia is expected next week.
However, correspondents say that even if the Senate ultimately passes the bipartisan resolution it has little chance of
being approved by the outgoing House of Representatives.
That is quite a slap for the Trump administration. It will have little consequences in the short term (or for Yemen) but it sets
a new direction in foreign polices towards the Saudis.
Pompeo is a Deep State Israel-firster with a nasty neocon agenda. It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and the abominable
Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel.
Take a look at some of the - informed - comments below the vid to which you linked. Then think again about an 'all electric
civilisation within a few years'. Yes, and Father Christmas will be providing everything that everyone in the world needs for
a NAmerican/European standard of living within the same time frame. Er - not.
'Renewables' are not going to save hitech industrial 'civilisation' from The Long Descent/Catabolic Collapse (qv). Apart from
any other consideration - and there are some other equally intractable ones - there is no - repeat NO - 'renewable' energy system
which doesn't rely crucially on energy subsidies from the fossil-hydrocarbon fuels, both to build it and to maintain it. They're
not stand-alone, self-bootstrapping technologies. Nor is there any realistic prospect that they ever will be. Fully renewable-power
hitech industrial civilisation is a non-deliverable mirage which is just drawing us ever further into the desert of irreversible
peak-energy/peak-everythig-else.
@16 karlof1. I also find your historical references very interesting. We do indeed seem to be at a very low point in the material
cycle, it will reverse in due course as is its want, hopefully we will live to see a positive change in humanity.
For example we know Tesla didn't succeed in splitting the planet in half, the way techno-psychotics fantasize. As for that
silly link, how typical of techno-wingnuts to respond to prosaic physical facts with fantasies. Anything to prop up faith in the
technocratic-fundamentalist religion. Meanwhile "electrical civilization" has always meant and will always mean fracking and coal,
until the whole fossil-fueled extreme energy nightmare is over.
Given the proven fact that the extreme energy civilization has done nothing but embark upon a campaign to completely destroy
humanity and the Earth (like in your Tesla fantasy), why would a non-psychopath want to prop it up anyway?
It is still the oil, even for the US. The Persian Gulf supplies 20% of world consumption, and Western Europe gets 40% of its oil
from OPEC countries, most of that from the Gulf. Even the US still imports 10% of its total consumption.
Peter AU 1 | Nov 28, 2018 9:44:50 PM | 20
b | Nov 29, 2018 2:33:04 AM | 23
USD as a world reserve currency could be one factor between the important ones. With non US support the saud land could crash
under neighbours pressure, that caos may be not welcomed.
Humble people around where I live have mentioned that time is speeding up its velocity; there seems to be a spiritual (evolutionary)/physical
interface effect or something...
Tolstoy, in the long theory-of-history exposition at the end of War and Peace, challenges 'the great man' of History idea,
spreading in his time, at the dawning of the so-called: European Romantic period of Beethoven, Goerte and Wagner, when
the unique person was glorified in the name of art, truth, whatever (eventually this bubble burst too, in the 20th C. and IMO
because of too much fervent worship in the Cult of the Temple of the Money God. Dostoyevki's great Crime and Punishment is all
about this issue.)
Tolstoy tries to describe a scientifically-determined historical process, dissing the 'great man of History' thesis. He was
thinking of Napoleon Bonaparte of course, the run-away upstart repulican, anathema to the established order. Tolstoy describes
it in the opening scene of the novel: a fascinating parlor-room conversation between a "liberal" woman of good-birth in the elite
circles of society and a military captain at the party.
...only tenuously relevant to karlofi1's great post touching upon the Theory of History as such; thanks.
Now as to the question: ΏWhy is Trump supporting Saudi Arabia? Let me think about that...
Oil and commodity markets were used as a finishing move on the Soviet system. The book,
"The Oil Card: Global Economic Warfare in the 21st Century" by James R. Norman details the
use of oil futures as a geopolitical tool. Pipelines change the calculus quite a bit.
The Express UK reports that Russia and Saudi Arabia's 'long-term relationship' will not
only survive, but grow, regardless of geopolitical turmoil and internal Saudi scandal as the
energy interests between both nations bind them together.
... ... ...
But IHS Market vice chairman Daniel Yergin said the decision was unlikely to jeopardise
the relationship between the two allies.
The Saudis have faced significant international criticism in the wake of the killing of
journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Turkey.
Speaking to CNBC, Mr Yergin made it clear that Moscow and Riyadh would continue to be
closely aligned irrespective of external factors.
He explained: "I think it's intended to be a long-term relationship and it started off
about oil prices but you see it taking on other dimensions, for instance, Saudi investment in
Russian LNG (liquefied natural gas) and Russian investment in Saudi Arabia.
"I think this is a strategic relationship because it's useful to both countries."
Saudi Arabia and Russia are close, especially as a result of their pact in late 2016,
along with other OPEC and non-OPEC producers, to curb output by 1.8 million barrels per day
in order to prevent prices dropping too far – but oil markets have changed since then,
largely as a result.
The US criticised OPEC, which Saudi Arabia is the nominal leader of, after prices
rose.
Markets have fluctuated in recent weeks as a result of fears over a possible drop in
supply, as a result of US sanctions on Iran, and an oversupply, as a result of increased
production by Saudi Arabia, Russia and the US, which have seen prices fall by about 20
percent since early October.
Saudi Arabia has pumped 10.7 million barrels per day in October, while the figure for
Russia and the US was 11.4 million barrels in each case.
Mr Yergin said: "It's the big three, it's Saudi Arabia, Russia and the US, this is a
different configuration in the oil market than the traditional OPEC-non-OPEC one and so the
world is having to adjust."
BP Group Chief Executive Bob Dudley told CNBC: "The OPEC-plus agreement between OPEC and
non-OPEC producers including Russia and coalition is a lot stronger than people
speculate.
"I think Russia doesn't have the ability to turn on and off big fields which can happen in
the Middle East.
"But I fully expect there to be coordination to try to keep the oil price within a certain
fairway."
Markets rallied by two percent on Monday off the back of the
Saudi decision to cut production , which it justified by citing uncertain global oil
growth and associated oil demand next year.
It also suggested
waivers granted on US sanctions imposed on Iran which have been granted to several
countries including China and Japan was a reason not to fear a decline in supply.
Also talking to CNBC, Russia's Oil Minister Alexander Novak indicated a difference of
opinion between Russia and the Saudis, saying it was too soon to cut production, highlighting
a lot of volatility in the oil market.
He added: "If such a decision is necessary for the market and all the countries are in
agreement, I think that Russia will undoubtedly play a part in this.
"But it's early to talk about this now, we need to look at this question very
carefully."
"... Finally, unlike Yergin and other historians of the oil industry, Auzanneau frames his tale of petroleum as a life cycle, with germination followed by spring, summer, and autumn. There is a beginning and a flourishing, but there is also an end. This framing is extremely helpful, given the fact that the world is no longer in the spring or summer of the oil era. We take petroleum for granted, but it's time to start imagining a world, and daily life, without it. ..."
Similarly, the real story of oil is of fortunes lost, betrayal, war, espionage, and
intrigue. In the end, inevitably, the story of oil is a story of depletion. Petroleum is a
nonrenewable resource, a precious substance that took tens of millions of years to form and
that is gone in a comparative instant as we extract and burn it. For many decades, oil-hungry
explorers, using ever-improving technology', have been searching for ever-deteriorating
prospects as the low- hanging fin its of planet Earth's primordial oil bounty gradually
dwindle. Oil wells have been shut in, oil fields exhausted, and oil companies bankrupted by the
simple, inexorable reality of depletion.
It is impossible to understand the political and economic history of the past 150 years
without taking account of a central character in the drama -- oil, the magical
wealth-generating substance, a product of ancient sunlight and tens of millions of years of
slow geological processes, whose tragic fate is to be dug up and combusted once and for all.
leaving renewed poverty in its wake. With Oil, Power, and War, Matthieu Auzanneau has produced
what I believe is the new definitive work on oil and its historic significance, supplanting
even Daniel Yergin's renowned The Prize, for reasons I'll describe below.
The importance of oil's role in shaping the modern world cannot be overstated. Prior to the
advent of fossil fuels, firewood was humanity's main fuel. But forests could be cut to the last
tree (many were), and wood was bulky. Coal offered some economic advantages over wood. But it
was oil -- liquid and therefore easier to transport; more energy-dense; and simpler to store --
that turbocharged the modern industrial age following the development of the first commercial
wells around the year 1860.
John D. Rockefeller's cutthroat, monopolist business model shaped the early industry, which
was devoted mostly to the production of kerosene for lamp oil (gasoline was then considered a
waste product and often discarded into streams or rivers). But roughly forty years later, when
Henry Ford developed the automobile assembly line, demand for black gold was suddenly as
explosive as gasoline itself.
Speaking of explosions, the role of petroleum in the two World Wars and the armament
industry' in general deserves not just a footnote in history books but serious and detailed
treatment such as it receives in this worthy volume. Herein we learn how Imperial Japan and
Nazi Germany literally ran out of gas while the Allies rode to victory in planes, ships, and
tanks burning refined US crude. Berlin could be cut off from supplies in Baku or North Africa,
and Tokyo's tanker route from Borneo could be blockaded -- but no one could interrupt the
American war machine's access to Texas tea.
In the pages that follow, we learn about the origin of the decades-long US alliance with
Saudi Arabia, the development of OPEC, the triumph of the petrodollar, and the reasons for both
the Algerian independence movement and the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Auzanneau traces the
postwar growth of the global economy and the development of consumerism, globalization, and car
culture. He recounts how the population explosion and the Green Revolution in agriculture
reshaped demographics and politics globally -- and explains why both depended on petroleum. We
learn why Nixon cut the US dollar's tether to the gold standard just a year after US oil
production started to decline, and how the American economy began to rely increasingly on debt.
The story of oil takes ever more fascinating turns -- with the fall of the Soviet Union after
its oil production hit a snag; with soaring petroleum prices in 2008 coinciding with the onset
of the global financial crisis; and with wars in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen erupting as global
conventional oil output flatlined.
As I alluded to above, comparisons will inevitably be drawn between Oil, Power, and War and
Daniel Yergin's Pulitzer-winning "The Prize", published in 1990. It may be helpful therefore to
point out four of the most significant ways this work differs from Yergin's celebrated tour de
force.
The most obvious difference between the two books is simply one of time frame. The Prize's
narrative stops in the 1980s, while Oil, Power, and War also covers the following critical
decades, which encompass the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the first Gulf War, 9/11, the US
invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the global financial crisis of 2008. and major shifts within
the petroleum industry as it relies ever less on conventional crude and ever more on
unconventional resources such as bitumen (Canada's oil sands), tight oil (also called shale
oil), and deepwater oil.
Finally, unlike Yergin and other historians of the oil industry, Auzanneau frames his
tale of petroleum as a life cycle, with germination followed by spring, summer, and autumn.
There is a beginning and a flourishing, but there is also an end. This framing is extremely
helpful, given the fact that the world is no longer in the spring or summer of the oil era. We
take petroleum for granted, but it's time to start imagining a world, and daily life, without
it.
Taken together, these distinctions indeed make Oil, Power, and War the definitive work on
the history of oil -- no small achievement, but a judgment well earned.
Over the past decade, worrisome signs of global oil depletion have been obscured by the
unabashed enthusiasm of energy analysts regarding growing production in the United States from
low-porosity source rocks. Termed "light tight oil," this new resource has been unleashed
through application of the technologies of hydrofracturing (tracking) and horizontal
drilling.
US liquid fuels production has now surpassed its previous peak in 1970, and well-regarded
agencies such as the Energy Information Administration are forecasting continued tight oil
abundance through mid-century.
Auzanneau titles his discussion of this phenomenon (in chapter 30), "Nonconventional
Petroleum to the Rescue?" -- and frames it as a question for good reason: Skeptics of tight oil
hyperoptimism point out that most production so far has been unprofitable. The industry has
managed to stay in the game only due to low interest rates (most companies are heavily in debt)
and investor hype. Since source rocks lack permeability, individual oil wells deplete very
quickly -- with production in each well declining on the order of 70 percent to 90 percent in
the first three years. That means that relentless, expensive drilling is needed in order to
release the oil that's there. Thus the tight oil industry can be profitable only if oil prices
are very high -- high enough, perhaps, to hobble the economy -- and if drilling is concentrated
in the small core areas within each of the productive regions. But these "sweet spots" are
being exhausted rapidly. Further, with tight oil the energy returned on the energy invested in
drilling and completion is far less than was the case with American petroleum in its
heyday.
It takes energy to fell a tree, drill an oil well, or manufacture a solar panel. We depend
on the energy payback from those activities to run society. In the miraculous years of the late
twentieth century, oil delivered an averaged 50:1 energy payback. It was this, more than
anything else, that made rapid economic growth possible, especially for the nations that were
home to the world's largest oil reserves and extraction companies. As the world relies ever
less on conventional oil and ever more on tight oil, bitumen, and deepwater oil, the overall
energy payback of the oil industry is declining rapidly. And this erosion of energy return is
reflected in higher overall levels of debt in the oil industry and lower overall financial
profitability.
Meanwhile the industry is spending ever less on exploration -- for two reasons. First, there
is less money available for that purpose, due to declining financial profitability; second,
there seems comparatively little oil left to be found: Recent years have seen new oil
discoveries dwindle to the lowest level since the 1940s. The world is not about to run out of
oil. But the industry that drove society in the twentieth century to the heights of human
economic and technological progress is failing in the twenty-first century.
Today some analysts speak of "peak oil demand." The assumption behind the phrase is that
electric cars will soon reduce our need for oil, even as abundance of supply is assured by
fracking. But the world is still highly dependent on crude oil. We have installed increasing
numbers of solar panels and wind turbines, but the transition to renewable is going far too
slowly either to avert catastrophic climate change or to fully replace petroleum before
depletion forces an economic crisis. While we may soon see more electric cars on the road,
trucking, shipping, and aviation will be much harder to electrify. We haven't really learned
yet how to make the industrial world work without oil. The simple reality is that the best days
of the oil business, and the oil-fueled industrial way of life, are behind us. And we are not
ready for what comes next.
Oil, Power, and War is a story of the dreams and hubris that spawned an era of
economic chaos, climate change, war, and terrorism -- as well as an eloquent framing from which
to consider our options as our primary source of power, in many ways irreplacable, grows ever
more constrained.
In this sweeping, unabashed history of oil, Matthieu Auzanneau takes a fresh,
thought-provoking look at the way oil interests have commandeered politics and economies,
changed cultures, disrupted power balances across the globe, and spawned wars. He upends
commonly held assumptions about key political and financial events of the past 150 years, and
he sheds light on what our oil-constrained and eventually post-oil future might look
like.
Oil, Power, and War follows the oil industry from its heyday when the first oil
wells were drilled to the quest for new sources as old ones dried up. It traces the rise of the
Seven Sisters and other oil cartels and exposes oil's key role in the crises that have shaped
our times: two world wars, the Cold War, the Great Depression, Bretton Woods, the 2008
financial crash, oil shocks, wars in the Middle East, the race for Africa's oil riches, and
more. And it defines the oil-born trends shaping our current moment, such as the jockeying for
access to Russia's vast oil resources, the search for extreme substitutes for declining
conventional oil, the rise of terrorism, and the changing nature of economic growth.
We meet a long line of characters from John D. Rockefeller to Dick Cheney and Rex Tillerson,
and hear lesser-known stories like how New York City taxes were once funneled directly to banks
run by oil barons. We see how oil and power, once they became inextricably linked, drove
actions of major figures like Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler, Kissinger, and the Bushes.
We also learn the fascinating backstory sparked by lesser-known but key personalities such as
Calouste Gulbenkian, Abdullah al-Tariki, and Marion King Hubbert, the once-silenced oil
industry expert who warned his colleagues that oil production was facing its peak.
Oil, Power, and War is a story of the dreams and hubris that spawned an era of
economic chaos, climate change, war, and terrorism -- as well as an eloquent framing from which
to consider our options as our primary source of power, in many ways irreplacable, grows ever
more constrained.
The book has been translated from the highly acclaimed French title, Or Noir .
"... This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 1018 donors have already invested in our efforts to combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in the financial realm. Please join us and participate via our donation page , which shows how to give via check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about why we're doing this fundraiser and what we've accomplished in the last year, and our current goal, extending our reach . ..."
"... By Tsvetana Paraskova, a writer for the U.S.-based Divergente LLC consulting firm. Originally published at OilPrice ..."
"... As long as NATO exists, Washington will continue to use it to drive a wedge between the EU and Russia. Merkel foolishly went along with all of Washington's provocations against Russia in Ukraine, even though none of it benefited Germany's national interest. ..."
"... She did indeed go along with all the provocations and she sat back and said nothing while Putin railed against US sanctions. Yet Putin didn't blame Germany or the EU. Instead he said that the Germany/EU is currently trapped by the US and would come to their senses in time. He is leaving the door open. ..."
"... What US LNG exports? The US is a net importer of NG from Canada. US 2018 NG consumption and production was 635.8 and 631.6 Mtoe respectively (BP 2018 Stats). Even the BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy has an asterisks by US LNG exports which says, "Includes re-exports" which was 17.4 BCM or 15 Mtoe for 2018. ..."
"... Natural gas negotiations involve long term contracts so there are lots of money to exchange ensuring business for many years to come. Such a contract has recently been signed between Poland's PGNiG and American Venture Global Calcasieu & Venture Global Plaquemines LNG (Lousiana). According to the Poland representative this gas would be 20% cheaper than Russian gas. (if one has to believe it). Those contracts are very secretive in their terms. This contract in particular is still dependent on the termination of liquefaction facilities in Lousiana. ..."
"... IIRC, the US is pushing LNG because fracking has resulted in a lot of NG coincident with oil production. They've got so much NG coming out of fracked oil wells that they don't know what to do with it and at present, a lot of it just gets flared, or leaks into the atmosphere. ..."
"... So they turn to bullying the EU to ignore the price advantage that Russia is able to offer, due to the economics of pipeline transport over liquefaction and ocean transport, and of course the issues of reliability and safety associated with ocean transport, and high-pressure LNG port facilities compared to pipelines. ..."
"... Trump will probably offer the EU 'free' LNG port facilities financed by low-income American tax-payers, and cuts to 'entitlements', all designed to MAGA. ..."
"... It seems we have been maneuvering for a while to raise our production of LNG and oil (unsustainably) in order to become an important substitute supplier to the EU countries. It sort of looks like our plan is to reduce EU opposition to our attacking Russia. Then we will have China basically surrounded. This is made easier with our nuclear policy of "we can use nuclear weapons with acceptable losses." What could go wrong? ..."
"... The United States should lead by example. Telling Germany not to import Russian gas is rich considering the U.S. also imports from Russia. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/12/russia-was-a-top-10-supplier-of-u-s-oil-imports-in-2017/ ..."
"... I just love the fact that Trump is publicly calling out Merkel on this; she has been nothing but two-faced and hypocritical on the Russia question. ..."
"... She was one of the ones who pushed the EU hard, for example, to sanction Russia in the wake of the coup in Ukraine (which she had also supported). And then she pushed the EU hard to kill off the South Stream pipeline, which would have gone through SE Europe into Austria. She used the excuse of 'EU solidarity' against 'Russian aggression' to accomplish that only to then turn around and start building yet another pipeline out of Russia and straight into Germany! The Bulgarians et al. must feel like real idiots now. It seems Berlin wants to control virtually all the pipelines into Europe. ..."
This
is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 1018 donors have already invested in our efforts to
combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in the financial realm. Please join us
and participate via our donation page , which shows how to give via
check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about why we're doing
this fundraiser and what we've
accomplished in the last year, and our current goal, extending
our reach .
Yves here. It's not hard to see that this tiff isn't just about Russia. The US wants Germany
to buy high-priced US LNG.
By Tsvetana Paraskova, a writer for the U.S.-based Divergente LLC consulting firm.
Originally published at
OilPrice
The United States and the European Union (EU) are at odds over more than just the Iran
nuclear deal – tensions surrounding energy policy have also become a flashpoint for the
two global powerhouses.
In energy policy, the U.S. has been opposing the Gazprom-led and highly controversial
Nord Stream 2 pipeline project , which will follow the existing Nord Stream natural gas
pipeline between Russia and Germany via the Baltic Sea. EU institutions and some EU members
such as Poland and Lithuania are also against it, but one of the leaders of the EU and the
end-point of the planned project -- Germany -- supports Nord Stream 2 and sees the project as a
private commercial venture that will help it to meet rising natural gas demand.
While the U.S. has been hinting this year that it could sanction the project and the
companies involved in it -- which include not only Gazprom but also major European firms Shell,
Engie, OMV, Uniper, and Wintershall -- Germany has just said that
Washington shouldn't interfere with Europe's energy choices and policies.
"I don't want European energy policy to be defined in Washington," Germany's Foreign
Ministry State Secretary Andreas Michaelis said at a conference on trans-Atlantic ties in
Berlin this week.
Germany has to consult with its European partners regarding the project, Michaelis said, and
noted, as quoted by Reuters, that he was "certainly not willing to accept that Washington is
deciding at the end of the day that we should not rely on Russian gas and that we should not
complete this pipeline project."
"Germany is totally controlled by Russia, because they will be getting from 60 to 70 percent
of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline," President Trump said.
Germany continues to see Nord Stream 2 as a commercial venture, although it wants clarity on
the future role of Ukraine as a transit route, German government spokeswoman Ulrike Demmer
said last month.
Nord Stream 2 is designed to bypass Ukraine, and Ukraine fears it will lose transit fees and
leverage over Russia as the transit route for its gas to western Europe.
Poland, one of the most outspoken opponents of Nord Stream 2, together with the United
States, issued a joint statement last month during the visit of Polish President Andrzej Duda
to Washington, in which the parties
said , "We will continue to coordinate our efforts to counter energy projects that threaten
our mutual security, such as Nord Stream 2."
The president of the Federation of German Industry (BDI), Dieter Kempf, however, told
German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung last month, that he had "a big problem with a third
country interfering in our energy policy," referring to the United States. German industry
needs Nord Stream 2, and dropping the project to buy U.S. LNG instead wouldn't make any
economic sense, he said. U.S. LNG currently is not competitive on the German market and would
simply cost too much, according to Kempf.
The lower price of Russian pipeline gas to Europe is a key selling point -- and one that
Gazprom uses often. Earlier this month Alexey Miller, Chairman of Gazprom's Management
Committee, said at a gas forum in
Russia that "Although much talk is going on about new plans for LNG deliveries, there is no
doubt that pipeline gas supplies from Russia will always be more competitive than LNG
deliveries from any other part of the world. It goes without saying."
The issue with Nord Stream 2 -- which is already
being built in German waters -- is that it's not just a commercial project. Many in Europe
and everyone in the United States see it as a Russian political tool and a means to further
tighten Russia's grip on European gas supplies, of which it already holds more than a third.
But Germany wants to discuss the future of this project within the European Union, without
interference from the United States.
Maybe the US thinks it will also have to go out of its way to accommodate Germany and the
EU by offering to construct the necessary infrastructure in Europe for the import of LNG at
exorbitant US prices. MAGA. How long would that take?
The question is, is it inevitable that the EU/US relationship goes sour?
Continentalism is on the rise generally, and specifically with brexit, couple this with the
geographical gravity of the EU-Russia relationship makes a EU-Russia "alliance" make more
sense than the EU-US relationship.
Ever since the death of the USSR and the accession of the eastern states to the EU, the
balance of power in the EU-US relationship has moved in ways it seems clear that the US is
uncomfortable with.
To all of this we must add the policy differences between the US and the EU – see the
GDPR and the privacy shield for example.
I have said it before – the day Putin dies (metaphorically or literally) is a day
when the post war order in Europe may die, and we see the repairing of the EU-Russia
relationship (by which I mean the current regime in Russia will be replaced with a new
generation far less steeped in cold war dogma and way more interested in the EU).
"The post war order in Europe will doe and we see the repairing of the EU/Russian
relationship "
I think you mean the German/Russian relationship and that repair has been under way for
more than a decade. The post war order is very very frayed already and looks close to a break
point.
This Nord Stream 2 story illustrates more than most Germany's attitudes to the EU and to
the world at large. Germany used its heft within the EU to 1 ) get control of Russian gas
supplies into Central Europe (Germany insisted that Poland could not invest in the project
apparently and refused a landing point for the pipeline in Poland. Instead it offered a flow
back valve from Germany into Poland that the Germans would control) 2) thumb its nose at the
US while outwardly declaring friendship through the structures provided by EU and NATO
membership.
Even Obama suspected the Germans of duplicity (the Merkel phone hacking debacle).
It's is this repairing relationship that will set the tone for Brexit, the Ukraine war,
relations between Turkey and EU and eventually the survival of the EU and NATO. The point ?
Germany doesn't give a hoot about the EU it served its purpose of keeping Germany anchored to
the west and allowing German reunification to solidify while Russia was weak. Its usefulness
is in the past now, however from a German point of view.
Putin dying isn't going to change Washington. As long as NATO exists, Washington will
continue to use it to drive a wedge between the EU and Russia. Merkel foolishly went along
with all of Washington's provocations against Russia in Ukraine, even though none of it
benefited Germany's national interest.
Come to think of it, maybe Merkel dying off would improve German-Russian relations
She did indeed go along with all the provocations and she sat back and said nothing while
Putin railed against US sanctions. Yet Putin didn't blame Germany or the EU. Instead he said
that the Germany/EU is currently trapped by the US and would come to their senses in time. He
is leaving the door open.
Germany won't lose if NATO and the EU break up. It would free itself from a range
increasingly dis-functional entities that, in its mind, restrict its ability to engage in
world affairs.
I think you are right. Russia and Germany are coming together and there's nothing we can
do about it because "private commercial venture." Poetic justice.
And the economic link will
lead to political links and we will have to learn a little modesty. The ploy we are trying to
use, selling Germany US LNG could not have been anything more than a stopgap supply line
until NG from the ME came online but that has been our achilles heel.
It feels like even if
we managed to kick the Saudis out and took over their oil and gas we still could no longer
control geopolitics. The cat is out of the bag and neoliberalism has established the rules.
And it's pointless because there is enough gas and oil and methane on this planet to kill the
human race off but good.
That exactly right. and Gerhard Schroder has been developing those political relationships
for more than a decade. The political/economic links already go very deep on both sides.
if the rapprochement is occurring, Brexit, the refugee crisis and Italy's approaching debt
crisis are all just potential catalysts for an inevitable breakup. Germany likely views these
as potential opportunities to direct European realignment rather than existential crises to
be tackled.
What US LNG exports? The US is a net importer of NG from Canada. US 2018 NG consumption
and production was 635.8 and 631.6 Mtoe respectively (BP 2018 Stats). Even the BP 2018
Statistical Review of World Energy has an asterisks by US LNG exports which says, "Includes
re-exports" which was 17.4 BCM or 15 Mtoe for 2018.
The US produces annually about 33,000,000 million cubic feet and consumes 27.000.000
million according to the EiA . So there is an
excess to export indeed.
Natural gas negotiations involve long term contracts so there are lots of money to
exchange ensuring business for many years to come.
Such a contract has recently been signed between Poland's PGNiG and American Venture
Global Calcasieu & Venture Global Plaquemines LNG (Lousiana). According to the Poland
representative this gas would be 20% cheaper than Russian gas. (if one has to believe it).
Those contracts are very secretive in their terms. This contract in particular is still
dependent on the termination of liquefaction facilities in Lousiana.
I don't know much about NG markets in Poland but according to Eurostat prices for
non-household consumers are very similar in Poland, Germany, Lithuania or Spain.
Gas contracts are usually linked to oil prices. A lot of LNG is traded as a fungible
product like oil, but that contract seems different – most likely its constructed this
way because of the huge capital cost of the LNG facilities, which make very little economic
sense for a country like Poland which has pipelines criss-crossing it. I suspect the
terminals have more capacity that the contract quantity – the surplus would be traded
at market prices, which would no doubt be where the profit margin is for the supplier (I
would be deeply sceptical that unsubsidised LNG could ever compete with Russia gas, the
capital costs involved are just too high).
IIRC, the US is pushing LNG because fracking has resulted in a lot of NG coincident with
oil production. They've got so much NG coming out of fracked oil wells that they don't know what to do
with it and at present, a lot of it just gets flared, or leaks into the atmosphere.
IMO, the folks responsible for this waste are as usual, ignoring the 'externalities', the
costs to the environment of course, but also the cost of infrastructure and transport related
to turning this situation to their advantage.
So they turn to bullying the EU to ignore the price advantage that Russia is able to
offer, due to the economics of pipeline transport over liquefaction and ocean transport, and
of course the issues of reliability and safety associated with ocean transport, and
high-pressure LNG port facilities compared to pipelines.
This doesn't even take into account the possibility that the whole fracked gas supply may
be a short-lived phenomenon, associated with what we've been describing here as basically a
finance game.
Trump will probably offer the EU 'free' LNG port facilities financed by low-income
American tax-payers, and cuts to 'entitlements', all designed to MAGA.
Just to clarify, fracked gas is not usually a by-product of oil fracking – the
geological beds are usually distinct (shale gas tends to occur at much deeper levels than
tight oil). Gas can however be a byproduct of conventional oil production. 'wet' gas
(propane, etc), can be a by-product of either.
It's common for oil wells both fracked and conventional to produce natural gas (NG) though
not all do. The fracked wells in the Permian Basin are producing a great deal of it.
Natural gas does indeed form at higher temperatures than oil does and that means at
greater depth but both oil and NG migrate upward. Exploration for petroleum is hunting for
where it gets captured at depth, not for where it's formed. Those source rocks are used as
indicators of where to look for petroleum trapped stratigraphically higher up.
It seems we have been maneuvering for a while to raise our production of LNG and oil
(unsustainably) in order to become an important substitute supplier to the EU countries. It
sort of looks like our plan is to reduce EU opposition to our attacking Russia. Then we will
have China basically surrounded. This is made easier with our nuclear policy of "we can use
nuclear weapons with acceptable losses." What could go wrong?
I wonder what the secret industry studies say about the damage possible from an accident
at a LNG port terminal involving catastrophic failure and combustion of the entire cargo of a
transport while unloading high-pressure LNG.
They call a fuel-air bomb the size of a school bus 'The Mother of all bombs', what about
one the size of a large ocean going tanker?
Many years ago, someone was trying to build an LNG storage facility on the southwest shore
of Staten Island 17 miles SW of Manhattan involving very large insulated tanks. In spite of
great secrecy, there came to be much local opposition. At the time it was said that the
amount of energy contained in the tanks would be comparable to a nuclear weapon. Various
possible disaster scenarios were proposed, for example a tank could be compromised by
accident (plane crashes into it) or terrorism, contents catch fire and explode, huge fireball
emerges and drifts with the wind, possibly over New Jersey's chemical farms or even towards
Manhattan. The local opponents miraculously won. As far as I know, the disused tanks are
still there.
A 28-inch LNG underground pipeline exploded in Nigeria and the resulting fire engulfed
an estimated 27 square kilometers.
Here's one from Cleveland;
On 20 October 1944, a liquefied natural gas storage tank in Cleveland, Ohio, split and
leaked its contents, which spread, caught fire, and exploded. A half hour later, another
tank exploded as well. The explosions destroyed 1 square mile (2.6 km2), killed 130, and
left 600 homeless.
The locals in Nigeria drill hole in pipeline to get free fuel.
The Nigeria Government has been really wonderful about sharing the largess and riches of
their large petroleum field in the Niger delta. Mostly with owners of expensive property
around the world.
I am trying to think of what might be in it for the Germans to go along with this deal but
cannot see any. The gas would be far more expensive that the Russian deliveries. A fleet of
tankers and the port facilities would have to be built and who is going to pick up the tab
for that? Then if the terminal is in Louisiana, what happens to deliveries whenever there is
a hurricane?
I cannot see anything in it for the Germans at all. Trump's gratitude? That and 50 cents
won't buy you a cup of coffee. In any case Trump would gloat about the stupidity of the
Germans taking him up on the deal, not feel gratitude. The US wants Germany to stick with
deliveries via the Ukraine as they have their thumb on that sorry country and can threaten
Germany with that fact. Nord Stream 2 (and the eventual Nord Stream 3) threaten that
hold.
The killer argument is this. In terms of business and remembering what international
agreements Trump has broken the past two years, who is more reliable as a business partner
for Germany – Putin's Russia or Trump's America?
I find it impossible to believe that a gas supplier would keep to an artificially low LNG
contract if, say, a very cold winter in the US led to a shortage and extreme price spike.
They'd come up with some excuse not to deliver.
My recollection was that there was a law that prohibited export-sales of domestic US
hydrocarbons. That law was under attack, and went away in the last couple years?
LNG with your F35? said the transactional Orangeman
The fracked crude is ultralight and unsuitable for the refineries in the quantities
available, hence export, which caused congress to change the law. No expert, but understand
that it is used a lot as a blender with heavier stocks of crude, quite a bit going to
China.
The petroleum industry has been bribing lobbying the administration for quite a
while to get this policy in place, The so called surplus of NG today (if there is), won't
last long. Exports will create a shortage and will result in higher prices to all.
also, if Germany were to switch to American LNG, for how long would this be a reliable
energy source? Fracking wells are short lived, so what happens once they are depleted? who
foots the bill?
I just love the fact that Trump is publicly calling out Merkel on this; she has been
nothing but two-faced and hypocritical on the Russia question.
She was one of the ones who pushed the EU hard, for example, to sanction Russia in the
wake of the coup in Ukraine (which she had also supported). And then she pushed the EU hard
to kill off the South Stream pipeline, which would have gone through SE Europe into Austria.
She used the excuse of 'EU solidarity' against 'Russian aggression' to accomplish that only
to then turn around and start building yet another pipeline out of Russia and straight
into Germany! The Bulgarians et al. must feel like real idiots now. It seems Berlin wants to
control virtually all the pipelines into Europe.
So, three cheers for Trump embarrassing Merkel on this issue!
Putting money aside for a moment, Trump, as well as the entire American establishment,
doesn't want Russia "controlling" Germany's energy supplies. That's because they want America
to control Germany's energy supplies via controlling LNG deliveries from America to Germany
and by controlling gas supplies to Germany through Ukraine. This by maintaining America's
control over Ukraine's totally dependent puppet government. The Germans know this so they
want Nord Stream 2 & 3.
Ukraine is an unreliable energy corridor on a good day. It is run by clans of rapacious
oligarchs who don't give one whit about Ukraine, the Ukrainian "people", or much of anything
else except business. The 2019 presidential election may turn into a contest among President
Poroshenko the Chocolate King, Yulia Tymoshenko the Gas Princess, as well as some others
including neo Nazis that go downhill from there. What competent German government would want
Germany's energy supplies to be dependent on that mess?
It has been said that America's worst geopolitical nightmare is an
economic-political-military combination of Russia, Iran, and China in the Eurasian
"heartland". Right up there, if not worse, is a close political-economic association between
Germany and Russia; now especially so since such a relationship can quickly be hooked into
China's New Silk Road, which America will do anything to subvert including tariffs,
sanctions, confiscations of assets, promotion of political-ethnic-religious grievances where
they may exist along the "Belt-Road", as well as armed insurrections, really maybe anything
short of all out war with Russia and China.
Germany's trying to be polite about this saying, sure, how about a little bit of LNG along
with Nord Stream 2 & 3? But the time may come, if America pushes enough, that Germany
will have to make an existential choice between subservience to America, and pursuit of it's
own legitimate self interest.
It's hard to make NG explode, as it is with all liquid hydrocarbons. It is refrigerated,
and must change from liquid to gaseous for, and be mixed with air.
I've also worked on a Gas Tanker in the summer vacations. The gas was refrigerated, and
kept liquid. They is a second method, used for NG, that is to allow evaporation from the
cargo, and use it as fuel for the engine (singular because there is one propulsion engine on
most large ships) on the tanker.
The debate about peak oil demand always tends to focus on how quickly electric vehicles will
replace the internal-combustion engine , especially as EV sales are accelerating. However, the
petrochemical sector will be much more difficult to dislodge , and with alternatives far
behind, petrochemicals will account for an increasing share of crude oil demand growth in the
years ahead.
Ryan Chilcote: President Putin, let's get back to geopolitics. When you were talking
about oil – and when everyone talks about oil and disruptions on the market, they don't
just talk about Iran, they talk about Venezuela – you mentioned Venezuela at the
beginning of our conversation. Last year, I interviewed President Maduro, the President of
Venezuela, here. Venezuela is an ally of Russia. Russia has a lot of oil interests in
Venezuela. Oil production in Venezuela is not going well, and politically, things are going
very poorly, as you know. Millions of people are leaving the country. There's hunger. There is
a lot of talk in the United States, and not only in the United States, in Central and South
America, that perhaps it's time for President Maduro to go. Do you agree with that?
Vladimir Putin: This is up to the people of Venezuela, not anyone else in the
world.
As for various means of influencing the situation in Venezuela, there should be no such
thing All of us influence each other in one way or another, but it should not be done in a way
that makes the civilian population even worse off. This is a matter of principle.
Should we rejoice that life is extremely difficult for people there and want to make things
even worse with a view to overthrowing President Maduro? He was recently targeted in a
terrorist attack, an assassination attempt. Shall we condone such methods of political
resistance too?
I think this is absolutely unacceptable. This and anything like it. The people of the
country should be given a chance to shape their destiny themselves. Nothing should be imposed
from the outside.
This is what has emerged historically in Venezuela. What has emerged historically in the
Persian Gulf has emerged there, and the same in Europe, America and Southeast Asia. Nobody
should go in there like a bull in a china shop without understanding what is taking place
there, instead thinking only that the bull is one of the largest and smartest animals. It is
necessary to take a look and give people a chance to figure it out. I have a very simple
outlook on this.
Indeed, we have now met with the Secretary General and spoke
about our cooperation in detail. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that probably for the first time
in history all participants in the agreements honoured their commitments in full. I believe Russia made a commitment
to reduce production by 30,000 barrels, and we did this, just like all other participants in this agreement.
The market is now balanced. The current growth of oil prices
is by and large not a result of our efforts but triggered by attendant circumstances, expectations of decisions
on Iran incidentally these decisions are absolutely illegal and harmful to the world economy. The fall in oil
production in North Africa is also linked with political circumstances a civil war and so on. The reduction
in Venezuela is also taking place for domestic political reasons and in connection with the restrictions it has
introduced. This is what it is all about.
As you said, President Trump considers this price high.
I think he is right to some extent but this suits us very well $65$70$75 per barrel. This is quite enough to ensure
the effective performance of energy companies and the investment process. But let us be straight such prices have
largely been produced by the activities of the US administration. I am referring to expectations of sanctions against
Iran and political problems in Venezuela. Look what is happening in Libya the state is destroyed. This is the result
of irresponsible policy that is directly affecting the world economy. Therefore, we must work closer with each other,
not only in the energy industry but also in the political area so as to prevent such setbacks.
