10 Incredible Facts about U.S. LNG

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

10 Incredible Facts About American LNG Exports

I don't see anything incredible about any of these but still good to know.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

The real push for US LNG will come from Europe, as Russian adventurism and military probes scare the Europeans.  In the past, the thinking was that buying oil and gas from Russia would bring Russia into the fold, that Russia would forget about being an imperial power intent i=on invading its neighbors and settle down, play nice, and enjoy the fruits of peaceful trade.  

Those ides went out the window when Russia invaded Georgia, invaded South Ossetia, invaded the Crimea, and then invaded the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine.  That is seriously scary.  There is no reason to think that Putin is calling it a day with his invasions.  I predict his next moves will be against the Baltic States, probably either Estonia or Lithuania first, then Latvia.  Due to the position of the Kaliningrad Oblast and its bumping up against Belarus, with only a 38-mile gap for NATO troop movements, and in that gap only one rail line with a track gauge different from Europe and only one road capable of moving heavy materiel  (and no bridges capable of supporting an Abrams heavy tank),  Lithuania is especially vulnerable to a rapid take-over.  Would Russia chance it?  Probably. 

the only realistic way to put pressure on Russia is to refuse to buy their gas.  OK, so if Europe wants to go that route (and the Poles certainly do), then it implies large purchase of LNG from abroad.  The sources for that are Qatar and the USA.  Qatar remains problematic due to the upcoming shooting war between the Shias and the Sunnis, so that leaves the USA as the default supplier.  I predict large amounts of US gas will be sold into Europe. 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

The real push for US LNG will come from Europe, as Russian adventurism and military probes scare the Europeans.  In the past, the thinking was that buying oil and gas from Russia would bring Russia into the fold, that Russia would forget about being an imperial power intent i=on invading its neighbors and settle down, play nice, and enjoy the fruits of peaceful trade.  

Those ides went out the window when Russia invaded Georgia, invaded South Ossetia, invaded the Crimea, and then invaded the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine.  That is seriously scary.  There is no reason to think that Putin is calling it a day with his invasions.  I predict his next moves will be against the Baltic States, probably either Estonia or Lithuania first, then Latvia.  Due to the position of the Kaliningrad Oblast and its bumping up against Belarus, with only a 38-mile gap for NATO troop movements, and in that gap only one rail line with a track gauge different from Europe and only one road capable of moving heavy materiel  (and no bridges capable of supporting an Abrams heavy tank),  Lithuania is especially vulnerable to a rapid take-over.  Would Russia chance it?  Probably. 

the only realistic way to put pressure on Russia is to refuse to buy their gas.  OK, so if Europe wants to go that route (and the Poles certainly do), then it implies large purchase of LNG from abroad.  The sources for that are Qatar and the USA.  Qatar remains problematic due to the upcoming shooting war between the Shias and the Sunnis, so that leaves the USA as the default supplier.  I predict large amounts of US gas will be sold into Europe. 

Maintaining the progression of Nuclear new build from the 1990's would have helped contain Russia gas expansion.

The UK should have continued building an additional PWR every 2-3 years after Sizewell B (1995). Instead War criminal Blair went full bore dash for gas which depleted the UK's reserves rapidly and now left us highly reliant on imported gas. Similar story in other European nations.

Another aspect of nuclear is the fuel is easy to store. a years supply of nuclear fuel for a large PWR is about the size of a double decker bus.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

39 minutes ago, NickW said:

Maintaining the progression of Nuclear new build from the 1990's would have helped contain Russia gas expansion.

The UK should have continued building an additional PWR every 2-3 years after Sizewell B (1995). Instead War criminal Blair went full bore dash for gas which depleted the UK's reserves rapidly and now left us highly reliant on imported gas. Similar story in other European nations.

Another aspect of nuclear is the fuel is easy to store. a years supply of nuclear fuel for a large PWR is about the size of a double decker bus.

All true.  Further, the UK could have assured its electrical energy independence, and provided enough for electric-arc furnaces for steel-making for its shipbuilding and electric reduction furnaces for its own aluminum smelting, had it joined with the Canadians and Americans in the development of packaged thorium (molten-salt) reactor technology.  I predict the outputs from those machines would result in very cheap power, down into the fractions of a cent per kwh.  And the reason is the inherent stable design of such a reactor, and the by-passing of the need for multiple redundancy systems as they cannot go to melt-down, would save capital and have a much lower labor cost. 

