U.S. - Saudi Arabia: President Trump Says Saudi Arabia's King Wouldn't Survive "Two Weeks" Without U.S. Backing

[jaycee + 348]

52 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Which raises the question:  once they're not needed for oil, why should anyone - least of all a free, democratic nation like the US - care about the "Arab world"?  What, exactly, do these countries offer?  Aside from oil, the only things I've seen from them are political dickery, hubris, oppression of women, and incessant violence.  What part of that are we hoping to gain from them? 

Its just something US administrations have always done, interfere in other countries for the perceived benefit to the US. Besides don't Americans want to oppose the expansion of Russia its been a US foreign policy for a long time so giving up prime position in the Middle East is a bit of a retreat and would probably lead to Europe leaning more towards Russia going forward to guarantee oil and taking out the first line of defence America has always relied upon. Battles in Europe keeps the troops of US land.
Past history is no guide to future performance but here's some history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States

[NickW + 2,714]

15 hours ago, J S said:

Silly old red hair pervert.  Look up military in CIA world fact book.

Sauds spend over 9% of GDP on military.  Iran about 2.5%.  2015 Saud GDP 646 billion, Iran GDP 393 billion.

Iran has 4 X the people in the military.  Who cares.  The Sauds will kill them all with their technology, and sell the bodies to China to feed their pigs making a profit.  56 billion to 5.3 billion.  This ranking gives too much weight to number of people and outdated equipment.  Look at how much they are spending.  That is the key. Sauds are spending more than Russia!  That is crazy!  They are #3 after the US and China in spending!

I am dumbfounded how many white males in the US believe Trump's crap and don't bother checking it.  And for the record I am a white maie in the US.  I have wondered if it is a genetic defect, but white males in other countries seem pretty smart.  Maybe it is in the water and I am immune.  I need to patent myself.

 

Only with US help. The Saudis can't even cope in Yemen fighting a rag tag army of peasants.

Some BAE guys I knew when I was KSA said the Saudi Air force are utterly useless. They reckoned if the Iranians launched an attack in their F4's and F14's the Saudis would run. It would only be US (or other western state - Uk or France)  intervention that would stop this.

[John Foote + 1,135]

Overwhelmingly the world benefits from a secure Saudi Arabia, and the US. The Saudis spend plenty on defense, with the latest and greatest weapons that can be bought, but any military that hasn't fought a real war probably would get bloodied pretty hard in a real shooting match at first. But there is no one in the region about to invade. And if we are honest, the US benefits by there dependence on the special relationship, that hit it's peak with Bush43. 9-11 strained the, but the mutual interests survived. And yes, turning to Russia for defense, who sides with Assad in Syria, and Iran to the east, well that can't work. And Syria or Iran are not going to invade.

Saudi's greatest threat is internal, the expanding population strains the spread-the- dole-model, buy the loyalty program that has secured the House of Saud since the 50s or so, and this model will not sustain another 20 years. King Abdullaziz created the country the old fashion way, by the sword and alliances, and that was only 88 years ago.

The House of Saud is not a monolithic entity, as MBS has vividly demonstrated. With the general population loyalties are to tribes and families far more than the King. The people of the southwest Saudi Arabia are very different than the east, who are different than the central. The military's leadership is deliberately fractured, the royals know strong militaries tend to launch coups in the region. The Palace Guard types are top notch an internal security, protecting the House of Saud. But that is a very different beast than defeating an opposing army.

As much as anything, the people of Saudi Arabia look around them, and while privately critical of many aspects of their situation, everything around them is worse. There are so many good people there. I hope the country can transition to a sustaining model, instead of extraction and spread the dole model, a model which is running out of time. The price of oil effects their D day, delaying or accelerating it, but not ultimately preventing it.

Name another country named after a family. That model is never sustainable. It's not unstable today, but it won't be called Saudi Arabia 200 years from now. It's a when, not an if. 

[jaycee + 348]

2 hours ago, John Foote said:

. And yes, turning to Russia for defense, who sides with Assad in Syria, and Iran to the east, well that can't work. And Syria or Iran are not going to invade.

Good post but I disagree with this point not unsurprisingly. If the US can be friends with Egypt and other Arab countries and support Israel Russia can manage Saudi and Iran.