As for increasing production we have already increased it
by 400,000 barrels as we agreed with our partners. We can raise it by another 200,000300,000 barrels per day if need
be.
Ryan Chilcote
: President Putin, is it right
for the President of the United States to be so actively trying to manage the price of oil? We're coming up on elections
in the United States, he's concerned about the price of gas. A gallon of gas in the United States costs almost $3.
Traditionally, voters punish the party in power when prices rise ahead of elections. Is he doing the right thing,
or actually should he step out of the oil market and let the market dictate what happens?
Vladimir Putin
: I have already said this and want to repeat
it again: we had a very good meeting with the President of the United States in Helsinki. But if we had talked about
the issue we are discussing now, I would have told him: Donald, if you want to find out who is guilty for the increase
in prices, you should look in the mirror. That's the truth.
We have just spoken about the geopolitical factors behind
the price hikes. They exist and really play a role in the market. It is better not to interfere in these market
processes, not to try and get some competitive advantage by using political instruments and not to try to regulate
prices as the Soviet Union did. This does not end well. After all, when talking about our negotiated actions with OPEC
we do not use non-market instruments. We are merely matching supply and demand in the market, no more than that.
Everything else today has to do with geopolitical factors that influence prices.
As for gas prices, they are calculated on the basis of oil
prices. Oil prices are produced by the market whereas gas prices are linked to oil prices. Gas prices fluctuate
depending on oil prices with a small time lag of five to six months. That is all.
What is happening in the United States? The United States is
one of the world's biggest producers of both oil and gas. We know everything about new technology that is being
countered by environmentalists. I agree with them, this production is often carried out using barbarous methods we do
not use.
Who is trying to exert pressure on the administration? I do
not know. Let us talk about the energy industry. Please do not involve me in domestic political processes and squabbles
in the United States. It is for you to figure out or else we will be accused again of meddling in the domestic political
life of the US.
Ryan Chilcote:
When I spoke about the price
of gasoline in the United States, a gallon of gasoline, I meant the price of petrol, of "benzin," not "gaz."
Vladimir Putin
: As you understand, this is the price
of the end product and this applies to oil products. This price is not simply formed from the primary price of oil
or gas if we are talking about gas fuel. State policy also exerts an influence on the final price for consumers.
And what about taxes? Why do some European countries double
prices on our gas before it reaches the final consumers? This is all state policy.
So it would be best not to point your finger at energy
producers all the time. You should figure out what economic policy is being pursued in a country and what is being done
to make sure the product reaches the customers at affordable prices. That is all.
Ryan Chilcote
: President Putin, let me ask you about this
EU initiative. What do you make of it?
Vladimir Putin
:
(commenting on the EU initiative
to protect European companies in connection with US sanctions against Iran)
It is a bit delayed but better late than
never. It is delayed because quite recently the President of France speaking, I believe, in New York directly announced
the need to enhance the economic sovereignty of the European Union and reduce its dependence on the United States. This
is certainly right.
And how can it be otherwise if, as I have already said,
someone is trying to gain competitive advantages in business by using political instruments? I think nobody will like
this but this is happening and we are seeing this today.
This is why Europe is thinking about some new opportunities
in connection with these circumstances, for instance about dollar-free settlements that incidentally will undermine
the dollar. In this context I have said this many times but would like to repeat it again I believe that our
American partners are committing a huge strategic mistake and undermining confidence in the dollar as today's only
reserve currency. They are undermining confidence in it as a universal instrument and are really biting the hand that
feeds.
This is strange, even surprising, but I think this is
a typical mistake made by any empire when people believe nothing will happen, that everything is so powerful, so strong
and stable that there will be no negative consequences. But no, they will come sooner or later. This is the first point.
And the second point, Europe wants to fulfil its
international commitments this is how we understand our European partners in this case, as regards Iran's nuclear
deal, and sees in it, as we do, an element of stability in global affairs, in global politics, which, in one way
or another, is reflected in the global economy, as we have already noted.
< >
Ryan Chilcote:
President Putin, I'd like to go back
to Iran for a second. One of the things that the United States would like to see Iran do is to obviously withdraw from
Syria. The US national security advisor just last week said that the United States is going to now stay in Syria as long
as Iran and its proxies are there. Russia has been very clear. Russia says that the US military's presence in Iran is
illegal. What can you do about the US being in Syria?
Vladimir Putin
: There are two options available
to remedy the situation.
The first is that the United States must obtain the mandate
of the UN Security Council to have its armed forces on the territory of another country, in this case Syria, or receive
an invitation from the legitimate Syrian government to deploy its troops there for whatever reason. International law
does not allow the presence of any country on the territory of another country for other reasons.
Ryan Chilcote:
What can Russia do to change the US'
position? The US says it's going to stay, that Iran has to leave, and the US will stay until Iran pulls out of Syria. So
what can Russia do?
Vladimir Putin
: As we are all well aware, in this
particular case the United States (just read the UN Charter to see that my point is correct, and this is not news
to anyone) is violating the UN Charter and international law by its presence on the territory of another country without
the authorisation of the UN Security Council, without a corresponding resolution and without the invitation
of the government of that country. There is nothing good about it.
We have been operating on the premise that we nonetheless
cooperate with our US partners in fighting terrorism and ISIS in Syria. But as ISIS gradually ceases to exist in Syria,
there is just no other rationale, even outside the framework of international law.
What, in my opinion, can be done and what should we all
strive to achieve? We must strive to ensure that there are no foreign troops from other countries in Syria at all. This
is what we need to achieve.
Ryan Chilcote
: Including Russian forces, of course.
Vladimir Putin
: Yes, including Russian, if the Syrian
government so decides.
Ryan Chilcote
: You just struck a deal with President
Erdogan on Syria. Do you think that that's going to hold?
Vladimir Putin
: How is that related to oil?
Russian
Energy Week International Forum.
Ryan Chilcote
: It's in a very sensitive geopolitical
area.
Vladimir Putin
: Maybe it is related, since Syria also
produces energy resources and influences the market situation one way or another.
In this sense, yes, we need a stable Syria, no question about
it. I am not even talking about other aspects related to international security and fighting terrorism.
This is a very good deal (between Russia and Turkey in this
particular case), because it prevented more bloodshed. As you may recall, it includes our agreement to create
a demilitarised zone 1520 kilometres deep, a de-escalation zone near the city of Idlib, known as the Idlib zone.
I would like to note that along with our Turkish partners we are now working to implement these agreements. We can see
it and are grateful to them for their efforts, and we will continue to work with them on this matter with the support
of Iran.
Ryan Chilcote
: Let's return to energy, or at least
more directly to energy, President Putin, and talk about Nord Stream 2. That's the pipeline that Gazprom wants to build
between Russia and Germany. Again, the President of the United States has said his opinion about this. He says that
Germany is effectively a hostage already of Russia, because it depends on Russia for so much of its energy and gas
supplies, and that it's vulnerable to "extortion and intimidation" from Russia. What do you make of that?
Vladimir Putin
: My response is very simple. Donald
and I talked about this very briefly in Helsinki. In any sale, including the sale of our gas to Europe, we are
traditionally the supplier, of pipeline gas I mean. We have been doing this since the 1960s. We are known for doing it
in a highly responsible and professional manner, and at competitive prices for the European market. In general, if you
look at the characteristics of the entire gas market, the price depends on the quantity and on sales volumes.
The distance between Russia and Europe is such that pipeline gas is optimal. And the price will always be competitive,
always. This is something all experts understand.
We have a lot of people here in this room, in the first row,
who could easily be seated next to me, and I would gladly listen to them, because each one is an expert, so each of them
can tell you that. And so Nord Stream 2 is a purely commercial project, I want to emphasise this, warranted by rising
energy consumption, including in Europe, and falling domestic production in European countries. They have to get it from
somewhere.
Russian gas accounts for around 34 percent of the European
market. Is this a lot or a little? It is not insubstantial, but not a monopoly either. Europe certainly can and does
actually buy gas from other suppliers, but American liquefied gas is about 30 percent more expensive than our pipeline
gas on the European market. If you were buying products of the same quality and you were offered the same product for 30
percent more , what would you choose? So, what are we talking about?
If Europe starts buying American gas for 30 percent more than
ours, the entire economy of Germany, in this case, would quickly become dramatically less competitive. Everyone
understands this; it is an obvious fact.
But business is business, and we are ready to work with all
partners. As you know, our German partners have already begun offshore construction. We are ready to begin as well. We
have no problems with obtaining any permits. Finland agreed, and so did Sweden, Germany, and the Russian Federation.
This is quite enough for us. The project will be implemented.
< >
Ryan Chilcote
: President Putin, did you want to jump
in here?
Vladimir Putin:
(following up on the remarks by CEO
of Royal Dutch Shell Ben van Beurden)
We understand the realities and treat all our partners with respect. We have
very good, amiable long-term relations with all our partners, including the company represented by my neighbour
on the left. This company is working in the Russian market and working with great success, but we understand everything
very well and understand the realities. We are carrying out the project ourselves. We do not and will not have any
problems here. That is to say, they may arise, of course, but we will resolve them.
Some things are beyond the realm of political intrigue. Take
supplies to the Federal Republic of Germany. Not everyone knows that the decision was made there to shut down
the nuclear power industry. But that is 34 percent of its total energy balance. We are proud of the development
of the nuclear power industry in the Russian Federation, although the figure for us is just 16 percent. We are still
thinking about how to raise it to 25 percent and are making plans. Theirs is 34 percent and everything will be closed
down. What will this vacuum be filled with? What?
Look at LNG [liquefied natural gas ] which is sold by our
various competitors and partners. Yes, LNG can and should be in the common basket of Europe and Germany. Do you know how
many ports built in Europe are used for LNG transfer? Just 25 percent. Why? Because it is unprofitable.
There are companies and regions for which it is profitable
to supply LNG and this is being done. The LNG market is growing very fast. But as for Europe, it is not very profitable,
or unprofitable altogether.
Therefore, in one way or another we have already seen Nord
Stream 1 through and its performance is excellent. Incidentally, our gas supplies to Europe are continuously growing.
Last year, I believe, they amounted to 194 billion cubic metres and this year they will add up to 200 billion cubic
metres or maybe even more.
We have loaded practically all our infrastructure facilities:
Blue Stream to Turkey, Nord Stream 1 is fully loaded. Yamal-Europe is fully loaded it is almost approaching 100
percent, while the demand is going up. Life itself dictates that we carry out such projects.
Ryan Chilcote
: President Trump's position on American
LNG exports is perhaps a little bit more nuanced. His point is that instead of buying Russian gas, even perhaps if it's
a bit more expensive, the Germans and other European allies of the United States, because the United States is paying
for their defence, should be buying American gas even if there is, I guess the argument suggests, a little bit
of a higher price for that
Vladimir Putin
: You know, this argument doesn't really
work, in my opinion. I understand Donald. He is fighting for the interests of his country and his business. He is doing
the right thing and I would do the same in his place.
As for LNG, as I have already said, it is not just a little
more expensive in the European market but 30 percent more. This is not a little bit more, it is a lot more, beyond all
reason, and is basically unworkable.
But there are markets where LNG will be adopted, where it is
efficient, for instance in the Asia-Pacific region. By the way, where did the first shipment of LNG from our new company
Yamal-LNG go? Where did the first tanker go? To the United States, because it was profitable. The United States fought
this project but ended up buying the first tanker. It was profitable to buy it in this market, at this place and time,
and it was purchased.
LNG is still being shipped to the American continent. It's
profitable.
It makes no sense to fight against what life brings. We
simply need to look for common approaches in order to create favourable market conditions, including, for example,
conditions conducive to the production and consumption of LNG in the United States itself and securing the best prices
for producers and consumers. This could be achieved by coordinating policy, rather than just imposing decisions
on partners.
As for the argument, "We defend you, so buy this from us even
if it makes you worse off", I don't think it is very convincing either. Where does it lead? It has led to the Europeans
starting to talk about the need to have a more independent defence capability, as well as the need to create a defence
alliance of their own that allegedly will not undermine NATO while allowing the Europeans to pursue a real defence
policy. This is what, in my view, such steps are leading to.
This is why I am sure that a great many things will be
revised. Life will see to that.
< >
Ryan Chilcote:
President Putin, let's get back
to geopolitics. When you were talking about oil and when everyone talks about oil and disruptions on the market, they
don't just talk about Iran, they talk about Venezuela you mentioned Venezuela at the beginning of our conversation.
Last year, I interviewed President Maduro, the President of Venezuela, here. Venezuela is an ally of Russia. Russia has
a lot of oil interests in Venezuela. Oil production in Venezuela is not going well, and politically, things are going
very poorly, as you know. Millions of people are leaving the country. There's hunger. There is a lot of talk
in the United States, and not only in the United States, in Central and South America, that perhaps it's time
for President Maduro to go. Do you agree with that?
Vladimir Putin:
This is up to the people of Venezuela,
not anyone else in the world.
As for various means of influencing the situation
in Venezuela, there should be no such thing All of us influence each other in one way or another, but it should not be
done in a way that makes the civilian population even worse off. This is a matter of principle.
Should we rejoice that life is extremely difficult for people
there and want to make things even worse with a view to overthrowing President Maduro? He was recently targeted
in a terrorist attack, an assassination attempt. Shall we condone such methods of political resistance too?
I think this is absolutely unacceptable. This and anything
like it. The people of the country should be given a chance to shape their destiny themselves. Nothing should be imposed
from the outside.
This is what has emerged historically in Venezuela. What has
emerged historically in the Persian Gulf has emerged there, and the same in Europe, America and Southeast Asia. Nobody
should go in there like a bull in a china shop without understanding what is taking place there, instead thinking only
that the bull is one of the largest and smartest animals. It is necessary to take a look and give people a chance
to figure it out. I have a very simple outlook on this.
I would like to return to the previous question. After all,
we are dealing with energy. I would like to confirm what my colleagues said here about Russia's energy resources
and potential. They are indeed enormous. Truly enormous. We are in first place in gas reserves. I believe we have 73.3
trillion cubic metres of gas. The Yamal peninsula was mentioned here but NOVATEK will carry out one more project, Arctic
2, on a neighbouring peninsula. It is about the same size and with the same investment. The first tranche in this
project is $27 billion, and the second tranche is about $25 billion. I believe all this will be carried out.
We have the world's largest coal reserves 275 billion
tonnes. We are third in oil reserves. Third in the world in oil reserves. We are the world's largest country
by territory. If we take a deeper look we are bound to find many other things. So, we are indeed lucky.
But we were given this not by the Lord alone. Past
generations of ours developed these lands. We should never forget what was done by our predecessors, and we will
continue to build on it. We will work with our partners. Incidentally, almost all major energy companies work in Russia.
Ryan Chilcote:
When we were talking about the EU
initiative to try and allow trade between EU countries and Iran, I couldn't help but remember that Russia itself, faced
with sanctions, is thinking about a plan to wean itself off of the dollar. This is something that many countries have
tried and failed. Why does Russia think that it can succeed in this?
Vladimir Putin
: You used the past tense or is
the translation inaccurate? Faced. Have the sanctions been lifted? Did I miss something?
Ryan Chilcote:
Russia is facing with sanctions.
Vladimir Putin:
Okay then. You know, sometimes I think
that it would be good for us if those who want to impose sanctions would go ahead and impose all the sanctions they can
think of as soon as possible. (
Applause.
) This would free our hands to defend our national interests however we
deem most effective for us.
It is very harmful, in general. It hurts the ones doing it.
We all figured this out long ago. That is why we have never supported and will never support illegal sanctions that
circumvent the United Nations.
Ryan Chilcote:
Since you brought up the subject
of sanctions, as you know after the Skripal poisoning, Russia is facing even more of them, perhaps as soon as November.
What is Russia prepared to do to change the trajectory of relations with the United States and the West?
Vladimir Putin
: We are not the ones introducing
these sanctions against the United States or the West. We are just responding to their actions, and we do this in very
restrained, careful steps so as not to cause harm, primarily to ourselves. And we will continue to do so.
As regards the Skripals and all that, this latest spy
scandal is being artificially inflated. I have seen some media outlets and your colleagues push the idea that Skripal is
almost a human rights activist. But he is just a spy, a traitor to the motherland. There is such a term, a 'traitor
to the motherland,' and that's what he is.
Imagine you are a citizen of a country, and suddenly
somebody comes along who betrays your country. How would you, or anybody present here, a representative of any country,
feel about such a person? He is scum, that's all. But a whole information campaign has been deployed around it.
I think it will come to an end, I hope it will,
and the sooner the better. We have repeatedly told our colleagues to show us the documents. We will see what can be done
and conduct an investigation.
We probably have an agreement with the UK on assistance
in criminal cases that outlines the procedure. Well, submit the documents to the Prosecutor General's Office
as required. We will see what actually happened there.
The fuss between security services did not start yesterday.
As you know, espionage, just like prostitution, is one of the most 'important' jobs in the world. So what? Nobody shut
it down and nobody can shut it down yet.
Ryan Chilcote
: Espionage aside, I think there are
two other issues. One is the use of chemical weapons, and let's not forget that in addition to the Skripal family being
affected in that attack, there was also a homeless person who was killed when they came in contact with the nerve agent
Novichok.
Vladimir Putin:
Listen, since we are talking about
poisoning Skripal, are you saying that we also poisoned a homeless person there? Sometimes I look at what is happening
around this case and it amazes me. Some guys came to England and started poisoning homeless people. Such nonsense. What
is this all about? Are they working for cleaning services? Nobody wanted to poison This Skripal is a traitor,
as I said. He was caught and punished. He spent a total of five years in prison. We released him. That's it. He left. He
continued to cooperate with and consult some security services. So what? What are we talking about right now? Oil, gas
or espionage? What is your question?
Let's move on to the other oldest profession and discuss
the latest developments in that business.
(Laughter.)
Ryan Chilcote
: A lot of what we've discussed today
goes back to Russia's relationship with the United States, and so I'll ask you just a couple of questions about that
and we can move on. The US says you personally ordered the 2016 interference in the elections I know you deny that.
You have said you wanted Trump elected. What do you want to see in 2018 from these midterm election
Vladimir Putin:
In Russia or the United States? What
are you asking me about?
Ryan Chilcote
: What would you like to see happen
in the 2018 midterm elections in the United States.
Vladimir Putin:
What I want and I am completely
serious is that this nightmare about Russia's alleged interference with some election campaign in the United States
ends. I want the United States, the American elite, the US elite to calm down and clear up their own mess and restore
a certain balance of common sense and national interests, just like in the oil market. I want the domestic political
squabbles in the United States to stop ruining Russia-US relations and adversely affecting the situation in the world.
Ryan Chilcote:
I'll ask this final question
on the political front. In Helsinki, you said that you wanted President Trump to win because he favours better relations
with Russia. But in fact, as Russia itself says all of the time, relations between Russia and the United States seem
to get worse every day. Wouldn't it be better for Russia to have a president in the United States that is not
politically compromised by the widely held perception that this country helped him get into the White House?
Vladimir Putin
: Firstly, I do not believe President
Trump was compromised. The people elected him, the people voted for him. There are those who do not like this; those who
do not want to respect the opinion of the American voters. But this is not our business this is an internal matter
of the United States.
Would we be better off or worse? I cannot say either. As is
known, there are no ifs in politics. Maybe it would have been even worse, how are we to know? We must derive from what
is
, and work with that. Good or bad, there is no other President of the United States; there is no other United
States either.
We will work. The US is the largest world power, a leader
in many spheres, our natural partner in a variety of projects, including global security, the non-proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, climate change, as well as the environment. We have a lot of common problems
which overlap that we have to work on together.
We presume that sooner or later the moment will come when
we will be able to restore full-fledged relations.
< >
Ryan Chilcote
: President Putin, I know you need
to get a meeting with the Austrian Chancellor, so I'm going to wrap this session up with you, sir. The title of our
conversation today is Sustainable Energy for a Changing World. You've been driving Russian energy policy for nearly 20
years now. What changes in the world, or what change in the world, would you identify as the biggest concern for you,
and what gives you the most optimism when it comes to what we're seeing.
Vladimir Putin:
If you allow me, I would stick
to the subject. The questions that you asked concern me as well.
Indeed, we are apparently witnessing global warming, but
the reasons for this are not entirely clear, because there is still no answer. The so-called anthropogenic emissions are
most likely not the main cause of this warming. It could be caused by global changes, cosmic changes, some changes
in the galaxy that are invisible to us and that's that, we don't even understand what is actually happening. Probably,
anthropogenic emissions influence the situation somehow, but many experts believe they have an insignificant effect.
This is my first point.
Secondly, I already said this, and I can remind you once
again. Everyone blames the United States now. As you see, we have many problems and unresolved matters with the United
States, and the US President and I approach many international affairs differently and evaluate our bilateral relations
differently. But we still have to be objective. There was a time I saw President Bush refuse to sign the Kyoto
agreements. But we still found a solution. I think the same will happen in this case. Well, Trump believes that
the Paris Agreement is unprofitable for his country for a variety of reasons. I will not go into details now, he must
have talked about this many times, and we know his position.
But I think, we should not antagonise the relationship with
the US, because without them it would be impossible to reduce the influence of anthropogenic air pollution on the global
climate even a little bit. Therefore, one way or another we need to involve the US in this discussion and this joint
work. As I understand, President Trump does not object. He says that he dislikes some provisions of the Paris agreement,
but he is not opposed to working with the global community on this matter.
Now, as regards the pollution and the future of the global
energy, in order to fight the heat, we need no less energy resources than to fight the cold. Secondly, my colleagues
were right, millions of people do not have access to energy resources, and we will never prohibit the use
of the contemporary blessings of civilization, it is just unreal. The economy and the industry will keep developing.
Of course, in Russia we also join the best international
practices, so-called energy efficient technology that has a little bit of influence on the environment, and we,
of course, will continue this.
But I also agree with our Saudi colleague. These
alternative sources are very important, but we will not be able to go without hydrocarbons in the next decades. People
will have to use them for many decades to come. We mostly speak about oil, but coal is what is used most.
We are speaking about the need to use electric cars, but
where will the electricity come from? From the socket? Okay, from the socket, but how did it get there? First we need
to burn coal to produce electricity, while gas remains the most environmentally friendly energy resource. So we need
to take a comprehensive approach to all such matters.
Ryan Chilcote
: Patrick Pouyanι posed a challenge
to you. He said it would be good if Russia used less coal. Are you prepared to accept that challenge and reduce
consumption of coal here in Russia and production?
Vladimir Putin:
We have signed the relevant Paris
agreements and taken up our responsibilities. We have implemented the first stage of the Kyoto Protocol, and now
the Paris Agreement will replace it. We have taken up all necessary responsibilities and will adhere to them.
The question is not about reducing the usage of coal for domestic needs, we are not the largest emitter, the US
and Asian countries emit much more. Here, we are not the leaders. We sell a lot of coal, but also not more than anyone
else and we only help cover the demand. The question is not about us, but about modern technology that uses primary
energy resources.
Let us go back to the last question, could you please
repeat it?
Ryan Chilcote
: Well, the title of the panel is
Sustainable Energy for a Changing World. You've been driving Russia's energy policy for nearly 20 years now. What
changes, or what is the change that gives you the most hope and what do you think the biggest challenge that you see
amongst the changes is for energy?
Vladimir Putin
: Concern is caused by uncertainty.
In politics, in security, and in the economy. Volatility, in other words. This is it. And the number of uncertainties is
growing. This is what causes concern the unpredictability of the situation.
Ryan Chilcote
: Are you talking about your colleague,
the President of the United States?
Vladimir Putin
: Not exactly. He certainly makes
a significant contribution to this unpredictability by virtue of being the President of the largest world power, but not
only him. I am talking about the situation in general.
Look at the rise of extremism where did it come from? Why
is this problem so acute today? Why is this extremism turning into terrorism? Doesn't that concern us? This is what we
need to understand where it all came from.
I will not go into details because we have a limited amount
of time. But this is happening in many spheres. In the economy the same thing. This growing uncertainty in all fields
is what causes concern.
Now, what causes optimism? Common sense, I think. No matter
how hard it is, people, humankind have always found ways out of the most difficult situations, guided by the interests
of their countries, their peoples, and it is the goal of any government to ensure the well-being as well as the growth
of the welfare of its people.
I think that sooner or later, and the sooner the better,
the realisation will come that we need to get away from controversy as soon as possible, in any case, away from trying
to resolve this controversy with unacceptable tools and ways that go beyond international law. It seems to me that it is
necessary to strengthen the leading role of the United Nations, and on this foundation, move on.
Ryan Chilcote
: And on that note, please join me
in thanking and congratulating our participants in today's panel and, of course, our host today the President of Russia.
Thanks for your answer, which is what I'd presumed. The bottom line seems to be that
nothing's unhackable--no matter what, it will get hacked.
What follows is OT, but attempts to supply a reason for the propaganda pimple burst. A few
days ago the annual Russian Energy Week conference occurred where Putin gave a speech and
answered numerous questions related to energy and geopolitics. A few of the choice quotes
related to his answers were published, but the transcript portion recording the Q&A had
yet to be published in full at the Kremlin's website. The transcript's now complete regarding
those Q&As directed at and answered by Putin, and what he has to say on a wide spectrum
of issues is highly educational: No one can say they know how Putin feels about a particular
issue without having read his answers. A few days ago, I tried linking to the Kremlin's
website only to have the post eaten by TypePad's Cloud. Here's the link . Reading his answers
and comments might lead Russophobic members of Trump's Swamp to burst a propaganda pimple in
revenge for his honesty.
Another landmark for the "Northeastern passage" -- so far only tankers had made the trip
Brendon Petersen
16 hours
ago
|
1,546
5
Explorers and navigators have long searched for a way to move ships through the Arctic Circle as find a faster way
to move goods between the Atlantic and the Pacific without having to go around either Asia or South America.
Groups of people hunted for the fabled Northwest passage through North America for decades. The problem, of
course, is that the Arctic contains too much ice.
Over the past few years, however, ice levels in the Arctic
have been
hitting
record lows
thanks to climate change, and while its effects are almost universally negative, one benefit is
opened northern sea routes. Over the past month, a container ship sailing from Eastern Russia is pioneering a new
Arctic route by
being
the first such ship to cross the Arctic Ocean
.
On August 23, the container ship Venta Maersk left the Russian port of Vladivostok and headed to Bremerhaven in
Germany. Normally, a trip like that would take the Venta Maersk through the Suez Canal on a 34 day trip. Instead,
the ship will sail through the sea north of Russia on a route that will only take 23 days.
Last week, the Venta Maersk passed through the Sannikov Strait, the narrowest and most hazardous part of its
journey, and is expected to arrive in Germany by the end of the week. Once it arrives, it will become the first
container ship to complete a successful route through the Arctic Circle.
We protect the countries of the Middle East, they would not be safe for very long
without us, and yet they continue to push for higher and higher oil prices! We will
remember. The OPEC monopoly must get prices down now!
OPEC does, in fact, control oil supply to a significant extent but that does not necessarily
mean that it is also in full control of the oil prices, Jack Rasmus, a professor of Political
Economy at St. Mary's College of California, told RT, adding that the policies pursued by the
US president himself play a much bigger role in what happens to oil and gasoline prices in the
US.
"The US economy is overstimulated by the Trump $4 trillion tax cuts for investors and
businesses," Rasmus explained, adding that the rising inflation is one of the primary
factors contributing to the oil price surge. Apart from that, Trump's trade war with China and
even with the US allies in the West also drives up the prices, as businesses also have to raise
them to adapt to the tariffs that both the US and its trading partners have imposed
recently.
Trump's sanctions war on Iran also does not make the situation any better. The US sanctions,
which are aimed at bringing Iran's oil exports to "zero," led to a decrease in Iran's
oil sales, thus cutting the supply and driving the prices up. As if it was not enough, Trump's
rhetoric only adds fuel to the fire, according to Rasmus.
"When Trump accuses Iran publicly, it gives the global oil speculators a reason to drive
up the price," he told RT, adding that it is the "global speculators that are driving the
short-term oil prices." "There is a connection between the speculators and Trump policies. When
he makes those statements, it certainly does contribute to the oil prices rise," the analyst
explained.
This rhetoric was more about winning voters' support ahead of the November mid-term
elections than about really remedying the situation in the oil market, Rasmus says. "He is
whipping up his domestic base," the analyst said, adding that "Trump [is] trying to
blame foreigners of all kinds for economic situation in the US."
Trump got elected on a platform of economic nationalism in particular, Rasmus said, adding
that the president now sticks to that narrative and blames foreigners –be they immigrants
or some foreign competitors– for the US' woes. However, this is "another factual
misrepresentation," the analyst said.
As oil prices remain high, prices for gasoline in the US are growing. The average cost of
gasoline has risen 60 percent from $1.87 per gallon in February 2016 to over $3 in
September.
This scenario would leave the US with the main sources of 'low production cost' Middle
East energy in its hands (i.e. Gulf, Iran and Iraqi oil and gas). On the face of this week's
events however, it looks more likely that these resources - or at least, the greater energy
resources of Iran and Iraq - will end up in the Russian sphere (together with Syria's
unexplored Levant Basin prospects). And this Russian 'heartland', energy-producing sphere,
may, in the end, prove to be a more than substantive rival to US (newly emerged as 'the
world's top oil producer') aspirations for restoring its Mideast energy dominance.....
The piece covers both Trump's plans for global energy dominance by taking full control of
middle east oil and also the Trump Kushner moves against the Palestinians.
So people think that oil production next year will not meet demand. Of course consumption
will equal production, but demand will be higher, and we won't be belabor this further
because the point here is a question above -- how does society react too insufficient oil?
The question is never analyzed in a particular way. It's usually evaluated from the
consumer's perspective. Who does what to get the oil they need. We can imagine they bid
higher, we can imagine that day seize the oil enroute to someone else, and we can imagine a
magical agreement on the part of everyone to stop all economic activity not involved in food
production/distribution to reduce global consumption.
What seldom is described is the decision making process within the leadership of oil
producers and exporters. It seems clear that a sudden awareness of insufficiency would yield
leadership meetings making decisions not about how to distribute more oil to customers, but
rather how to keep the oil for future generations of the producing country, without getting
invaded and destroyed.
One would think that the optimal strategy for a country that has oil is to ally itself
with a military power that can deter invasion by some other military power, without having
the ally's troops actually present on the territory. Or perhaps more effective would be
investing in the necessary explosives or nuclear material for one's own oil fields, and
inform potential invaders that the oil will remain the property of the country whose
geography covers it, or the fields will be contaminated for hundreds of years to deny them to
anyone else.
Clearly this is the optimal path for an oil producer and not seeking some technology that
can allow them to drain the resources of future generations more rapidly now.
So people think that oil production next year will not meet demand. Of course consumption
will equal production, but demand will be higher,
Watcher, I assume you think demand is what people want. But there is no way to measure
what people want but can't afford. So "demand" in that sense has no meaning whatsoever. So
what happens is the price of gasoline, or whatever, rises or falls until supply equals
demand. As prices rise, demand falls and as prices fall, demand rises because people can now
afford it. Therefore demand always equals consumption. Demand is what people buy at the
price they can afford. I wish we had a word for what people want but even if we did there
would be no way to measure it. A poll perhaps?
Estimating demand is essential for a company and can determine its survival. Demand is
dependent on price, so demand estimates are essential for deciding the price of a product.
The curves for price and demand cross at a point that maximizes income.
Demand is estimated statistically (polls sometimes), with models, and expert forecast. It
has a large uncertainty.
"there is no way to measure what people want but can't afford."
That is potential demand at a lower price point. It is estimated in the same way.
Companies decide to lower their prices with hopes to realize that lower-price demand.
"demand always equals consumption."
Exactly. Demand becomes consumption when realized, so it only makes sense to talk about
demand in the future or the present (due to lack of real-time data). It doesn't make sense to
talk about past demand, because it becomes consumption or sales.
There is a numerical measure for how much people want gasoline, regardless of price.
It is the length of the line of cars at the gas station in the 1970s. Demand was measured
in 100s of feet. Price somewhat doesn't matter. If you can't afford it, you put it on a
credit card and then default.
The length of the queue is an interesting metric by which to measure the want that people
have for an item. Nice one. I'm gonna use that. Reminds me of my Dad's old story about lining
up for a week to buy tickets to see The Beatles.
When you are lining up to buy tickets to see the Beatles it might be called a 'Want' or a
'Desire'. However, when it is the line at the soup kitchen it becomes 'Hunger' or
'Desperation'!
And that queue can sometimes feel like a hundred miles
The bigger issue is people, Business, & gov'ts servicing their debt. If the cost of
energy increases, it make it more difficult to service their debt. Recall that Oil prices
peaked at $147 right before the beginning of the 2008/2009 economic crisis. Since then 2008
Debt continued to soar as companies & gov'ts piled on more debt. Debt is promise on
future production. Borrow now and pay it back over time.
I recall the presentation Steven Kopits did about 4 or 5 years ago that stated Oil
production was well below demand. I think real global oil demand was projected to be about
120mmbd back in 2012-2013 (sorry don't recall the actual figures).
I think the bigger factor is how steep the declines will be. Presumably all of the super
giants are in the same shape and likely heavily relied on horizontal drilling to offset
natural decline rates. Presuming as the oil column shrinks in the decline rates will rapidly
accelerate. Most of the Artic\Deep water projects were cancelled back in 2014\2015, and I
believe most of those projects would take about 7 years to complete and need between Oil at
$120 to $150/bbl (in 2012 dollars) to be economical. I am not sure the world can sustainably
afford $120+ oil, especially considering the amount of new debt that has been added in the
past 10 years.
Ron Wrote:
" I wish we had a word for what people want but even if we did there would be no way to
measure it"
Perhaps the word "Gluttony" or the phase "Business As Usual". People don't like change,
especially when the result, is a decrease in living standards.
Being willing to pay more for oil may change who gets it. But it will not alter the fact that
someone who wants oil will not get it. That will be a ripple of market information which will
travel around the world pretty quick, I should imagine!
The vast majority in almost all the places in the world would like to use more oil but their
income is not enough so they end up doing with less. That includes me. Who doesn't want a
bigger faster newer lawn mower, truck, or tractor? What person would not prefer the latest
iphone etc. ? or going on vacation, eating out at high end steakhouses? The main reason they
can't is because it would take more and cheaper oil for them to be able to afford it. Else
they can only try to take it away from someone else? The peak in global oil production/person
happened back in 1979, not because folks were tired of using it all but due to the laws of
physics coming into play.
So there are two 'classes' of 'peak oil'. One class is where oil supply is constrained by
price (throwing more money at production sees an increase in production), the second class is
where oil supply is constrained by physical availability at any price (wave more money at
production, but production cannot increase).
In the first case (price constrained) normal market behaviour will apply – folk pay
more (if they can afford it) to get more.
But in the second case (resource constrained), it does not matter how much is offered,
there is simply no more oil to be had.
With the prevailing declining yields and declining discoveries, are we not in the
transition between these two states – moving from price constrained to resource
constrained? And once we get well into resource constrained, the price a buyer can pay will
determine who gets the remaining available oil, and no amount of screeching and
dollar-bill-waving by those who have missed out will improve the supply situation for
them.
LTO decline rate would be no problem by a conventional / state possessed oil company.
They would have a field with tight oil, and then just equip let's say 20 fracking /
drilling teams and start to produce through their field in 30 or 50 years. They would have a
slow decline by starting at the best location and getting to the worse one, while increasing
experience / technic during the years to compensate a bit.
You have a pretty good argument except for the "30 or 50 years" part. That's where the wheels
fell off your go-cart. Just how large would the tight oil reservoir have to be to keep 20
drilling and fracking units for 30 to 50 years? And if you assume other oil companies are in
that same reservoir doing the same thing? They are going to cover a lot of acreage very fast.
It matters very little. At any time t the available supply is limited and the market price
will determine who gets what is available. Those willing to pay more than others will get the
oil. When we reach a point where no more oil can be supplied at price P, there might always
be some more oil that could be at some higher price P', it is simply a matter of oil prices
reaching the point that there are substitutes that can replace the use of oil in some uses.
Today the biggest use for oil is transport and electricity and natural gas may soon replace a
lot of this use, especially as oil becomes scarce and prices increase.
At $100 to $120/b the transition to EVs could be quite rapid, maybe taking 20 to 25 years
to replace 90% of new ICEV sales and then another 15 years for most of the fleet to be
replaced as old cars are scrapped. So by 2055 most land transport uses for oil will be
eliminated.
The higher oil prices rise, the more incentive there will be to switch to cheaper EVs,
even natural gas will probably not be able to compete with EVs as Natural Gas will also peak
(2030 to 2035) and prices will rise. It will probably be unwise to spend a lot of money for
Natural gas fueling infrastructure, though perhaps it might work for long haul trucking, rail
seems a more sensible option.
Adam Ash Wrote:
"So there are two 'classes' of 'peak oil'. One class is where oil supply is constrained by
price (throwing more money at production sees an increase in production), the second class is
where oil supply is constrained by physical availability at any price (wave more money at
production, but production cannot increase)"
Consider this way:
There is already a huge shortage of $10/bbl oil, and a massive glut of $300/bbl oil. There is
always shortage resources. Price is just a system that balances demand with supply.
Adam Ash Wrote:
"But in the second case (resource constrained), it does not matter how much is offered, there
is simply no more oil to be had no amount of screeching and dollar-bill-waving by those who
have missed out will improve the supply situation for them."
Not exactly. People that can only afford $50/bbl Oil get out priced by people willing to
pay $100/bbl. Supply shifts to the people that can afford the hire price at the expense of
people that cannot afford the higher cost. Higher prices will lead to new production, even if
has a Negative EROEI (ie tar sands using cheap NatGas).
In an ideal world, higher prices lead to less energy waste (flying, recreation boating)
and better efficiency (more energy efficient buildings & vehicles). But I am not sure
that will be the case in our world.
The first to suffer from high energy prices will be the people living in poor nations.
Recall back in 2008-2014 we had the Arab spring when people could afford the food costs, and
started mass riots and overthrough gov'ts. This will return when Oil prices climb back
up.
Its possible that the world make continue to experience price swings, as global demand
struction decreases demand. For instance in July 2008 Oil was at $147/bbl but by Jan 2009 it
was about $30/bbl. I doubt we will see such large price swings, but I also doubt that Oil
will continuously move up without any price corrections.
Realistically we are in deflation driven global economy as the excessive debt applies
deflationary force to the economy. However central banks counter deflation with artificially
low interest rates and currency printing (ie Quantitive Easing). My guess is that
industrialized nation gov't will become increasing dependent on QE and other gimmicks that
lead to high inflation\stagnation.
it is absolutely clear who is behind the food and medicine boycotts (empty supermarket
shelves), and the induced internal violence. It is a carbon copy of what the CIA under
Kissinger's command did in Chile in 1973 which led to the murder of the legitimate and
democratically elected President Allende and to the Pinochet military coup ; except,
Venezuela has 19 years of revolutionary experience, and built up some tough resistance.