Ultimately, those machines will be built in volume, with one for each town, all providing for a very stable grid (unlike solar panels).  But you do have to ignore the hysterical greenies, before they totally wreck things.

[NickW + 2,714]

34 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

All true.  Further, the UK could have assured its electrical energy independence, and provided enough for electric-arc furnaces for steel-making for its shipbuilding and electric reduction furnaces for its own aluminum smelting, had it joined with the Canadians and Americans in the development of packaged thorium (molten-salt) reactor technology.  I predict the outputs from those machines would result in very cheap power, down into the fractions of a cent per kwh.  And the reason is the inherent stable design of such a reactor, and the by-passing of the need for multiple redundancy systems as they cannot go to melt-down, would save capital and have a much lower labor cost. 

Ultimately, those machines will be built in volume, with one for each town, all providing for a very stable grid (unlike solar panels).  But you do have to ignore the hysterical greenies, before they totally wreck things.

The UK has a long history of being involved in the forefront of industrial (and defence) developments only to be sold down the river by our own politicians or stitched up by our allies.

Defence - The best Interceptor in the 1960's by far was the English Electric Lightning. What did everyone buy - the Lockhead Widowmaker (otherwise known as the starfighter). TSR 2 scrapped when Oz pulled out. What did they get instead - the F111 at 4x the price a decade later!

I often say to my friends - there is nothing stopping a nation heading towards 3rd World status. Argentina had a similar GDP / head as the USA in the 1940's. This is stark warning I have had for Aussies (I hold an Oz Passport) as our economy heads towards being one that digs stuff out the ground for export. An Anglo-ish version of Tanzania.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

8 minutes ago, NickW said:

 

I often say to my friends - there is nothing stopping a nation heading towards 3rd World status. Argentina had a similar GDP / head as the USA in the 1940's. This is stark warning I have had for Aussies (I hold an Oz Passport) as our economy heads towards being one that digs stuff out the ground for export. An Anglo-ish version of Tanzania.

 

Australia would be better off developing its trade relations with England and New Zealand instead of China.  As similar peoples, less chances of getting screwed over in the long term. 

Becoming an extraction base for China is not good planning.  Basically, they are setting themselves up to being an outlier colony of the Empire.  Eventually, Darth Vader arrives and leaves a garrison to run the place. Remember the fate of Cloud City.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, mthebold said:

Start to finish, how do you envision this going?

The problem that Qatar faces is one of population and geography.  Qatar is dominantly Sunni, but not the really severe branch that envelops KSA. And it sits next door to Bahrain, which is apparently about 70% Shia.  Qatar also juts way out into the Gulf, and is thus a convenient sea-land bridge from Iran.  Were Iran to go for a land invasion of KSA, then crossing into Qatar with landing craft, or seizing a Qatari airport, is logical.  To prevent this, the USA has built a major air base in Qatar, specifically to cut off this route.  That big US base is a natural (and juicy) target for Iran should a shooting war break out, and the USA join in against Iran  (and that would be logical). 

Meanwhile Qatar has this bizarre and unfathomable dysfunctional relationship with MbS, and a very difficult relationship with Bahrain, which has cut off diplomatic relations and sent the Qatari diplomats packing, in 2017.   Now Iran is under sanctions, which is stressing their cash receipts.   Iran pushes back, against their ideological and religious rivals and enemies the Sunnis, by threatening to either invade or to sink tankers with gas coming out of Qatar.  The problem for gas LNG tankers is that the stuff is kept docile by bringing the temp down to minus 176 degrees.  If you whack an LNG tanker with a torpedo and breach the container spheres, easy enough to do, then that ship is likely to blow up; one little spark and all that gas will be a salient lesson for all the others. 

The deterrent effect of this will be that nobody will dare to tempt fate by sending in an LNG tanker.  So Iran can shut down LNG traffic without firing a shot, all they have to do is go crazy and start threatening.  Iran has these subs that can go sit on the bottom of the Gulf and pop up to launch a torpedo, and everyone knows it.  That is one heck of a deterrent.

Meanwhile you have Europe now heavily dependent on gas.    Either the Europeans continue to genuflect to the Russians, which some Europeans at least find unpalatable, or they have to find an alternative source.  That is likely going to be the USA. I predict that the aggressions of the Russians, and the problems of Qatar in any real ability to fill long-term contracts, and the threat of force-majeure hovering in the background, brings Europe to buy US LNG.  
 