[John Foote + 1,135]

On 10/4/2018 at 4:11 PM, jaycee said:

Good post but I disagree with this point not unsurprisingly. If the US can be friends with Egypt and other Arab countries and support Israel Russia can manage Saudi and Iran.

Are we friends with countries there, or just alliances in our joint mutual interests? And in some cases, these are very strong alliances. 

Russia/Saudi Arabia can manage a level of friend-a-mies. That is easy to see in the land of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 10/3/2018 at 4:53 PM, Dennis Coyne said:

US LTO scenario, best guess (mean expectation)

As oil finds decrease, we will gradually switch to natural gas, ethanol, renewables, etc. Gasoline and diesel will become too expensive for most people someday, as your chart shows.We will not run out of energy. 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

25 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

As oil finds decrease, we will gradually switch to natural gas, ethanol, renewables, etc. Gasoline and diesel will become too expensive for most people someday, as your chart shows.We will not run out of energy. 

It does not factor in newer, emerging and evolving technologies to find and extract crude O&G @ lower costs.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

You are exactly right. Nobody knows when it will become too expensive to compete but options help regulate price. 

[jaycee + 348]

8 hours ago, John Foote said:

Are we friends with countries there, or just alliances in our joint mutual interests? And in some cases, these are very strong alliances. 

Russia/Saudi Arabia can manage a level of friend-a-mies. That is easy to see in the land of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. 

I think we we agree then Russia can be an ally of Saudi if America walks away? With no large army to protect it Saudi would be venerable long term so would get closer to Russia I think we only disagree on the closeness?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Jesus, people, the OP was about Trump speaking at a rally to his base.  Heck, even JC got that.  I don't think it's going to happen and neither does his base.  But it sure is fun to state the obvious and get everybody all shook up.  Just read this thread!  

[John Foote + 1,135]

8 hours ago, jaycee said:

With no large army to protect it Saudi would be venerable long term so would get closer to Russia I think we only disagree on the closeness?

The Russian isn't able to just easily deploy globally, and pre-positioning in Saudi Arabia can't happen. The US is pretty unique with power projection in the perspective of being able to pretty much fight anywhere.

And I stand by my statement, protect them from who? There is no one around in the region capable of invading Saudi. Not Yemen, EAU, Qatar, Jordon, or Iraq/ Syria, or even Iran, who would have to go through Iraq and Kuwait to even start an attack thru armies. The Saudi military is decently sized.

For protecting straits, the Russian Navy can't really project power either. Look where the US has bases, and then where Russia does. It's one thing to sail a ship or two. It's another thing to keep a fleet in place thousands of miles from your own bases. 

 

[jaycee + 348]

12 minutes ago, John Foote said:

he Russian isn't able to just easily deploy globally, and pre-positioning in Saudi Arabia can't happen. The US is pretty unique with power projection in the perspective of being able to pretty much fight anywhere.

Oh I don't know they seem to be having a decent go at it in Syria.

12 minutes ago, John Foote said:

And I stand by my statement, protect them from who? There is no one around in the region capable of invading Saudi. Not Yemen, EAU, Qatar, Jordon, or Iraq/ Syria, or even Iran, who would have to go through Iraq and Kuwait to even start an attack thru armies. The Saudi military is decently sized.

The Middle East is a very unstable place and things can change rapidly. Saudi was briefly invaded by Iraq after they went through Kuwait in 2 days. If Iran thought there was no American defense force to kick them out like the Iraqis were they may decide to do that themselves. I have no real belief the Saudi military are that able to fight either. Their commanders are selected for their allegiance to the crown and who their family is and their pilots are the same. I have heard many reports of their inability to actually fly their planes in real action apart from sometimes hitting ground targets. The ground forces seem to be getting practice in Yemen mind you but are struggling against a bunch of lightly armed guerrillas.

40 minutes ago, John Foote said:

For protecting straits, the Russian Navy can't really project power either. Look where the US has bases, and then where Russia does. It's one thing to sail a ship or two. It's another thing to keep a fleet in place thousands of miles from your own bases. 