To understand the context 'Venezuela', we may have to look at the country's history.
Before the fully democratically and internationally observed election of Hugo Chavez in
1998, Venezuela was governed for at least 100 years by dictators and violent despots which
were directed by and served only the United States. The country, extremely rich in natural
resources , was exploited by the US and Venezuelan oligarchs to the point that the population
of one of the richest Latin-American countries remained poor instead of improving its
standard of living according to country's natural riches. The people were literally enslaved
by Washington controlled regimes .
A first coup attempt by Comandante Hugo Chavez in 1992 was oppressed by the Government of
Carlos Andrés Pérez and Chavez was sent to prison along with his co-golpistas.
After two years, he was freed by the Government of Rafael Caldera.
During Peréz' first term in office (1974-1979) and his predecessors, Venezuela
attained a high economic growth based on almost exclusive oil exports . Though, hardly
anything of this growth stayed in the country and was distributed to the people. The
situation was pretty much the same as it is in today's Peru which before the 2008 crisis and
shortly thereafter had phenomenal growth rates – between 5% and 8% – of which 80%
went to 5% of the population oligarchs and foreign investors , and 20% was to be distributed
to 95% of the population – and that on a very uneven keel. The result was and is a
growing gap between rich and poor, increasing unemployment and delinquency.
Venezuela before Chavez lived practically on a monoculture economy based on petrol. There
was no effort towards economic diversification. To the contrary, diversification could
eventually help free Venezuela from the despot's fangs, as the US was the key recipient of
Venezuela's petrol and other riches. Influenced by the 1989 Washington Consensus,
Peréz made a drastic turn in his second mandate (1989-1993) towards neoliberal
reforms, i.e. privatization of public services, restructuring the little social safety
benefits laborers had achieved, and contracting debt by the IMF and the World Bank. He became
a model child of neoliberalism, to the detriment of Venezuelans. Resulting protests under
Peréz' successor, Rafael Caldera, became unmanageable. New elections were called and
Hugo Chavez won in a first round with more than 56%. Despite an ugly Washington inspired coup
attempt ("The Revolution will Not be Televised", 2003 documentary about the attempted 2002
coup), Hugo Chavez stayed in power until his untimely death 2013. Comandante Chavez and his
Government reached spectacular social achievements for his country.
Washington will not let go easily – or at all, to re-conquer Venezuela into the new
Monroe Doctrine, i.e. becoming re-integrated into Washington's backyard. Imagine this
oil-rich country, with the world's largest hydrocarbon reserves, on the doorsteps of the
United Sates' key refineries in Texas, just about 3 to 4 days away for a tanker from
Venezuela, as compared to 40 to 45 days from the Gulf, where the US currently gets about 60%
of its petrol imports. An enormous difference in costs and risks, i.e. each shipment has to
sail through the Iran-controlled Strait of Hormuz.
In addition, another socialist revolution as one of Washington's southern neighbor –
in addition to Cuba – is not convenient. Therefore, the US and her secret forces will
do everything to bring about regime change, by constant economic aggressions, blockades,
sanctions, boycotts of imports and their internal distribution – as well as outrights
military threats. The recent assassination attempt of President Maduro falls into the same
category. "
The antagonism between Saudi Arabia and Iran sets off a variety of political reverberations
affecting the countries of the Persian Gulf, unsettling the situation between Turkey, Syria,
and Iraq, and entangling Russia and the United States in the ensuring imbroglio.
... ... ...
The role of the Russian Federation cannot be viewed apart from what is happening in the
energy-rich, formerly Soviet Central Asian republics. The so-called -Stans (Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan) are major players in today's energy markets. Whatever
they do, however, cannot be seen as separate from what Russia is doing or from Russia's
intentions. Although some of them, primarily Azerbaijan, have initiated projects that are not
aligned with Moscow's goals, they nevertheless need to behave in ways that do not upset their
powerful northern neighbour on whom they are heavily reliant, to some extent, for their welfare
(due to their dependence on oil and gas pipeline networks).
Politics is therefore deeply intertwined with energy in most of those cases, bringing
diplomacy front and centre as a determinant of behaviour and economic outcomes.
... ... ...
Europe's problem is that, with the exception of North Sea oil and gas, it relies entirely on
imports to provide it with a comfortable level of energy. Thus, events in the Middle East and
the Russian stance toward the continent determines whether it is adequately supplied with
energy or faces shortages.
The deposits in the North Sea have kept some European states (Britain and Scandinavia among
others) well supplied for quite a while. But unfortunately there is a strong suspicion that
these deposits are diminishing at a dangerous rate. As a result Europe will gradually become
dependent on imports from the Middle East, North Africa, Russia, and the Atlantic (Angola,
Brazil, Mexico, and the US). The situation is disquieting since Japan, and more recently,
China, are seeking to buy their own supplies from the same sources.
"...Things started to change after the fracking and shale gas revolution. The United
States suddenly realized that it could not only became absolutely self-sufficient in oil and
gas, but it also emerged as one of the most important exporters to the rest of the
world..."
Ths is factually untrue. The US still depends on crude oil imports to meet its needs. And
if this simple, verifiable fact is misunderstood by the author, then I have to wonder about
the rest of his analysis...
From the middle of the last century to the present, everything has been about oil. The
peak oilers were correct. What they did not consider was the power of debt to hold this whole
thing together long after it should have collapsed. Shale oil is not profitable. That does
not mater as long as debt underwrites the cost of production. What does matter is the rapid
decline rate of shale oil wells. Yes it is true that shale wells are continuing to produce
long after they have reached their peak but it is the volume of production that matters.
If you read the projections put out by the Hirsch Report, the Llyiods Report and the
Bundeswehr Report, things should get interesting in the next couple of years.
"... but neither are they amenable to a stoic acceptance of national decline" ..."
"... Unleashing American Energy ..."
"... American energy dominance, ..."
"... Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act ..."
"... "... an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of nationhood and peoplehood, and the history and experience of the Jewish people, you should respect someone like me, who has analogous feelings about whites. You could say that I am a white Zionist – in the sense that I care about my people, I want us to have a secure homeland for us and ourselves. – Just as you want a secure homeland in Israel." ..."
Two weeks ago, we
wrote about how President Trump's foreign policy somehow had 'folded' into
'neo-Americanism', and quoted US Foreign Affairs Professor, Russell-Mead, suggesting that
Trump's 8 May metamorphosis (the exit from JCPOA), represented something new, a step-change of
direction (from his being principally a sharp Art of the Deal negotiator), toward
– pace, Russell-Mead – "a neo-American era in world politics – rather than an
[Obama-ist] post-American one". "The administration wants to enlarge American power,
rather than adjust to decline (as allegedly, Obama did). For now, at least, the Middle
East is the centrepiece of this new assertiveness", Russell-Mead opined, explaining that this
new Trump impulse stems from: [Trump's] instincts telling him that most Americans are anything
but eager for a "post-American" world. Mr. Trump's supporters don't want long wars, but
neither are they amenable to a stoic acceptance of national decline" .
There is something of a paradox here: Trump and his base deplore the cost and commitment of
the huge American defence umbrella, spread across the globe by the globalists (sentiments
aggravated by the supposed ingratitude of its beneficiaries) – yet the President wants to
" enlarge American power, rather than adjust to decline". That is, he wants
more power, but less empire. How might he square this circle?
Well, a pointer arose almost a year earlier, when on 29 June 2017, the President used a
quite unexpected word when speaking at an Energy Department event: Unleashing American
Energy . Instead of talking about American energy independence , as might be
expected, he heralded instead, a new era of American energy "dominance" .
In a speech "that sought to underscore a break with the policies of Barack Obama", the
FTnotes , Mr Trump tied
energy to his America First agenda..."The truth is we now have near limitless supplies
of energy in our country," Mr Trump said. "We are really in the driving seat, and you know
what: we don't want to let other countries take away our sovereignty, and tell us what to do,
and how to do it. That's not going to happen. With these incredible resources, my
administration will seek not only the American energy independence that we've been looking for,
for so long – but American energy dominance, " he said.
It seems, as Chris Cook explains , that
Gary Cohn, then chief economic adviser to the President had a part in the genesis to this
ambition. Cohn (then at Goldman Sachs), together with a colleague from Morgan Stanley,
conceived of a plan in 2000 to take control of the global oil trading market through an
electronic trading platform, based in New York. In brief, the big banks, attracted huge
quantities of 'managed money' (from such as hedge funds), to the market, to bet on future
prices (without their ever actually taking delivery of crude: trading 'paper oil', rather than
physical oil). And, at the same time, these banks worked in collusion with the major oil
producers (including later, Saudi Arabia) to pre-purchase physical oil in such a way
that, by withholding, or releasing physical crude from, or onto the market, the big NY banks
were able to 'influence' the prices (by creating a shortage, or a glut).
To give some idea of the capacity of these bankers to 'influence' price, by mid –
2008, it was estimated that some
$260 billion of 'managed' (speculative) investment money was in play in energy markets,
completely dwarfing the value of the oil actually coming out of the North Sea each month, at
maybe $4 to $5 billion, at most. These 'paper' oil-option plays would therefore often trump the
'fundamentals' of real supply, and real end-user demand.
'Step one' for Cohn, was therefore, for the US to manage the trading market, both in price
and access – with U.S. antagonists such as Iran or Russia, being able to access the
market on inferior terms, if at all. The putative 'step two', has been to nurse US shale
production, build new American LNG export terminals, and open America to further oil and gas
exploration, whilst strong-arming everyone from Germany to South Korea and China, to buy
American LNG exports. And 'thirdly', with Gulf oil exports already under the US umbrella, there
were then, two major Middle East energy producers beyond the boundaries of cartel 'influence'
(falling more into rival Russia's strategic energy-producing 'heartland'): Iran – which
is now the subject of regime change–style, economic siege on its oil exports, and Iraq,
which is subject of intense (soft) political pressures (such as threatening to sanction Iraq
under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act ) to force its
adherence to the western sphere.
What would this Trump notion of energy dominance mean in simple language? The US
– were energy dominance to succeed – simply would control the tap to the economic
development – or its lack thereof – for rivals China, and Asia. And the US could
squeeze Russia's revenues in this way, too. In short, the US could put a tourniquet on China's
and Russia's economic development plans. Is this why JCPOA was revoked by President Trump?
Here then, is the squaring of that circle (more US power, yet less empire): Trump's US aims
for 'domination', not through the globalists' permanent infrastructure of the US defence
umbrella, but through the smart leveraging of the US dollar and financial clearing monopoly, by
ring-fencing, and holding tight, US technology, and by dominating the energy market, which in
turn represents the on/off valve to economic growth for US rivals. In this way, Trump can
'bring the troops home', and yet America keeps its hegemony. Military conflict becomes a last
resort.
Senior advisor Peter Navarro said on NPR earlier
this week that "we can stop them [the Chinese] from putting our high tech companies out of
business" and "buying up our crown jewels of technology ... Every time we innovate something
new, China comes in and buys it, or steals it."
Is this then Trump's plan: By market domination and trade war, to prolong America's
'superiority' of technology, finance and energy – and not somehow be
obliged to "adjust to decline"? And by acting in this way, curtail – or at least postpone
– the emergence of rivals? Two questions in this context immediately present themselves:
Is this formula the adoption of neo-conservatism, by the US Administration, which Trump's own
base so detests? And, secondly, can the approach work?
It is not neo-conservatism, perhaps – but rather a re-working of a theme. The American
neo-conservatives largely wanted to take a hammer to the parts of the world they didn't like;
and to replace it with something they did. Trump's method is more Machiavellian in
character.
The
roots to both of these currents of thought lie however – more than partly –
with Carl Schmitt's influence on American conservative thinking through his friend, Leo
Strauss, at Chicago (whether not, Trump has ever read either man, the ideas still circulate in
the US ether). Schmitt held that politics (in contrast to the liberal/ humanist vein) has
nothing to do with making the world fairer, or more just – that is the work of moralists
and theologians – politics for Schmitt, concerns power and political survival, and
nothing more.
Liberals (and globalists), Schmitt suggested, are queasy at using power to crush alternative
forces from emerging: their optimistic view of human nature leads them to believe in the
possibility of mediation and compromise. The Schmittian optic, however dismissed derisively the
liberal view, in favour of an emphasis on the role of power, pure and simple – based on a
darker understanding of the true nature of 'others' and rivals. This point seems to go to the
root of Trump's thinking: Obama and the 'liberals' were ready to trade the 'crown jewels' of
'Our Culture' (financial, technological and energy expertise) through some multilateral
'affirmative action' that would help less developed states (such as rival China up the ladder).
Perhaps such thoughts too, lay behind Trump's withdrawal from the Climate Accord: Why help
putative rivals, whist, at same time, imposing voluntary handicaps on one's own Culture?
It is on this latter, quite narrow pivot (the imperative of keeping American power intact),
that neo-cons and Trumpists, come together: And both also share in their disdain for utopian
liberals who would fritter away the crown jewels of western Culture – for some or other
humanitarian ideal – only to allow America's determined rivals to rise up and overthrow
America and its Culture (in this optic).
The common ground between both currents, is expressed with remarkable candour through
Berlusconi's
comment that "we must be aware of the superiority of our [western] civilisation". Steve
Bannon says something very similar, though couched in the merits of preserving (a threatened)
western Judeo-Christian culture.
This sense of Cultural advantage that must at all costs be recuperated and preserved perhaps
goes some (but not all) way towards accounting for Trump's ardent support for Israel: Speaking
to Israel's Channel Two, Richard Spencer, a prominent leader of the American Alt-Right
(and one component to Trump's base), highlighted the deeply felt
the dispossession of white people, in their own country [the US]:
"... an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of
nationhood and peoplehood, and the history and experience of the Jewish people, you should
respect someone like me, who has analogous feelings about whites. You could say that I am a
white Zionist – in the sense that I care about my people, I want us to have a secure
homeland for us and ourselves. – Just as you want a secure homeland in
Israel."
So, can the attempt to leverage and weaponise the American élites' Culture –
through the dollar, and putative energy hegemony, and its hold over technology transfer –
succeed in holding on to American 'Culture' (in the reductionist construct of Trump's base)?
This is the sixty-four thousand dollar question, as they say. It may just easily provoke an
equally powerful reaction; and a lot can happen domestically in the US, between now, and the
November, US mid-term, elections, which might either confirm the President in power – or
undo him. It is difficult to hold to any analytic horizon beyond that.
But a larger point is whilst Trump feels passionately about American Culture and hegemony;
the leaders of the non-West today, feel just as passionately that it is time for 'the American
Century' to yield place. Just as after WWII, former colonial states wanted independence –
so, now, today's leaders want an end to dollar monopoly, they want an opt-out from the global,
US-led order and its so-called 'international' institutions; they want to 'be' in their own
distinctive cultural way – and they want their sovereignties back. This is not just
cultural and economic nationalism, it portends a significant inflection point – away from
neo-liberal economics, from individualism and raw commercialism – towards a more rounded
human experience.
The tide, in the wake of WWII, surely was irreversible then. I can even recall the former
European colonialists subsequently bemoaning their forced withdrawal: "They'll [the former
colonies] regret it", they confidently predicted. (No, they never did.) The tide today runs
strongly too, and has spread, even, to Europe. Where – who knows – whether the
Europeans will have the spine to push back against Trump's financial and trade machinations: It
will be an important litmus for what comes next.
But what is different now (from then), is that currency hegemony, technological prowess, and
energy 'domination', are not, at all, assured to western possession. They are no longer theirs.
They began their migration, some time ago.
"... Trump's US aims for 'domination', not through the globalists' permanent infrastructure of the US defence umbrella, but through the smart leveraging of the US dollar and financial clearing monopoly, by ring-fencing, and holding tight, US technology, and by dominating the energy market, which in turn represents the on/off valve to economic growth for US rivals. ..."
"... "Towards the tail end of the Clinton administration and the Dot Com boom in 2000, [Trump's U.S. Treasury Secretary until April 2018] Gary Cohn of Goldman Sachs had dinner with his counterpart at Morgan Stanley, John Shapiro. From this dinner was hatched an audacious plan to take control of the global oil market through a new electronic global market platform." ..."
"... "Wall Street bankers, particularly Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, backed him and he launched ICE in 2000 (giving 80 percent control to the two banks who, in turn, spread out the control among Shell, Total, and British Petroleum)." ..."
"... "The second objective was a switch from oil to natural gas, and when the U.S. [ military ] was obliged to leave Saudi Arabia, they [the U.S.] thereupon established their biggest regional base in Qatar, who co-own with Iran the greatest single natural gas reserve on the planet – South Pars. ..."
"... Energy Dominance ..."
"... In the four months since President Trump's announcement, the market strategy developed by Gary Cohn is now being implemented and its elements are emerging into view. ..."
"... Firstly, there has been a massive inflow of Managed Money into the oil market, particularly the Brent contract, which has seen the Brent oil price increase by 35% since the starting point, which I believe can be dated to the August Brent/BFOE Crude Oil option expiry on June 27 th 2017. ..."
"... The dominant market narrative is that the backwardation in Brent is evidence of surging global oil demand which has emptied inventories and is leading the price to new sunlit uplands. However, I see the market rather differently. ..."
"... Firstly, whether the Brent spot month is supported by financial, rather than physical demand, the result will still be a backwardation, and because few oil producers expect a price over $60 to be sustainable they therefore hedge and depress the forward price. In support of this view, I am far from the only market observer who believes that Aramco, and Rosneft would not be selling equity if either Saudi Arabia or Russia believed the oil price trajectory will be positive even in the medium term. ..."
"... This still leaves open the $64 billion question of which market participant is motivated and able to support the ICE Brent term structure for years into the future by swapping dollar risk (T-Bills) for long term oil risk (oil reserves leased via prepay purchase/resale contracts). ..."
"... My conclusion by a process of elimination is that this Big Long can only be Saudi Arabia and regional allies, with Saudi Arabia now under the management of the thrusting young Mohammad bin Salman." ..."
"... Although Trump routinely talks about withdrawing U.S. troops, he does the exact opposite. ..."
"... the U.S. economy becomes increasingly dependent upon Big Oil and Big Minerals and Big Money and Big Military, ..."
"... War against King Saud's chosen enemies (Iran, Qatar, Syria) and possibly even against the U.S. aristocracy's chosen enemy, Russia (and against Russia's allies: China, Iran, and Syria) -- seems more likely, not less likely, with Trump's geostrategy. ..."
"... "I want to address what Mr. Cohn was talking about from a standpoint of how important American energy is as an option, not as the only option, but as an option to our allies and to count[r]ies around the world. ..."
"... At the G7 it was really kind of interesting. The first thing they beat on the table talking about the Paris accord, you can't get out of it, and I was kind of like OK. Then we would go into our bilats and they'd go, how about some of that LNG you've got? How do we buy your LNG, how do we buy your coal? And it was really interesting, it was a political issue for them. This whole Paris thing is a public relation[s], political issue for them. We made the right decision, the President made the right decision on this. I think it was one of the most powerful messages that early on in this administration that was sent. ..."
"... We are in a position to be able to clearly create a hell of a lot more friends by being able to deliver to them energy and not being held hostage by some countries, Russia in particular. Whether it is Poland, Ukraine, the entirety of the EU. Totally get it, if we can lay in American LNG, if we can be able to have an alternative to Russian anthracite coal that they control in the Ukraine. ..."
"... If that was more the reality of Trump's "Unleashing American Energy" policy than just the pro-global-burnout cheerleading of Trump's mere words, then it seems to be -- in the policy's actual intent and implementation -- more like "send more troops in" than "bring the troops home," to and from anywhere. It is more like energy policy in support of the military policy, than military policy in support of the energy policy. ..."
"... In any aristocracy, some members need to make compromises with other members, no matter how united they all are against the publics' interests. This is the way it's done -- by compromises with each other. ..."
"Trump's US aims for 'domination', not through the globalists' permanent infrastructure of
the US defence umbrella, but through the smart leveraging of the US dollar and financial
clearing monopoly, by ring-fencing, and holding tight, US technology, and by dominating the
energy market, which in turn represents the on/off valve to economic growth for US rivals.
In
this way, Trump can 'bring the troops home', and yet America keeps its hegemony [America's
control of the world, global empire]. Military conflict becomes a last resort."
He bases that crucially upon a landmark 6 November 2017 article by Chris Cook, at Seeking
Alpha, which laid out, and to a significant extent documented, a formidable and complex
geostrategy driving U.S. President Donald Trump's foreign policies. Cook headlined there
"Energy Dominance And
America First" , and noted that,
"Towards the tail end of the Clinton administration and the Dot Com boom in 2000,
[Trump's U.S. Treasury Secretary until April 2018] Gary Cohn of Goldman Sachs had dinner with
his counterpart at Morgan Stanley, John Shapiro. From this dinner was hatched an audacious plan
to take control of the global oil market through a new electronic global market
platform."
This "global market platform," which had been started months earlier in 2000 by Jeffrey Sprecher , is "ICE,"
or InterContinental Exchange, and it uses financial derivatives in order to provide to Wall
Street banks control over the future direction of commodites prices (so that the insiders can
game the markets), by means of the financial-futures markets, locking in future
purchase-and-sale agreements. It also entails Wall Street's
buying enormous commodities-storage warehouses and stashing them with such commodities - such
as, in that case, aluminum) , and so it influences also the real estate markets, and
doesn't only manipulate the commodities markets. Those vast storehouses (and the operation of
the U.S. Government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to carry out a similar price-manipulation
function in the oil business) are crucial in order for the entire scheme to be able to
function, because without control over the storehousing of physical commodities, such
futures-price manipulations aren't possible. Consequently, ICE couldn't get off the ground
without major Wall Street partners, which are willing to do that. Cohn and Shapiro (Goldman,
and Morgan Stanley) backed Sprecher's operation; and Wikipedia states that,
"Wall Street bankers, particularly Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, backed him and he
launched ICE in 2000 (giving 80 percent control to the two banks who, in turn, spread out the
control among Shell, Total, and British Petroleum)."
This is today's financial world -- a world in which billionaires control the future
directions of commodities-prices, and thus manipulate markets, and even determine the economic
fates of nations. It's not the myth of capitalism; it is the reality of capitalism. It
functions by means of corruption, as it always has, but the corrupt methods constantly
evolve.
However, Trump's geostrategy goes beyond merely this, especially by bringing into the entire
operation the world's wealthiest person, the trillionaire King Saud, who, as the sole owner of
the Saudi Government, which in turns owns the world's largest corporation Aramco, which in turn
dominates the oil market and which is also #6 in the natural-gas market (far behind the three
giants, which King Saud is trying to destroy -- Russia, Iran, and Qatar -- so that the Sauds
will become able to dominate even there). Trump's geostrategy ties King Saud even more tightly
than before, into America's aristocracy.
King Saud, as Cook noted, is trying to disinvest in petroleum and reposition increasingly
into natural gas, because outside the United States and around the world, people are seriously
concerned to minimize global warming so as to postpone global burnout from uncontrollably
soaring atmospheric carbon. Petroleum has an even worse carbon footprint than does natural gas;
and therefore natural gas is the world's "transition fuel" to a 'survivable' future, while
solar and other alternatives take hold (even if too late). Despite all of the carbon-fuels
industries' propaganda, people outside the United States are determined to delay global
burnout, and the insiders know this. King Saud knows that his petroleum-laden portfolio will
have to diversify fast, because the long-term future for petroleum-prices is decline. And he
won't be able to control prices at all in the natural-gas business unless he's got America's
aristocracy on his side, in the effort to keep those prices up (at least while the Sauds will
be increasing their profits from natural gas). Unlike his dominance over OPEC, Saudi Arabia has
no such position to control natural gas-prices. He thus needs Wall Street's cooperation.
Cook said:
"The second objective was a switch from oil to natural gas, and when the U.S. [
military ] was
obliged to leave Saudi Arabia, they [the U.S.] thereupon established their biggest regional
base in Qatar, who co-own with Iran the greatest single natural gas reserve on the planet
– South Pars.
Energy Dominance
In the four months since President Trump's announcement, the market strategy developed
by Gary Cohn is now being implemented and its elements are emerging into view.
Firstly, there has been a massive inflow of Managed Money into the oil market,
particularly the Brent contract, which has seen the Brent oil price increase by 35% since the
starting point, which I believe can be dated to the August Brent/BFOE Crude Oil option expiry
on June 27 th 2017.
The dominant market narrative is that the backwardation in Brent is evidence of surging
global oil demand which has emptied inventories and is leading the price to new sunlit uplands.
However, I see the market rather differently.
Firstly, whether the Brent spot month is supported by financial, rather than physical
demand, the result will still be a backwardation, and because few oil producers expect a price
over $60 to be sustainable they therefore hedge and depress the forward price. In support of
this view, I am far from the only market observer who believes that Aramco, and Rosneft would
not be selling equity if either Saudi Arabia or Russia believed the oil price trajectory will
be positive even in the medium term.
This still leaves open the $64 billion question of which market participant is motivated
and able to support the ICE Brent term structure for years into the future by swapping dollar
risk (T-Bills) for long term oil risk (oil reserves leased via prepay purchase/resale
contracts).
My conclusion by a process of elimination is that this Big Long can only be Saudi Arabia
and regional allies, with Saudi Arabia now under the management of the thrusting young Mohammad
bin Salman."
However, I do not agree with Alastair Crooke's "In this way, Trump can 'bring the troops
home', and yet America keeps its hegemony [America's control of the world, global empire].
Military conflict becomes a last resort." I explained at Strategic Culture on March 25th
"How the
Military Controls America" and noted there that "on 21 May 2017, US President Donald Trump
sold to the Saud family, who own Saudi Arabia, an all-time-record $350 billion of US
arms-makers' products." This means that not only Wall Street -- the main institutional agency
for America's aristocracy -- and not only American Big Oil likewise, are committed to the royal
Saud family, but U.S. corporations such as Lockheed Martin also are. Vast profits are to be
made, by insiders, in invasions and occupations, just as in gas and oil, and in brokerage.
Although Trump routinely talks about withdrawing U.S. troops, he does the exact opposite.
And even if this trend reverses and America's troop-numbers head down, while
the U.S. economy
becomes increasingly dependent upon Big Oil and Big Minerals and Big Money and Big Military,
America's military budget is, under Trump, the only portion of the entire U.S. federal
Government that's increasing; so, "Military conflict becomes a last resort" does not seem
likely, in such a context. Rather, the reverse would seem to be the far likelier case.
War against King Saud's chosen enemies (Iran, Qatar, Syria) and possibly even against
the U.S. aristocracy's chosen enemy, Russia (and against Russia's allies: China, Iran, and
Syria) -- seems more likely, not less likely, with Trump's geostrategy.
In fact, on 29 June 2017, when President Trump first announced his "Unleashing American
Energy Event," the President spoke his usual platitudes about the supposed necessity to
increase coal-production, and what he said was telecast and
publicized ; but his U.S. Energy Secretary, the barely literate former Governor of Texas,
Rick Perry, also delivered a speech, which was never telecast nor published, except that a few
days later, on July 3rd, an excerpt from it was somehow published on the website of Liquified
Natural Gas Global, and it was this:
"I want to address what Mr. Cohn was talking about from a standpoint of how important
American energy is as an option, not as the only option, but as an option to our allies and
to count[r]ies around the world.
At the G7 it was really kind of interesting. The first thing they beat on the table
talking about the Paris accord, you can't get out of it, and I was kind of like OK. Then we
would go into our bilats and they'd go, how about some of that LNG you've got? How do we buy
your LNG, how do we buy your coal? And it was really interesting, it was a political issue
for them. This whole Paris thing is a public relation[s], political issue for them. We made
the right decision, the President made the right decision on this. I think it was one of the
most powerful messages that early on in this administration that was sent.
We are in a position to be able to clearly create a hell of a lot more friends by
being able to deliver to them energy and not being held hostage by some countries, Russia in
particular. Whether it is Poland, Ukraine, the entirety of the EU. Totally get it, if we can
lay in American LNG, if we can be able to have an alternative to Russian anthracite coal that
they control in the Ukraine. That singularly will have more to do with keeping our allies
free and building their confidence in us than practically anything else that I have seen out
there. It is a positive message around the world right now."
If that was more the reality of Trump's "Unleashing American Energy" policy than just
the pro-global-burnout cheerleading of Trump's mere words, then it seems to be -- in the
policy's actual intent and implementation -- more like "send more troops in" than "bring the
troops home," to and from anywhere. It is more like energy policy in support of the military
policy, than military policy in support of the energy policy.
This sounds even better for the stockholders of Lockheed Martin and other weapons-firms than
for the stockholders of ExxonMobil and other extractive firms. On 6 March 2018, Xinhua News
Agency reported that, "U.S.
President Donald Trump's chief economic adviser Gary Cohn has summoned executives from U.S.
companies that depend on aluminum and steel to meet with Trump this Thursday, in a bid to
persuade the president to drop his tariff plan, media reported Tuesday." After all: Goldman has
warehouses full of aluminum, and has the futures-contracts which already commit the Wall Street
firm to particular manipulations in the aluminum (and other) markets. Controlling the
Government so that it does only what you want it to do, and only when you want the Government
to do it, is difficult. In any aristocracy, some members need to make compromises with
other members, no matter how united they all are against the publics' interests. This is the
way it's done -- by compromises with each other.
The US
Congress has revived
the so-called "NOPEC" bill
for countering OPEC and OPEC+.
Officially called the "
No
Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act
",
NOPEC is the definition of so-called
"lawfare" because it enables the US to extra-territorially impose its domestic legislation on
others by giving the government the right to sue OPEC and OPEC+ countries like Russia because of
their coordinated efforts to control oil prices.
Lawsuits, however, are
unenforceable
, which is why the targeted states'
refusal to abide by the US courts' likely predetermined judgement against them will probably be
used to trigger sanctions under the worst-case scenario, with this chain of events being catalyzed
in order to achieve several strategic objectives.
The first is that the US wants to break up the
Russian-Saudi
axis
that forms the core of OPEC+, which leads to the second goal of then unravelling the
entire OPEC structure and heralding in the free market liberalization of the global energy
industry.
This is decisively to the US' advantage as it seeks to become an energy-exporting superpower,
but it must neutralize its competition as much as possible before this happens, ergo the
declaration of economic-hybrid war through NOPEC. How it would work in practice is that the US
could threaten primary sanctions against the state companies involved in implementing OPEC and
OPEC+ agreements, after which these could then be selectively expanded to secondary sanctions
against other parties who continue to do business with them.
The purpose behind this approach is to intimidate the US' European vassals into
complying with its demands so as to make as much of the continent as possible a captive market of
America's energy exporters, which explains why Trump also wants to
scrap
LNG export licenses to the EU
.
If successful, this could further erode Europe's shrinking strategic independence and also
inflict long-term economic damage on the US' energy rivals that could then be exploited for
political purposes.
At the same time, America's recently unveiled "
Power
Africa
" initiative to
invest $175 billion
in gas projects
there could eventually see US companies in the emerging energy frontiers
of
Tanzania
,
Mozambique
,
and elsewhere become important suppliers to their country's Chinese rival, which could make
Beijing's access to energy even more dependent on American goodwill than ever before.
If looked at as the opening salvo of a global energy war being waged in parallel with the
trade
one
as opposed to being dismissed as the populist piece of legislation that it's being
portrayed as by the media,
NOPEC can be seen as the strategic superweapon that it
actually is,
with its ultimate effectiveness being dependent of course on whether it's
properly wielded by American decision makers.
It's too earlier to call it a game-changer because it hasn't even been promulgated
yet, but in the event that it ever is, then it might go down in history as the most impactful
energy-related development since OPEC, LNG, and fracking.
No way US can manipulate oil trade at this
point without hurting themselves or helping
their "enemies". Cause and effect, just think
it through.
The world needs energy, Russia has
energy...and a real surplus for sale. The US
is a net energy consumer with no surplus.
China needs energy in a big way. Trying to
cut off Russian and Iranian oil and trying to
blow up the Chinese economy are acts of war.
The West realizes there is no way they can
survive in their current status of moar with
that kind of competition out there. The
BRICST now constitute $17 trillion in
combined GDP. They have the energy sources
(Russia and Iran), they have the
manufacturing base (China), they have the
agricultural base (Russia, Brazil, South
Africa), and they have plenty of
customers.....even outside the BRICST union.
That is a formidable competitive force to
face when you are an economy structured on
infinite growth on a finite planet......that
you control less and less of each year.
The US Congress has revived the so-called "NOPEC" bill for countering OPEC and OPEC+.
Officially called the " No Oil Producing and
Exporting Cartels Act ", NOPEC is the definition of so-called "lawfare" because it enables
the US to extra-territorially impose its domestic legislation on others by giving the
government the right to sue OPEC and OPEC+ countries like Russia because of their coordinated
efforts to control oil prices.
Lawsuits, however, are unenforceable , which is why the targeted states' refusal to abide by
the US courts' likely predetermined judgement against them will probably be used to trigger
sanctions under the worst-case scenario, with this chain of events being catalyzed in order to
achieve several strategic objectives.
The first is that the US wants to break up the Russian-Saudi axis that
forms the core of OPEC+, which leads to the second goal of then unravelling the entire OPEC
structure and heralding in the free market liberalization of the global energy industry.
This is decisively to the US' advantage as it seeks to become an energy-exporting
superpower, but it must neutralize its competition as much as possible before this happens,
ergo the declaration of economic-hybrid war through NOPEC. How it would work in practice is
that the US could threaten primary sanctions against the state companies involved in
implementing OPEC and OPEC+ agreements, after which these could then be selectively expanded to
secondary sanctions against other parties who continue to do business with them.
The purpose behind this approach is to intimidate the US' European vassals into complying
with its demands so as to make as much of the continent as possible a captive market of
America's energy exporters, which explains why Trump also wants to scrap LNG export licenses to the EU .
If successful, this could further erode Europe's shrinking strategic independence and also
inflict long-term economic damage on the US' energy rivals that could then be exploited for
political purposes. At the same time, America's recently unveiled " Power Africa " initiative to invest $175 billion in gas projects there
could eventually see US companies in the emerging energy frontiers of Tanzania
,
Mozambique , and elsewhere become important suppliers to their country's Chinese rival,
which could make Beijing's access to energy even more dependent on American goodwill than ever
before.
If looked at as the opening salvo of a global energy war being waged in parallel with the
trade
one as opposed to being dismissed as the populist piece of legislation that it's being
portrayed as by the media, NOPEC can be seen as the strategic superweapon that it actually is,
with its ultimate effectiveness being dependent of course on whether it's properly wielded by
American decision makers.
It's too earlier to call it a game-changer because it hasn't even been promulgated yet, but
in the event that it ever is, then it might go down in history as the most impactful
energy-related development since OPEC, LNG, and fracking.
perated by high gasoline prices just ahead of the U.S. midterm elections, lawmakers in
Congress are trying to make it easier for the United States to sue OPEC. And unlike previous
failed efforts to go after the oil-exporting cartel, this time Congress will find a
sympathetic ear in the White House.
The bipartisan No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act, or NOPEC bill, would tweak U.S.
antitrust law to explicitly ban just the kind of collusive behavior that OPEC was created to
engage in. The bill, a carbon copy of previous legislation, makes illegal any activity to
restrain the production of oil or gas or set oil and gas prices and knocks away two legal
defenses that in the past have shielded OPEC from U.S. antitrust measures.
The international lawyers of Wall Street did not hide from each other their shared belief
that they understood better than Washington the requirements for running the world. As John
Foster Dulles wrote in the 1930s to a British colleague,
The word "cartel" has here assumed the stigma of a bogeyman which the politicians are
constantly attacking. The fact of the matter is that most of these politicians are highly
insular and nationalistic and because the political organization of the world has under such
influence been so backward, business people who have had to cope realistically with
international problems have had to find ways for getting through and around stupid political
barriers. 44
This same mentality also explains why Allen Dulles as an OSS officer in 1945 simply evaded
orders from Washington forbidding him to negotiate with SS General Karl Wolff about a
conditional surrender of German forces in Italy – an important breach of Roosevelt's
agreement with Stalin at Yalta for unconditional surrender, a breach that is regarded by many
as helping lead to the Cold War. 45 And it explains why Allen, as CIA Director in
1957, dealt summarily with Eisenhower's reluctance to authorize more than occasional U-2
overflights of the USSR, by secretly approving a plan with Britain's MI-6 whereby U-2 flights
could be authorized instead by the UK Prime Minister Macmillan. 46
This mentality exhibited itself in 1952, when Truman's Justice Department sought to break up
the cartel agreements whereby Standard Oil of New Jersey (now Exxon) and four other oil majors
controlled global oil distribution. (The other four were Standard Oil Company of New York,
Standard Oil of California or Socony, Gulf Oil, and Texaco; together with Royal Dutch Shell and
Anglo-Iranian, they comprised the so-called Seven Sisters of the cartel.) Faced with a
government order to hand over relevant documents, Exxon's lawyer Arthur Dean at Sullivan and
Cromwell, where Foster was senior partner, refused: "If it were not for the question of
national security, we would be perfectly willing to face either a criminal or a civil suit. But
this is the kind of information the Kremlin would love to get its hands on." 47
At this time the oil cartel was working closely with the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company
(AIOC, later BP) to prevent AIOC's nationalization by Iran's Premier Mossadeq, by instituting,
in May 1951, a successful boycott of Iranian oil exports.
In May 1951 the AIOC secured the backing of the other oil majors, who had every interest
in discouraging nationalisation.... None of the large companies would touch Iranian oil;
despite one or two picturesque episodes the boycott held. 48
As a result Iranian oil production fell from 241 million barrels in 1950 to 10.6 million
barrels in 1952.
This was accomplished by denying Iran the ability to export its crude oil. At that time,
the Seven Sisters controlled almost 99% of the crude oil tankers in the world for such
export, and even more importantly, the markets to which it was going. 49
But Truman declined, despite a direct personal appeal from Churchill, to have the CIA
participate in efforts to overthrow Mossadeq, and instead dispatched Averell Harriman to Tehran
in a failed effort to negotiate a peaceful resolution of Mossadeq's differences with London.
50
All this changed with the election of Eisenhower in November 1952, followed by the
appointment of the Dulles brothers to be Secretary of State and head of CIA. The Justice
Department's criminal complaint against the oil cartel was swiftly replaced by a civil suit,
from which the oil cartel eventually emerged unscathed. 51
Eisenhower, an open friend of the oil industry changed the charges from criminal to civil
and transferred responsibility of the case from the Department of Justice to the Department
of State – the first time in history that an antitrust case was handed to State for
prosecution. Seeing as how the Secretary of State was John Foster Dulles and the defense
counsel for the oil cartel was Dulles' former law firm (Sullivan and Cromwell), the case was
soon as good as dead. 52
Thereafter
Cooperative control of the world market by the major oil companies remained in effect,
with varying degrees of success, until the oil embargo of 1973-74. That the cooperation was
more than tacit can be seen by the fact that antitrust regulations were specifically set
aside a number of times during the 1950-1973 period, allowing the major companies to
negotiate as a group with various Mideastern countries, and after its inception [in 1960],
with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries or OPEC. 53
Also in November 1952 CIA officials began planning to involve CIA in the efforts of MI6 and
the oil companies in Iran 54 -- although its notorious Operation TP/AJAX to
overthrow Mossadeq was not finally approved by Eisenhower until July 22, 1953.