[Tomasz + 1,608]

On 9/10/2018 at 9:12 AM, Jan van Eck said:

The real push for US LNG will come from Europe, as Russian adventurism and military probes scare the Europeans.  In the past, the thinking was that buying oil and gas from Russia would bring Russia into the fold, that Russia would forget about being an imperial power intent i=on invading its neighbors and settle down, play nice, and enjoy the fruits of peaceful trade.  

Those ides went out the window when Russia invaded Georgia, invaded South Ossetia, invaded the Crimea, and then invaded the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine.  That is seriously scary.  There is no reason to think that Putin is calling it a day with his invasions.  I predict his next moves will be against the Baltic States, probably either Estonia or Lithuania first, then Latvia.  Due to the position of the Kaliningrad Oblast and its bumping up against Belarus, with only a 38-mile gap for NATO troop movements, and in that gap only one rail line with a track gauge different from Europe and only one road capable of moving heavy materiel  (and no bridges capable of supporting an Abrams heavy tank),  Lithuania is especially vulnerable to a rapid take-over.  Would Russia chance it?  Probably. 

the only realistic way to put pressure on Russia is to refuse to buy their gas.  OK, so if Europe wants to go that route (and the Poles certainly do), then it implies large purchase of LNG from abroad.  The sources for that are Qatar and the USA.  Qatar remains problematic due to the upcoming shooting war between the Shias and the Sunnis, so that leaves the USA as the default supplier.  I predict large amounts of US gas will be sold into Europe. 

The same in simple economic language of Trump presidency

US has growing budget and trade deficit because a lot of its products are not compepetive on world market.

Fortunately USa has a shale gas. Unfortunately it will be 50% more expensive then russian pipe gas in Europe so its completely not compepetive from economic point of view because its much more expensive source of gas.

So we will say no word about price because it really doesnt matter. We will talk all the time about energy security and democratic values despite the fact Russia had never cut supplies even during Cold War.

As a consumer I am more interested in final price of this democratic lng. Maybe lets talk about it?

[NatGasDude + 94]

The article has a lot of discrepancies. One of them is the Panama canal's capacity for LNG carriers. The Neo Panamax locks are already capable of moving 4 LNG carriers per day, the article states 2, and that the extra capacity will come on in 2020 or so. They moved 3 170k CBM ships and 1 150CBM ship on Oct 1.

https://micanaldepanama.com/expansion/2018/10/panama-canal-transits-four-lng-vessels-in-one-day/

 

[NatGasDude + 94]

On 10/18/2018 at 11:38 PM, Jan van Eck said:

The problem that Qatar faces is one of population and geography.  Qatar is dominantly Sunni, but not the really severe branch that envelops KSA. And it sits next door to Bahrain, which is apparently about 70% Shia.  Qatar also juts way out into the Gulf, and is thus a convenient sea-land bridge from Iran.  Were Iran to go for a land invasion of KSA, then crossing into Qatar with landing craft, or seizing a Qatari airport, is logical.  To prevent this, the USA has built a major air base in Qatar, specifically to cut off this route.  That big US base is a natural (and juicy) target for Iran should a shooting war break out, and the USA join in against Iran  (and that would be logical). 

Meanwhile Qatar has this bizarre and unfathomable dysfunctional relationship with MbS, and a very difficult relationship with Bahrain, which has cut off diplomatic relations and sent the Qatari diplomats packing, in 2017.   Now Iran is under sanctions, which is stressing their cash receipts.   Iran pushes back, against their ideological and religious rivals and enemies the Sunnis, by threatening to either invade or to sink tankers with gas coming out of Qatar.  The problem for gas LNG tankers is that the stuff is kept docile by bringing the temp down to minus 176 degrees.  If you whack an LNG tanker with a torpedo and breach the container spheres, easy enough to do, then that ship is likely to blow up; one little spark and all that gas will be a salient lesson for all the others. 

The deterrent effect of this will be that nobody will dare to tempt fate by sending in an LNG tanker.  So Iran can shut down LNG traffic without firing a shot, all they have to do is go crazy and start threatening.  Iran has these subs that can go sit on the bottom of the Gulf and pop up to launch a torpedo, and everyone knows it.  That is one heck of a deterrent.

Meanwhile you have Europe now heavily dependent on gas.    Either the Europeans continue to genuflect to the Russians, which some Europeans at least find unpalatable, or they have to find an alternative source.  That is likely going to be the USA. I predict that the aggressions of the Russians, and the problems of Qatar in any real ability to fill long-term contracts, and the threat of force-majeure hovering in the background, brings Europe to buy US LNG.  
 