A navy is only really useful in the gulf for aircraft to take off from otherwise they are very expensive targets for Russian ground based anti ship missiles. Ground forces and land based airports are all that is needed these days. More troops can come in via air as well. 

[jaycee + 348]

45 minutes ago, mthebold said:

The reasoning behind defending Europe was that, post WWII, Europe was too weak to defend itself.  That's no longer the case.  Russia lacks its former strength, and Europe has rebuilt itself.  It's also becoming progressively more difficult to invade countries as populations increase, urban warfare being a slow, bloody affair. 

I strongly suggest it is not the case. The German military is a joke most of their aircraft cant fly as they need new parts. Even during the Cold war the only point of forces in Germany/ Western Europe was to delay the Russian advance for a day or two to allow negotiations to take place of nukes to be use if all else failed. This benefited America as it would have time to react.

Fast forward to a Russian biased Europe and the first strike will be on American soil. American missile defense systems would also disappear from Europe so they would need to be based in America which means possible air bursts over the US. Nothing has changed the US needs a buffer zone.

1 hour ago, mthebold said:

The reasoning behind policing the Middle East has always been oil.  Russian influence in the Middle East mattered because we relied upon the Middle East to run our economies.  Again, that's no longer the case - at least for the US.  Europe is still dependent upon both Russia and the Middle East for their energy needs, but that's an opportunity for the US.  If Russia controlled SA and Iran, Europe would be forced to look to the US - already a net energy exporter and soon to be a net oil exporter - to secure their energy.  In other words, we're currently paying for Europe's defense while they enrich our enemies.  In the future, Europe could pay for its own defense while enriching us.  That's a win-win for the US. 

Sorry I can never see the US having enough oil spare to supply Europe's 11 million barrels a day imports. America has only recently produced enough to supply itself I don't know where the new supply is going to come from to supply a continent the size of Europe. 

1 hour ago, mthebold said:

Then there's China, which will be forced to defend its energy supplies, which it obtains from Russia and the Middle East.  If Russia controls Iran & SA, China will have four options: oil from Russia, oil from the US, colonize 3rd world countries, or massive coal/waste/biomass-to-liquid programs.  Again, the US has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Not understanding that point. You say China gets oil from the Middle East and Russia just now, they also have forward bought a lot of Venezuelan oil too mind you, but how will that be different if Russia is in charge in the Middle East? As for oil from the US I thought they were supplying Europe :0)

1 hour ago, mthebold said:

Historically, America policed the world because there were no viable alternatives.  Today, we could feasibly withdraw our fleets, let the rest of the world jockey for position, and make good profits selling to multiple sides.  I.e. we could be more like Switzerland - and we'd be better off for it.  If Russia wants the Middle East, let them fight with Europe and China over it.  It's none of our business. 

America policed the world to have influence over it for their own reasons and still do. If you control the rulers of a country you can make them do a lot of things to benefit you. If America became isolated they would find their trade dropping dramatically as the main reason a lot of states deal with them is for the protection they offer, Saudi buys a lot of American weapons which is a main export of the US if Russia was protecting them they would probably buy Russian besides the rest of the world can produce all of what America exports and usually cheaper hence the trade deficit with China and Trump's disagreement with Europe.

1 hour ago, mthebold said:

As a bonus, a policy of non-intervention should end the incessant complaints of US meddling in foreign affairs.  Of course, that will be immediately followed by complaints about the US's selfish refusal to aid foreign countries suffering violence & poverty, but that's irrelevant.  The world bitches no matter what the US does; it's long past time we admitted that and focused on self-reliance. 

Yes they do interfere and for their own benefit or goals if you think the US does it for anything else you need to look at other viewpoints other than American media and Presidents speeches. All countries jostle for influence around the globe, if America leaves the world stage there will be wars which will effect the US all countries are interconnected these days by trade so thinking trade will stay the same during a world war is optimistic.

You quote Switzerland as an example of being happily withdrawn but they have to abide by all the trade rules other countries apply to them to accept their goods because they have no leverage. If America withdraws to itself I suggest they will find tariffs will rise as there is less benefit in humouring the US if all they will provide is trade in goods that can be got elsewhere and usually cheaper instead of protection.