55
The events of 1953 strengthened the role of the oil cartel as a structural component of the
American deep state, drawing on its powerful connections to both Wall Street and the CIA.
56 (Another such component was the Arabian-American Oil Company or ARAMCO in Saudi
Arabia, which increased oil production in 1951-53 to offset the loss of oil from Iran. Until it
was fully nationalized in 1980, ARAMCO maintained undercover CIA personnel like William Eddy
among its top advisors.) 57 The five American oil majors in particular were also
strengthened by the success of AJAX, as Anglo-Iranian (renamed BP) was henceforth forced to
share 40 percent of the oil from its Iran refinery with them.
Nearly all recent accounts of Mossadeq's overthrow treat it as a covert intelligence
operation, with the oil cartel (when mentioned at all) playing a subservient role. However the
chronology, and above all the belated approval from Eisenhower, suggest that it was CIA that
came belatedly in 1953 to assist an earlier oil cartel operation, rather than vice versa. In
terms of the deep state, the oil cartel or deep state initiated in 1951 a process that the
American public state only authorized two years later. Yet the inevitable bias in academic or
archival historiography, working only with those primary sources that are publicly available,
is to think of the Mossadeq tragedy as simply a "CIA coup."
VK
I posted the sequence of events used to create the petro dollar back in the 2018-33
thread.
Will post them again here as this thread concerns Kissinger.
More specifics can be added to this planned sequence of events, this just the basics.
...........
In the late 1960s, US found oil at Prudhoe bay and by 1970 it was a proved crude oil
reserve.
Due to environmental and other legal challenges, construction of the pipeline was held up.
In late 1972 the US Secretary of the Interior declares the trans-Alaska pipeline to be in
the US national interest
1973-74. OPEC oil embargo due to US backing of Israel pushes oil prices up in an initial
rise.
1973 (OPEC oil embargo) The Trans-Alaska pipeline Authorization Act legislation is quickly
pushed through. Signed by Nixon on November 16 1973. This blocked all further challenges
allowing construction to begin. pdf
Late 1973 Nixon along with Saudi Arabia create the petro dollar beginning in 1974.
1979-80 the price of oil skyrockets due to the Iranian revolution. The US is now the
global economic hegemon as all countries now need US dollars to purchase oil.
I have read that Kissinger withheld information from both Nixon and Israel, but have not
followed that line of research.
Here is a piece from an official Kissinger biography. You can see here he was working both
sides.
https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/people/kissinger-henry-a
Kissinger entered the State Department just two weeks before Egypt and Syria launched a
surprise attack on Israel. The October War of 1973 played a major role in shaping Kissinger's
tenure as Secretary. First, he worked to ensure Israel received an airlift of U.S. military
supplies. This airlift helped Israel turn the war in Israel's favor, and it also led members
of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to initiate an oil embargo
against the United States. After the implementation of a United Nation's sponsored ceasefire,
Kissinger began a series of "shuttle diplomacy" missions, in which he traveled between
various Middle East capitals to reach disengagement agreements between the enemy combatants.
These efforts produced an agreement in January 1974 between Egypt and Israel and in May 1974
between Syria and Israel. Additionally, Kissinger's efforts contributed to OPEC's decision to
lift the embargo.
It is noticeable that Trump's US attack any Syrian forces coming too close to US occupied
zones of al Tanf and Dier Ezzor. Also Trumps takeover of the Deir Ezzor oilfields where US
forces simply set up bases or forward posts in the ISIS occupied area.
Under Trump, US has set up a number of new bases in Syria. On the other hand, no concern
about Afrin and Manbij. The Deir Ezzor area is Arab tribes and this and al Hasakah
(Kurd/Arab?) is the top end of the Persian Gulf/Mesopotamia oil field.
US now controls al Hasakah and half of Deir Ezzor province. The have been ongoing efforts
by the US under Trump to take Al Bukamal. US has a base just south of Al Bukamal in Iraq. US
bases are now thick throughout Mesopotamia, with more being built.
Also a new base being installed in Kuwait.
The US controls the Arab shore of the Persian gulf, it now has many bases in Iraq and
Syria. The only thing missing is the oil rich strip of Iran running alongside the Persian
gulf and Mesopotamia.
Putin/Russia is also the only entity that can prevent Trump's US from simply walking in and
taking over the rich energy hub (Mafia style) to the south of Eurasia.
Notable quotes:
"... Global Energy Dominance is now part of the US National security Strategy. Although not labeled as global, when reading through the energy dominance section of the NSS, it can clearly been seen to be global. This is not just about sell oil produced in the US. ..."
"... Trump is going for the Achilles heel of Eurasia - energy. Rather than a creative accounting scam that simply racks up huge amounts of debt, Trump is looking for a monopoly or near monopoly business to take over and rake in the profits. ..."
"... Russia supply energy to Eurasia from the North. The opening for the Trump mob is in the south. The meet with Putin may well be to sound out the possibilities of forming a cartel. ..."
"... Yes, it absolutely is. But this is not a new "Trump policy." Certainly Zbiginew Brzezenski laid this out quite clearly in his 1997 book, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives." It's really all in there, just as you're now identifying. If you can't take the time to read it, please consider at least reading some book reviews. As I've noted before, Ziggy apparently didn't foresee Putin rising to power and restoring the Russian state, which threw the proverbial monkey wrench into the globalists' plans, but really, US foreign policy has continued to follow his plans otherwise. ..."
The latest article at the Saker site by Rostislav Ishchenko - Trump's Geopolitical Cruise
- I think is the best take on Trump's and his backers mindset. Worth a read and covers what I
think was the cause of the split in the US elite.
The petro dollar, kicking off in the late 70s was a piece of creative accounting to give
unlimited credit. This should have been ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but
greed got the better of most. Trump and the people backing him could see that this was now in
its terminal stages and US close to collapse itself.
Rostislav Ishchenko, like many thinks that Trump is pulling the US back to a form of
isolation from the world, but I don't think this is the case.
Global Energy Dominance is now part of the US National security Strategy. Although not
labeled as global, when reading through the energy dominance section of the NSS, it can
clearly been seen to be global. This is not just about sell oil produced in the US.
Trump is going for the Achilles heel of Eurasia - energy. Rather than a creative accounting scam that simply racks up huge amounts of debt, Trump is
looking for a monopoly or near monopoly business to take over and rake in the profits.
Russia supply energy to Eurasia from the North. The opening for the Trump mob is in the
south. The meet with Putin may well be to sound out the possibilities of forming a cartel.
Putin/Russia is also the only entity that can prevent Trump's US from simply walking in
and taking over the rich energy hub (Mafia style) to the south of Eurasia.
"Global Energy Dominance is now part of the US National security Strategy."
Yes, it absolutely is. But this is not a new "Trump policy." Certainly Zbiginew Brzezenski
laid this out quite clearly in his 1997 book, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its
Geostrategic Imperatives." It's really all in there, just as you're now identifying. If you
can't take the time to read it, please consider at least reading some book reviews. As I've
noted before, Ziggy apparently didn't foresee Putin rising to power and restoring the Russian
state, which threw the proverbial monkey wrench into the globalists' plans, but really, US
foreign policy has continued to follow his plans otherwise.
Kissinger has written much the same, though I don't recall in which books/articles. This
page from the US Navy seems a fine reading list, designed as it appears to indoctrinate
officers in AZ Empire geopolitics.
IMO, the US took the lead in the Empire's Global Energy Dominance quest when FDR met with
King Saud on Great Bitter Lake in the Suez Canal in 1945 (swinging by after the final
post-war world planning meeting with Churchill and Stalin at Yalta). This was when the US
largely replaced Great Britain in primacy over Asian/Middle Eastern energy dominance.
The US is in the Persian Gulf to stay. Trumps face face meet with Putin will be so Trump
can try and gauge what Putin will do - if he will run any blocking moves, his reaction to a
fait accompli ect. Most likely a few more face to face meetings before any move on Iran.
Peter, thanks for pointing out the new and unwanted US base in Iraq. I just read that the US
was building the world's largest Embassy Compound in "Iraqi Kurdistan." I wonder it they're
the same thing?
In a quick web search, failing to find an answer, I noticed that besides the "Green Zone"
compound we built in Baghdad at the start of the current military occupation, the record
holder was the US Embassy Compound in Pakistan.
James and I have discoursed here a bit on the history of US military occupations since WW
II. Boils down to the US has never removed its military from any country it's occupied with
the exception of Vietnam.
veritas semper vincit @103 linked blogpost notes that the US has 40,000 troops still
occupying Germany. His (I presume) post is quite entertaining considering the severe
seriousness of the topic.
Dis is a nice little country ya gotz heyah. Id be a shame if sumpin' bad was ta happen to
it.
The USA elite might now want abandoning of GATT and even WTO as it does not like the results. That single fraud on the west has
had catastrophically perverse consequences for the coterie of killer's future and all because the designers of GATT had never thought
outside the square of economics and failed utterly to grasp the gift of scientific and manufacturing politics.
Notable quotes:
"... The US still depends heavily on oil importation -- it is not "independent" in any manner whatsoever. Here's the most current data while this chart shows importation history since 1980. ..."
"... the only time a biological or economic entity can become energy independent is upon its death when it no longer requires energy for its existence. ..."
"... A big part of the US move into the middle east post WWII was that they needed a strategic reserve for time of war and also they could see US consumption growing far larger than US production. ..."
"... The USA of WAR may have oil independence, but it is temporary. The race is on for release from oil dependency and China intends to win in my view. It is setting ambitious targets to move to electric vehicles and mass transit. That will give it a technology dominance, and perhaps a resource dominance in the EV sphere. We are in the decade of major corporate struggles and defensive maneuverings around China investments in key EV sectors. ..."
"... In ten to twenty years' time the energy story could well be significantly different. The USA and its coterie of killers are still fighting yesterday's war, yesterday's hatred of all things Russian, yesterday's energy monopoly. ..."
"... I don't believe that the USA of WAR has changed or even intends to change the way they play their 'game'. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade set the trajectory for technology transfer, fabrication skills transfer, growth of academic and scientific achievement in 'other' countries (China, Russia etc). Their thoughts in the GATT deal were trade = economics = oligarchy = good. ..."
"... That single fraud on the west has had catastrophically perverse consequences for the coterie of killer's future and all because the designers of GATT had never thought outside the square of economics and failed utterly to grasp the gift of scientific and manufacturing politics. ..."
"... Canada and the gulf monarchies are the only countries with large reserves that are not hostile as yet to the US. As the US no longer is totally reliant on imports to meet its consumption, Saudi's, Bahrain and co are now expendable assets. ..."
The US still depends heavily on oil importation -- it is not "independent" in any manner whatsoever.
Here's the most current data
while this chart shows importation
history since 1980.
As I've said before, the only time a biological or economic entity can become energy independent is upon its death when
it no longer requires energy for its existence.
What I am looking at are strategic reserves, not how much oil is currently produced. With shale it now has those reserves and
shale oil I think is now at the point where production could quickly ramp up to full self sufficiency if required. Even if the
US were producing as much oil as they consumed, they would still be importing crude and exporting refined products.
A big part of the US move into the middle east post WWII was that they needed a strategic reserve for time of war and also
they could see US consumption growing far larger than US production.
@Peter AU 1 #28 Thank you for that stimulating post. I just have to respond. And thanks to b and all the commenters here, it is
my daily goto post.
The USA of WAR may have oil independence, but it is temporary. The race is on for release from oil dependency and China intends
to win in my view. It is setting ambitious targets to move to electric vehicles and mass transit. That will give it a technology
dominance, and perhaps a resource dominance in the EV sphere. We are in the decade of major corporate struggles and defensive
maneuverings around China investments in key EV sectors.
In ten to twenty years' time the energy story could well be significantly different. The USA and its coterie of killers
are still fighting yesterday's war, yesterday's hatred of all things Russian, yesterday's energy monopoly.
I don't believe that the USA of WAR has changed or even intends to change the way they play their 'game'. The General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade set the trajectory for technology transfer, fabrication skills transfer, growth of academic and scientific
achievement in 'other' countries (China, Russia etc). Their thoughts in the GATT deal were trade = economics = oligarchy = good.
That single fraud on the west has had catastrophically perverse consequences for the coterie of killer's future and all
because the designers of GATT had never thought outside the square of economics and failed utterly to grasp the gift of scientific
and manufacturing politics.
By gross ignorance and foolish under-investment, the USA of WAR and its coterie of killers have eaten their future at their
people's expense.
Light sweet vs heavy sour. Light means it contains a lot of diesel/petrol. Sweet means low sulphur. Many oils are heavy sour.
Canada sand. the stuff they get from that is thick bitumen with high sulpher. The sulpher needs to be removed and the bitumen
broken down into light fuels like diesel and petrol.
Canada and the gulf monarchies are the only countries with large reserves that are not hostile as yet to the US. As the
US no longer is totally reliant on imports to meet its consumption, Saudi's, Bahrain and co are now expendable assets.
The great game for the US now is control or denial. Access to oil as a strategically critical resource is no longer a factor
for the US.
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality judiciously, as
you will we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're
history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." Karl Rove.
The squealing and consternation coming from the UK indicates that the empire has changed course and the UK is left sitting
on its own shit pile.
"... The great power game is why there is continuity of government policy in the 'US west' no matter who is elected. Within the great power game democracy in the west is meaningless. ..."
"... If the US is changing how it plays the game, then the Brit players may be getting desperate. They are now small players but unlike the US do not have an oil reserve. ..."
"... This may be the reason the Brits have ramped up the propaganda to the ridiculous and also why they have attempted to take down Trump. ..."
Loot is only a side benefit for post WWII wars and no doubt before. Oil is energy and energy
means power to those that control it. UK, French, US have fucked the MENA region over simple
for control of the oil.
Working to prevent communism, socialism, democracy and pan Arab
movements which are all a threat to FUKUS control of MENA, and then pulling the same dirty
tricks on each other. Russia has its own all and through the Soviet era seems to have only
dabbled in the region.
China needs to import energy and so the great power game of controlling
or denying access to energy continues.
karlof1 @ 3 said"Criminality mostly driven by Greed."
james @ 5 said: "trump isn't much different or he would be addressing this too..."
Two bottom line truths, that are apparent...
As always, profits "trump" humanity. How to change that mindset? I for one, don't know,
but, the so called "religious" among us, should ask themselves that same question. IMO,
religion is, as practiced, mostly crowd control..
The great power game is why there is continuity of government policy in the 'US west' no
matter who is elected. Within the great power game democracy in the west is meaningless.
with USA's new found oil independence, the direction they take may change from the last 70
years or so.
Another recent change is the rise of current Russia and their vision of a multi polar
world, also the rise of China.
If the US is changing how it plays the game, then the Brit
players may be getting desperate. They are now small players but unlike the US do not have an
oil reserve.
This may be the reason the Brits have ramped up the propaganda to the ridiculous and also
why they have attempted to take down Trump.
There is a narrative that oil demand will soon begin dropping due to widespread use of EV.
1 million EV just replaces 14,000 BOPD of demand. Conservatively assuming those one
million EV require $40K per unit of CAPEX, just to replace 14,000 BOPD of demand took $40
billion of CAPEX.
Likewise, to replace 1.4 million BOPD of demand via EV would take $4 trillion of
CAPEX.
Worldwide demand has been growing somewhere between 1.2-2.0 million BOPD annually,
depending on who one believes.
See where I am going with this? How do the EV disruption proponents explain away the
massive CAPEX required just to cause oil demand to flatten, let alone render it near
obsolete?
The average US car gets 25 mpg and travels 12,500 miles per year for 500 gallons of gasoline
per year.
Refineries in the US produce 20 gallons of gasoline per barrel of oil.
That gives 69,000 BOPD per day reduction per million EV cars in the US and 110,000 BOPD oil
equivalent energy due to the multiple energies put into gasoline and distillate
production.
At current rates of EV sales growth the US will reach 50 million EV cars by 2031. That should
put he US to being mostly independent of external oil for gasoline by mid 2030's and
It's tough to predict a complete transition in the US since cars as a service could greatly
reduce the numbers of cars needed, especially in dense population areas. That would mean a
much earlier transition.
If US ICE cars trend upward in mpg during that time, the demand for oil could be quite low
by the early 2030's.
All depends on continuation of trends, for which the auto manufacturers seem to be on board.
Just have to get the public charging infrastructure out ahead of the trend.
Here is an interesting article, from a couple of years ago, showing the trend and sales at
that time.
Cars get replaced all the time and the cost of new EVs will fall over time to the same
price as ICEV, so it's simply a matter of replacing the ICEV currently sold with EVs over
time, in addition cars can get better gas mileage (50 MPG in a Prius vs 35 MPG in a Toyota
Corolla or 25 MPG in a Camry.) There's also plug in hybrids like the Honda Clarity (47 miles
batttery range) or Prius Prime(25 mile range on battery) these have an ICE for when the
battery is used up.
If oil prices rise in the short term to over $100/b (probably around 2022 to 2030), there
will be demand for other types of transport besides a pure ICEV.
EVs and plugin hybrids will become cheaper as manufacturing is scaled up due to economies
of scale.
Surprising stuff. Huge oil consumption growth rates in Eastern Europe. 8+% growth %s in
Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia. Something weird going on because Romania and Slovenia
didn't show the same thing.
Western Africa grew consumption of oil 13% last year. I'll add a !!!!. East Africa about 6%.
Both are over 600K bpd, so that growth rate is not on tiny burn.
Poland's official oil consumption growth is caused by better fighting with illegal, and
unregistered fuel imports since mid 2016. When taxes are 50% of fuel price, there is big
incentive for illegal activities. Real oil consumption probably didn't increase much.
Poland, Czech and Slovakia are going through a huge economic boom now (I live in Slovakia and
party in Czech Republic). It's visible everywhere, there wasn't this much spending and
employment ever in the last 28 years
Oil demand is mostly determined by GDP growth, oil price has a minor influence on short term
demand. World GDP grew by about 5% from 2016 to 2017 according to the IMF, so oil demand
increased by 1.8% possibly less than one would expect. Real GDP (at market exchange rates)
grew by about 3% in 2017.
The idea behind peak demand is simply that oil supply may at some point become relatively
abundant relative to demand in the future (date unknown). When and if that occurs, OPEC may
become worried that their oil resources will never be used and will begin to fight for market
share by increasing production and driving down the price of oil to try to spur demand. That
is the theory, I think we are probably 20 to 40 years from reaching that point for
conventional oil.
Oil still contributes quite a bit to carbon emissions and while I agree coal use needs to
be reduced (as carbon emissions per unit of exergy is higher for coal than oil), I would
think it may be possible to work on reducing both coal and oil use at the same time. Using
electric rail combined with electric trucks, cars and busses could reduce quite a bit of
carbon emissions from land transport, ships and air transport may be more difficult.
It's better to sell half of your ressources for 90$ / barrel than all at 30$ / barrel.
The gulf states will always have cheap production costs at their side, they will earn more
at each price of oil. Why not make big money, especially when at lower production speed the
production costs are much lower (less expensive infrastructure).
And in the first case you can sell chemical feedstock for a few 100 years ongoing for a
good coin. Theocracies and Kingdoms plan sometimes for a long time. When you bail out
everything at sale prices, you end with nothing ( and even no profit).
You assume half the resource can be sold at $90/b, at some point in the future oil supply
may be greater than demand at a price of $90/b, so at $90/b no oil is sold and revenue is
zero.
In a situation of over supply there will be competition for customers and the supply will
fall to the point where supply and demand are matched. Under those conditions OPEC may decide
to drive higher cost producers out of business and take market share, oil price will fall to
the cost of the most expensive (marginal) barrel that satisfies World demand.
I don't think we are close to reaching this point, but perhaps by 2035 or 2040 alternative
transport may have ramped to the point where World demand for oil falls below World Supply of
oil at $90/b and the oil price will gradually drop to a level where supply and demand
match.
India's oil consumption growth was only 2.9%. Derives from their monetary debacle early in
the year. We should see signs of whether or not that corrects back to their much higher norm
before next year.
China consumption growth 4%. Higher than India. Clearly an aberration.
KSA consumption actually declined fractionally, which allows Japan to still be ahead of them
in consumption.
US consumption growth 1%. So much for EV silliness.
"... According to US Energy Department figures, China imports approximately 363,000 barrels of US crude oil daily. The country also imports about 200,000 barrels a day of other petroleum products including propane. ..."
Just as China topped the list of nations buying US oil, Beijing – retaliating to
unilateral Trump economic threats – sent jitters through energy markets on Friday by
threatening new tariffs on natural gas, crude oil and many other energy products.
On Friday, Beijing threatened to impose tariffs on US energy products in response to $50
billion in tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump. Such tariffs would inhibit Chinese
refiners from buying US crude imports, potentially crashing US energy markets and hitting the
fossil fuel industry where it hurts the most: in shareholder approval.
"This is a big deal. China is essentially the largest customer for US crude now, and so for
crude it's an issue, let alone when you involve [refined] products, too. This is obviously a
big development," Matt Smith, director of commodity research at ClipperData, told Reuters.
According to US Energy Department figures, China imports approximately 363,000 barrels of US
crude oil daily. The country also imports about 200,000 barrels a day of other petroleum
products including propane.
The US energy industry has seen its profits boosted by fracking in domestic shale fields,
which produce some 10.9 million barrels of oil per day.
The US is also exporting a record 2 million barrels per day, and encouraging countries like
China to import more US energy products instead of those from Iran, after Trump recently
withdrew from the historic Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) 2015 nuclear arms deal
with Tehran.
China is currently the largest buyer of Iranian oil as well, purchasing some 650,000 barrels
daily during the first quarter of 2018.
According to Bernadette Johnson with the Denver, Colorado, energy consultancy Drilling info,
tariffs will increase prices for other petroleum products including propane and liquefied
natural gas.
"The constant back-and-forth about the tariffs creates a lot of market uncertainty that
makes it harder to sell cargoes or sign long-term [trade] deals," Johnson noted, cited by
Reuters.
In late March, the White House slapped trade sanctions on China, the world's second largest
economy, including limitations in the investment sector as well as tariffs on $60 billion worth
of products.
Citing "fairness" considerations, Trump referred to the car market, stating that China
charged a tariff ten times higher on US cars than the US did on the few Chinese cars sold in
the US.
Separately, in a bid to deliver on campaign promises, Trump announced his intention to
impose a 25-percent tariff on steel imports and a 10-percent tariff on aluminum imports from an
array of US allies, including the EU, Mexico and Canada. Those nations -- longtime allies to
the US -- have promised retaliatory economic measures.
Trump has also reportedly mulled placing a 25-percent import tax on European cars, something
that would significantly affect the highly-profitable US market for expensive German
automobiles.
"... North Korea's negotiating position has not really changed with the announcement. They have repeatedly said for years they are willing to agree to denuclearization of the Peninsula in return for security guarantees. I find the media trumpeting this as a new development rather vexing. Anyways, China has been putting the screws on them since about September/October (Apparently, they told Kim Jongun they know they can't overthrow the DPRK government, but they can get rid of him personally), which is also why there have not been any new nuclear tests. ..."
"... I think Yves has got it right: USA threatens PRC with tariffs, so PRC pressures NK to make concessions to the USA. i.e. Two big guys screwing the little guy. ..."
"... In the USA, imperialist machtpolitik is a thoroughly bipartisan affair. It doesn't matter how faithfully NK or PRC might fulfill obligations. Trump's successors, whoever they may be, will simply apply more pressure and demand more concessions. They won't stop until somebody else stops them. ..."
I believe Trump could negotiate a deal. But I also believe he could blow up the whole talk
before it even happens. He has shown that he'll bend quickly to neocon pressure, with
increased interest in foreign war (Bolton hiring) and the ramping up of hostilities by
bouncing Russians from the U.S. over the phony poisoning story in the UK.
I don't disagree with your comment, but not comfortable with the term "bend to". Trump
gets enamored with different people at different times, but he always is looking
down at them. They may get enough rope to scare the rest of us, but they are still on a
rope.
Bolton is horrible, but a lot of other horrible people have come and gone in this really
quick year.
Bolton is horrible but probably won't last long. Nobody at Trump's ear has, including his
own children.
Trump just announced that we're withdrawing from Syria. That's more than Obama ever
did.
Part of being a nationalist demagogue is that you're not as interested in foreign wars
unless they enrich the country. Not a single one of our wars does that. There's nothing
interesting in mercantilism, for instance, that we can't do at home (drill baby drill).
I'm not saying I agree with that view, I'm just saying that if he's a nationalist
demagogue, it only follows that he's not interested in, uh, "non-for-profit warmaking".
I am NO Trump fan or voter, but it does appear that he's the first one to apply sanctions
to those specific Chinese banks handling the trade with North Korea.
(Somewhat) OT, but it strikes me that the best way to look at Trump is through the lense
of what he is – the US version of Sylvio Berlusconi. A sleazy billionaire Oligarch with
no core principles and a fondness for Bunga Bunga parties.
Rather than as LITERALLY HITLER as per the verbiage of hashtag the resistance.
Thus, rather than as a crazed madman bent on "evil" at all times one wonders whether Mr.
Bunga Bunga would do a deal with Lil' Kim. Sure he would, assuming that the ruling military
Junta allows him to. It might be in the interest of the latter to de-escalate this particular
hotspot (as NK crisis/hype fatigue may set in) and simply push Iran as the next flashpoint to
hype.
Indeed! They even sound quite similar -- I recall in a speech that Berlusconi gave when he
was still the Italian president and the Italian left was screaming for his resignation,
Sylvio claimed such demands were making him uneasy, since if he was to go home, and he had 20
homes, it would be difficult for him to decide which house or mansion to go to!
It seems the bottom line for negotiations with North Korea have little to do with this
article which covers Trump's thoughts on nuclear proliferation between major powers that have
massive stockpiles.
North Korea is mainly interested in protecting itself from regime change and from becoming
a US outpost (as in target) butt up against China. It is hard to believe that Kim Jong-Un
would get any advantage whatsoever out of dismantling his nuclear arsenal, however small. One
assumes he is aware of Gaddafi in particular and US's track record on keeping it's promises
– particularly over the span of different administrations – in general.
The above comment assumes full disarmament as the minimum condition of any "negotiation"
since Trump has gone so far out of his way to make that clear.
Oh, and now see the lead story at the Financial Times, China uses economic muscle to bring
N Korea to negotiating table:
China virtually halted exports of petroleum products, coal and other key materials to
North Korea in the months leading to this week's unprecedented summit between Kim Jong Un,
the North Korean leader, and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping.
The export freeze -- revealed in official Chinese data and going much further than the
limits stipulated under UN sanctions -- shows the extent of Chinese pressure following the
ramping up of Pyongyang's nuclear testing programme. It also suggests that behind Mr Xi's
talk this week of a "profound revolutionary friendship" between the two nations, his
government has been playing hard ball with its neighbour.
I would normally agree but Kim Jong-Un was just summoned to China. Not even given a state
visit. The Chinese announced North Korea would denuclearlize:
North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un pledged his commitment to denuclearization and to meet
U.S. officials, China said on Wednesday after his meeting with President Xi Jinping, who
promised China would uphold friendship with its isolated neighbour.
China has heretofore pretended that it couldn't do anything about North Korea. It looks
like Trump's tariff threat extracted China jerking Kim Jong-Un's chain as a concession. I
don't see how Kim Jong-Un can defy China if China is serious about wanting North Korea to
denuclearlize. Maybe it will merely reduce its arsenal and stop threatening Hawaii (even
though its ability to deliver rockets that far is in doubt) and just stick to being able to
light up Seoul instead.
Agree. I wasn't aware of the details you mention above regarding the export freeze. (I
won't use Google and my normal 'trick' doesn't work to get around FT's paywall – and I
won't use the trial membership either). I'm hopeless.
Anyway, you make a very convincing case. I can only imagine that Kim Jong Un is one
miserable scared rat. My point about a "silk noose" below was perhaps on the mark.
Kim might agree on paper or through an insincere promise to denuclearize, but I don't see
a closed authoritarian regime like the North agreeing to an inspection regime that would
insure that such a pledge would be lived up to. Reduction, but build-up on the sly w/o
inspections.
China may be interested in a deal to the extent that it prevents a bloody war breaking out
that they'll probably expend manpower to help clean up and it insures the security of a North
Korean buffer that keeps American troops off their border; After all, they've got to keep the
powder dry for "reunification" with Taiwan.
I also don't believe that the US would agree to concessions, such as removing American
troops from the peninsula. the pentagon wouldn't like it, the hawks around Trumps wouldn't
like it, and I believe the SK leadership would not be too crazy about the potential
ramifications for their security with such an agreement.
But, can Trump (by extension, the US), make an agreement that can be relied on over its
term?
For any hope of NK trusting any deal with the US he would have to stand by the Iranian
deal. Then there's Bolton and the Neocon Will To War, for deeply pathological reasons which
by nature cannot be debated.
In this case, the mere possibility of a "deal" is possible, but only if there is a third
party to hold both of them to it.
That's the crazy thing about this. What possible inducement could Kim Jong-Un have gotten
to attend his own funeral? Why would anyone trust the US an inch?
I suppose if he can keep his own people in a suspended state of extreme propaganda, then
he might be vulnerable to his own medicine, but that seems at odds with his behavior so far
(such as the assassination of his uncle). If anything, he would be especially leery of
anything coming out of the US.
And then can he really be that psyched out by Bolton, Pompeo and Torture Lady so
that good cop Trump can hand him is own death certificate with a space for his signature?
Whatever happened during this China trip, the overarching theme must have been how to
manage the US. Here's one rough scenario:
NK 'disarms' to some definition, under the auspices of China, acquiring in return an
explicit Chinese security umbrella for the buffer it presents between them and SK. Nobody
really wants a unified Korea in any case. In return, the US vacates SK militarily, ever so
discretely and over time.
Done correctly, and with the finesse necessary for Trump, China is in a position to
extract all sorts of concessions from the US on other fronts as well. Nothing positive is
going to happen here without China, and they hold most of the cards. If nothing positive
happens, we have to consider the pressure that'd build on Trump to do something, anything,
and that probably being something rash. (Better a big disaster over there than a mammoth one
over here thinking).
"he can't go willy nilly and set nukes a-flying just because it struck him as a good idea
that day."
I mean sure. His "button" isn't literally connected to a missile somewhere, but he sure as
hell can ask that nukes be fired whenever and wherever he wants. You could argue that someone
in the chain of command would prevent that from happening, but that's more of a hope than a
guarantee. For a really good read on how this all works and the history of the nuclear
program I highly recommend https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788
With Bolton on board and seemingly everyone with half a brain, a little logic and the
ability to hold their tongue for more than about 5 seconds out, I highly doubt anything will
come of these negotiations. In fact, I'm more worried that the US will get steamrolled by
China and NK.
That isn't true. See the link I provided, which you clearly did not bother to read.
Various people can refuse his order as illegal. Former Secretary of State Jim Baker, in a
Financial Times, before Trump was elected, said the same thing. Bolton is the National
Security Adviser. He may have a lot of informal power by having direct access to the
President, but he does not tie in to the formal chain of command, either at the DoD or
State.
Oh I read it and I've read many other articles and a lot of non-fiction on the issue.
Again, I would call your position and the position of this article hopeful at best. Trump has
the football, he has the codes in his jacket pocket and everyone responsible for carrying out
the order to launch has been raised up through a military system that ensures no one
questions an order from their superior. Relying on various people to refuse his order as
illegal in this system is not a fail-safe I feel comfortable with. I do find it interesting
that you just assume I didn't read the article as if this one article is the end all be all
on the subject.
The article seems a bit confused about what it's trying to say. Stopping nuclear
proliferation has been a major policy priority of the US and other western governments since
the 1960s, and if I recall correctly it was one of Bolton's priorities when he was in Bush
the Lesser's administration. It's something in which all of the declared nuclear powers have
an interest, because the smaller the number of nuclear powers in the world, the greater the
difference between them and the rest. This is much more important than wild fantasies about
rogue attacks: if N Korea becomes a de facto nuclear power like India, Israel and Pakistan,
then all sorts of other countries might be tempted to have a go, starting with S Korea (which
has the capacity and has been caught cheating before). Whilst this risk is objectively small,
an end to the NK programme would make it even smaller. I suspect the deal will be that NK
denuclearizes and China guarantees its security: a non-nuclear NK will be even more of a
client state than it is now.
Nuclear competition among the superpowers is quite different and involves a whole set of
different issues.
Less warfare = more wall
But remember the last time Trump said something in Syria's favor? A chemical attack happened
in small village for no logical reason and the hawks immediately took to framing Assad. Trump
then backed off and took harder line on Assad, launching missiles into Syria.
So I'm inclined to think he wants a deal. But look out for screaming hawks immediately
trying to scuttle anything.
Perhaps 30 years ago, Trump was an international defense luminary, but I see little
evidence of the boasted emotional control and cool Trump claimed. He is unarguably a
successful grifter. Is that what it takes to make peace? What happens when the other guy
realizes he has been lied to by a congenital liar? Back to square 1.
In my take, the recent meeting between the heads of China and N Korea just Trumped any
leverage the US might have had in peace talks. Trump will be there only if a scapegoat is
needed. Both S. Korea and Japan have expressed doubts about our reliability as a defense
shield against powerful China – Japan and the Koreans' neighbor. What Little Rocketman
has likely achieved is diplomatically checkmating the US. Now Trump's tariff threats serve
only to push US allies in the region closer to China. Should that turn out to be the case,
the economic repercussions are as dangerous and unpredictable as nukes in the air or as Trump
himself. I sure hope I got this all wrong.
"no enduring principles" is a feature of politicians everywhere today. Their concern is to
represent the rich and their qualification is to present those biased arguments in a way that
beguiles the electorate into supposing its a good idea for them as well. Step Two is the "who
would have thought it?" response after the country catches on.
In former times the candidate for public office would assert his principles on the
hustings and the voters would remember what they knew of him before voting. Sure, there were
ambitious unreliable people who were willing to exchange their reputations for office but
they were few. We should get back to those days.
We allowed our merchants and spooks to drive USSR to the precipice without any thoughts
about the nukes they had. It appeared then that warheads supposedly in Ukraine were missing.
We will likely discover what happened to them in due course. It is possible that surveillance
of communications is the main reason they are not a thread for the time being but that does
not mean they have dropped out of existence.
Thank you NC for introducing an issue that should concern economists as much as everyone
else.
North Korea's negotiating position has not really changed with the announcement. They have
repeatedly said for years they are willing to agree to denuclearization of the Peninsula in
return for security guarantees. I find the media trumpeting this as a new development rather
vexing. Anyways, China has been putting the screws on them since about September/October
(Apparently, they told Kim Jongun they know they can't overthrow the DPRK government, but
they can get rid of him personally), which is also why there have not been any new nuclear
tests.
Don't forget the United States has itself promised to denuclearize, under the NPT.
It would certainly bring me great pleasure if Trump of all people were to bring about some
great positive change in regards to the Forever War with North Korea. Imagine all the whining
liberals if Trump, unlike Obama, actually did something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.
I think Yves has got it right: USA threatens PRC with tariffs, so PRC pressures NK to make
concessions to the USA. i.e. Two big guys screwing the little guy.
PRC and NK leaders might think that all they have to do is get through a short patch of
bad weather until 2020. If so, they are badly kidding themselves.
In the USA, imperialist machtpolitik is a thoroughly bipartisan affair. It doesn't
matter how faithfully NK or PRC might fulfill obligations. Trump's successors, whoever they
may be, will simply apply more pressure and demand more concessions. They won't stop until
somebody else stops them.
China's rise has made the US fear the loss of its role as the sole superpower. And the
neoliberal elite fights back. That replays on a new level rift of the USSR and China in the
past.
... the plan to impose 25 per cent tariffs on $60bn of (as yet, unspecified) Chinese exports
to the US shows the aggression of Mr Trump's trade agenda. The proposed tariffs are just one of
several actions aimed at China's technology-related policies. These include a case against
China at the World Trade Organization and a plan to impose new restrictions on its investments
in US technology companies.
The objectives of these US actions are unclear. Is it merely to halt alleged misbehaviour,
such as forced transfers -- or outright theft -- of intellectual property? Or, as the labelling
of China as a "strategic competitor" suggests, is it to halt China's technological progress
altogether -- an aim that is unachievable and certainly non-negotiable. Mr Trump also
emphasised the need for China to slash its US bilateral trade surplus by $100bn. Indeed, his
rhetoric implies that trade should balance with each partner. This aim is, once again, neither
achievable nor negotiable.
...A still more pessimistic view is that trade discussions will break down in a cycle of
retaliation, perhaps as part of broader hostilities.
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia."
Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some point
the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and borrowing
capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they would become
bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics manufacture,
herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial Civilisation.
In anticipation of increasing Crude Oil imports, Nixon stopped the convertibility of
Dollars into Gold, thus making the Dollar entirely fiat, allowing them to print as much of
the currency as they needed.
They also began a system of obscuring oil production data, involving the DoE's EIA and the
OECD's IEA, by inventing an ever-increasing category of Undiscovered Oilfields in their
predictions, and combining Crude Oil and Condensate (from gas fields) into one category (C+C)
as if they were the same thing. As well the support of the ethanol-from-corn industry began,
even though it was uneconomic. The Global Warming problem had to be debunked, despite its
sound scientific basis. Energy-intensive manufacturing work was off-shored to cheap
labour+energy countries, and Just-in-Time delivery systems were honed.
In 2004 the price of Crude Oil rose from $28 /barrel up to $143 /b in mid-2008. This
demonstrated that there is a limit to how much business can pay for oil (around $100 /b).
Fracking became marginally economic at these prices, but the frackers never made a profit as
over-production meant prices fell to about $60 /b. The Government encourages this destructive
industry despite the fact it doesn't make any money, because the alternative is the end of
Industrial Civilisation.
Eventually though, there must come a time when there is not enough oil to power all the
cars and trucks, bulldozers, farm tractors, airplanes and ships, as well as manufacture all
the wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicles, as well as the upgraded
transmission grid. At that point, the game will be up, and it will be time for WW3. So we
need to line up some really big enemies, and develop lots of reasons to hate them.
Thus you see the demonisation of Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela for reasons that don't
make sense from a normal perspective.
According to one source out of the Far East, China's Yuan denominated oil contract is set to
go live for trading on Jan. 18.
While not an official date announced from government sources, according to an anonymous
member of the Futures market where the new oil contract will trade, this is the expected date
for Beijing to begin its latest challenge to the long-standing Petrodollar system.