Qatar delivered 80 million tons last year, as number 1 LNG exporter by a long shot. Australia trailed behind at 56 million,  followed by Malaysia 26M, Nigeria 21M, Indonesia 16M, USA 13M, Algeria 12M.

Qatar was responsible for 17M tons exported to EU, followed by Algeria at 10.4M. US Liquefaction capacity is estimated to match the whole Middle East by 2025 with Calcasieu, LA at 4 bcf/day, Brownsville, TX at 3.6 bcf/day; Plaquemines at 3.4 bcf/day; and Nikiski Alaska at 2.6 Bcf/day for the Asian market.

BP has its new 'Partnership Fleet', Shell is chartering heavily and owns a large fleet as well. Gaslog has over 25 modern large capacity vessels on the water, and the order book for 2019-2020 deliveries is extensive, and they will be available for US to EU transport (Tellurian and Cheniere have already chartered Gaslog ships for their exclusive use)

The catch here is that Russia is delivering 10.8 million tons per year via Yamal, and their upcoming Arctic 2LNG that will be on the ice in the Arctic circle adding even more to that production. They have a fleet delivering year round of Teekay and Dynagas ice breaker LNG carriers, and their primary clients have been Belgium, France and Spain during their debut ice breaking season. They are centrally located to maximize deliveries to Asia and Europe.

I doubt that Russia will cut off Europe after spending all that money to secure liquefaction and transport capabilities in the Arctic, but who knows. They are geared up to deliver to Asia, but could only do so in the Summer months, or during the Winter months with the assistance of a Nuclear Icebreaker to lead the ships.

Honestly, I hope that Germany completes the Hamburg LNG Terminal quickly and begins buying US LNG so that we can diversify from our usual Mexico, S Korea, Japan, Spain, Portugal, Chile, Egypt, Jordan clientele. Germany consumed over 90 million CBM of natural gas last year (controversial because they stopped 'officially' disclosing the numbers after 2016, these are OECD estimates from the IEA), and are getting close to Japan's 120 million CBM.

Qatar/Iran tensions could be the perfect storm for a US to EU energy boom.

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

Meanwhile Russia is building gas pipelines to cover the northern European market (Nord Stream 2), the southern European market (TurkStream) and the Chinese market (Power of Siberia).

The Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline construction project is  running on schedule, with offshore pipelaying underway in the exclusive economic zone of Finland and in German territorial waters. As of October 26, 1,775 kilometers of the two strings of the TurkStream are ready, which translates into 95 percent of the overall length of pipeline’s offshore section. And a  total of 2,064 kilometers of pipes (95.5 percent of the pipeline length) are already welded and laid for the Power of Siberia gas pipeline between Yakutia and the Russian-Chinese border.

Both the Nord Stream 2 and the TurkStream pipelines are planned to come into operation before the end of 2019.

LNG exporters should then expect an increased competition from Russia on the European and Chinese markets.

https://www.lngworldnews.com/gazprom-pushing-forward-gas-pipeline-lng-projects/

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

4 minutes ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

Meanwhile Russia is building gas pipelines to cover the northern European market (Nord Stream 2), the southern European market (TurkStream) and the Chinese market (Power of Siberia).

Thanks for the updates and maps, Guillaume.  Increasing hydrocarbon pipelines are a good thing.

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

6 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Thanks for the updates and maps, Guillaume.  Increasing hydrocarbon pipelines are a good thing.

We can also add to the picture the TANAP/TAP pipeline bringing gaz from Azerbaidjan to Europe. The new italian governement has just made a U-turn on this project. Italy’s populist 5-Star Movement has backed off from its electoral pledge to stop the last leg of the Southern Gas Corridor (SCG) pipeline project designed to bring Azerbaijani gas to the EU via Georgia, Turkey, Greece, Albania and a route under the Adriatic Sea.

The U-turn, announced by Italian Deputy Prime Minister Luigi Di Maio, sparked a row over broken environmental promises in Italy, but no doubt came as a huge relief to Azerbaijan

http://www.intellinews.com/row-in-italy-over-u-turn-allowing-completion-of-azerbaijan-to-eu-gas-pipeline-151031/

[NatGasDude + 94]

4 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

We can also add to the picture the TANAP/TAP pipeline bringing gaz from Azerbaidjan to Europe. The new italian governement has just made a U-turn on this project. Italy’s populist 5-Star Movement has backed off from its electoral pledge to stop the last leg of the Southern Gas Corridor (SCG) pipeline project designed to bring Azerbaijani gas to the EU via Georgia, Turkey, Greece, Albania and a route under the Adriatic Sea.