[Bhimsen Pachawry + 72]

12 hours ago, jaycee said:

strongly suggest it is not the case. The German military is a joke most of their aircraft cant fly as they need new parts. Even during the Cold war the only point of forces in Germany/ Western Europe was to delay the Russian advance for a day or two to allow negotiations to take place of nukes to be use if all else failed. This benefited America as it would have time to react.

Fast forward to a Russian biased Europe and the first strike will be on American soil. American missile defense systems would also disappear from Europe so they would need to be based in America which means possible air bursts over the US. Nothing has changed the US needs a buffer zone.

If the intention is to hit USA, it would already have been done. Europe or not, if there is going to be a serious war, none will interfere and put their population at risk for USA. USA will be asked to not use the bases in EU if enemies threaten to destroy all those who provide logistical support to USA.

 

GERMANY is a USA colony. USSR left Germany in 1989 but USA never left. German constitution is also dictated by USA. Merkel is trying to get independence from US and there is visible power struggle against USA by Germany.

On 10/4/2018 at 4:04 PM, jaycee said:

1. Cut American influence dramatically with the Arab world
2. More ability to control world oil price
3. Military bases /port access in a stable Middle Eastern country
4. A large military power on their side rather than the American's
5. Ability to cut large amounts of oil supplies to Europe and the influence that brings, why do you think the US is so against Europe using Russian gas?
The benefits are massive and Putin would have to be stupider than Trump if he did not utilise any split between the US and Saudi. Russian does not need trade with Saudi, I agree with you there, what they want is the ability to increase their ability to project power and influence other countries which is far batter than trade. 

The problem with this argument is that Russia has the largest oil reserves, even larger than Saudi Arabia. Russia has about 30% of world gas. There is no substitute to Russian energy.

Secondly, what makes the GCC countries friendly to USA? Why should they not kick out USA? What is so special about USA that is not in others? You must already be knowing that USA has been asked to leave and USA is in turn trying to save face by proposing MESA. Saudi has already started plans for Islamic Military Alliance with hiring of Pakistan military general as its head.

The legacy if USA-Saudi alliance depended in USA promising to help Saudis spread Islam and make Saudis leader if entire Islam in return for Petrodollar. USSR being atheist nation, was something hated by Muslims which qlso helped in forging the alliance. But things have changed now with new powers India and China rising. The old alliance has very little value now

On 10/4/2018 at 6:52 PM, mthebold said:

 

Regarding US oil independence: production levels are a function of price and technology. 

Technology will advance, ensuring that more resources can be harnessed at lower prices.  Unconventional oil is already profitable at acceptable prices.  Current Fischer-Tropsch technology breaks even around $100/bbl, but the next generation of plants aims for $50/bbl.  They'll accomplish this not through some amazing new science, but by designing smaller, more cost-effective plants.  It's low-risk technology.  Once the US has both unconventional & FT at acceptable prices, it can do as it pleases. 

What's an acceptable price?  Well, we're doing just fine on $75/bbl.  I would argue that, as fuel efficiency improves, the US would do just fine on $100/bbl.  Fast forward to 2025 when we're a net exporter & electrification is taking off, and $150/bbl might be to our advantage.  At that price, we could theoretically destroy OPEC countries one-by-one to steal their market share. 

Which raises the question:  once they're not needed for oil, why should anyone - least of all a free, democratic nation like the US - care about the "Arab world"?  What, exactly, do these countries offer?  Aside from oil, the only things I've seen from them are political dickery, hubris, oppression of women, and incessant violence.  What part of that are we hoping to gain from them? 

The problem is that oil is not easily substitutable. The options like gas to liquid and coal liquefaction are the closest options to oil. But there are problems with extraction of gas. Natural gas is also finite and is being consumed at about 180TCF a year. Gas storage is also difficult. Transportation by ship is hard due to the liquefaction requiring 110Kelvin type low temperature. Coal extraction is hard as it has to be extracted layer by layer which makes it slow.

 

Technology increase is not guaranteed. Today's tight oil technology was developed in 1975-80 during oil embargo time. Not much has improved since. The technology improvement is not guaranteed and may take even till 2050 to achieve which may be too late.