According to the Shanghai-based news portal Jiemian, which cited an unidentified person from
a futures company, trading is expected to start Jan. 18.
Multiple rounds of testing have been carried out and all listing requirements met. The State
Council, China's cabinet, was said to have given its approval in December,
one of the final regulatory hurdles. The push for oil futures gained impetus in 2017 when
China surpassed the U.S. as the world's biggest crude importer. -
Zerohedge
While the Chinese markets are not expected to immediately take dominion over the
West's Brent and WTI oil markets, several countries which include Venezuela, Russia, Qatar,
Pakistan, and perhaps even Iran appear ready to transition away from dollar based oil trade.
Additionally, many more nations will likely be willing to dip their toes into this market as it
proves itself to be a viable alternative to dollar hegemony, and as protection from foreign
policy threats from the U.S. which often uses the dollar as leverage in economic sanctions.
"... 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 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.
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.
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.
Hey 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!
Here 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.
The 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.
I 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..?
Picture 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 protection
Any 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.
re: "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.$. dollars for oil/gas transactions, the most recent of which I believe
was the gas shipment from St Petersburg to Poland..?
https://tomluongo.me/2017/1...
What you buy by petrodollars ?
Saudi .Arabia buys arms. But SA has got millions of unemployed people , because they
studied Islamic religion , wahabist fanaticism ... Further SA employs millions of workers
from other countries. And owns US assets in value over 1 trillion dollars. So what else
to buy , where to spend their petrodollars? Only get billions dollars arms ,that are in
couple years useless...Population hate the fully corrupt royal family in numbers
approximately 40 thousands princess as they have to get about 500 thousands yearly
salaries...For doing nothing , only to spend it everywhere...
Populations hate US presence in SA. Very much.
But the Great Satan~USA adore such scum as the vile Crooked Saudi royal family, the
snakehead USA ignore all their anti-democracy, anti- human rights their beheading, their
evil ways, they worship money the US swine, its all they see and lap-up, plus they have
Russia/ China /Iran to pick on and blame not their evil Saudi- swine arms buyers.
View
Hide
At the moment, because the US is illegally holding gold prices down using uncovered
shorts on paper gold, and at the same time has used sanctions to devalue the rouble,
Russia is producing oil at reduced - rouble - rates, selling it on the international
market for U$, [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 !!!
Why 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.
It 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.
There 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.
Guess 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.
Glad 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.
Good 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!
Will 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.
'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.
Correct 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
While 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.
Dude 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 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 ?
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 $1,007,000,000,000
Population 146,300,000
Russia is one of the largest Countries by land mass with a sparse population after the
breakup of the Soviet Union. They run very low deficits and their National Debt is very
low, they are one of the Countries that is best prepared for a major economic crash.
oncefiredbrass alexwest11 • 28 minutes ago Russia
is one of the largest Countries by land mass with a sparse population
after the breakup of the Soviet Union. They run very low defic
--------
but facts say quite opposite!!!!!!!!
during oil selloff of 2008*9 Russian ruble fall 50%, from 23 to 37 per$
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
The 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?
Hey 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!
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.
"... 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 ..."
"... 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 ..."
"... 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 ..."
"... 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). ..."
"... Carrying Capacity, Overshoot and Species Extinction ..."
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.
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.
George, 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.
If 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?
Is 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%." ..
..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 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.
You 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?
Hey, 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.
It'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.
Guardian article "Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we're nearing
collapse" :
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.
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".
Oh, 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.
I'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:
-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.
Yes, 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.
Of 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.
I think average species life time is estimated at around 1 to 2 million years,
The
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.
But 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.
I 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.
In 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.
In 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?
I once heard an interesting story about chimps. Might have been in one of Pinker's
books, I can't recall.
If 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.
The 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.
Cheers!
.
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.
Second, 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.
There 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.
Religion 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.
Really, 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.
When 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.pdf
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 posted this as a reply to a comment by GF a few threads back.
I 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.
"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".
I 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:
The
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.
Evolution 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.
What 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.
No, 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.
I cannot imagine a continuous world wide economic recession, this is a fundamental flaw in
your argument.
Well, 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.
I 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."
EXACTLY.
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.
We'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.
I'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.
So 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.
However, 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.
My 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.
That 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.html
Also 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."
Such 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.
"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 Hoyle
Thanks 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?
We 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.
No, 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.
Yes 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, 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.
Just my guess but I believe the plateau will average less than
82 million bpd.
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.
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.
Talking Snake Au Jus (So fresh, you can almost hear it hissing!)
BBQ Rib-Woman's Ribs
Stuffed Cabbages for Christ
Wing Pawn Garlic Prawns
Dessert:
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 Cobbler
Drinks:
The Blood of Christ
Holy Water Cider
Milk of Holy Cow
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 ventilation
I 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.
Hi Survivalist, glad you enjoyed it.
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.
Up 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, 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.
It 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.
One 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.
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.
As 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.
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.
If 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.
She 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.
UK 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.
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.
I 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).
Ehrlich underestimated the Green Revolution and Haber/Bosch factor that was really upping food
production at the time.
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.
You'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.
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.
If 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.
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.
It 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.
The 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.
Humans 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.
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.
Sorry 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.
I 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 Clock
However, 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.
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.
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.
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?
I 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:
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.
I 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).
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.)
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.
Regarding 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.
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-a3beb35254a3
I had a better link
regarding the bones from Sicily catacombs (many due to the plague epidemia I think), but cannot
find it back.
And 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.
(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?
Incidentally here's a recent newspaper article
from my neck of the woods:
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?"
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?
This 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.
"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."
I 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.
I
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.
After 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.
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.
There 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.
EDIT: 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
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.
Therefore, Kalkriese is an example how
NOT to do it.
I think the thickness of the topsoil in the area speaks for itself.
My 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.
That 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.
Your 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.
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.
There'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.
Now 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.
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.
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.
I 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.
"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?
There 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.
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.
Are 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!
Islandboy
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"
Having 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?
Way too early to say. The article dated October 4, 2017 says this:
"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.
Looking at some Caribbean buoy data it looks like wind would be a good source of power for
the islands.
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!
Incidentally, 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.
I'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.
Unfortunately 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.
We cannot eat solar panels and electricity is not a necessity, except to for the brainwashed and
the brainwashers.
Than 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.
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 BC
Highly 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.
This 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.
Now 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?
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.
The 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.
As 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.
My 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.
""It was OFM that was the one saying it was not possible, which is a rather narrow view of
humanity. "
BULLSHIT.
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.
I 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.
I have not read his latest book yet " The Social Conquest of Earth" which relates to this subject.
" Your statement was a direct affront to him and many others."
Bullshit 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.
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.
Here 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.
I 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.
" Your statement was a direct affront to him and many others."
Bullshit 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.
America 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.
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.
thank you Ron for this posting. I am in complete agreement with you on this.
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.
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.
You are likely to be waiting a very long time. Religious stupidity makes the problem worse, never better.
1. 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.
'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.
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.
-Murray Bookchin
Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule
themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others.
-Edward Abbey
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
Consensuality
Hi 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.
Your 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.
"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.
Of 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.
"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.
The 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.
In 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.
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.
And 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.
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.
Why do we worship the likes of Warren Buffett?
Cooperation exists, but only to enhance competition against a similarly cooperating group.
Blowing Up the Territory
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.
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.org
"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."
As
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.
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.
The 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.
Continuing from above (this mirrors my own experience in Central Africa where families currently seem to be
averaging about four kids each):
POPULATION 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."
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.
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.
That 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?
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.
George 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.
For anyone seeking a plausible scientific explanation for why:
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.
Your initial reaction to the theory is perfectly reasonable and common.
If 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.
WILL 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."
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.
Sam Harris' latest podcast has a discussion of this technology with Jennifer Doudna.
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. Wilson
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.
After 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.
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.
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."
You 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.
It 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.
I'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.
Even
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.
That 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!
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.
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.
Really 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!
"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."
"If humans can do what is needed then why the hell are they not doing it. "
"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.
Really 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.
Ok, 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.
Yea, the feud between Gould/Lewontin/Rose VS Wilson/Dawkins/Dennett has been interesting.
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.
I'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.
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.
So was I. Well, sort of. My dad was a Deacon in the Primitive Baptist Church but he was not a
crusading evangelical.
I 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."
When 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.
This 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 televised
The 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.
George 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.
Wars 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.
No devolution involved. Just human nature.
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.
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.
Dennis, 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.
This 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.
Errr . 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."
Not 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.
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.
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.
I 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).
Okay, 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.
Population Collapse
in Mexico (Down to about 5% in a century)
See 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.
Keeping things in perspective, why not go with the experts until they're proven wrong?
WORLD
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."
THERE'S A STRONG CHANCE THAT ONE-THIRD OF ALL PEOPLE WILL BE AFRICAN BY 2100
The 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.
(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)
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.
The 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."
Wouldn'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.
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.
Yea --
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.
I 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.
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.
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."
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.
So 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.
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.
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.
I
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.
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.
@Fred
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.
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.
Ok, 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.
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
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 ecosystems
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_oil
Have 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 energy
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.
On 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.
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.
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.
Marcia 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!
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.
CURRENT 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.
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.
Couldn'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 well
The part about going to Mars that has always bothered me is the radiation exposure.
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.
"... 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. ..."
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.
There'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.
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.
The 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.
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.
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.
I guess that Chinese demand must be higher than estimated. Like this article was suggesting
Bloomberg 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
?
China 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.
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."
"... 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. ..."
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 EnergyETF (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%.
What % of US oil consumption is food transport? This got tricky quickly.
Average 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.
Most 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.
I'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)
14 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.
I'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.
Grain 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.
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.
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.
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."
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).
The 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.
"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.
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.
December U.S. light-vehicle sales are forecast to finish strong enough for
2016 to top 2015's record 17.396 million units. However, actual volume
largely will be determined by results in the final third of the month,
because a major portion of December's deliveries typically occur after
Christmas.
The forecast
17.7 million-unit seasonally adjusted annual rate
is
below November's 17.8 million, but above December 2015's 17.4 million.
...
Despite the drop in December's volume, total 2016 sales will end at 17.41
million units, barely edging out the all-time high set last year.
emphasis added
Here is a table (source: BEA) showing the 5 top years for light vehicle sales
through November, and the top 5 full years. 2016 will probably finish in the
top 3, and could be the best year ever - just beating last year.
Light Vehicle Sales, Top 5 Years and Through November
"... ...in 2016, 96 percent of all new vehicle sales featured a combustion engine. IHS Markit estimates the average vehicle life globally to be about 15 years, which means that the impact of new vehicle technologies is expected to take time to materially affect the vehicle fleet and overall fuel demand. ..."
...in 2016, 96 percent of all new vehicle sales featured a combustion engine. IHS Markit
estimates the average vehicle life globally to be about 15 years, which means that the impact of
new vehicle technologies is expected to take time to materially affect the vehicle fleet and
overall fuel demand.
The OPEC production agreement, which we called correctly, has already helped hoist the profitable
oil stocks we held, but what about 2017? One way I've looked at oil and oil stocks is by looking at
the crude curve the differentials between monthly contract prices. And a recent big move in the
curve makes 2017 look very positive indeed.
I've seen all kinds of futures curves in my 30+ years of trading oil, and many analysts believe that
the crude curve is really predictive of the future but more often than not, it is merely an outline
of what traders and hedgers are thinking.
here's a look at Thursday's curve:
... ... ...
These numbers represent an enormous change from the numbers we saw even two weeks ago, before the
big OPEC deal in Vienna. Since 2014, we had been seeing a deep contango market, where oil prices in
the future were a lot higher than where they were trading in the front (present) months. But what
does a contango market mean?
Many like to look at contango markets as a signal of crude storage, and that has merit but I like
to look at the curve through the eyes of its participants: when the oil market is collapsing, as it
has been since 2014, players in the futures markets know that the costs of oil recovery fall well
above the trading price, and will buy future oil contracts banking on a recovery. This drives buying
interest away from the present and into the future and creates our contango. This kind of market is
dominated by the speculators, who are willing to buy (bet) on higher prices later on.
In contrast, the hedging players are in retreat in busting markets, dropping capex and working wells
and trying merely to survive to see the next boom. It's when prices begin to recover and they gain
confidence in future prices that they try to hedge and plan for the coming up-cycle. This is when
speculators, if they are buying, are likely to move closer to the front months if they're buying
while producers (commercials) are looking to sell futures 12-24 months out. Suddenly, you have a
curve that is being more dominated by commercial players, selling back months and creating the
backwardation we're starting to see right now.
You may remember that I was able to nearly predict this year's bottom in oil prices by looking
for that flattening move of the crude curve in February. This latest move from a discount to a
premium curve has moved more than two dollars in the last week alone. This gives me added confidence
in oil prices for 2017:
Let's look, as a practical matter, why a premium (backwardated) market is absolutely REQUIRED to
see a long-term recovery in oil.
Imagine you're a shale producer and you've seen prices move from $45 to $52. You've been waiting for
a move like this to restart some non-core acreage that you could have working by the middle of 2017.
With a deep contango market, you might have gotten $55 or even more for a hedged barrel of crude in
June of 2017.
But you're not alone in looking to come out of your bunker, hedge some forward production and
restart some idle wells every other producer is trying to do the same thing. If all of you could
depend on a future premium, every producer would hedge out new production and ultimately add to the
gluts that have been already slow to disappear.
Related: The OPEC Effect? U.S. Rig Count Spikes Most In 31 Months
If you think about it, a premium market works to DISCOURAGE fast restarts and quick restoration of
gluts that a two-year rebalancing process has only slowly managed to fix and this is a good thing.
Producers have to be wary of adding wells so quickly, even in a market that is clearly ready to
again rise in price. In a truly backwardated market, the futures work to keep the rebalancing
process on track and production increases slow. That governor on production is the key to keeping a
rallying market strong, and the frantic addition of wells at a minimum.
The proof of all this is in the type of curves we see depending on how the markets are trading.
Now, take another look at the December-December spread chart I put up and you'll see that a Contango
market was a critical component to the bull markets we saw in oil prior to 2014. Unless something
very strange is happening, a Contango curve is indicative of a strong market, while a backwardated
one indicates a market under pressure. It's something I've watched closely for more than 30 years to
help me find major trends.
And convinces me today that oil will have a constructive 2017.
IEA also upped its forecast for global oil demand for this year and next year due
to revised estimates for Russian and Chinese demand. It saw growth of 1.4 mb/d for 2016,
120,000 barrels a day above the previous forecast. Growth in 2017 is now seen at 1.3
mb/d, an increase of 110,000 barrels a day from its previous estimate.
likbez, 12/13/2016 at 11:40 am
Realistically the only country that can substantially increase its oil production in 2017 in
Libya. But that requires the end of the civil war in the country which is unlikely. Iran card was
already played.
Iraq is producing without proper maintenance. At some point they might have substantial
difficulties.
"... The IEA also upped its forecast for global oil demand for this year and next year due to revised estimates for Russian and Chinese demand. It saw growth of 1.4 mb/d for 2016, 120,000 barrels a day above the previous forecast. Growth in 2017 is now seen at 1.3 mb/d, an increase of 110,000 barrels a day from its previous estimate. ..."
...OPEC ... crude output in November was 34.2 million barrels per day (mb/d) - a record high -
and 300,000 barrels a day higher than in October.
The IEA also upped its forecast for global oil demand for this year and next year due to
revised estimates for Russian and Chinese demand. It saw growth of 1.4 mb/d for 2016, 120,000
barrels a day above the previous forecast. Growth in 2017 is now seen at 1.3 mb/d, an increase of
110,000 barrels a day from its previous estimate.
"... It took a while, but Exxon has decreed force majeure on Qua Iboe. That's the export terminal they have repeatedly said was not attacked first of this week. 300,000 bpd that will not be exported, for a while ..."
Maybe my imagination has become to active, but I believe the story of the NDA attacking Mobile's
Qua Iboe terminal should be getting more interest. Monday night the NDA announced they had blown
up the 300,000 bpd export line. Exxon was quick to deny that an attack had taken place. Someone
is lying and it is not clear who.
http://footprint2africa.com/nigeria-militants-exxonmobil-tug-words/
Although it seems almost inconcievable that Exxon would lie about this, there are a couple
of things that make you consider the possibility. One is that in May there were reports of a militant
strike on the facility, which was denied by Exxon. Shortly after that Exxon reported that a malfunctioning
rig had caused damage to the facility, and it was shut down for a short while.
Another is that after the latest attack claimed, Shell reportedly shut in the trans-Niger pipeline,
and there have been reports of oil companies evacuating 700 staff.
It took a while, but Exxon has decreed force majeure on Qua Iboe. That's the export terminal
they have repeatedly said was not attacked first of this week. 300,000 bpd that will not be exported,
for a while
"... China, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, pumped 5.6% less crude year-on-year in April ..."
"... The Asian nation reduced oil output in May by 7.3% from a year ago ..."
"... In June alone, China pumped 8.9 percent less crude than a year earlier ..."
"... 8,9% in June and the decline just continue to increase!! Lets see what happens in the future, but right now it certainly looks like its collapsing. ..."
"... Some Chinese production is very expensive and they will get their oil from the least costly source. I know this because I've worked there with their senior resource people and had the discussion. Of course, China is facing serious oil depletion as well. ..."
"... In fact, China's production increased 62 kb/d in June vs. May to 4.03 mb/d. But y-o-y decline accelerated to 8.5% in June 2016 (not 8.9% as says Reuters article quoted by oilprice.com). June 2015 was the peak month for China's oil production (4.41 mb/d). ..."
"... China has seen in the past significant drops in monthly oil production, most likely related with maintenance. But this time is different. I agree with Ron that China has peaked. ..."
"... Ok good to know. But 8,5% is still huge. Looking at the graph I see that the number will continue to increase untill end of year unless production levels out or start to increase. ..."
Some Chinese production is very expensive and they will get their oil from the least costly source.
I know this because I've worked there with their senior resource people and had the discussion.
Of course, China is facing serious oil depletion as well.
In fact, China's production increased 62 kb/d in June vs. May to 4.03 mb/d.
But y-o-y decline accelerated to 8.5% in June 2016 (not 8.9% as says Reuters article quoted by
oilprice.com).
June 2015 was the peak month for China's oil production (4.41 mb/d).
I am using original data from the National Bureau of Statistics and conversion factor of 7.3
barrels/ton
China oil production (kb/d) and year-on-year change
China has seen in the past significant drops in monthly oil production, most likely related with
maintenance.
But this time is different. I agree with Ron that China has peaked.
What's makes this time different for China? I'm curious to hear what you base your thoughts on
(as you seem to have a good understanding of what's going on).
Ok good to know. But 8,5% is still huge. Looking at the graph I see that the number will continue
to increase untill end of year unless production levels out or start to increase.
"... In June alone, China pumped 8.9 percent less crude than a year earlier, with state-owned giants such as PetroChina and CNOOC shuttering unprofitable fields ..."
"... Crude oil imports in January-June jumped 14 percent, China's national Bureau of Statistics said ..."
China's crude oil output over the first half of the year stood at 101.59 million metric tons,
down 4.6 percent and the lowest six-month figure since 2012, Bloomberg
reports. The decline reflects China's stated shift from an industry-focused economic model
to a more service-oriented one. It is also related to a drive by the government to cut the country's
environmental footprint, struggling with a reputation of China as one of the most polluted places
on earth. Low oil prices were also a factor in the production trend.
In June alone, China pumped 8.9 percent less crude than a year earlier, with state-owned giants
such as PetroChina and CNOOC shuttering unprofitable fields and turning to low-cost imports instead.
Crude oil imports in January-June jumped 14 percent, China's national Bureau of Statistics said,
with June recording the weakest growth.
"... "The world is seeing ever-stronger competition for resources, and some players try to disregard all the rules, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said , adding that potential for conflict is growing worldwide. " ..."
"... If there was any doubt what Putin was thinking, I don't think there should be any more. ..."
"... " If production falls under consumption (as opposed to demand) then the result is not a shrug and the price goes up. The result is someone doesn't get the oil they ordered " ..."
If Ron's 2015 prediction is correct ( I think it is, and I never get this kind of stuff wrong
lol)
These are the types of articles we should be seeing.
"The world is seeing ever-stronger competition for resources, and some players try to disregard
all the rules, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said , adding that potential for conflict
is growing worldwide. "
If there was any doubt what Putin was thinking, I don't think there should be any more.
The new release of BPs data on oil statistics is getting too little focus.
Consumption globally was UP last year. 1.9%. 1.9ish million bpd.
Lotsa talk about global reductions in production . . . sometimes. Other times we hear about
new records from someone.
But pay heed here. THERE IS NO DELAY IN THIS. If production falls under consumption (as opposed
to demand) then the result is not a shrug and the price goes up. The result is someone doesn't
get the oil they ordered.
Cushing has about 100 million barrels of capacity. If there were 1 million bpd shortfall on
US imports, you got basically 3 months before . . . someone . . . some truck driver at a gas station
. . . doesn't get the diesel he ordered. The SPR would be another few months, but tapping it for
such an emergency would pretty much announce to the world . . . there ain't enough.
" If production falls under consumption (as opposed to demand) then the result is not a shrug
and the price goes up. The result is someone doesn't get the oil they ordered " ~Watcher
"... The production drop is 100% DEPLETION of existing wells. This is a critical distinction because if wells were shut, they could be turned back on. If wells deplete, generally, new ones must be drilled to replacement them, ..."
"... The reality is that the only way this production comes back (or stops decreasing) is the application of massive amounts of new capital, the redeployment of tens of thousands of service workers laid off during the crash, and billions of dollars of equipment. This is even more true internationally. As large mature projects deplete, of which there are thousands in decline, new large projects must be developed to replace them. ..."
"... The typical approach would be to shut in low rate high water cut producers, and any other wells that have been experiencing high costs. When prices rise and wells have been shut in for months they will have built up some pressure. And some of them will come in at 100 % water due to self injection. It can be a real crap shoot. ..."
Just a note to correct a popular misconception; production DID NOT drop in Bakken due to SHUT
IN wells. The production drop is 100% DEPLETION of existing wells. This is a critical distinction
because if wells were shut, they could be turned back on. If wells deplete, generally, new ones
must be drilled to replacement them, implying radically different time, service intensity and
capital requirements. The popular press is ate up with the concept that when prices rise, all
this production will magically reappear, once again swamping the market with excess supplies.
The reality is that the only way this production comes back (or stops decreasing) is the application
of massive amounts of new capital, the redeployment of tens of thousands of service workers laid
off during the crash, and billions of dollars of equipment. This is even more true internationally.
As large mature projects deplete, of which there are thousands in decline, new large projects
must be developed to replace them.
"The production drop is 100% DEPLETION of existing wells. This is a critical distinction because
if wells were shut, they could be turned back on."
Brad,
Yes. So essentially oil price does not matter at this point at the end of the game for these marginal
and high depletion plays. Price could go even higher but drop in production will just continue.
I think it's a mix. I've been in these circumstances before. The typical approach would be to
shut in low rate high water cut producers, and any other wells that have been experiencing high
costs. When prices rise and wells have been shut in for months they will have built up some pressure.
And some of them will come in at 100 % water due to self injection. It can be a real crap shoot.
"... Yes it is the normal cycle pattern, but going into Q3, we have been seeing draws over the last few weeks, and world S/D has been close to being balanced. ..."
"... It is normal for Q2 to have storage builds, and this year the builds were on the low side. ..."
"... The market is not expecting to see higher demand than supply, and the next step in prices may be soon than expected. ..."
I know that this presentation is about production, but on the other side
of production, that is demand, according to the IEA demand tables, going
from Q2 to Q3 increases demand by about 1.5 million barrels a day.
There is also a additional small increase going from Q3 to Q4.
With supply decreasing and demand increasing looks like oil prices may
be headed higher over the next six months.
The Alberta fires along with Nigeras problems came at the right time
yo tighten things up a bit.
Yes it is the normal cycle pattern, but going into Q3, we have been
seeing draws over the last few weeks, and world S/D has been close to being
balanced.
It is normal for Q2 to have storage builds, and this year the builds
were on the low side.
The market is not expecting to see higher demand than supply, and
the next step in prices may be soon than expected.
"... Global demand is indeed strong. All key forecasting agencies are still projecting annual demand growth of 1.2mb/d, but it may surprise on the upside (~1.4mb/d). But supply/demand rebalancing is mainly due to declining non-OPEC output and supply outages. ..."
Global demand is indeed strong. All key forecasting agencies are still projecting annual demand
growth of 1.2mb/d, but it may surprise on the upside (~1.4mb/d).
But supply/demand rebalancing is mainly due to declining non-OPEC output and supply outages.
Quarterly global oil demand (mb/d)
source: IEA Oil Market Report, May 2016
"... According to data from National Bureau of Statistics released today, oil output in May was down 7.3% from a year ago to 16.87 million metric tons (3.97 m/d, using 7.3 ton/barrel conversion factor). Daily output declined 1.6% from April and 10% from June 2015 peak of 4.41 mb/d. ..."
According to data from National Bureau of Statistics released today, oil output in May was down
7.3% from a year ago to 16.87 million metric tons (3.97 m/d, using 7.3 ton/barrel conversion factor).
Daily output declined 1.6% from April and 10% from June 2015 peak of 4.41 mb/d.
I think the decline is a result of both ageing onshore oil fields and reduced infill drilling
due to lower upstream investments.
China oil production (kb/d) and year-on-year change (%)
source: National Bureau of Statistics
Decade-long improvement in fuel efficiency in U.S. seen ending
Light trucks, vans, SUVs account for 60% of U.S. vehicle sales
Last year, SUVs outsold any other type of passenger vehicle in Europe
for the first time, according to auto industry consultants JATO Dynamics.
The trend has continued in 2016, with demand for SUVs accounting for a
quarter of sales in the biggest European countries.
Europe is a mirror of what's happening across the world. From China to the
U.S., drivers are buying bigger vehicles, while sales of fuel-efficient
hybrids struggle.
[In the U.S.] the average car sold in April achieved a fuel economy of
25.2 miles per gallon, down from a peak of 25.8 set in August 2014, just
before oil prices crashed, according to data from the Transportation Research
Institute at the University of Michigan. At current trends, this year will
mark the first drop in average U.S. fuel economy since at least 2007, the
data show.
"Fuel-economy improvement is really flatlining," said Sam Ori, executive
director of theEnergy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago. "The
gains completely stopped right at the same time that oil prices started
to decline."
Today in the U.S., light trucks, vans and SUVs account for 60 percent of
total vehicle sales - a level only reached briefly in 2005, when Brent crude,
the global oil benchmark, averaged $55 a barrel. It's now around $50. The
International Energy Agency said in May that less-efficient vehicles, including
four-wheel drives, "remain very much in vogue, a consequence of persistently
lower retail pump prices."
In 2008, when oil prices averaged $100 a barrel, the share of gas guzzlers
in U.S. total vehicles sales dropped at one point to just 43 percent.
With larger vehicles hitting the roads and Americans driving longer distances
as the economy recovers, U.S. gasoline consumption is set to rise to a record
in 2016, according to the Energy Information Administration. U.S. gasoline
demand will average 9.3 million barrels a day this year, surpassing the
peak set in 2007, the EIA said in its most recent monthly report.
The EIA forecast U.S. drivers will enjoy the cheapest gasoline this driving
season in 12 years.
In China, the world's second-biggest oil consumer, drivers are also opting
for larger vehicles as never before. While cheaper gasoline and diesel helps,
analysts said it's higher incomes - and a desire to impress relatives and
friends - that's driving the purchases. According to official data, vehicles
such as light trucks and SUVs accounted for almost 35 percent of total Chinese
passenger sales in April, up from 10 percent in 2010 and less than 5 percent
a decade ago.
You are right AlexS, Americans need to be more frugal and forward thinking.
My town wants to allow a gas station to be put in near the highway, there
is a gas station a short drive away. Not only will the gas station be mere
feet from a Category 1 trout stream, it will be almost at the level of the
stream. The three large tanks will be actually buried in the aquifer for
the town and have to be held down from floating. Everything runs off wells
here, so contamination will effect much of the town and wreck the aquifer.
To top it all off, the land is now a ride-sharing lot, something that
reduces fuel use and pollution as well as reduces the wear and tear on cars
(slowing down the need for vehicle replacement and all the energy/pollution
that involves).
There are gas stations just a few miles in either direction along the
highway.
"... Financialization is the lubricant that makes it possible to think of everything as an asset that could immediately be liquidated at near full value, including hypothetical growth options. When everything is fully financialized and real world frictions are removed, it will always make more sense to buy and sell the assets and their affiliated options that to actually invest and improve anything. ..."
Sinking rig counts worldwide doesn't correspond to these fantastic planned production increases
if it was that easy to crank up production, why has everyone hasn't done it before?
And opening the chokes, damaging the oilfied only works short term before new infills / CO2
or other expensive stuff is neccessary.
Sinking rig counts worldwide doesn't correspond to these fantastic planned production increases
if it was that easy to crank up production, why has everyone hasn't done it before?
A relevant quote:
Financialization is the lubricant that makes it possible to think of everything as an asset
that could immediately be liquidated at near full value, including hypothetical growth options.
When everything is fully financialized and real world frictions are removed, it will always
make more sense to buy and sell the assets and their affiliated options that to actually invest
and improve anything.
This is one of the most straightforward ways to visualize how increased financialization
can harm the economy. Although simply calling bankers parasites is arguably even more straightforward.
"... I will tell you how "sane" companies react to down turns like we are going through. They batten down the hatches, cut costs to bare minimum. When prices recover, they do not immediately go great guns. They first get caught up on the maintenance that was delayed due to the downturn. Then, once that is done, they slowly begin to spend money on new wells. ..."
"... Early on, most companies were hoping for a quick recovery. 2015 persistent low prices, followed by the hammer of $20 oil in Q1 has really taken a toll, IMO. This is why we are now seeing many BK. Q1 knocked them out. ..."
"... What I think should worry many people is that those of us considered "marginal" are weathering this storm better than many of the large companies. We are operating stuff that the majors/large independent companies got rid of decades ago, that was deemed to be too costly for them to continue to operate. ..."
"... Now, those majors/large independents are finding there is almost nothing left of "cheap" to develop oil. Deep water, no. Shale, no. Tar sands, no. ..."
"... The shale companies are spending over $5 million per well to obtain 150-400K BO over a period of 20+ years. Folks, they have sold off assets all over the world to go after this stuff. That should be a big concern. ..."
"... In December 2008 oil price was $40. Shale started expansion around that time with the free money from the banks. Today in mid 2016 price of oil is $48 and it is evident that Shale is gradually closing the shop with just additional life-support from the banks to scrape the bottom of the barrel in the remaining sweet spots. ..."
"In fact the price has collapsed hasn't it, in spite of steadily worsening EROI and now
virtual cessation of exploration and development. Gail's explanation fits the evidence we have
in front of us today. Simple EROI or depletion models don't so well. "
The 2014-16 price collapse was due to over-production, which was a result of a 4-fold increase
in upstream capex over the previous 10 years. It's a cyclical event, like in 1982-86, 1998, 2001-02
and 2008-09. The global supply and demand are gradually rebalancing. Prices are already recovering
(+80% since Fenruary lows) and will rise much further in the next several years due to the current
sharp decrease in exploration and development spending.
One point I would like to make is that, unlike in response to prior cyclical downturns, OPEC,
thus far at least, has not cut production. I question if anyone has spare capacity, outside of
that caused by war/political strife.
It took massive amounts of leverage for the US and Canada to ramp up production, along with
a relatively stable oil price band of $85-$105.
It remains to be seen if that type of leverage will occur again in the immediate future.
I note, despite the price improvement, the rig count we all follow, North Dakota, is down to
24, with one still listed as stacking.
I will tell you how "sane" companies react to down turns like we are going through. They
batten down the hatches, cut costs to bare minimum. When prices recover, they do not immediately
go great guns. They first get caught up on the maintenance that was delayed due to the downturn.
Then, once that is done, they slowly begin to spend money on new wells.
Early on, most companies were hoping for a quick recovery. 2015 persistent low prices,
followed by the hammer of $20 oil in Q1 has really taken a toll, IMO. This is why we are now seeing
many BK. Q1 knocked them out.
If OPEC's goal is to finish off US companies, they will figure out a way to keep a lid on prices
this summer, and then drive prices back down into the $20s again. However, I am not sure if this
can be accomplished, or if OPEC members can even handle that. Further, it is clear to me that
Russia can ride out low prices better than most, but not $20s. The Q1 price collapse caused Russia
to act.
We are still here, and cautiously optimistic, but it is a very, very cautious optimism.
What I think should worry many people is that those of us considered "marginal" are weathering
this storm better than many of the large companies. We are operating stuff that the majors/large
independent companies got rid of decades ago, that was deemed to be too costly for them to continue
to operate.
Now, those majors/large independents are finding there is almost nothing left of "cheap"
to develop oil. Deep water, no. Shale, no. Tar sands, no.
The shale companies are spending over $5 million per well to obtain 150-400K BO over a
period of 20+ years. Folks, they have sold off assets all over the world to go after this stuff.
That should be a big concern.
This point has been made here repeatedly. Despite this severe price downturn and the alleged
glut, I think it is still true. There may be a lot of oil out there left to produce, but it will
cost a lot per BO to get it out of the ground.
but it will cost a lot per BO to get it out of the ground.
Can you define "a lot" ?
I think $75/b (2015$) will allow a fair amount of oil to be produced profitably, but agree
it will take 6 to 12 months before there will be much of a production increase (say 1 Mb/d Worldwide)
in response to oil prices at $75/b. I imagine the slow response will result in a price spike to
$100/b as supply starts to run short (probably in 2018).
In December 2008 oil price was $40. Shale started expansion around that time with the free
money from the banks. Today in mid 2016 price of oil is $48 and it is evident that Shale is gradually
closing the shop with just additional life-support from the banks to scrape the bottom of the
barrel in the remaining sweet spots.
So the price in Shale case did not play ANY role. So where is that "cycle" that you see it?
There is no cycle. Shale was drilled regardless of price to kick the can just for few years to
mask over-leveraged economy.
Also from Dec 2008 to March 2008 only 27 wells per month were added in the Bakken/Three Forks.
Other LTO plays didn't really get going until 2010.
By August 2009 Brent was up to $72/b, from March 2009 to July 2009 the average wells added
per month in the Bakken was 40 wells/month.
Also it was the high prices earlier in 2008 that got things started, oil prices were over $80/b
from Oct 2007 to Sept 2008, the dip in oil prices was relatively brief, the oil price was under
$60/b for only 7 months from Nov 2008 to May 2009. The oil industry takes some time to react to
oil price changes. Chart with annual average Brent oil price in nominal dollars below. The price
has been above $70/b for all but 2 years from 2007 to 2015 (2009 and 2015).
There is no free market CYCLE if OPEC cuts 4.2mbd in January 2009 and then it does not cut
single barrel in November 2014. Of course there is always a "cycle" in long term.
"Prices did not remain between $40 and $48 per barrel"
That just shows you that price points are irrelevant. In 2008 when price was $40 did Shale
had crystal ball to know that price will go $100 in the next 6-7 years?
400 rigs that are drilling right now in US do they know where the price will be next year?
Reply
"... Financial crises are always ultimately credit crises. Even when the proximate cause seems to be a stock market crash, the amount of damage done depends on how much leveraged speculation took place and how that affects critical lending and payment systems. Even though Japan's payment system was never at risk in the implosion of its colossal credit bubble, its banks and economy have been in a zombie state for a full quarter century. Japan's massive bubble took place through a mere 11 massive "city banks" and another three "long term credit banks". By contrast, China has a large shadow banking system. Just like our officialdom in 2007 and 2008, it's very unlikely that they have a good grasp of the extent and the interconnectedness of the risks. They may find out very soon. ..."
"... Remember the shoddy construction in schools earthquake collapse. Then there is the bubble in unoccupied "ghost cities" that go on forever. ..."
"... Why did Xi burst the bubble. I had suspected the smog and pollution have done more damage in death and disability than admitted. I wonder if the population is even in decline not just the labor force. ..."
"... If China is suddenly officially ready to countenance a huge rise in unemployment, one presumes they have some plan to socialize the pain, to take care of the population. ..."
"... If this is true, what's in store may be something like IIRC Lambert proposed in comments the other day: nationalize the financial institution, file the Chinese equivalent of RICO charges, impound the wealth and tie the former elite up in jail/litigation for the next decade. ..."
"... "impound the wealth" including all the wealth offshore? including the wealth Chinese oligarchs have invested in foreign real estate? Are Chinese oligarchs any more likely to go against their own class than Western oligarchs? ..."
"... I missed that Telegraph article it really is quite alarming. I have to say though that anecdotally, my Chinese friends are no more pessimistic than usual, so I don't think that ordinary Chinese are feeling worried yet property prices are still going up, which is reassuring to most middle class there, and there is no evidence I've heard of any panic in the various 'informal' or shadow investing markets (lots of Chinese run what amount to unofficial banks, borrowing and investing on behalf of friends). ..."
"... AEP suggests that Xi may not be the firm hand on the tiller that everyone assumes his overt confidence may well be a front for some very confused ideas. I think there is increasing evidence that this may be the case. For all the sound and fury, there is little real evidence of reform from within. But I think the safe bet is that the CCP has enough of a firm hand that they can prevent an outright crash much more likely is the sort of crippling slow motion collapse that we saw in Japan a quarter of a century ago. But the longer they insist on shovelling fuel on to the fire, the less likely that happens. As Pettis constantly points out, economists consistently underestimate the speed and severity of crashes. ..."
"... Given the huge amount of foreign investment in china and how much it is likely leveraged, the global financial system will collapse again triggering the collapse of many states. proposals of bailouts would be likely met with violent resistance, even revolution. far right politicians would seize power and, where they haven't been politically neutered, maybe some leftists would, too. were it to happen before november, we could welcome into office president trump in january. ..."
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has a must-read article on what may be the beginning of the end of the
China-as-economic-wunderkind story. The reason for the hesitancy is that the lengthy article that
appeared in early May on the front page of the house organ of the Politboro may either be an official
declaration or an effort by a powerful minority to press for a meaningful, sustained effort to stop
the growth in debt levels. Particularly since the global financial crisis, China has relied heavily
on increases in private-sector debt to keep growth levels up. Mind you, borrowing to invest is not
necessarily a bad idea if it goes into projects that are sufficiently productive. But as readers
know well, China has had investment at an unprecedented proportion of GDP for years, and most of
it has gone into assets created for speculation (housing that sits vacant and is seen by investors
as an alternative to the stock market) or unproductive increases in industrial capacity. Consider
this extract from a
March article in the South China Morning Post:
At the peak of its cement production in 2014, China turned out more cement in just two years
than the United States had produced in the previous century.
As the first chart shows, the trend finally topped out last year but it still indicates almost
30 times as much cement production in China as in the US, a much larger economy. Is this huge
volume of cement really needed? Is this sustainable?