The U-turn, announced by Italian Deputy Prime Minister Luigi Di Maio, sparked a row over broken environmental promises in Italy, but no doubt came as a huge relief to Azerbaijan

http://www.intellinews.com/row-in-italy-over-u-turn-allowing-completion-of-azerbaijan-to-eu-gas-pipeline-151031/

Excellent data. You are right that pipelines are king for Russian/Central Asian sources to feed China and EU. Germany being the next closest OECD country in terms of Natural Gas consumption behind Japan, and they don't import ANY liquid natural gas at all, purely pipeline fed. They only recently just budged and started plans for an LNG port.

LNG is primarily a seasonal supplemental source for EU/Asia and provides inventory flexibility because you can order a few 170,000 CBM ships a month and ensure heating and power, and it is a means of 'price checking' in the event that Russians want to gouge prices. Source diversification is becoming more and more important with geo political risks, as well as unexpected demand growth and conversion from coal to gas. Where a pipeline is fixed, LNG is flexible.

FLNG projects like RDS Prelude, Petronas Satu, and Eni's Coral South off the coasts of Australia and Africa are also interesting as they are creating flexible points to harvest from lower traffic basins (Cameroon and Mozambique) and serve as floating liquefaction ports as well, avoiding the traffic of busier land based ports.

I'm glad that Italy will get their pipeline. Italy drives the most CNG fueled vehicles in the EU by a long shot, and having more access to affordable gas will mean better prices for CNG drivers.

[NickW + 2,714]

On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 4:38 AM, Jan van Eck said:

The problem that Qatar faces is one of population and geography.  Qatar is dominantly Sunni, but not the really severe branch that envelops KSA. And it sits next door to Bahrain, which is apparently about 70% Shia.  Qatar also juts way out into the Gulf, and is thus a convenient sea-land bridge from Iran.  Were Iran to go for a land invasion of KSA, then crossing into Qatar with landing craft, or seizing a Qatari airport, is logical.  To prevent this, the USA has built a major air base in Qatar, specifically to cut off this route.  That big US base is a natural (and juicy) target for Iran should a shooting war break out, and the USA join in against Iran  (and that would be logical). 

Meanwhile Qatar has this bizarre and unfathomable dysfunctional relationship with MbS, and a very difficult relationship with Bahrain, which has cut off diplomatic relations and sent the Qatari diplomats packing, in 2017.   Now Iran is under sanctions, which is stressing their cash receipts.   Iran pushes back, against their ideological and religious rivals and enemies the Sunnis, by threatening to either invade or to sink tankers with gas coming out of Qatar.  The problem for gas LNG tankers is that the stuff is kept docile by bringing the temp down to minus 176 degrees.  If you whack an LNG tanker with a torpedo and breach the container spheres, easy enough to do, then that ship is likely to blow up; one little spark and all that gas will be a salient lesson for all the others. 

The deterrent effect of this will be that nobody will dare to tempt fate by sending in an LNG tanker.  So Iran can shut down LNG traffic without firing a shot, all they have to do is go crazy and start threatening.  Iran has these subs that can go sit on the bottom of the Gulf and pop up to launch a torpedo, and everyone knows it.  That is one heck of a deterrent.

Meanwhile you have Europe now heavily dependent on gas.    Either the Europeans continue to genuflect to the Russians, which some Europeans at least find unpalatable, or they have to find an alternative source.  That is likely going to be the USA. I predict that the aggressions of the Russians, and the problems of Qatar in any real ability to fill long-term contracts, and the threat of force-majeure hovering in the background, brings Europe to buy US LNG.  
 

I hear from my Iranian friends (my wife is Persian) that Qatar is now getting very cosy with Iran because it sees Iran as a potential pipeline route for Qatari Natural gas. Talk is that the Qataris will primarily fund the pipeline with Iran being granted access and along with Iraq and Syria providing security for that pipeline all the way to the Med. They can probably avoid the dollar problem by paying for security and access by granting Iraq and Syria a % of the shipped gas for their own use.

I can see why the USA is scared of this. Iran possible has the Worlds biggest reserves of conventional gas with Qatar being 3rd.

[Batman + 9]

On 9/10/2018 at 12:59 AM, Marina Schwarz said:

10 Incredible Facts About American LNG Exports

I don't see anything incredible about any of these but still good to know.

The one quote about American LNG pushing the Panama Canal to the very limits did strike me as incredible, as did the fact that Kuwait, of all places, is a customer for American LNG.

[Batman + 9]

On 9/10/2018 at 6:28 AM, NickW said:

The UK has a long history of being involved in the forefront of industrial (and defence) developments only to be sold down the river by our own politicians or stitched up by our allies.

Defence - The best Interceptor in the 1960's by far was the English Electric Lightning. What did everyone buy - the Lockhead Widowmaker (otherwise known as the starfighter). TSR 2 scrapped when Oz pulled out. What did they get instead - the F111 at 4x the price a decade later!

I often say to my friends - there is nothing stopping a nation heading towards 3rd World status. Argentina had a similar GDP / head as the USA in the 1940's. This is stark warning I have had for Aussies (I hold an Oz Passport) as our economy heads towards being one that digs stuff out the ground for export. An Anglo-ish version of Tanzania.

 

How interesting.  In Canada's case, the Avro Arrow was cancelled and we also got the Widowmaker consolation prize.

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Batman said:

How interesting.  In Canada's case, the Avro Arrow was cancelled and we also got the Widowmaker consolation prize.

Yup. The relationship Canada and the UK have with the USA is similar to that that the prison bitch has with the Big Daddy of the wing. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

13 hours ago, NickW said:

I hear from my Iranian friends (my wife is Persian) that Qatar is now getting very cosy with Iran because it sees Iran as a potential pipeline route for Qatari Natural gas. Talk is that the Qataris will primarily fund the pipeline with Iran being granted access and along with Iraq and Syria providing security for that pipeline all the way to the Med. They can probably avoid the dollar problem by paying for security and access by granting Iraq and Syria a % of the shipped gas for their own use.

I can see why the USA is scared of this. Iran possible has the Worlds biggest reserves of conventional gas with Qatar being 3rd.

That scenario would certainly help explain some of the current political machinations and skullduggery in the region.  Once again, a disasterous Middle East mixing of competing hydrocarbon exports and competing religious sects.  

Next week is probably going to go to 11 on the global political pressure cooker stovetop, with all sorts of spicy ingredients set to come to a roiling boil:

● U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil bite hard

● U.S. midterm elections complete with caravan / invasion from Central America - violent showdown of some sort will likely be played out live on TV

● Knives are out for MbS in Saudi Arabia, with Turkey among others egging on action after Khashoggi murder

I pretty much expect markets to go bonkers next week, at least until after the U.S. midterm elections are over with, Central America caravan dealt with somehow, MbS stays or goes, and the markets figure out that (in my opinion anyway) Iranian oil will likely just shift to the black markets, but not be removed from global markets.

Stock up on popcorn...

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

Tom, if nothing happens next week, I'll hold you personally responsible. So much popcorn awaits...

I don't really expect any superimmediate effect of the sanctions on Iran. They have had time to prepare. So has the oil market, common sense says though I wouldn't bank on common sense in this case. 

As regards the elections, whatever happens, it will be the Russian hackers, that's already boring.

@NickW, I remember a version of events that said the war in Syria was started precisely because of this pipeline. Unpleasantly plausible.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Marina, in my opinion, all of the items I listed above are related, and are deliberately being pushed to the boiling point around the same time. 

Next week should prove to be tumultuous no matter how things end up shaking out.  But that's just my own opinion  (obviously I have a minority viewpoint, but that's nothing new).

And I'm holding my breath about 11th November, expecting some fireworks.

I'll try to remember to check back on this thread after next week is done, around 13th November, to see how far off the mark my comment is here.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

12 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

@NickW, I remember a version of events that said the war in Syria was started precisely because of this pipeline. Unpleasantly plausible.

Syria was literally in the crosshairs of competing Oil & Gas pipeline interests.

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

What a rarely appropriate use of the word literally. Thanks, Tom!

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

What a rarely appropriate use of the word literally. Thanks, Tom!

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

9 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

What a rarely appropriate use of the word literally. Thanks, Tom!

You're welcome Marina.  Have a great weekend.  Chill out and maybe have a beer or three...

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

(For those who didn't get the visual joke) ...