There is certainly an argument for more cement production in China than in the US, which has
largely built its cities and its transport infrastructure. China is still in the process of doing
so. Its cement requirements are thus proportionately much greater.
True, but 30 times as great with as much cement production in two years as the US recorded
in 100 years? That's pushing things.
And while economic growth in China is faster than in the US, much of it represents just this
pouring of cement. Fixed capital formation accounts for 45 per cent of gross domestic product,
about twice the average of the rest of Asia, and higher multiples yet than the rest of the world.
This sort of excess crashes if demand turns sour. And it could take a lot more with it than just
cement and steel plants
The story is told in many more sectors than just cement. The second chart shows you that China's
steel production is topping out but is still running at five times the rate of all 28 countries
in the European Union combined and almost 10 times steel production in the US.
This steel is still being used but there are reasons to doubt the continued demand. Car production
last year of 12 million units, for instance, was three times the equivalent of domestic production
in the US.
Yes, I know Americans are importing ever more cars as they begin to share the rest of the world's
doubts about their own Chevrolets and Chryslers and, yes, car ownership ratios are still much
higher in the US than in China, but three times as much car production in China as in the US still
has a feeling of unreality. China is not rich enough yet to afford so large a car market.
AEP recaps the well-known-if-you've been-watching signs that China is in the advanced stages of
a monster debt binge. The problem with bubbles, as anyone who has lived through them knows so well,
is they typically run much further than clinical observers imagine possible. So the nay-sayers look
like gloomy Gusses while the momentum traders party until the whole thing goes kaboom. AEP's danger
signals,
from his Telegraph account :
China's debt is approaching $30 trillion. The fresh credit alone created since 2007 is greater
than the outstanding liabilities of the US, Japanese, German, and Indian commercial banking systems
combined
To put matters in context, leverage rose by roughly 50 percentage points of GDP in Japan before
the Nikkei bubble burst in 1990, or in Korea before the East Asia crisis in 1998, or in the US
before the subprime debacle. This gauge is an almost mechanical indicator of a future credit crisis.
As we all know, China is in a class of its own. Debt has risen by 120 to 140 percentage points.
The scale of excess industrial capacity and China's power and life and death over commodity
markets mean that any serious policy pivot by the Communist Party would set off an international
earthquake.
Yet that is what at least an important group of the officialdom is prepared to do. The logic for
a crackdown now is that delaying a day of reckoning will only make the inevitable contraction worse:
China watchers are still struggling to identify the author of an electrifying article in the
People's Daily that declares war on debt and the "fantasy" of perpetual stimulus
The 11,000 character text citing an "authoritative person" was given star-billing on the
front page. It described leverage as the "original sin" from which all other risks emanate, with
debt "growing like a tree in the air".
It warned of a "systemic financial crisis" and demanded a halt to the "old methods" of reflexive
stimulus every time growth falters. "It is neither possible nor necessary to force economic growing
by levering up," it said.
It called for root-and-branch reform of the SOE's the redoubts of vested interests and the
patronage machines of party bosses with an assault on "zombie companies". Local governments
were ordered to abandon their illusions and accept the inevitable slide in tax revenues, and the
equally inevitable rise in unemployment.
If China does not bite the bullet now, the costs will be "much higher" in the future. "China's
economic performance will not be U-shaped and definitely not V-shaped. It will be L-shaped," said
the text. We have been warned.
The article also describes how China put its foot on the accelerator in recent quarters, so if
this article represents a policy change, it would be a real gear shift:
The latest stop-go credit cycle began in mid-2015 and has since accelerated to an epic blow-off,
with the M1 money supply now growing at 22.9pc, by the fastest pace since the post-Lehman blitz.
Wei Yao from Societe Generale estimates that total loans rose by $1.15 trillion in the first
quarter, equivalent to 46pc of quarterly GDP. "This looks like an old-styled credit-backed investment-driven
recovery, which bears an uncanny resemblance to the beginning of the 'four trillion stimulus'
package in 2009. The consequence of that stimulus was inflation, asset bubbles and excess capacity,"
she said.
House sales rose 60pc in April, despite curbs to cool the bubble. New starts were up 26pc.
Prices jumped 63pc in Shenzhen, 34pc in Shanghai, 20pc in Beijing, and 18pc in Hefei. Panic buying
is spreading to the smaller Tier 3 and 4 cities with the greatest glut.
There is still some fiscal spending in the pipeline, so the robust times will continue at least
through the summer. But liquidity is already starting to dry up despite all the money creation as
investors are getting more and more evidence that the government will not rescue wealth management
products (which are often invested in real estate projects sponsored by local government entities)
or the bond issues of state owned enterprises (SOEs).
Again from AEP's report :
Moody's warned this month that China's state-owned entities (SOEs) have alone racked up debts
of 115pc of GDP, and a fifth may require restructuring. The defaults are already spreading up
the ladder from local SOE's to the bigger state behemoths, once thought wrongly to have a
sovereign guarantee
The rot in the country's $7.7 trillion bond markets is metastasizing. Bo Zhuang from Trusted
Sources said more than 100 firms cancelled or delayed bond issues in April due to widening credit
spreads
Ten companies have defaulted this year, with the shipbuilder Evergreen, Nanjing Yurun Foods,
and the solar group Yingli Green Energy all in trouble this month. But what has really spooked
markets is the suspension of nine bonds issued by the AA+ rated China Railways Materials, the
first of the big central SOE's to signal default. "This has greatly weakened investors' long-standing
expectation of implicit government support," he said.
Bo Zhuang said investors have poured money into bonds in the latest frenzy. The stock of corporate
bonds has jumped by 78pc to $2.3 trillion over the last year. It is the epicentre of leverage
through short-term 'repo' transactions, and it is now coming unstuck.
Financial crises are always ultimately credit crises. Even when the proximate cause seems
to be a stock market crash, the amount of damage done depends on how much leveraged speculation took
place and how that affects critical lending and payment systems. Even though Japan's payment system
was never at risk in the implosion of its colossal credit bubble, its banks and economy have been
in a zombie state for a full quarter century. Japan's massive bubble took place through a mere 11
massive "city banks" and another three "long term credit banks". By contrast, China has a large shadow
banking system. Just like our officialdom in 2007 and 2008, it's very unlikely that they have a good
grasp of the extent and the interconnectedness of the risks. They may find out very soon.
There is no evidence that cement is being stockpiled to my knowledge its all being poured.
The problem is that the construction projects just don't have a productive return any more.
However, there is a serious point to be made about concrete in China it is generally low
quality. This is ok for regular engineering, but for specialist needs, such as High Speed Rail,
it seriously reduces the life span of the structure. I can't find a link to it now, but a few
years ago an engineering journal was estimating that Chinas
High Speed
Rail network would have to reduce its speed limits by several mpg per year as the structures
were degrading very rapidly. It estimated that in 20 years the HSR network would be no faster
than a conventional railway network.
Our imports from China fell big last month and the department stores that sell the junk are
gone down even faster so if we lost half or 200 billion of their junk I an not sure it would be
missed or replaced. I do think that this China implosion is important. I have some questions.
China has a pork shortage and owns Smithfield but is not importing. Why?
Why did Xi burst the bubble. I had suspected the smog and pollution have done more damage
in death and disability than admitted. I wonder if the population is even in decline not just
the labor force.
Please keep covering whatever it is that is going on in China.
If China is suddenly officially ready to countenance a huge rise in unemployment, one presumes
they have some plan to socialize the pain, to take care of the population.
If this is true, what's in store may be something like IIRC Lambert proposed in comments
the other day: nationalize the financial institution, file the Chinese equivalent of RICO charges,
impound the wealth and tie the former elite up in jail/litigation for the next decade.
"impound the wealth" including all the wealth offshore? including the wealth Chinese oligarchs
have invested in foreign real estate? Are Chinese oligarchs any more likely to go against their
own class than Western oligarchs?
I missed that Telegraph article it really is quite alarming. I have to say though that
anecdotally, my Chinese friends are no more pessimistic than usual, so I don't think that ordinary
Chinese are feeling worried yet property prices are still going up, which is reassuring to most
middle class there, and there is no evidence I've heard of any panic in the various 'informal'
or shadow investing markets (lots of Chinese run what amount to unofficial banks, borrowing and
investing on behalf of friends).
As one Chinese friend put it to me 'everyone in my town owes more money than they have to everyone
else'. I've always suspected its the informal/shadow system that would show stress before the
formal system. The only thing I do know is that a friend of mine who runs a business helping Chinese
people move to Europe using 'investment' visas has found more and more people of very modest means
attempting to do it its not just the rich who are buying properties.
The usually reliable
Michael Pettis also seems his usual gently bullish, but steady self, I'd expect him to write
something if there was something nasty growing.
AEP suggests that Xi may not be the firm hand on the tiller that everyone assumes his
overt confidence may well be a front for some very confused ideas. I think there is increasing
evidence that this may be the case. For all the sound and fury, there is little real evidence
of reform from within. But I think the safe bet is that the CCP has enough of a firm hand that
they can prevent an outright crash much more likely is the sort of crippling slow motion collapse
that we saw in Japan a quarter of a century ago. But the longer they insist on shovelling fuel
on to the fire, the less likely that happens. As Pettis constantly points out, economists consistently
underestimate the speed and severity of crashes.
let's try to imagine the global impact of a Chinese implosion.
as china is the main source of global export demand, if they hit a brick wall it would devastate
all but the most diversified or isolated economies. from Australia to Zaire, the impact would
be devastating to employment.
Given the huge amount of foreign investment in china and how much it is likely leveraged,
the global financial system will collapse again triggering the collapse of many states. proposals
of bailouts would be likely met with violent resistance, even revolution. far right politicians
would seize power and, where they haven't been politically neutered, maybe some leftists would,
too. were it to happen before november, we could welcome into office president trump in january.
domestically, Chinese job losses would be enormous causing mass discontent and protests. indeed,
the only thing to do with legions of disgruntled, unemployed, unmarried men would be to draft
them into the army. but so much fodder requires cannons, and so, the likelihood of war would be
very high.
"... China, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, pumped 5.6 percent less crude year-on-year in April, official data showed, as oil firms struggled with cost pressures with crude prices hovering around $40 a barrel. ..."
China, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, pumped 5.6 percent less crude year-on-year
in April, official data showed, as oil firms struggled with cost pressures with crude prices hovering
around $40 a barrel.
Data from the National Bureau of Statistics released on Saturday showed China produced 16.59 million
tonnes of crude oil last month, or about 4.04 million barrels per day (bpd), the lowest rate since
July 2013 on a daily basis.
Production in the first four months was down 2.7 percent over the same year-ago period to 68.14
million tonnes, or about 4.11 million bpd.
PetroChina, the country's top producer, recorded a 0.2 percent drop in oil and gas production
in the first quarter and Sinopec scaled back domestic crude production by 10.35 percent in the
same period, companies said in April.
Offshore specialist CNOOC Ltd, however, delivered a 5.1 percent rise in total net oil and gas
production in the first quarter over a year ago, thanks to new Chinese offshore fields.
Natural gas output last month rose 5.6 percent on the year to 10.6 billion cubic meters, with
production up 5.3 percent in the first four months, the data showed.
China has reported April 2016 production at 4.04 mbpd. A 5.6% decline year on year. It's down
380,000 bopd (8.6%) from the 4.42 mbpd JODI lists for June 2015.
"... Americans are driving more than ever before. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reached an all-time high of 3.15 trillion miles in February 2016 (Figure 2). VMT have increased 97 billion miles per month (3 percent) since the beginning of 2015 and gasoline sales have increased 187 kbpd (2 percent). The rates of increase are not proportional. ..."
Americans are driving more than ever before. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reached an all-time
high of 3.15 trillion miles in February 2016 (Figure 2). VMT have increased 97 billion miles per
month (3 percent) since the beginning of 2015 and gasoline sales have increased 187 kbpd (2 percent).
The rates of increase are not proportional.
... ... ...
From April 2015 to March 2016, oil production decreased 660 kbpd (-7 percent) but net crude oil
imports increased 800 kbpd (+10 percent) (Figure 5).
"... "Mr Sechin warned last week that the current shale boom could be another "dotcom bubble" about to burst after drillers, loaded up on risky debt, and hedge funds piled in to make a quick buck over the last five years." Seems like he was prescient in that observation as well. ..."
"... The elephant in the room is the cost of production which for most countries including the USA and Canada is far higher then the current prices. That means that the wave of bankruptcies and drop in the USA production will continue unabated. The total loss might be above 1 Mb/d for the 2016. Canada also lost some production (currently 0.5 Mb/d due to fires) and needs about $80 for tar sand production to be profitable. Chances that oil price will reach this level in 2016 are slim, so the future of Canadian tar sand oil production is grim. ..."
"... Several oil producing countries are on the verge of bankruptcy (Nigeria, Venezuela, Iraq). Saudi are losing around 100 billion a year in currency reserves while still playing a role of Trojan horse of the West in oil markets. ..."
"... This situation is unsustainable and speculator/HFT driven suppression of oil prices at some point might break and will be replaced by a new price boom. It in highly probable that the price of oil will reach, at least temporary, the level of $55 this year. ..."
"... But oil is a strategic product and high oil prices mean stagnation of Western economies. The key problem is that high oil prices threaten neoliberalism as a social system and derail neoliberal globalization. So they will be fought tooth and nail by the US and the EU elites. That's why agreement to freeze oil production by OPEN was derailed. Another victory of western diplomacy. ..."
Perhaps Igor Sechin is right (Sechin is head of the Russian energy company Rosneft and a close
ally of Putin). In a Telegraph article on 2/2/15, discussing Sechin and the remarks he made at
an oil consortium, the author comments that, "However, the real "haymaker" punch he ( meaning
Sechin ) aimed at the global energy system came with the accusation that oil futures markets
in London and New York, which set the price of the world's most vital energy commodity, are essentially
being rigged by a feral cabal of speculators and traders." That would explain the obvious disconnect
discussed by the author here concerning the red herrings put out by the oil sector. Interesting
as well, in the article mentioned above the author also notes, "Mr Sechin warned last week
that the current shale boom could be another "dotcom bubble" about to burst after drillers, loaded
up on risky debt, and hedge funds piled in to make a quick buck over the last five years." Seems
like he was prescient in that observation as well.
The elephant in the room is the cost of production which for most countries including the
USA and Canada is far higher then the current prices. That means that the wave of bankruptcies
and drop in the USA production will continue unabated. The total loss might be above 1 Mb/d for
the 2016. Canada also lost some production (currently 0.5 Mb/d due to fires) and needs about $80
for tar sand production to be profitable. Chances that oil price will reach this level in 2016
are slim, so the future of Canadian tar sand oil production is grim.
Several oil producing countries are on the verge of bankruptcy (Nigeria, Venezuela, Iraq).
Saudi are losing around 100 billion a year in currency reserves while still playing a role of
Trojan horse of the West in oil markets.
This situation is unsustainable and speculator/HFT driven suppression of oil prices at
some point might break and will be replaced by a new price boom. It in highly probable that the
price of oil will reach, at least temporary, the level of $55 this year.
But oil is a strategic product and high oil prices mean stagnation of Western economies.
The key problem is that high oil prices threaten neoliberalism as a social system and derail neoliberal
globalization. So they will be fought tooth and nail by the US and the EU elites. That's why agreement
to freeze oil production by OPEN was derailed. Another victory of western diplomacy.
Arthur Berman was a very keen observer of shale bubble in the USA until recently. Then something
changed.
The surplus in early 2016 was closer to about 500,000 b/d, he says, and should continue to
fall. "The oversupply in the market is grossly overstated," King says.
A lag in output data is partly due to the high estimates, King says, and surpluses are likely to
be much lower in the coming months as surplus numbers begin to catch up with the real decreases
in supplies. "People are still suggesting it's one million or two million barrels per day-it's
nothing even close to that."
FirstEnergy sees prices for West Texas Intermediate averaging $55 for 2017, then rising to
$66.25 over 2018 and $74 in 2019, according to its quarterly market update. "In 2017 you'll start
to see things look a little bit better," King said. "The market in our view is reaching a
balanced position. Inventories are starting to roll over, demand is doing great and supplies are
coming off-the three basics you need for better pricing."
Some analysts have suggested the gradual rise in WTI prices could trigger a simultaneous rise in
U.S. shale oil production, which would ultimately offset any gains in prices. King said this
scenario was unlikely, as many producers have already locked in their 2016 spending programs, and
capital markets remain tight and the high-yield debt market continues to sputter.
"... 72% of petroleum used is for transportation. 63% of that is light duty
vehicles. So of 90mbod, 40 million barrels are subject to potential substitution
by electric vehicles. The adoption curve need only stay ahead of the decline curve.
..."
"... As an ex Mack Trucks sales person. I always considered SUVs and pickups
as light duty. I agree they will be electrified but it's going to take a little
longer than passenger vehicles. Right now hybrids are much more feasible because
of the more extreme workload they preform. Towing a 10k trailer a couple of hundred
of miles is going to take a lot of juice. ..."
"... America already runs hybrid buses if you consider that electric. To get
were the world needs to be, we're going to need a lot of f'n batteries. Once the
world solves the battery issue, there is not much reason class 8's can't be electrified
starting with local delivery trucks. ..."
Differences of opinion are what make discussion interesting.
72% of petroleum used is for transportation. 63% of that is light
duty vehicles. So of 90mbod, 40 million barrels are subject to potential
substitution by electric vehicles. The adoption curve need only stay ahead
of the decline curve.
Why worry about Caterpillars first when transportation is the biggest
slice of the petroleum pie, and the most readily subject to supercession
by other energy sources?
Transition may be improbable, but that's different than impossible.
Assuming that an ICE is 20% as efficient as an EV, which seems reasonable
as one barrel of oil is energy equivalent to 1628.2kWh, and will produce
19 gallons of gasoline, and 12 gallons of diesel. Assuming 30 mpg economy
for each, the barrel of oil provides 930 miles of travel, while 1628.2 kWh
at 3mpkWh will provide 4,884 miles of travel.
So if the light duty transport fleet was replaced 100% with electric
vehicles, 40.8 mbo/day would require 13.3 TWh of electric power substitution.
We have increased global annual renewable power production by 3,250 TWh's
in the last decade, so to increase renewable power production by 2030 to
produce 13TWh/day to offset 40.8 MBO/day used in the transportation sector
would require that we accomplish in the next fifteen years what we have
accomplished in the last ten (+3,250TWhp/decade).
As for the vehicles, all we must do is replace 100% of the light duty
fleet with EV's in that same 15 years. Easy as pie, right? :-)
As an ex Mack Trucks sales person. I always considered SUVs and pickups
as light duty. I agree they will be electrified but it's going to take a
little longer than passenger vehicles. Right now hybrids are much more feasible
because of the more extreme workload they preform. Towing a 10k trailer
a couple of hundred of miles is going to take a lot of juice.
America already runs hybrid buses if you consider that electric.
To get were the world needs to be, we're going to need a lot of f'n batteries.
Once the world solves the battery issue, there is not much reason class
8's can't be electrified starting with local delivery trucks.
the fundamentally unsustainable pricing that we've seen for much of 2016, particularly after
the 2nd failed OPEC meeting, has been much more dependent upon speculative short positions in the
market, particularly from algorithmic momentum funds. We could track the speculative short
positions against the price of crude almost exactly as prices dropped below $40 the first time,
with long positions decreasing to their lowest levels in five years as crude dropped under $30 a
barrel.
Looks like you was right about timing of peak oil. The trend of production down is becoming
more clear with each month. It might be disrupted by some noise (end of Libya civil war, etc),
but still with no new major deposits discovered I do not see factors that can change it.
Higher oil prices might change things and that chart is US only.
IEA expects non-OPEC output to fall 750 kb/d in 2016, some of this may be made up by increases
in Iranian, Iraqi, and Libyan output. On an annual basis 2016 may be pretty close to average annual
output in 2015 for C+C. It will be interesting to see how things play out, I still like the plateau
scenario which I will define as World C+C output remaining between 79 and 81 Mb/d on average for
any 12 month period from now until 2025.
Higher oil prices might change things and that chart is US only.
I understand that the chart is the US only but it is the harbinger of things to come globally.
As for higher oil prices, they need to get into $70-$80 range first where high cost oil projects
including US LTO became profitable to change the current trend. Before that "recovery of oil prices"
does not change much for non conventional oil producers. For some (for example the USA) conventional
oil producers the lower range you provided before might be OK, but most oil producing countries
with national oil companies could not balance budget below $90.
IMHO prices below $70-$80 mean for non conventional producers the continuation of "survival
mode" or "extend and pretend". With the only difference that the dates of renewal of credit lines
coming closer. And that magic range of prices $70-$80 probably will not be reached this year.
So I would say your expectations are too optimistic.
When you cite IEA it make sense to provide some information of their track record of production
forecasting accuracy during previous sharp reversals of oil prices trends. My impression is that
they are way too "linear extrapolation" type of animal.
This conclusion strengthen considerably if we take into account that this is 50% propaganda
agency which needs to support "low oil price forever" regime as a part of their institutional
agenda. In other words this an agency that is serving G7 countries interested in low oil prices.
That creates certain limits on what they can say so it is natural for them to try to downplay
any possible drop in oil production. It would extremely stupid to expect from them any other behavior.
So IMHO you can safely double their estimates in such cases.
Reality is pretty grim now for oil producers and you need to understand that a lot of skeletons
in the closet (including financial skeletons) remain hidden. So actual situation can be much worse
then we assume and another quarter of low prices by which I mean prices below which conventional
oil production in the USA is unprofitable (let's say $55) might be the straw that broke the camel's
back.
So there is a hope that neoliberals lose control over oil prices at some point.
I agree with you about wild cards like Iran and Libya. But the US is ambivalent about allowing
Iran to recover oil production and there are moves directed at confiscation part of their "frozen"
funds without which this is almost impossible with the current prices. But still we can expect
that both of those cards be played to slow down price recovery (and ayatollahs proved to be extremely
stupid, if you ask me; not much different from Wahhabis sheiks. why they did not cooperate with
oil price freeze (for six months; only six months!) is beyond me. But even Iran ayatollahs arrogant
stupidity can't change general trend, which is down.
Iraq can't meaningfully increase production right now as this is an almost bankrupt by civil
war country and chances to restore peace this year are slim. Saudis and friends continue to finance
Sunni insurgency. It was inertia from "good old times" that drove their production up in 2015.
This is over.
Shale card was already played once (and it was played very well) but that's it. Now "carpet
drilling" trick will not be repeated again even if price reach magic level of $80: unlimited financing
of shale drilling is gone for good.
My impression is that there are powerful forces that are not interested in oil price recovery
and do not care about negative long term consequences of waiting so much oil instead of extending
conservation technologies.
Unless those forces (of neoliberalism) are somehow suppressed I doubt that prices can recover
to the level that allow expansion of production. And in oil prices world the tail still wags the
dog: Wall Street still determine oil prices in a sense that it is able vastly amplify the moves
via HFT.
Also oil producers also now are disorganized mob unable to protect their own interests, so
I would not expect meaningful actions from OPEC unless there is a coup d'ιtat in KSA that removes
the young gambler prince who almost halved country currency reserves.
found in the third group of experiments (see the scenarios for an unequal society in section
5.3), where we introduced economic stratification. Under such conditions, we find that
collapse is difficult to avoid , which helps to explain why economic stratification
is one of the elements consistently found in past collapsed societies. Importantly, in the
first of these unequal society scenarios, 5.3.1, the solution appears to be on a sustainable
path for quite a long time, but even using an optimal depletion rate () and starting with a
very small number of Elites, the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine
among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society. It is important to note that
this Type-L collapse is due to an inequality-induced famine that causes a loss of workers,
rather than a collapse of Nature. Despite appearing initially to be the same as the sustainable
optimal solution obtained in the absence of Elites, economic stratification changes the final
result: Elites' consumption keeps growing until the society collapses . The
Mayan collapse -in which population never recovered even though nature did recover- is an example
of a Type-L collapse, whereas the collapses in the Easter Island and the Fertile Crescent -where
nature was depleted- are examples of a Type-N collapse.
In scenario 5.3.2, with a larger depletion rate, the decline of the Commoners occurs faster,
while the Elites are still thriving, but eventually the Commoners collapse completely, followed
by the Elites. It is important to note that in both of these scenarios, the Elites -due to
their wealth- do not suffer the detrimental effects of the environmental collapse until much
later than the Commoners. This buffer of wealth allows Elites to continue 'business
as usual' despite the impending catastrophe . It is likely that this is an important
mechanism that would help explain how historical collapses were allowed to occur by elites
who appear to be oblivious to the catastrophic trajectory (most clearly apparent in the Roman
and Mayan cases). This buffer effect is further reinforced by the long, apparently sustainable
trajectory prior to the beginning of the collapse. While some members of society might
raise the alarm that the system is moving towards an impending collapse and therefore
advocate structural changes to society in order to avoid it, Elites and their supporters, who
opposed making these changes, could point to the long sustainable trajectory 'so far' in support
of doing nothing."
-------------
"It is well known that Americans consume far more natural resources and live much less sustainably
than people from any other large country of the world. 'A child born in the United States will
create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than
a child born in Brazil', reports the Sierra Club's Dave Tilford, adding that the average American
will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India and consume 53 times more goods and services
than someone from China.
Tilford cites a litany of sobering statistics showing just how profligate Americans have
been in using and abusing natural resources. For example, between 1900 and 1989 U.S. population
tripled while its use of raw materials grew by a factor of 17. ' With less than 5 percent
of world population, the U.S. uses one-third of the world's paper, a quarter
of the world's oil, 23 percent of the coal , 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent
of the copper', he reports. 'Our per capita use of energy, metals, minerals, forest products,
fish, grains, meat, and even fresh water dwarfs that of people living in the developing world.'.
He adds that Americans account for only five percent of the world's population
but create half of the globe's solid waste.
Americans' love of the private automobile constitutes a large part of their poor
ranking . The National Geographic Society's annual Greendex analysis of global consumption
habits finds that Americans are least likely of all people to use public transportation-only
seven percent make use of transit options for daily commuting. Likewise, only one in three
Americans walks or bikes to their destinations the U.S. remains the per capita consumption
leader for most resources.
Overall, National Geographic's Greendex found that American consumers rank last of 17 countries
surveyed in regard to sustainable behavior. Furthermore, the study found that U.S. consumers
are among the least likely to feel guilty about the impact they have on the environment " ~
Scientific American
"The American way of life is not up for negotiation." ~ George Bush Sr.
Yes but China is burning that coal to make all of the "stuff" that the US buys so you could argue
that the US is consuming that coal. I may even be greater than 23%.
exactly Jef. this whole globalization is just a buzzword to hide what is really trashing the mother
earth by the global 1%. Pointing fingers who trash more is illusion fed to us so we can chew on
it and be distracted because the real game is played between 1% versus 99% no matter where they
live.
U.S. gasoline consumption, averaged over four weeks, rose 3.9 percent from
a year earlier to 9.39 million barrels a day through April 15, Energy Information
Administration data show. Demand this summer will increase 1.4 percent to a
record, the EIA said April 12. Americans drove 232.2 billion vehicle miles in
February, up 5.6 percent from a year earlier, Transportation Department data
show.
"Gasoline demand is quite strong and that's all price driven," said Thomas
Finlon, director of Energy Analytics Group LLC in Wellington, Florida. "Demand
for gasoline should provide support for crude."
The average price of regular gasoline at the pump nationwide was $2.136 a
gallon on Sunday, down 15 percent from a year earlier, according to data from
Heathrow, Florida-based AAA, a national federation of motor clubs.
Speculators' net-long position in WTI gained by 30,357 futures and options
combined to 245,987, CFTC data show. Long positions, or bets that prices will
rise, increased 4.8 percent, while shorts tumbled 19 percent.
In other markets, net bullish bets on Nymex gasoline climbed 15 percent to
23,357 contracts. Gasoline futures declined 3.5 percent in the period. Net bearish
wagers on U.S. ultra low sulfur diesel decreased 11 percent to 7,773 contracts,
the least since June as futures slipped 1 percent.
Teapot refiners continue to show ability to process additional volumes of oil, which suggest that
a Chinese economy might be turning a corner
Notable quotes:
"... In the first quarter of this year China diverted about 787,000 barrels per day into its strategic stockpile, the highest rate since Bloomberg has been tracking the data in 2004. Overall, as of March, China was importing around 7.7 million barrels per day. ..."
"... These so-called "teapot refineries," with capacities of around 20,000 to 100,000 barrels of production per day, struggled under the old restrictions, producing at only 30 to 40 percent of capacity because of an inability to import oil. That has changed, and domestic refining production is set to rise, and with it, so are imports. ..."
In the first quarter of this year China diverted about 787,000 barrels per day into its strategic
stockpile, the highest rate since Bloomberg has been tracking the data in 2004. Overall, as of March,
China was importing around 7.7 million barrels per day.
... ... ...
Another source of additional demand comes from a policy change in the downstream sector. The central
government recently
loosened the rules on oil imports, allowing smaller refineries to import more crude oil.
These so-called "teapot refineries," with capacities of around 20,000 to 100,000 barrels of production
per day, struggled under the old restrictions, producing at only 30 to 40 percent of capacity because
of an inability to import oil. That has changed, and domestic refining production is set to rise,
and with it, so are imports.
"... "U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sidestepped the issue (of a US-Saudi plot) after a trip to Saudi Arabia in September. Asked if past discussions with Riyadh had touched on Russia's need for oil above $100 to balance its budget, he smiled and said: "They (Saudis) are very, very well aware of their ability to have an impact on global oil prices." ( Saudi oil policy uncertainty unleashes the conspiracy theorists , Reuters) ..."
"... Of course, they're in bed together. Saudi Arabia is a US client. It's not autonomous or sovereign in any meaningful way. It's a US protectorate, a satellite, a colony. They do what they're told. Period. True, the relationship is complex, but let's not be ridiculous. The Saudis are not calling the shots. The idea is absurd. Do you really think that Washington would let Riyadh fiddle prices in a way that destroyed critical US domestic energy industries, ravaged the junk bond market, and generated widespread financial instability without uttering a peep of protest on the matter? ..."
"... Dream on! If the US was unhappy with the Saudis, we'd all know about it in short-order because it would be raining Daisy Cutters from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea, which is the way that Washington normally expresses its displeasure on such matters. The fact that Obama has not even alluded to the shocking plunge in prices just proves that the policy coincides with Washington's broader geopolitical strategy. ..."
"... It happened again in 1986, when Saudi Arabia-led OPEC allowed prices to drop precipitously, and then in 1990, when the Saudis sent prices plummeting as a way of taking out Russia, which was seen as a threat to their oil supremacy. In 1998, they succeeded. When the oil price was halved from $25 to $12, Russia defaulted on its debt. ..."
"... Bottom line: Falling oil prices and the plunging ruble are not some kind of free market accident brought on by oversupply and weak demand. That's baloney. They're part of a broader geopolitical strategy to strangle the Russian economy, topple Putin, and establish US hegemony across the Asian landmass. It's all part of Washington's plan to maintain its top-spot as the world's only superpower even though its economy is in irreversible decline. ..."
"Saudi oil policy has been subject to a great deal of wild and inaccurate conjecture in recent
weeks. We do not seek to politicize oil For us it's a question of supply and demand, it's purely
business."
Ali al Naimi, Saudi Oil Minister
"There is no conspiracy, there is no targeting of anyone. This is a market and it goes up and
down."
Suhail Bin Mohammed al-Mazroui, United Arab Emirates' petroleum minister
"We all see the lowering of oil prices. There's lots of talk about what's causing it. Could
it be an agreement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to punish Iran and affect the economies of
Russia and Venezuela? It could."
Are falling oil prices part of a US-Saudi plan to inflict economic damage on Russia, Iran and
Venezuela?
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro seems to think so. In a recent interview that appeared in
Reuters, Maduro said he thought the United States and Saudi Arabia wanted to drive down oil prices
"to harm Russia."
Bolivian President Evo Morales agrees with Maduro and told journalists at RT that: "The reduction
in oil prices was provoked by the US as an attack on the economies of Venezuela and Russia. In the
face of such economic and political attacks, the nations must be united."
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the same thing,with a slightly different twist: "The main
reason for (the oil price plunge) is a political conspiracy by certain countries against the interests
of the region and the Islamic world Iran and people of the region will not forget such treachery
against the interests of the Muslim world."
US-Saudi "treachery"? Is that what's really driving down oil prices?
Not according to Saudi Arabia's Petroleum Minister Ali al-Naimi. Al-Naimi has repeatedly denied
claims that the kingdom is involved in a conspiracy. He says the tumbling prices are the result of
"A lack of cooperation by non-OPEC production nations, along with the spread of misinformation and
speculator's greed." In other words, everyone else is to blame except the country that has historically
kept prices high by controlling output. That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Especially sinceaccording
to the Financial Times - OPEC's de facto leader has abandoned the cartel's "traditional strategy"
and announced that it won't cut production even if prices drop to $20 per barrel.
Why? Why would the Saudis suddenly abandon a strategy that allowed them to rake in twice as much
dough as they are today? Don't they like money anymore?
And why would al-Naimi be so eager to crash prices, send Middle East stock markets into freefall,
increase the kingdom's budget deficits to a record-high 5 percent of GDP, and create widespread financial
instability? Is grabbing "market share" really that important or is there something else going on
here below the surface?
The Guardian's Larry Elliot thinks the US and Saudi Arabia are engaged a conspiracy to push down
oil prices. He points to a September meeting between John Kerry and Saudi King Abdullah where a deal
was made to boost production in order to hurt Iran and Russia. Here's a clip from the article titled
"Stakes are high as US plays the oil card against Iran and Russia":
" with the help of its Saudi ally, Washington is trying to drive down the oil price by flooding
an already weak market with crude. As the Russians and the Iranians are heavily dependent on oil
exports, the assumption is that they will become easier to deal with
John Kerry, the US secretary of state, allegedly struck a deal with King Abdullah in September
under which the Saudis would sell crude at below the prevailing market price. That would help
explain why the price has been falling at a time when, given the turmoil in Iraq and Syria caused
by Islamic State, it would normally have been rising.
The Saudis did something similar in the mid-1980s. Then, the geopolitical motivation for a
move that sent the oil price to below $10 a barrel was to destabilize Saddam Hussein's regime.
This time, according to Middle East specialists, the Saudis want to put pressure on Iran and to
force Moscow to weaken its support for the Assad regime in Syria (Stakes
are high as US plays the oil card against Iran and Russia, Guardian)
That's the gist of Elliot's theory, but is he right?
Vladimir Putin isn't so sure. Unlike Morales, Maduro and Rouhani, the Russian president has been
reluctant to blame falling prices on US-Saudi collusion. In an article in Itar-Tass, Putin opined:
"There's a lot of talk around" in what concerns the causes for the slide of oil prices, he
said at a major annual news conference. "Some people say there is conspiracy between Saudi Arabia
and the US in order to punish Iran or to depress the Russian economy or to exert impact on Venezuela."
"It might be really so or might be different, or there might be the struggle of traditional
producers of crude oil and shale oil," Putin said. "Given the current situation on the market
the production of shale oil and gas has practically reached the level of zero operating costs."
(Putin says oil market price conspiracy
between Saudi Arabia and US not ruled out, Itar-Tass)
As always, Putin takes the most moderate position, that is, that Washington and the Saudis may
be in cahoots, but that droopy prices might simply be a sign of over-supply and weakening demand.
In other words, there could be a plot, but then again, maybe not. Putin is a man who avoids passing
judgment without sufficient evidence.
The same can't be said of the Washington Post. In a recent article, WP journalist Chris Mooney
dismisses anyone who thinks oil prices are the result of US-Saudi collaboration as "kooky conspiracy
theorists". According to Mooney:
"The reasons for the sudden (price) swing are not particularly glamorous: They involve factors
like supply and demand, oil companies having invested heavily in exploration several years ago
to produce a glut of oil that has now hit the market - and then, perhaps, the "lack of cohesion"
among the diverse members of OPEC." (Why
there are so many kooky conspiracy theories about oil, Washington Post)
Oddly enough, Mooney disproves his own theory a few paragraphs later in the same piece when he
says:
"Oil producers really do coordinate. And then, there's OPEC, which is widely referred to in
the press as a "cartel," and which states up front that its mission is to "coordinate and unify
the petroleum policies" of its 12 member countries . Again, there's that veneer of plausibility
to the idea of some grand oil related strategy." (WP)
Let me get this straight: One the one hand Mooney agrees that OPEC is a cartel that "coordinates
and unify the petroleum policies", then on the other, he says that market fundamentals are at work.
Can you see the disconnect? Cartels obstruct normal supply-demand dynamics by fixing prices, which
Mooney seems to breezily ignore.
Also, he scoffs at the idea of "some grand oil related strategy" as if these cartel nations were
philanthropic organizations operating in the service of humanity. Right. Someone needs to clue Mooney
in on the fact that OPEC is not the Peace Corps. They are monopolizing amalgam of cutthroat extortionists
whose only interest is maximizing profits while increasing their own political power. Surely, we
can all agree on that fact.
What's really wrong with Mooney's article, is that he misses the point entirely. The debate is
NOT between so-called "conspiracy theorists" and those who think market forces alone explain the
falling prices. It's between the people who think that the Saudis decision to flood the market is
driven by politics rather than a desire to grab "market share." That's where people disagree. No
denies that there's manipulation; they merely disagree about the motive. This glaring fact seems
to escape Mooney who is on a mission to discredit conspiracy theorists at all cost. Here's more:
(There's) "a long tradition of conspiracy theorists who have surmised that the world's great
oil powers - whether countries or mega-corporations - are secretly pulling strings to shape world
events."
"A lot of conspiracy theories take as their premise that there's a small group of people who
are plotting to control something, to control the government, the banking system, or the main
energy source, and they are doing this to the disadvantage of everybody else," says University
of California-Davis historian Kathy Olmsted, author of "Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and
American Democracy, World War I to 9/11″. (Washington Post)
Got that? Now find me one person who doesn't think the world is run by a small group of rich,
powerful people who operate in their own best interests? Here's more from the same article:
(Oil) "It's the perfect lever for shifting world events. If you were a mad secret society with
world-dominating aspirations and lots of power, how would you tweak the world to create cascading
outcomes that could topple governments and enrich some at the expense of others? It's hard to
see a better lever than the price of oil, given its integral role in the world economy." (WP)
"A mad secret society"? Has Mooney noticed that - in the last decade and a half - the US has only
invaded nations that have huge natural resources (mainly oil and natural gas) or the geography for
critical pipeline routes? There's nothing particularly secret about it, is there?
The United States is not a "mad secret society with world-dominating aspirations". It's a empire
with blatantly obvious "world-dominating aspirations" run by political puppets who do the work of
wealthy elites and corporations. Any sentient being who's bright enough to browse the daily headlines
can figure that one out.
Mooney's grand finale:
"So in sum, with a surprising and dramatic event like this year's oil price decline, it would
be shocking if it did not generate conspiracy theories. Humans believe them all too easily. And
they're a lot more colorful than a more technical (and accurate) story about supply and demand."
(WP)
Ah, yes. Now I see. Those darn "humans". They're so weak-minded they'll believe anything you tell
them, which is why they need someone as smart as Mooney tell them how the world really works.
Have you ever read such nonsense in your life? On top of that, he gets the whole story wrong.
This isn't about market fundamentals. It's about manipulation. Are the Saudis manipulating supply
to grab market share or for political reasons? THAT'S THE QUESTION. The fact that they ARE manipulating
supply is not challenged by anyone including the uber-conservative Financial Times that deliberately
pointed out that the Saudis had abandoned their traditional role of cutting supply to support prices.
That's what a "swing state" does; it manipulates supply keep prices higher than they would be if
market forces were allowed to operate unimpeded.
So what is the motive driving the policy; that's what we want to know?
Certainly there's a strong case to be made for market share. No one denies that. If the Saudis
keep prices at rock bottom for a prolonged period of time, then a high percentage of the producers
(that can't survive at prices below $70 per barrel) will default leaving OPEC with greater market
share and more control over pricing.
So market share is certainly a factor. But is it the only factor?
Is it so far fetched to think that the United Stateswhich in the last year has imposed harsh
economic sanctions on Russia, made every effort to sabotage the South Stream pipeline, and toppled
the government in Kiev so it could control the flow of Russian gas to countries in the EUwould coerce
the Saudis into flooding the market with oil in order to decimate the Russian economy, savage the
ruble, and create favorable conditions for regime change in Moscow? Is that so hard to believe?
Apparently New York Times columnist Thomas Freidman doesn't think so. Here's how he summed it
up in a piece last month: "Is it just my imagination or is there a global oil war underway pitting
the United States and Saudi Arabia on one side against Russia and Iran on the other?"
It sounds like Freidman has joined the conspiracy throng, doesn't it? And he's not alone either.
This is from Alex Lantier at the World Socialist Web Site:
"While there are a host of global economic factors underlying the fall in oil prices, it is
unquestionable that a major role in the commodity's staggering plunge is Washington's collaboration
with OPEC and the Saudi monarchs in Riyadh to boost production and increase the glut on world
oil markets.
As Obama traveled to Saudi Arabia after the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis last March, the
Guardian wrote, "Angered by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the Saudis turned on the
oil taps, driving down the global price of crude until it reached $20 a barrel (in today's prices)
in the mid-1980s [Today] the Saudis might be up for such a move-which would also boost global
growth-in order to punish Putin over his support for the Assad regime in Syria. Has Washington
floated this idea with Riyadh? It would be a surprise if it hasn't." (Alex Lantier,
Imperialism
and the ruble crisis, World Socialist Web Site)
And here's an intriguing clip from an article at Reuters that suggests the Obama administration
is behind the present Saudi policy:
"U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sidestepped the issue (of a US-Saudi plot) after a trip to
Saudi Arabia in September. Asked if past discussions with Riyadh had touched on Russia's need for
oil above $100 to balance its budget, he smiled and said: "They (Saudis) are very, very well aware
of their ability to have an impact on global oil prices." (Saudi
oil policy uncertainty unleashes the conspiracy theorists, Reuters)
Wink, wink.
Of course, they're in bed together. Saudi Arabia is a US client. It's not autonomous or sovereign
in any meaningful way. It's a US protectorate, a satellite, a colony. They do what they're told.
Period. True, the relationship is complex, but let's not be ridiculous. The Saudis are not calling
the shots. The idea is absurd. Do you really think that Washington would let Riyadh fiddle prices
in a way that destroyed critical US domestic energy industries, ravaged the junk bond market, and
generated widespread financial instability without uttering a peep of protest on the matter?
Dream on! If the US was unhappy with the Saudis, we'd all know about it in short-order because
it would be raining Daisy Cutters from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea, which is the way that Washington
normally expresses its displeasure on such matters. The fact that Obama has not even alluded to the
shocking plunge in prices just proves that the policy coincides with Washington's broader geopolitical
strategy.
And let's not forget that the Saudis have used oil as a political weapon before, many times before.
Indeed, wreaking havoc is nothing new for our good buddies the Saudis. Check this out from Oil Price
website:
"In 1973, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat convinced Saudi King Faisal to cut production and
raise prices, then to go as far as embargoing oil exports, all with the goal of punishing the
United States for supporting Israel against the Arab states. It worked. The "oil price shock"
quadrupled prices.
It happened again in 1986, when Saudi Arabia-led OPEC allowed prices to drop precipitously,
and then in 1990, when the Saudis sent prices plummeting as a way of taking out Russia, which
was seen as a threat to their oil supremacy. In 1998, they succeeded. When the oil price was halved
from $25 to $12, Russia defaulted on its debt.
The Saudis and other OPEC members have, of course, used the oil price for the obverse effect,
that is, suppressing production to keep prices artificially high and member states swimming in
"petrodollars". In 2008, oil peaked at $147 a barrel." (Did
The Saudis And The US Collude In Dropping Oil Prices?, Oil Price)
1973, 1986, 1990, 1998 and 2008.
So, according to the author, the Saudis have manipulated oil prices at least five times in the
past to achieve their foreign policy objectives. But, if that's the case, then why does the media
ridicule people who think the Saudis might be engaged in a similar strategy today?
Could it be that the media is trying to shape public opinion on the issue and, by doing so, actually
contribute to the plunge in oil prices?
Bingo. Alert readers have probably noticed that the oil story has been splashed across the headlines
for weeks even though the basic facts have not changed in the least. It's all a rehash of the same
tedious story reprinted over and over again. But, why? Why does the public need to have the same
"Saudis refuse to cut production" story driven into their consciousness day after day like they're
part of some great collective brainwashing experiment? Could it be that every time the message is
repeated, oil sells off, and prices go down? Is that it?
Precisely. For example, last week a refinery was attacked in Libya which pushed oil prices up
almost immediately. Just hours later, however, another "Saudis refuse to cut production" story conveniently
popped up in all the major US media which pushed prices in the direction the USG wants them to go,
er, I mean, back down again.
This is how the media helps to reinforce government policy, by crafting a message that helps to
push down prices and, thus, hurt "evil" Putin. (This is called "jawboning") Keep in mind, that OPEC
doesn't meet again until June, 2015, so there's nothing new to report on production levels. But that
doesn't mean we're not going to get regular updates on the "Saudis refuse to cut production" story.
Oh, no. The media is going to keep beating that drum until Putin cries "Uncle" and submits to US
directives. Either that, or the bond market is going to blow up and take the whole damn global financial
system along with it. One way or another, something's got to give.
Bottom line: Falling oil prices and the plunging ruble are not some kind of free market accident
brought on by oversupply and weak demand. That's baloney. They're part of a broader geopolitical
strategy to strangle the Russian economy, topple Putin, and establish US hegemony across the Asian
landmass. It's all part of Washington's plan to maintain its top-spot as the world's only superpower
even though its economy is in irreversible decline.
"... This short term glut will probably accentuate the coming problems because it gives the impression that there is no peak oil. People have trouble understanding that there are short-term cycles within a long-term cycle. This bad signal is giving us the impetus to continue investing in energy intensive projects instead of reshaping our economy. And this will make things even worse in 5-10 years. ..."
"... A country's most important asset is energy and historically, countries have never willingly cut total energy consumption. They might increase efficiencies but the total does not drop. This means that most countries, as long as there exist other sectors that can be squeezed, will continue to subsidize the energy sector squeezing out these sectors that are deemed less important or simply those with less clout. ..."
"... It is quite obvious that our lives are even more energy dependent than they were when this monetary cycle started in the early 70s. And our system is still based on growing this even more. With NIRP, we are getting very close to the end of this cycle. ..."
"... There is no glut. All the oil is being bought. The problem is that there in not yet enough of a shortage to drive the price up. A small distinction but huge ramifications if you understand it. And by the way higher prices is not a solution to what ails us. ..."
"... The author blames the oil patch bust on a geophysical crisis. There is some truth to this argument but by far the biggest driver of the bust is Fed policy. Artificially cheap debt financing led to overcapacity and a vicious cycle of continued overproduction as drillers desperately try to avoid defaulting. ..."
This short term glut will probably accentuate the coming problems because it gives the impression
that there is no peak oil. People have trouble understanding that there are short-term cycles
within a long-term cycle. This bad signal is giving us the impetus to continue investing in energy
intensive projects instead of reshaping our economy. And this will make things even worse in 5-10
years.
If the total cost of extraction is more than 40$ and consumers are paying $40 or less, then
somewhere along the way, someone is subsidizing the cost. It could be low tax rates, eZ money,
growing deficits, underfunded pensions, underfunded restoration funds, etc.
A country's most important asset is energy and historically, countries have never willingly
cut total energy consumption. They might increase efficiencies but the total does not drop. This
means that most countries, as long as there exist other sectors that can be squeezed, will continue
to subsidize the energy sector squeezing out these sectors that are deemed less important or simply
those with less clout.
It is quite obvious that our lives are even more energy dependent than they were when this
monetary cycle started in the early 70s. And our system is still based on growing this even more.
With NIRP, we are getting very close to the end of this cycle.
There is no glut. All the oil is being bought. The problem is that there in not yet enough of a shortage to drive the price up. A small distinction
but huge ramifications if you understand it. And by the way higher prices is not a solution to what ails us.
The author blames the oil patch bust on a geophysical crisis. There is some truth to this argument
but by far the biggest driver of the bust is Fed policy. Artificially cheap debt financing led
to overcapacity and a vicious cycle of continued overproduction as drillers desperately try to
avoid defaulting.
"... The Telegraph has a story indicating Chinese oil imports are jumping from 6.7 million barrels per day in 2015 to 8 million barrels per day in 2016. Estimated to be 10 million barrels per day in 2018. Barclays estimates. Chinese production is set to fall slightly in 2016. ..."
"... US production looks to fall to 8 million bopd by end of 2016. US oil demand is also rising. ..."
"... Yeah I'm biased. I'm sick of sub $40 in the field. We have been below $40 in the field since 7/15. Haven't seen above $55 in the field since 11/14. Havent seen these oil prices since 2003-2004. ..."
"... Oil is still very low, yet gasoline has popped up over $2. Low here was $1.29. ..."
"... Refining friends say US gasoline demand will be very high this summer. Their turnaround is winding down, they are going to refine a record number of barrels this year. Just observations. ..."
The Telegraph has a story indicating Chinese oil imports are jumping from 6.7 million barrels
per day in 2015 to 8 million barrels per day in 2016. Estimated to be 10 million barrels per day
in 2018. Barclays estimates.
Chinese production is set to fall slightly in 2016.
US production looks to fall to 8 million bopd by end of 2016. US oil
demand is also rising.
Yeah I'm biased. I'm sick of sub $40 in the field. We have been below $40 in the field since
7/15. Haven't seen above $55 in the field since 11/14. Havent seen these oil prices since 2003-2004.
Great weather here today. People driving all over the place in our little burg. Didnt see one
electric
car today. Still know of one Tesla in town. There is, however, also one
used Leaf. That is new in the past
year. It is driven by a teenager to and from school. Her father has an F350 diesel, her mother
has a Chevy Suburban. The Tesla owner also has two gasoline powered vehicles.
Oil is still very low, yet gasoline has popped up over $2. Low here was $1.29.
Refining friends say US gasoline
demand will be very high this summer. Their turnaround is winding
down, they are going to refine
a record number of barrels this year. Just observations.
"... This could be a really big deal. First sign that the people of the GCC are not going to take reduced living standards easily. ..."
"... Good! I will go with Ron. They are all maxed out anyway. If they had signed a freeze agreement, then everyone would say that the price is rigged and blame the oil companies. I am willing [lost my ass on a lot of oil stock investments] to just wait and see how everything plays out without artificial agreements, that, in my opinion, would have meant nothing. ..."
"... Clueless. I understand where you are coming from. Given early signs from Kuwait, there may be no need for a cut or freeze. Assuming Kuwait just went down about 2 million, wouldn't it be prudent for the rest to wait and see what happens? I think austerity in the kingdoms maybe is not going so smoothly? ..."
"... As for us, we are kind of like Russia, don't want to see another sub $30 test. Would like to get to $55-60 WTI and see how shale, tar sands, etc react. So, if freeze talk is why we had a bounce, and we drop back below $30 WTI, we wont be happy campers about no freeze deal. ..."
Kuwait Oil Company (KOC) has lowered crude output to 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) from its
normal production level of about 3 million bpd, company spokesman Saad Al-Azmi said in a posting
on the KOC Twitter account.
Now thats a cut to write home about. So not sure about that how much the "glut" is but if they
take of 2mb/d does it mean we are below daily demand now.
Some talk about freeze the are definitely not talking, :-)
Oh sorry. Just copied a slice of the article and missed that vital information.
Anyway, let the market party start. It will definitely test the fundamentals of the oil market.
Words vs. Supply
DOHA OIL PRODUCERS MEETING ENDS WITHOUT AN AGREEMENT
"A summit in Doha between the world's largest oil producing countries ended without an agreement
on Sunday, as country leaders failed to strike a deal to freeze output and boost sagging crude
prices."
Good! I will go with Ron. They are all maxed out anyway. If they had signed a freeze agreement,
then everyone would say that the price is rigged and blame the oil companies. I am willing [lost
my ass on a lot of oil stock investments] to just wait and see how everything plays out without
artificial agreements, that, in my opinion, would have meant nothing.
Clueless. I understand where you are coming from.
Given early signs from Kuwait, there may be no need for a cut or freeze. Assuming Kuwait just went down about 2 million, wouldn't it be prudent for the rest to wait
and see what happens? I think austerity in the kingdoms maybe is not going so smoothly?
As for us, we are kind of like Russia, don't want to see another sub $30 test. Would like to
get to $55-60 WTI and see how shale, tar sands, etc react. So, if freeze talk is why we had a
bounce, and we drop back below $30 WTI, we wont be happy campers about no freeze deal.
In retrospect, costs got out of hand at $100 oil. Pretty much everything is cheaper now, except
for electricity.
$55-60 WTI would be wonderful. It would better if the market achieves it than through a cut.
However, history is that a cut is necessary to get the traders to dump their shorts.
There are a lot of John Kilduff's out there who are almost maniacal in their desire to drive
WTI back below $26.
I long ago quit trying to figure out why oil trades like it does, or how it can get so high
or low for periods of time.
I'd say the new Saudi prince who is apparently now in charge seems to be taking a different
approach than his predecessors.
The world's major oil producing nations failed to strike an agreement on Sunday
night to freeze production, saying they needed more time to agree a deal to
try to buoy the price of oil.
What producers had hoped would be the
first deal in 15 years ran into difficulty after
Saudi Arabia
the largest exporter of oil demanded that Iran join an
agreement to freeze output.
Iran
has been reluctant to agree to hold back on oil production while it
attempts to return its market share to pre-sanction levels.
The meeting in Doha had been called on Sunday for 18 countries to sign off
on a deal that would helped to put a floor on the price of crude oil which,
at
$45 a barrel
, has risen 60% from its lows in January.
But Reuters quoted sources saying that Saudi Arabia wanted all
Opec
members to attend talks, despite insisting earlier on excluding Iran,
its political rival in the region, because Tehran had refused to freeze production.
If a deal cannot be struck soon, it is possible that recent rises in the
price of oil will stall.
Economists at French bank Sociιtι Gιnιrale said: "When it comes to oil, the
principle of Goldilocks applies in full. Too low a price raises fear of a vicious
circle of default, spillover to bank balance sheets, eroding financial conditions
and a new headwind for the real economy.
"Too high a price, on the other hand, erodes the welcome boost to purchasing
power. But, if higher oil prices are driven by stronger demand, then this is
good news."
They noted that a recent report by the
International Energy Agency
warned that a mere production freeze would have
a limited effect on physical oil supply.
Even so, expectations had been high before the Sunday meeting that a deal
could be struck between Opec and non-Opec oil producers to hold output at January's
levels until October. Reuters was reporting that producers were instead agreeing
to freeze oil production at "an agreeable level" as long as all Opec countries
and major exporting nations participated.
"If there is no deal today, it will be more than just Iran that Saudi Arabia
will be targeting. If there is no freeze, that would directly affect North American
production going forward, perhaps something Saudis might like to see," Natixis
oil analyst Abhishek Deshpande told Reuters.
China's exports jumped 11.5%, the most in a year, and declines in imports narrowed to 7.6%
, adding to evidence of stabilization in the world's second-biggest economy.
(b) continuing growth in vehicle sales, supporting strong growth in gasoline consumption
"Vehicle sales in China rose 8.8 percent in March from a year earlier to 2.4 million, the China
Association of Automobile Manufacturers said on Tuesday, supporting strong gasoline demand in
the country." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-oil-idUSKCN0X800I
Average oil demand in the world's second-largest crude consumer is expected to grow by 420,000
barrels a day this year, the bank [Standard Chartered] said, adding that apparent oil product
demand expanded 6.2 percent last year to 9.4 million barrels a day. China will account for 37
percent of global demand growth this year, Standard Chartered estimates.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-25/china-seen-sustaining-strong-crude-imports-on-refining-reserves
2/ Falling domestic oil production (for the first time in many years)
"PetroChina Co. sees oil and gas output falling the first time in 17 years as it shuts high-cost
fields that have "no hope" of making profits at current prices."
"PetroChina forecasts crude production this year at 924.7 million barrels, down 4.9 percent."
"China's output in 2016 will decline as much as 5 percent from last year's record 4.3 million
barrels a day, according to estimates last month from Nomura Holdings Inc. and Sanford C. Bernstein
& Co. That would be the first drop in seven years, and the biggest in records going back to 1990."
5/ Strong refining margins, which encourage increasing processing volumes and contribute to
increasing oil product exports (which means that the increase in net imports was less than gross
imports)
They are owed almost a billion. I wonder how that works. They say if you owe a bank a million
and can't pay, you have a problem. If you owe a billion, the bank has a problem. I wonder if they
will actually pull out or be forced to continue to provide services to protect their receivables.
Maduro has been alleging that the US is seeking to scrap the OPEC freeze plan.
"... Looks like China is importing a lot of oil as there is also a traffic jam in Qingdao, China. ..."
"... A surge in oil buying by China's newest crude importers has created delays of up to a month for vessels to offload cargoes at Qingdao port, imposing costly fees and complicating efforts to sell to the world's hottest new buyers. ..."
"... China's independent refiners, freed of government constraints after securing permission to import just last year, have gorged on plentiful low-cost crude in 2016. This has created delays for tankers that have quadrupled to between 20 to 30 days at Qingdao port in Shandong province, the key import hub for the plants, known as teapots, according to port agents and ship-tracking data. ..."
China has recently allowed imports of crude oil by small independent "teapot"
refineries. So tanker jams do not necessarily mean an increase in final
demand.
From Reuters:
China teapot refiner oil buying spree creates tanker jam at Qingdao
A surge in oil buying by China's newest crude importers has created
delays of up to a month for vessels to offload cargoes at Qingdao port,
imposing costly fees and complicating efforts to sell to the world's hottest
new buyers.
China's independent refiners, freed of government constraints after
securing permission to import just last year, have gorged on plentiful low-cost
crude in 2016. This has created delays for tankers that have quadrupled
to between 20 to 30 days at Qingdao port in Shandong province, the key import
hub for the plants, known as teapots, according to port agents and ship-tracking
data.
Those confirmed so far are Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela,
Nigeria, Algeria, Indonesia, Ecuador, Bahrain, Oman and Qatar.
The collapse in oil prices has demolished investment in new projects,
the results of which will be felt in the 2018 to 2021 timeframe, due to
multiyear lead times
Oil production in the UK actually
increased a bit in 2015, after about two decades of steady declines.
The additional 100,000 barrels per day came from new offshore oil projects
that were initiated in 2012 when oil prices were much higher, plus extra
oil squeezed out from existing fields.
The collapse in oil prices has demolished investment in new projects,
the results of which will be felt in the 2018 to 2021 timeframe, due to
multiyear lead times. The number of new projects greenlighted in 2015 was
less than half of the level seen in 2013 and 2014.
As a result, beginning in 2018, the UK could see more severe production
declines.
Oil prices have hovered at $40 per barrel for much of the last week, as the
markets try to avoid falling back after the strong rally since February.
Investors
see shale production falling and demand continuing to rise, which point to the
ongoing oil market balancing.
But it is unclear at this point if the rally from
$27 per barrel in February to today's price just below $40 per barrel is here
to stay. Fundamentals, while trending in the right direction, are still weak.
India consumed 4.2 million barrels per day (mb/d) in 2016, overtaking Japan as the world's third largest oil consumer. The Indian
government is hoping to incentivize domestic oil production to help meet rising demand.
"... The problem for the international community is while destroying ISIS is their stated priority, both Libya's rival camps see each other as the greater threat. ISIS is a threat, but neither camp believes it is an existential threat, so the priority for both camps is fighting each other. ..."
The problem for the international community is while destroying ISIS is their stated priority,
both Libya's rival camps see each other as the greater threat. ISIS is a threat, but neither camp
believes it is an existential threat, so the priority for both camps is fighting each other.
"... Iraq war and its aftermath failed to stop the beginning of peak oil in 2005 ..."
"... I think the Iraq war was instigated by an alliance of neocon/Israel lobby plus oil/service company and weapons complex interests. But the overriding interest seems to have been the neocon strategy to get the USA tangled in Middle East wars. This in turn would weaken Israel's enemies and increase animosity between the Muslim and Christian worlds. Such animosity plays very well if it leads to all out war between "the West" and Muslims. As long as the USA keeps behaving as an Israeli puppet the conflict will intensify. ..."
"... What I outlined above is a distilled version of writings/books by former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, former CIA operatives, and books such as "Fiasco" by Thomas E. Ricks. I've also incorporated recent material written about ISIS and its birthing at the US Army's Camp Bucca. ..."
I think the Iraq war was instigated by an alliance of neocon/Israel lobby plus oil/service company
and weapons complex interests. But the overriding interest seems to have been the neocon strategy
to get the USA tangled in Middle East wars. This in turn would weaken Israel's enemies and increase
animosity between the Muslim and Christian worlds. Such animosity plays very well if it leads
to all out war between "the West" and Muslims. As long as the USA keeps behaving as an Israeli
puppet the conflict will intensify.
What I outlined above is a distilled version of writings/books by former CIA analyst Michael
Scheuer, former CIA operatives, and books such as "Fiasco" by Thomas E. Ricks. I've also incorporated
recent material written about ISIS and its birthing at the US Army's Camp Bucca.
Production down 30 kb/d;
Total crude and product stocks up 6.9 million barrels (to new records);
Net crude imports up 691 kb/d in just one week (!) and 1.1 mb/d from a year ago.
Despite a glut in the local market, U.S. refiners and traders are rapidly increasing crude
imports.
A typical disinformation bunged with the obvious attempt to amplify differences
within the OPEC. In spite of all this noise about oversupply i t will be difficult
to return to the lows of the year. Oil prices have surged more than 50 percent from
12-year lows since the OPEC floated the idea of a production freeze, boosting Brent
up from around $27 a barrel and U.S. crude from around $26. 15 oil-producing nations
representing about 73% of oil production have agreed to take part.
Notable quotes:
"... Qatar, which has been organizing the meeting, has invited all 13 OPEC members and major outside producers. The talks are expected to widen February's initial output freeze deal by Qatar, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, plus non-OPEC Russia. ..."
"... Iran produced about 2.9 million bpd in January and officials are talking about adding a further 500,000 bpd to exports. So far though, Iran has sold only modest volumes to Europe after sanctions were removed. ..."
...Libya has made its wish to return to pre-conflict oil production rates
clear since four countries reached a preliminary deal on freezing output in
February. Other producers understand this, the delegate said. "They appreciate
the situation we are in."
Qatar, which has been organizing the meeting, has invited all 13 OPEC
members and major outside producers. The talks are expected to widen February's
initial output freeze deal by Qatar, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, plus non-OPEC
Russia.
The initiative has supported a rally in oil prices, which were about $41
a barrel on Tuesday, up from a 12-year low near $27 in January, despite doubts
over whether the deal is enough to tackle excess supply in the market.
Iran has yet to say whether it will attend the meeting. But Iranian officials
have made clear Tehran will not freeze output as it wants to raise exports following
the lifting of Western sanctions in January.
The potential volume Libya and Iran could add to the market is significant.
But conflict in Libya has slowed output to around 400,000 barrels per day since
2014, a fraction of the 1.6 million bpd it pumped before the 2011 civil war.
Iran produced about 2.9 million bpd in January and officials are talking
about adding a further 500,000 bpd to exports. So far though, Iran has sold
only modest volumes to Europe after sanctions were removed.
"... Crude Mystery: Where Did 800,000 Barrels of Oil Go? Last year, there were 800,000 barrels of oil a day unaccounted for by the International Energy Agency, the energy monitor that puts together data on crude supply and demand. Where these barrels ended up, or if they even existed, is key to an oil market that remains under pressure from the glut in crude. ..."
"... "The most likely explanation for the majority of the missing barrels is simply that they do not exist," said Paul Horsnell, an oil analyst at Standard Chartered. ..."
Crude Mystery: Where Did 800,000 Barrels of Oil Go?
Last year, there were 800,000 barrels of oil a day unaccounted for by the International Energy
Agency, the energy monitor that puts together data on crude supply and demand. Where these barrels
ended up, or if they even existed, is key to an oil market that remains under pressure from the
glut in crude.
Some analysts say the barrels may be in China. Others believe the barrels were created by flawed
accounting and they don't actually exist. If they don't exist, then the oversupply that has driven
crude prices to decade lows could be much smaller than estimated and prices could rebound faster.
Whatever the answer, the discrepancy underscores how oil prices flip around based on data that
investors are often unsure of.
"The most likely explanation for the majority of the missing barrels is simply that they do not
exist," said Paul Horsnell, an oil analyst at Standard Chartered.
"... It looks more like the chaos of a failed state rather than a popular uprising to remove an authoritarian government. The implication of this difference is that a return of Libyan oil production to prior levels is highly unlikely until there is a massive stabilization achieved, and I wouldn't be holding my breathe for that. ..."
"... The people are hungry and without hope as long as conditions remain the way they are so they riot to try to change them. It is, very likely, just the first stages of world collapse. ..."
"... Arab spring is a variant of a "color revolution". From Google search of the term: ..."
Minor quibble Dennis.
You commented- "Libya is struggling with their own Arab Spring"
I think that characterization of what is going there on is off base.
It looks more like the chaos of a failed state rather than a popular uprising to remove an authoritarian
government.
The implication of this difference is that a return of Libyan oil production to prior levels is
highly unlikely until there is a massive stabilization achieved, and I wouldn't be holding my
breathe for that.
It's Ron, not Dennis. It all depends on your definition of "Arab Spring" And I see you have provided
your own definition, "a popular uprising to remove an authoritarian government."
The Arab Spring was a series of anti-government protests, uprisings and armed rebellions
that spread across the Middle East in early 2011. But their purpose, relative success and outcome
remain hotly disputed in Arab countries, among foreign observers, and between world powers looking
to cash in on the changing map of the Middle East .
But the events in the Middle East went in a less straightforward direction.
Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen entered an uncertain transition period, Syria and Libya were
drawn into a civil conflict, while the wealthy monarchies in the Persian Gulf remained largely
unshaken by the events. The use of the term the "Arab Spring" has since been criticized for
being inaccurate and simplistic.
The Arabs themselves cannot agree on the definition of "Arab Spring". It is basically just
an uprising of the general population protesting the hardships of their lives. I would say that
the Arab Spring, in any country, is just the first stages of a failed state. I think there is no doubt that what is happening in Libya was caused by the same conditions
that has caused similar uprisings throughout the Arab world. The people are hungry and without
hope as long as conditions remain the way they are so they riot to try to change them. It is, very likely, just the first stages of world collapse.
The dream of transition to a 'consuming' economy just crashed into
the wall of excess debt and leverage. 2016 has started with a
44% collapse in China passenger car sales
. This is
the
biggest sequential crash and is 50% larger than any
other plunge in history.
Coming at a time when vehicle
inventories are near record highs relative to sales, the world's
automakers - all toeing the narrative line that growth will be from
China - now face a harsh reality of massie mal-investment deja vu.
"... Light tight oil is not your average crude oil. I suspect it is clogging up US inventories after the import substitution phase ended and after some modifications to US refineries were completed. This glut created the perception in markets that there is a global glut (and contributed to bring down oil prices) while it is not ..."
"... Where actually is that much-hyped global oil glut? http://crudeoilpeak.info/where-actually-is-that-much-hyped-global-oil-glut ..."
Light tight oil is not your average crude oil. I suspect it is clogging up US inventories after
the import substitution phase ended and after some modifications to US refineries were completed.
This glut created the perception in markets that there is a global glut (and contributed to bring
down oil prices) while it is not
In fact crude imports went up again in the last months. Anyway, shale production has peaked
now according to the latest drilling productivity report. The following 2014 report describes
the mismatch between shale oil production and US refinery capabilities (slides 7-9)
Chinese crude imports hit a record of 8 million b/d in February despite severe economic
problems and contracting imports and exports. One reason for the surge may have been the
extremely low oil prices in January which attracted more buying for strategic stocks and to
refine for exports. China's small independent refiners were only recently allowed to import oil
for their needs rather than procuring it domestically.
"... All of this is to say that the level of effort and the focus of Western states in Libya, at least as regards ISIS, are on strict counterterrorism as opposed to creating conditions in which competing claimants to governing legitimacy can work out a compromise. In the meanwhile, the competing governing factions will have to defend themselves against not only other claimants to legitimacy but also ISIS and other smaller groups that have begun to attack Libyan oil production and export facilitates with increasing regularity. ..."
"... The recent attack in neighboring Tunisia also points to the problem of ISIS presence in Libya not only helping to continue the instability and political stalemate there but also spreading unrest further in Northern Africa. ..."
Sarah Emerson, Managing Principal, Petroleum & Alternative Fuels | Energy Security Analysis Inc.
(ESAI)
... ... ...
While there are ongoing negotiations, or attempts at negotiations pushed by Washington and key
European states, so far it does not look at all hopeful. In the meanwhile, the efforts of the West
are focused on two issues. First is conducting strikes against ISIS leaders and key operatives who
might be either planning on targeting Western targets or who might be consolidating control over
parts of Libya. Second is keeping refugees from flowing into southern Europe (whether they are Libyans
or Africans who are taking advantage of the lack of governance in Libya to launch from its shores).
News reports indicate that the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Italy all have Special
Forces on the ground in Libya largely to support intelligence gathering and targeting ISIS cells
or leaders. The recent U.S. airstrikes two weeks ago against ISIS leaders and a training camp in
Libya may or may not reflect this small ground presence, but the attacks indicate that Washington
is focusing on elements of the terrorist group that might be planning attacks on Western targets.
The news information on the French aircraft carrier also hints that any strikes that Paris may carry
out will be against those potentially plotting against French targets. All of this is to say that
the level of effort and the focus of Western states in Libya, at least as regards ISIS, are on strict
counterterrorism as opposed to creating conditions in which competing claimants to governing legitimacy
can work out a compromise. In the meanwhile, the competing governing factions will have to defend
themselves against not only other claimants to legitimacy but also ISIS and other smaller groups
that have begun to attack Libyan oil production and export facilitates with increasing regularity.
The recent attack in neighboring Tunisia also points to the problem of ISIS presence in Libya
not only helping to continue the instability and political stalemate there but also spreading unrest
further in Northern Africa.
Sarah Emerson, Managing Principal, Petroleum & Alternative Fuels | Energy Security Analysis Inc.
(ESAI)
"... We all are living under neoliberalism , aren't we? And current fascinating developments with Bernie and Trump is nothing more than unorganized protest of shmucks against " masters of the universe " - neoliberal elite that captured Washington, DC (along with London, Paris, Berlin and other G7 capitals). And they still have quite strong fifth column in Moscow too (Yeltsin was their man) ..."
"... The revolt which BTW have little chances for success. As Orwell aptly stated, contrary to Marx delusions "the lower classes are never, even temporarily, successful in achieving their aims". ..."
"... The key idea of neoliberalism is redistribution of wealth up from shmucks to international (predominately financial) elite. So nobody care that either camel lovers or Putin lovers lose money on oil and that they are selling it below the cost. What is important that the "masters of the universe" became richer. And sustainability is provided by grabbing asset of distressed countries and companies when they go too deeply in debt slavery. So the key idea here is get those countries and companies "conditioned" enough to grab them on a cheap. In old days that was called "shock therapy" now it is called "disaster capitalism". ..."
"... Destabilization as in "drop of oil prices to unsustainable levels" can be extremely profitable (see The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. ). This is the way the neoliberalism enforces its Washington consensus rules on other countries, especially resource nationalists like Putin's Russia. ..."
"... This was not done in case of "shale bubble" and other countries were implicitly stimulated by it to rump up production as well as by regime of high oil prices and cheap Western credits. Now we have a real crisis when "resource nationalist" are quickly running out of money. If Washington is able to crush them, it is also will show the other countries who are trying to oppose neoliberal globalization "who is the boss". It is not accidental that all establishment candidates in the current presidential race are extremely, pathologically jingoistic and are ready to bomb yet another half-dozen of countries in short order after coming to power. In this sense differences between H, C and R are superficial. They all are servants of neoliberal oligarchy in Washington and Wall Street (for H in the opposite order). ..."
Art Berman looks at the numbers and says oil should go back to $30, or even lower. It
does take capitalism time to work.
This looks like too theoretical post well outside the scope of this blog, but still there are
some basic facts that everybody needs to be aware of.
We all are living under
neoliberalism, aren't we? And current fascinating developments with Bernie and Trump is
nothing more than unorganized protest of shmucks against "masters of the universe" -
neoliberal elite that captured Washington, DC (along with London, Paris, Berlin and other G7
capitals). And they still have quite strong fifth column in Moscow too (Yeltsin was their man)
The revolt which BTW have little chances for success. As Orwell aptly stated, contrary to
Marx delusions "the lower classes are never, even temporarily, successful in achieving their
aims".
The key idea of neoliberalism is redistribution of wealth up from shmucks to international
(predominately financial) elite. So nobody care that either camel lovers or Putin lovers lose
money on oil and that they are selling it below the cost. What is important that the "masters
of the universe" became richer. And sustainability is provided by grabbing asset of distressed
countries and companies when they go too deeply in debt slavery. So the key idea here is get
those countries and companies "conditioned" enough to grab them on a cheap. In old days that
was called "shock therapy" now it is called "disaster capitalism".
Destabilization as in "drop of oil prices to unsustainable levels" can be extremely
profitable (see
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.). This is the way the neoliberalism
enforces its Washington
consensus rules on other countries, especially resource nationalists like Putin's Russia.
The countries and companies in question were gently pushed to increase the production to
the level that assured the crisis to happen. While this sounds like another conspiracy theory,
and can well be such, the simple logic suggests that in XXI century the elite understands the
natural dynamics of capital accumulation well enough to freeze too enthusiastic Ponzi schemers
before they do the major damage, if they want it. At least suppress them enough to avoid "Minsky
moment."
This was not done in case of "shale bubble" and other countries were implicitly stimulated
by it to rump up production as well as by regime of high oil prices and cheap Western credits.
Now we have a real crisis when "resource nationalist" are quickly running out of money. If
Washington is able to crush them, it is also will show the other countries who are trying to
oppose neoliberal globalization "who is the boss". It is not accidental that all establishment
candidates in the current presidential race are extremely, pathologically jingoistic and are
ready to bomb yet another half-dozen of countries in short order after coming to power. In
this sense differences between H, C and R are superficial. They all are servants of neoliberal
oligarchy in Washington and Wall Street (for H in the opposite order).
It can well be that US shale was a part this Brzezinski's
The Grand Chessboard " gambit and now is a pawn sacrificed in a wider geopolitical game.
China did increase its oil imports over the last few months to over 30 mill tons per month
(see below chart). Together with natgas and cyclical hydrocarbon imports this adds up to 40 mill
tons of hydrocarbons per month, which is around 10 mill barrels per day.
Slowly the fundamentals are building up for an oil price rise, although I think we will get
a pullback over summer.
"The data also showed China's February crude oil imports jumped 20 percent on year to their highest
ever on a daily basis, driven by import quotas and stockpiling."
In addition to the surge of oil imports, natgas is up year over year 100%, copper 50%, copper
ore and extractives up 92%. The increase is all up in volume as imports in dollar terms are still
very low due to low prices. However these numbers are huge as China is one of the largest importers
in the world.
To me this looks like the early sign of a nascent commodity recovery.
1) state and commercial stockpiling
2) robust gasoline demand (not closely correlated with economic growth, as opposed to weak diesel
demand).
3) rising fuel exports
"Fuel exports in February rose 71.8 percent on a daily basis compared to the same month last
year, reaching 2.99 million tonnes, or 721,700 bpd, after hitting a record 975,500 bpd in December,
as China continues to export more diesel amid weakening domestic demand for the industrial fuel."
" as China continues to export more diesel amid weakening domestic demand for the industrial
fuel."
Plus: There's increasing demand in China for gasoline as more cars are built and sold. More
gasoline coming from refineries means more diesel coming from refineries, as they produce both.
The small "teapot" refineries are being given permission to import gasoline now, I believe,
so that will help reduce overproduction of diesel, and the government has imposed a price floor
too; that helps reduce the panic exporting.
The Chinese car market is much bigger than the US car market. And also growing much faster.
When a commodity cycle starts, metals (gold, silver, base metals ) are first to soar. Oil is
actually the last to rise as oil in most cases brings a commodity cycle to its end due to higher
inflation.
There is little doubt that China is in the early stage of a massive upswing. Anyone who hopes
for higher oil prices should hope also for a Chinese recovery. Oil prices will not go up without
a Chinese recovery.
As the demand growth in 2015 has been way underestimated in 2014, it is again underestimated
for 2016.
The IEA numbers for 2016 are just an estimate and not yet a fact. Car registrations and import
numbers reveal way higher numbers are likely for China in 2016.
A strong sign of a Chinese recovery is the recent strength of the yuan, record high of new
loans (2500 bn yuan) and strong money suppley (+14%).
You are right, the IEA has significantly increased its estimate of China's oil demand for 2015.
Last year, incremental demand was actually higher that in the previous 4 years.
I also agree with you that IEA likely underestimates China's demand growth in 2016.
But this growth will still be slower than last year; it will not accelerate.
Growing imports reflect buying by the government and oil companies for stockpiling and increasing
exports.
As I said above, there is also a serious structural shift in China's oil consumption.
It is now driven by gasoline, which is due to growing private car ownership.
By contrast, demand for diesel, which is mainly consumed in the industry and construction, has
sharply decelerated.
And this seems to be a long-term trend, as China is gradually changing its economic model from
export-oriented, based on heavy industries and construction, to a more focused on private consumption.
China: y-o-y growth in gasoline consumption
source: IEA
It is possible that diesel fuel is being used more efficiently by the Chinese economy. For
example diesel is essentially the same as heating oil and as China develops less will be used
for heating buildings as natural gas pipeline infrastructure expands, there might also be some
switching to heat pumps for heating. These switches take time and there is a significant time
lag between high oil prices (from 2011 to mid-2014) and when we see the long run demand effects.
Also the expansion of auto sales tends to increase employment and economic activity throughout
the economy.
For these reasons I think a focus on total oil demand makes more sense than a focus on only
diesel demand.
Yes, there is an effect of fuel substitution.
I'm not sure if a lot of diesel is used for heating in China (I think they are mostly using LPG,
coal, firewood, etc.), but certainly there are sectors of the economy where it can be substituted
or used more efficiently.
For example, in the 2000s, a lot of diesel and residual fuel was used for power generation,
as despite a rapid growth in generation capacity China often experienced serious power shortages.
In particular, that explains a spike in oil consumption in 2004. China now has sufficient generation
capacity, so diesel use for power generation in the commercial and residential sectors is diminishing.
But more important is a structural shift in China's economy and energy consumption patterns.
The country is undergoing a gradual transition to an economy oriented toward private consumption.
The share of less energy-intensive sectors, such as services, in GDP is increasing. Fixed investment/GDP
ratio is declining from 40-50% to more sustainable levels, which means relatively slower growth
and less infrastructural developments. All this should lead to a less energy-intensive economy
and relatively lesser use of industrial fuels, including diesel.
By contrast, gasoline demand is driven by rising living standards, growing middle class, and
hence rapidly increasing car ownership. Gasoline consumption will continue to grow at a high rate,
even though economic growth is slowing.
Here's the deal. China may actually be the country where EVs take off in a big way first (if you
leave Norway out of it). The following insideevs.com piece rates China as the number one EV market
in the world. I don't understand the metrics used by the author for the countries below China
on the list but, it is hard to deny that China is the fastest growing market for EVs or that the
highest absolute numbers of EVs are being sold in China.
up from #3; local sales 207,000, plus a lot more buses and commercial trucks. Claim to fame:
easily overtook USA this year for the global volume title; increased 300% over 2014; most sales
locally made by a diverse domestic industry; makes and deploys the vast majority of the world's
EV Buses.
China has once again proven that despite its huge size, it can turn its economy and industry
on a dime. They've been doing this every few years now, in a manner rivaling what the USSR and
USA accomplished during World War II.
As always, when you crank out an omelette this big, eggs will break. Indeed, the sooty fallout
of last decade's massive industrial push is one big reason why China is in such a hurry now to
clean up its energy grid, and its car and bus fleet. Hopefully they are learning some lessons,
and not just causing problems just as big downstream.
This concern is important. For example, in January Amnesty International published a meticulous
report, showing that China's Huyaou Cobalt company buys cobalt mined off of Congolese child and
slave labor. It then sells the cobalt directly or indirectly to Li-ion battery makers, including
BYD and interestingly, Korean LG Chem and Samsung. This must stop.
That said.
It is simply mind-boggling, that in 2012 China had all of 3,000 EV sales. The US was already
at 52,000 at the time. Three years later, they have apparently crossed 200,000 sales for the year,
with 35,000 EV sold in December 2015 alone.
he Chinese government intends to further augment plug-in electric vehicle sales by increasing
purchases from various government departments.
The latest move sets buying guidelines of more than 50% of new purchases to be NEVs (New
Energy Vehicles electric or plug-in hybrid).
What this means for future gasoline consumption growth in China is anybody's guess but, it
appears to me that EVs are in the early stages of an exponential growth phase.
Crude oil traders like Vitol Group and BP (BP)
take advantage of the broader contango market. These traders buy front-month crude oil futures contracts
and take delivery upon their expiration. They store this crude oil in Cushing, Oklahoma, and then
sell it at higher prices in six months. Industry surveys estimate that leasing costs at large tanks
in Cushing were 2535 cents per barrel per month compared to the 12-month contango price of $8.27
per barrel, as shown in the chart above. Thus, the storage cost of crude oil for 12 months could
be $4.20 per barrel at most, keeping administrative fees and other pumping costs at $1 per barrel
for 12 months. This means traders could make a profit of $3 per barrel.
Further, the EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration) estimates that storing crude oil in
large oil tankers for several months is expensive. It estimates that the trade will be unviable until
contango conditions reach $10$12 per barrel. Citigroup suggests that if oil prices fall below $30
per barrel, it would be unviable to store crude oil at sea.
Effect on crude oil tankers
However, long-term oversupply and the broader contango market have benefited oil tankers like
Nordic American Tankers (NAT),
Teekay Tankers (TNK), Frontline
(FRO), Euronav (EURN),
DHT Holdings (DHT), and Tsakos
Energy Navigation (TNP).
The steep contango conditions in the ultra-low sulfur diesel market provide opportunity for contango
traders and supertankers. Ultra-low sulfur diesel inventories in the United States have risen more
than total motor gasoline inventories since the middle of June 2014.
ETFs and ETNs like the United States Oil Fund (USO),
the iPath S&P GSCI Crude Oil Total Return Index ETN (OIL),
the VelocityShares 3X Long Crude Oil ETN (UWTI),
and the ProShares UltraShort Bloomberg Crude Oil ETF (SCO)
are also influenced by the rises and falls in crude oil prices.
In the next part of this series, we'll shift our focus to the US crude oil rig count.
"... The trader's life is also made trickier by the volatility in the market, which has seen prices rise and fall by several dollars a barrel in a day. "Over the last two or three years we've seen a huge increase in volatility and that's probably due to moving more from a physical group of companies trading to a financial-based scenario," he says. ..."
"... "It's the momentum of these big hedge funds and financial institutions, which makes the market move by percentage points rather than the 30 or 40 cents you used to get three or four years ago." ..."
"... Those sudden, big movements make it difficult for traders to be off-duty. "You can never leave your position, even if technically you've left it, ie you've gone home," Ms Clubley says. ..."
Oil traders never stop talking to each other. Oil traders have to weigh up a great deal of
information
The most popular software among oil traders is not an oil trading package or even a news service
such as Reuters - it is Yahoo Instant Messenger.
"Trading oil is about getting information and knowing where the market is," says Eivind Lie who
runs the trading desk at the Norwegian oil company StatoilHydro's offices in London.
"So being a trader your life is pretty much either on Yahoo or on the telephone trying to get an
overview of the market."
Keeping in touch
While people trading shares or currencies can get a lot of their information from analysts' notes
and computerised trading systems, the oil trader still relies on chatting to a wide range of
people, ranging from other traders to specialist oil trading journalists, to try to find out what
is going on in the world.
Everything from war or natural disasters to more mundane events such as seasonal changes to
temperatures or elections can affect oil prices, so for the traders it pays to be informed.
Richard Wickham, one of the crude oil traders at Statoil, makes his first call to the office on
the way to the station after he has dropped his children off at the nursery.
Then as soon as he gets to the office he will read price reports and messages from Statoil staff
who have been trading in the US and Asia and talk to the London-based analyst.
After that, the less formal process of talking to people really gets going.
"Collating information is more than half the job," Mr Wickham says.
"Executing trades is almost small in comparison - if you don't have the information you're
blind," he says, staring at the four computer screens on his desk, which display a bewildering
array of graphs, figures, reports and message windows.
There is little else on the desk besides family photographs and a strategically-placed Norwegian
dictionary, for when he is trying to understand messages from the company's head office in
Stavanger.
Distressed cargoes
Statoil is one of the world's largest exporters of oil and, with oil topping $100 a barrel on
supply concerns, its products are in great demand.
Yet it has a relatively small trading desk in London, with just a handful of traders. "If it's a
weak market then we have to go out and sell it more actively, if it's a strong market they come
and buy it from us," Mr Lie says. Currently, demand is strong, though the traders are
nevertheless on the phone, talking to other traders, analysts and brokers.
Everyone in the market for physical oil - as opposed to paper market traders, who do not want to
end up owning any oil - is looking for that precious piece of information that will allow them to
sell oil for more, or buy it for less.
"From our side, as the seller of oil, we want to get to know the buyer's position," Mr Lie says.
"Are they short of oil, do they really need more?" The holy grail for buyers is to find a seller
having difficulty selling a shipment. "If you get too close to the delivery date, when it's taken
aboard a ship in the North Sea, and it's not sold, then the buyers know that we have what's
called a 'distressed cargo', so they will try to get a cheap price for that," he adds.
Volatile market
It may be a good time to be a seller of oil, but the way oil is traded means it can still be
nerve-wracking. "There are a lot of market price contracts where I would sell you oil today, but
we price it the day the ship loads, which might be in three of four weeks time," says Sally
Clubley, an independent oil consultant who trains oil traders.
"So we've done the deal today, but we don't know the price today and there's a lot of oil traded
on that basis."
The trader's life is also made trickier by the volatility in the market, which has seen
prices rise and fall by several dollars a barrel in a day. "Over the last two or three years
we've seen a huge increase in volatility and that's probably due to moving more from a physical
group of companies trading to a financial-based scenario," he says.
"It's the momentum of these big hedge funds and financial institutions, which makes the
market move by percentage points rather than the 30 or 40 cents you used to get three or four
years ago."
Those sudden, big movements make it difficult for traders to be off-duty. "You can never
leave your position, even if technically you've left it, ie you've gone home," Ms Clubley says.
"It really is a 24-hour job because they don't trust anybody else with it."
Mr Lie agrees.
"I think some of the traders always carry their phones, even on vacations," he says. "It's a
lifestyle more than a job so you have to enjoy it."
Looks like the range of oil prices below $70 which represents the "death valley" for US LTO production
also exists for UK North Sea fields.
Most fields might degrade at natural depletion rate already
in 2016. Which is up to 22%.
Investment in the UK's embattled oil and gas industry is expected to fall by almost 90 per
cent this year, raising urgent industry calls for the Government to reform its North Sea tax
regime to safeguard the industry's future, reports
RT reports that if Brent price in 2016 stays in 0-70 range capex in the North Sea fields might
be reduced by almost 90%.
According to the report of the British Association of oil and gas industry, with current prices,
almost half of the oil fields in the UK produce oil at a loss.
The fall in oil prices has a negative impact on the UK economy. According to the report
of the British Association of oil and gas industry, the country plans to reduce by 90% investments
in the development of offshore fields in the North Sea. According to the expert in the field
of oil industry of Mamdouh Salamah, for the United Kingdom will be cheaper to import crude,
not to invest in new projects.
With current prices, almost half of the oil fields in the UK produce oil at a loss.
An expert in the field of oil industry Mamdouh Salama believes that in this situation for
the United Kingdom would be more profitable to import oil, not to invest in new projects. According
to him, for resumption of capital investments, the level of oil prices should be higher than
$60-70 per barrel.
"Given the fall in oil prices it's more profitable for the UK to import crude oil and refine
it locally, rather than invest in the North sea fields" said Salam.
"... Bullshit. Imports are rising because oil from shale is shitty shitty oil. It is barely better than condensate. ..."
"... Refineries dont make much money on very light crude, API 45. It doesnt produce a very high volume of fuels. It is feedstock material, and there is a limited market for feedstock. Much of US LTO production is greater than API 45. ..."
Despite domestic production declining and demand surging, the EIA reported oil inventories
surge by more than 10 million barrels, or more than three times what was expected.
The 10.4 million barrel increase was mostly due to a near record increase in imports of
490,000 b/d (3.4 million barrels weekly) and an adjustment swing of 352,000 b/d (2.5 million
barrels weekly) by the EIA. The latter has been a repeated pattern to exaggerate the levels of inventory,
a pattern going back to 2015. Thus, over half of the said increase in inventory was driven
by higher imports and an arbitrary adjustment that seems routine by the EIA. Domestic production
actually fell by 25,000 B/D in the week ending on February 26. Also gasoline inventories fell 455,000
barrels, or nearly 5 percent, as capacity utilization rose 1 percent. Total gasoline supplied, which
is a gauge of demand over last 4 weeks, has risen a whopping 7 percent.
Now the real question is with U.S. production declining and inventories at record levels,
why are refiners still importing at such heights? The 8.2 million barrels per day
imported in the week came very close to the record in December, missing by some few percentage points.
U.S. commercial domestic crude oil stocks are now nearly 17 percent above last year levels. None
of this adds up: We are producing less, inventories are rising, while demand is at records and yet
we are using more imported oil?
Although raw shale oil can be immediately burnt as a fuel oil, many of its applications require
that it be upgraded. The differing properties of the raw oils call for correspondingly various
pre-treatments before it can be sent to a conventional
oil refinery . [35]
Shale oil produced by some technologies, such as the
Kiviter process ,
can be used without further upgrading as an oil constituent and as a source of
phenolic compounds
. Distillate oils from the Kiviter process can also be used as
diluents for petroleum-originated
heavy oils and as an adhesive-enhancing additive in
bituminous materials such
as asphalt
Refineries are designed to use specific types of crude, with some flexibility. Those set
up to use heavy crude need something close or at least a blend. US shale oil isn't heavy crude,
it's very light oil from what I understand.
Koch Industries spent large to modify their northern refineries to take bitumen from Canada
because it is heavily discounted (cheap). Output in Canada hasn't changed much, although exploration
and development have been greatly reduced.
US shale oil has pipeline issues in some areas and has to be transported by rail which
is considerably more expensive. Especially significant for refineries with port access.
The Saudi's have some guarantees as to minimum imports, or so I have read. When they partnered
with Shell to expand a joint refinery project on the Gulf and make it the largest refinery
in the US, apparently they got a guarantee from the US gov't on how much heavy crude they could
import. That was back when there was supposedly a great deal of excess refining capacity in
that area.
Long term availability of shale / tight oil may be in doubt to the extent investing in
refinery modifications to handle different feedstock may not be attractive.
Refineries don't make much money on very light crude, API >45. It doesn't produce a very
high volume of fuels. It is feedstock material, and there is a limited market for feedstock. Much
of US LTO production is greater than API 45.
"... The meeting of oil-producing countries will be held on March 20th in Russia, the Minister of oil of Nigeria, Emmanuel Kachikwu, announced. According to him, it will be attended by representatives of countries who are OPEC members and countries that are not members in the organization. Mr. Kachikwu noted that producers seek to restore oil prices to $50 per barrel ..."
here is some good news. You have heard it first from me here on POB 2 weeks ago. We are moving
in direction of restoring the prices to acceptable level that major producers can live temporarily.
"The meeting of oil-producing countries will be held on March 20th in Russia, the Minister
of oil of Nigeria, Emmanuel Kachikwu, announced. According to him, it will be attended by representatives
of countries who are OPEC members and countries that are not members in the organization. Mr.
Kachikwu noted that producers seek to restore oil prices to $50 per barrel."
"... Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washingtons legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history. ..."
"... The Saudis geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the kingdoms principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S.-sponsored Shiite takeover in Iraq (and, more recently, the termination of the Iran trade embargo) as a demotion to its regional power status and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe. ..."
"... But the Sunni kingdoms with vast petrodollars at stake wanted a much deeper involvement from America. On September 4, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry told a congressional hearing that the Sunni kingdoms had offered to foot the bill for a U.S. invasion of Syria to oust Bashar Assad. In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing, the way weve done it previously in other places [Iraq], theyll carry the cost. Kerry reiterated the offer to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.): With respect to Arab countries offering to bear the costs of [an American invasion] to topple Assad, the answer is profoundly yes, they have. The offer is on the table. ..."
"... Gazproms gas exports to Europe including Turkey had increased to 158.6 billion cubic meters in 2015 with a 8.2 percent increase compared to 2014 ..."
Stockman's Tales of western intervention into the ME Oil Puzzle.
"The Trumpster Sends The GOP/Neocon Establishment To The Dumpster"
"And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do
with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere
high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet"
It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically
foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its
tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since
August 1914.
Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex,
the neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the
foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history.
Yet at that crucial inflection point there was absolutely nothing at stake with respect
to the safety and security of the American people in the petty quarrel between Saddam Hussein
and the Emir of Kuwait.
Having alienated Iraq and Syria, Kim Roosevelt fled the Mideast to work as an executive
for the oil industry that he had served so well during his public service career at the CIA.
Roosevelt's replacement as CIA station chief, James Critchfield, attempted a failed assassination
plot against the new Iraqi president using a toxic handkerchief, according to Weiner. Five
years later, the CIA finally succeeded in deposing the Iraqi president and installing the Ba'ath
Party in power in Iraq. A charismatic young murderer named Saddam Hussein was one of the distinguished
leaders of the CIA's Ba'athist team.
The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline,
which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic
and political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious
to end its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub
for Asian fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative
Sunni monarchy by giving it a foothold in Shia-dominated Syria. The Saudis' geopolitical goal
is to contain the economic and political power of the kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite
state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S.-sponsored Shiite
takeover in Iraq (and, more recently, the termination of the Iran trade embargo) as a demotion
to its regional power status and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen,
highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.
Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the
Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO
plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East, strangle
the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European energy market. In 2009, Assad
announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria
"to protect the interests of our Russian ally."
But the Sunni kingdoms with vast petrodollars at stake wanted a much deeper involvement
from America. On September 4, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry told a congressional hearing
that the Sunni kingdoms had offered to foot the bill for a U.S. invasion of Syria to oust Bashar
Assad. "In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the
whole thing, the way we've done it previously in other places [Iraq], they'll carry the cost."
Kerry reiterated the offer to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.): "With respect to Arab countries
offering to bear the costs of [an American invasion] to topple Assad, the answer is profoundly
yes, they have. The offer is on the table."
"The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline, which
would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and
political leverage."
That is nonsense. The issue is that Russia has quite limited leverage: They can not replace
the European customers on short notice pipeline chain producer to certain customers and they
urgently need the income.
The more interesting question for Russia is how to cope with a customers who may reduce the
demand for NG by 1% per year for the next few decades.
"The issue is that Russia has quite limited leverage: They can not replace the European customers
on short notice"
Leverage is always mutual in the gas trade that involves long term contracts and long gas supply
lines. It is like marriage :-)
"The more interesting question for Russia is how to cope with a customers who may reduce the
demand for NG by 1% per year for the next few decades."
I am not sure that this is the case.
"Gazprom's gas exports to Europe including Turkey had increased to 158.6 billion cubic
meters in 2015 with a 8.2 percent increase compared to 2014."
Hedge funds and other money managers held a combined net long position in the three main crude oil
futures and options contracts amounting to 383 million barrels on Feb. 23.
The combined net long
position has increased in eight of the last 11 weeks from a recent low of 230 million barrels on
Dec. 8. (tmsnrt.rs/1XUWJih)
But the increase in hedge fund and other money manager net long positions has been concentrated
in Brent rather than WTI. (tmsnrt.rs/1XUWS5i)
The net long position in Brent futures and options traded on ICE Futures has jumped by more than
100 million barrels to 320 million barrels from 183 million barrels.
The net long position in WTI futures and options traded on ICE and the New York Mercantile Exchange
has risen less than 20 million barrels to 63 million barrels from 47 million barrels. (tmsnrt.rs/1XUWVy1)
Extreme pessimism about the near-term outlook for prices, which reached its height in December
and early January, seems to have dissipated a little.
There is more confidence that the long-awaited rebalancing of supply and demand is now underway in
earnest which could help stabilize stockpiles and prices later in 2016.
U.S. shale producers seem to be finally cracking under the strain from low prices, with more than 100 oil drilling rigs idled over the past month, and many producers now openly talking about producing less in 2016.
"... In the USA we use crude for various purposes. Based on old data of 2007 we use close to half for passenger travel, and only
2% for on farm use, for example. Probably hasn't changed much. How much of the passenger travel is important to GDP, or is "productive"
vs "frivolous"? ..."
"... An even better question is how much of GDP itself is "productive" or "frivolous"? ..."
"... Households spent $306 billion on gasoline in 2015 which is ~1.7% of ~$18 trillion of GDP. If 2016 gasoline prices average $1.98
per gallon (EIA February STEO report), household spending on gasoline relative to total household spending will be the lowest in the
69 year history of the data set. ..."
"... Gasoline on its own it is pretty much useless unless you want just to start camp fire for marshmallows. If you want to include
the true cost of using gasoline in the household you have to include the cost of vehicles that have never been higher in the history,
you have to include the cost of insurance that is also marching higher every year. And let's not even go into ever increasing cost of
building and maintaining each mile of highway network. So you have to look at built in price inflation in today's monetary system to
realize the true costs. And anyway example that you provide for 2016 that "gasoline relative to total household spending will be the
lowest in the 69 year history" is anomaly. Do you understand why it is anomaly? It is anomaly because at that price nobody in oil industry
makes any profit. So you won't have this anomaly for very long. ..."
In the USA we use crude for various purposes. Based on old data of 2007 we use close to half for passenger travel, and only
2% for on farm use, for example. Probably hasn't changed much. How much of the passenger travel is important to GDP, or is "productive"
vs "frivolous"?
Households spent $306 billion on gasoline in 2015 which is ~1.7% of ~$18 trillion of GDP. If 2016 gasoline prices average
$1.98 per gallon (EIA February STEO report), household spending on gasoline relative to total household spending will be the lowest
in the 69 year history of the data set.
Gasoline on its own it is pretty much useless unless you want just to start camp fire for marshmallows. If you want to include
the true cost of using gasoline in the household you have to include the cost of vehicles that have never been higher in the history,
you have to include the cost of insurance that is also marching higher every year. And let's not even go into ever increasing
cost of building and maintaining each mile of highway network. So you have to look at built in price inflation in today's monetary
system to realize the true costs. And anyway example that you provide for 2016 that "gasoline relative to total household spending
will be the lowest in the 69 year history" is anomaly. Do you understand why it is anomaly? It is anomaly because at that price
nobody in oil industry makes any profit. So you won't have this anomaly for very long.
"... Chinas output in 2016 will decline between 3 percent and 5 percent from last years record 4.3 million barrels a day, according to analysts from Nomura Holdings Inc. and Sanford C. Bernstein Co. That would be the first decline in seven years and the biggest drop in records going back to 1990. The country is the worlds fifth-largest producer and biggest consumer after the U.S. ..."
"... Fellow state-run energy giant China Petroleum Chemical, also known as Sinopec, said on Jan. 27 that oil and gas output in 2015 fell for the first time in 16 years as a slump in domestic crude production outweighed record volumes of natural gas ..."
"... While some Middle East suppliers can operate with oil at $25 a barrel, the break-even cost for Chinas Cnooc is closer to $41, according to Nomura Holdings Inc. analyst Gordon Kwan, who predicts the countrys domestic crude production will fall by 5 percent this year. ..."
"... The plateau, 2008 2014, was made possible by infill drilling. I suspect that the decline curve will be steeper than indicated in the above chart. ..."
Domestic production forecast to fall first time since 2009
Crude output may decline by as much as 5 percent: Nomura
China's output in 2016 will decline between 3 percent and 5 percent from last year's record
4.3 million barrels a day, according to analysts from Nomura Holdings Inc. and Sanford C. Bernstein
& Co. That would be the first decline in seven years and the biggest drop in records going back
to 1990. The country is the world's fifth-largest producer and biggest consumer after the U.S.
"We expect significant cuts in upstream production as the companies cut output at loss-making
fields," said Neil Beveridge, a Hong Kong-based analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. "Chinese
explorers need to take more radical action to cut operating costs and increase efficiency."
CNPC plans to maintain crude output near 2015 levels, Deputy General Manager Wang Dongjin was
quoted in a statement posted last month on the company's website. The country's biggest producer
has only a "limited amount" of money to invest this year and will spend on oil and gas projects
that improve efficiency or promote sales, Wang said.
Fellow state-run energy giant China Petroleum & Chemical, also known as Sinopec, said on
Jan. 27 that oil and gas output in 2015 fell for the first time in 16 years as a slump in domestic
crude production outweighed record volumes of natural gas.
Cnooc. Ltd., the country's biggest offshore crude explorer, said last month that output will
fall this year, the first time in more than a decade, as it accelerates spending cuts.
While some Middle East suppliers can operate with oil at $25 a barrel, the break-even cost
for China's Cnooc is closer to $41, according to Nomura Holdings Inc. analyst Gordon Kwan, who
predicts the country's domestic crude production will fall by 5 percent this year.
China announced last month fuel prices won't be cut in line with crude as long as it trades
below $40 a barrel. The National Development and Reform Commission said the floor is designed
in part to shield domestic oil producers from the global price collapse.
"The policy is designed to provide explorers room to breathe," said Laban Yu, head of Asia
oil and gas equities at Jefferies Group LLC in Hong Kong. "China cannot afford to shut down domestic
production no matter how cheap crude gets."
The articles I referred to above show a decline in actual Chinese production of 2.5 percent in
one month. China produces around 4 million bopd, so it is a top producer. Any producing area can
show a lot of variability from one month to another and production could rebound or have a small
decline next month, however 2.5 percent decline in a month is big.
As a comparison, If the EIA came out with actual USA production falling 2.5 percent in January
that would be a decline of around 230,000 barrels per day from December 2015. That's big!
On the other hand, Ron's historical production charts for China do show a lot of variation
from one month to next. I don't know anything about xinhuanet which ran this report, or the National
Development and Reform Commission which is supposedly reporting this information.
Click on 5 Yrs. Looks like relentless increase in Chinese oil production since mid 2014 when
price decline started and when oil was > $100. Apparently EIA data.
No reason this can't be so given they have their own central bank.
Nope, its an actual reported one month reduction of 2.5%. The data is in tons and I'm not sure
how it would convert but it would probably be a little over 100,000 bopd.
My point was that rate of decline in the US would be about 230,000 bopd in a month, so it is
a large percentage decline.
It is hard to say how free oil companies are in China to go their own way, as they see fit, when
it comes to production policy. The government exercises an enormous amount of power over Chinese
industry.
Now if I were a Chinese commie, in a high position, knowing my country has a huge stash of
dollars possibly subject to depreciation due to inflation, I would opt to buy oil, and hold on
to domestic oil in the ground inside the country.
It seems like a damned safe bet it will be worth a lot more in a few years than it is now,
and the interest China earns on dollars is trivial.
I was referring to Nomura's prediction of a 5% yearly fall in China's 2016 oil production. If
it comes to happen this should set back production to 2012-13 levels.
China's mature onshore oil fields are declining.
This includes Daqing, China's largest field, currently accounting for a fifth of the country's
output.
excerpts from an article:
"In late 2014, CNPC essentially threw in the towel on its workhorse field, Daqing, announcing
that it would allow the field to essentially enter a phase of managed decline over the next five
years. Under this new approach, the field's oil production will fall from 800,000 barrels per
day (kbd) in 2014 to 640 kbd by 2020: a 20 percent decrease.
Daqing's oil production has declined relentlessly, despite PetroChina's significant increase
in drilling activity in the field during recent years. This suggests a significant risk that production
could fall faster than planned. For reference, PetroChina drilled 1,975 development wells in 2002
when oil production averaged 1.079 million barrels per day, but was forced to boost this to 4,498
development wells in 2014, when oil output at Daqing averaged 792,000 barrels per day. In short,
the number of development wells drilled increased by nearly 250 percent while oil production fell
by roughly 27 percent."
China's second largest field is Shengli, operated by Sinopec (China Petroleum & Chemical Corp.).
Although Shengli is a mature field (discovered in 1961, developed since 1964), production there
remained relatively stable within a range between 510 and 540 kb/d for many years, thanks to intensive
drilling program.
While Shengli's output was plateauing, Sinopec's other fields in China have delivered impressive
growth, having doubled oil production from around 150 kb/d in 1999 to 310 kb/d in 2014 (see the
chart below).
The growth trend was reversed in 2015, when Sinopec's output in China declined by 4.7% the
first decline since the company's IPO in 2000. Further decline is expected in 2016.
The quote below is from Bloomberg:
"Sinopec has been maintaining output in its aging oil fields by over-investing and this is
no longer possible in the current oil price environment," said Neil Beveridge, a Hong Kong-based
analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein, who estimates the company needs oil to stay above $50 a barrel
to break even. "We expect Sinopec's domestic oil production to drop 5 percent to 10 percent this
year as it shuts down aging high-cost oil fields."
"Sinopec Shengli Oilfield Co. [Sinopec's subsidiary AlexS] will shut the Xiaoying, Yihezhuang,
Taoerhe and Qiaozhuang fields to save as much as 130 million yuan ($19.9 million) in operating
costs, the company said in a statement.
The four oilfields are among the least profitable among 70 run by Sinopec Shengli, according to
the statement.
Fu Chengyu, the former chairman of Sinopec, said last year that output at the unit was being cut
"proactively" because of low oil prices."
"... Despite all the Chinese slowdown talk, China is importing commodities at a record pace (see below the chart for natgas imports, which increased by over 100% year over year). ..."
Despite all the Chinese slowdown talk, China is importing commodities at a record
pace (see below the chart for natgas imports, which increased by over 100% year over year).
Although 6 bcf/d (or 1 mill boe/d) of natural gas imports are much lower than the 7 mill b/d
oil imports, the impressive growth rate reveals there is much room for future growth for natgas
exports here.
The main question remains if the US can produce enough natgas at low costs. 9 bcf/d is nearly
15% of US production. The US is currently still a net importer of natgas.
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - The United Arab Emirates threw its support on Thursday behind a
plan by major oil producers to freeze output levels in an attempt to halt a slide in crude prices
that has pushed them to their lowest point in more than a decade.
Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Venezuela announced their willingness to cap output at last
month's levels at a surprise meeting in Qatar this week - but only if other major oil producers
join them. OPEC member Kuwait has since said it supports the proposal.
The support from the Emirates, a close Saudi ally, does not come as a major surprise but is still
significant. The seven-state federation is OPEC's third-largest oil producer.
Energy Minister Suhail Mohammed al-Mazrouei said in a statement to state news agency WAM that the
Emirates supports any proposal to freeze output through consensus with OPEC and Russia, which is
not part of the oil-producing bloc.
"We believe that freezing production levels by members of OPEC and Russia will have a positive
impact on balancing future demand based on the current oversupply," he said.
He was also quoted as saying he believes current conditions will prompt producing countries to
cap existing output, if not cut supply. The UAE, he said, "is always open for cooperation with
everyone in order to serve the higher interests of the producers and the balance of the market."
A day earlier, Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh said after talks with counterparts from
Iraq, Venezuela and Qatar that his country "supports any measure to boost oil prices" but stopped
short of committing Iran to capping its own output. Iran has previously said it aims to boost
production above its roughly 2.9 million barrels a day now that sanctions related to its nuclear
program have been lifted.
"... I don't see how shale production, with it's rapid decline rate and high costs, can act as a cap on the price of oil. Wouldn't it be more likely that foreign producers with lower costs for production will keep a cap on the price of oil? ..."
"... I think oil price will remain somewhat volatile over the next decade since it is heavily tied to transport. ..."
"... However, in a way the oil industry people may be correct in the long run. Every time the price of fuels go up, society will make more permanent changes to reduce the use of those fuels. So the long term outlook for the oil industry is downhill. Short term, probably not. ..."
"... Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) introduced the Keep It in the Ground Act on Thursday. Under the bill, there would be no new leases for extraction of fossil fuels - such as coal, oil, and gas - on all federal lands. ..."
"... Don't worry, none of this "keep it in the ground" noise will last very long. When prices go back up, and when peak oil ceases to be called a theory, then the "keep it in the ground" folks will be looking for a hole in the ground to hide. ..."
...THE OIL INDUSTRY GOT TOGETHER AND AGREED THINGS MAY NEVER GET BETTER
"The thousands of attendees seeking reasons for optimism didn't find
them at the annual International Petroleum Week. Instead they were greeted
by a cacophony of voices from some of the largest oil producers, refiners
and traders delivering the same message: There are few reasons for optimism.
The world is awash with oil. The market is overwhelmingly bearish."
"Producers are bracing for a tough year. Prices will stay low for
up to a decade as Chinese economic growth slows and the U.S. shale industry
acts as a cap on any rally"
Doug,
I don't see how shale production, with it's rapid decline rate and
high costs, can act as a cap on the price of oil. Wouldn't it be more likely
that foreign producers with lower costs for production will keep a cap on
the price of oil?
I think oil price will remain somewhat volatile over the next decade
since it is heavily tied to transport. As that scenario changes, oil
production will be in natural descent anyway so alternatives and efficiency
might just be playing catch-up for quite a while.
However, in a way the oil industry people may be correct in the long
run. Every time the price of fuels go up, society will make more permanent
changes to reduce the use of those fuels. So the long term outlook for the
oil industry is downhill. Short term, probably not.
Struggling oil and gas companies are maxing out revolving credit lines
typically used to cover short-term funding gaps, raising fresh concerns
about banks' exposure to the decline in energy prices.
And yet the oil industry seems to think prices will stay low for the
next decade.
Just another indicator of economic downturn, CSCL has warned of loss.
"China Shipping Container Lines (CSCL) has issued a profit warning announcing
an expected loss of RMB 2.8 billion (USD 425 million) for the financial
year ending December 31st."
Rat's congressman proposes Stranded Assets International Bioreserve
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) introduced the Keep It in the Ground Act
on Thursday. Under the bill, there would be no new leases for extraction
of fossil fuels - such as coal, oil, and gas - on all federal lands.
It would also stop new leases for offshore drilling in the Pacific and the
Gulf of Mexico and prohibit offshore drilling in the Atlantic and Arctic
Oceans.
Don't worry, none of this "keep it in the ground" noise will last very
long. When prices go back up, and when peak oil ceases to be called a theory,
then the "keep it in the ground" folks will be looking for a hole in the
ground to hide.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
When the United States, the United Kingdom, and the "coalition of the willing" attacked Iraq in March 2003, millions protested around the world. But the war of "shock and awe" was just the beginning. The subsequent occupation of Iraq by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority bankrupted the country and left its infrastructure in shambles.
The whole reason for choosing the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency was that without a doubt, the U.S.was the world's strongest credit in 1944. To assure confidence in the system, the strongest, most creditworthy currency on earth was chosen to serve as the standard unit of account for global trade. To eliminate any question about the value of the dollar, the system was designed so that any international holder of U.S. dollars could convert those dollars to gold bullion at a pre-determined fixed rate of exchange. Dollars were literally as good as gold.
By the mid-1960s, this phenomenon became known as exorbitant privilege : That phrase refers to the ability of the USA to go into debt virtually for free, denominated in its own currency, when no other nation enjoys such a privilege. The phrase exorbitant privilege is often attributed to French President Charles de Gaulle, although it was actually his finance minister, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who coined the phrase.
At the opposite extreme are the bloggers on the Internet whom I refer to as the Hyperinflation Doom Squad. Their narrative generally goes something like this: Suddenly, when you least expect it, foreigners will wise up and realize that the U.S. national debt cannot be repaid in real terms, and then there will be a panic that results in a crash of the U.S. Treasury market, hyperinflation of the U.S. dollar, and declaration of martial law. This group almost always cites the hyperinflations of Zimbabwe and Argentina as "proof" of what's going to happen in the USA any day now, but never so much as acknowledges the profound differences in circumstances between the USA and those countries. These folks deserve a little credit for having the right basic idea, but their analysis of what could actually happen simply isn't credible when examined in detail.
FILE PHOTO. © Lucy Nicholson / Reuters The tax and trade policies of Donald Trump are, in fact, what have contributed to the surge in oil prices, a US economics professor told RT, adding that the US President's tough words to OPEC are a political stunt. On Thursday, Trump accused OPEC's Middle East producers of "pushing for higher and higher oil prices" and demanded "they stop it," adding that the US is "protecting those countries." Oil prices showed a mixed reaction to Trump's words. The Brent benchmark fell 43 cents to $78.97 per barrel, while the US Texas Intermediate grew by 9 cents to $71.21.
Trump demands OPEC lower oil prices, claims US 'protects' Middle East countries
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 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 pm
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 am
China's April diesel stocks fall for second straight month -XinhuaGeorge Kaplan says: 05/26/2017 at 1:54 pm
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 pm
China has seen in the past significant drops in monthly oil production, most likely related with maintenance.Dave P, 07/16/2016 at 6:01 pm
What's makes this time different for China? I'm curious to hear what you base your thoughts on (as you seem to have a good understanding of what's going on).FreddyW, 07/16/2016 at 12:26 pmOk good to know. But 8,5% is still huge. Looking at the graph I see that the number will continue to increase untill end of year unless production levels out or start to increase.
chart 2GoneFishing , 06/02/2016 at 7:03 pm
You are right AlexS, Americans need to be more frugal and forward thinking.Lightsout , 06/02/2016 at 10:26 pm
Hi Dennis,
Assuming that an ICE is 20% as efficient as an EV, which seems reasonable as one barrel of oil is energy equivalent to 1628.2kWh, and will produce 19 gallons of gasoline, and 12 gallons of diesel. Assuming 30 mpg economy for each, the barrel of oil provides 930 miles of travel, while 1628.2 kWh at 3mpkWh will provide 4,884 miles of travel.Nick G , 05/02/2016 at 1:31 pm
Ron,Dennis Coyne , 04/27/2016 at 10:52 am
"The data also showed China's February crude oil imports jumped 20 percent on year to their highest ever on a daily basis, driven by import quotas and stockpiling."Heinrich Leopold , 03/08/2016 at 12:35 pm
Thanks Alex. Indeed quite a reduction in growth compared with the last years.Heinrich Leopold , 03/09/2016 at 3:19 amAlexS,AlexS , 03/09/2016 at 6:14 am
As I said above, there is also a serious structural shift in China's oil consumption.AlexS , 03/09/2016 at 6:30 am
China: y-o-y growth in diesel consumptionDennis Coyne , 03/09/2016 at 7:40 am
Hi AlexS,AlexS , 03/09/2016 at 12:01 pm
It is hard to say how free oil companies are in China to go their own way, as they see fit, when it comes to production policy. The government exercises an enormous amount of power over Chinese industry.AlexS , 02/28/2016 at 5:09 pm
I was referring to Nomura's prediction of a 5% yearly fall in China's 2016 oil production. If it comes to happen this should set back production to 2012-13 levels.Ron Patterson , 02/28/2016 at 4:16 pmChina's production has been increasing at an average of almost 2% per year for about 10 years now.AlexS , 02/28/2016 at 4:25 pm
. and even longer-termAlexS , 02/28/2016 at 4:58 pm
China's mature onshore oil fields are declining.Ron Patterson , 02/28/2016 at 8:48 pm
The plateau, 2008 2014, was made possible by infill drilling. I suspect that the decline curve will be steeper than indicated in the above chart.AlexS , 02/28/2016 at 9:57 pmChina's second largest field is Shengli, operated by Sinopec (China Petroleum & Chemical Corp.). Although Shengli is a mature field (discovered in 1961, developed since 1964), production there remained relatively stable within a range between 510 and 540 kb/d for many years, thanks to intensive drilling program.dclonghorn , 02/28/2016 at 10:24 pm
Thanks for the information.