The high cost of oil extraction also has to do with EROI number and the amount of energy needed to extract oil. Generally, natural gas is burnt to get the required energy to power the oil plants, for powering the hydro-fracking, pumps, filtering machine etc.

On 10/7/2018 at 5:12 AM, ronwagn said:

As oil finds decrease, we will gradually switch to natural gas, ethanol, renewables, etc. Gasoline and diesel will become too expensive for most people someday, as your chart shows.We will not run out of energy. 

Just because food crops become expensive doesn't mean people can eat mud and grass. Remember Irish famine where people died because of crop loss? Some things have no substitute. Otherwise people could simply substitute anything easily

On 10/7/2018 at 4:04 AM, John Foote said:

Are we friends with countries there, or just alliances in our joint mutual interests? And in some cases, these are very strong alliances. 

Russia/Saudi Arabia can manage a level of friend-a-mies. That is easy to see in the land of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. 

USA made alliance with KSA to spread Islam and make KSA the ruler of Islam in return for Petrodollar. But thongs have changed in the sense that many other powers like India and China have come up. India in particular is capable of ruining Middle east single handedly due to geographic location. So, USA games will not work this time.

Russia, on the other hand mas more friendly ties with India and there will be no reason to go towards KSA. India has 200 million Muslim whom it can expel to middle east, destroy Pakistan and push another 200million and completely starve middle east to death. Since the whole point of middle east is the claim of leadership of Islam, it will not be able to shoot down Muslims who will be coming into its borders as it will go against their leadership principle. Russia has no reason to let go of a powerful country like India in favour of weak middle east. Russia needs no oil and oil based economy is anyways coming to an end with oil depletion.

[jaycee + 348]

1 hour ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

If the intention is to hit USA, it would already have been done. Europe or not, if there is going to be a serious war, none will interfere and put their population at risk for USA. USA will be asked to not use the bases in EU if enemies threaten to destroy all those who provide logistical support to USA.

Germany is not a colony of the US they are a European power their constitution may bear a lot of similarity to the US, I suspect Japan’s is as well, but that does not make them servile to them. Have a look at the recent decision of Germany to take more Russian gas despite warnings from the US  in addition Germany is part of the union of states trying to bypass American sanctions on Iran. Doesn’t seem like they follow what America says.

1 hour ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

The problem with this argument is that Russia has the largest oil reserves, even larger than Saudi Arabia. Russia has about 30% of world gas. There is no substitute to Russian energy.

Secondly, what makes the GCC countries friendly to USA? Why should they not kick out USA? What is so special about USA that is not in others? You must already be knowing that USA has been asked to leave and USA is in turn trying to save face by proposing MESA. Saudi has already started plans for Islamic Military Alliance with hiring of Pakistan military general as its head.

The legacy if USA-Saudi alliance depended in USA promising to help Saudis spread Islam and make Saudis leader if entire Islam in return for Petrodollar. USSR being atheist nation, was something hated by Muslims which qlso helped in forging the alliance. But things have changed now with new powers India and China rising. The old alliance has very little value now

I don’t get your point I said Saudi would turn to Russia if the US left you are saying the Saudis are getting rid of the US theseare  two completely different points. You have not answered how Saudi would replace the military might of the US or their weapons sales that they only sell to friendly states.

[Bhimsen Pachawry + 72]

3 hours ago, jaycee said:

Germany is not a colony of the US they are a European power their constitution may bear a lot of similarity to the US, I suspect Japan’s is as well, but that does not make them servile to them. Have a look at the recent decision of Germany to take more Russian gas despite warnings from the US  in addition Germany is part of the union of states trying to bypass American sanctions on Iran. Doesn’t seem like they follow what America says.

I don’t get your point I said Saudi would turn to Russia if the US left you are saying the Saudis are getting rid of the US theseare  two completely different points. You have not answered how Saudi would replace the military might of the US or their weapons sales that they only sell to friendly states.

GERMANY is a neo-colony of USA. So is Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc. Merkel is trying to get rid of it and buying gas from Russia, bringing muslim refugees are just a small step towards gaining support of Russia and Arabs to take on USA. So, attempt at freedom is being made subtly. But as of now, USA has lot of network and deep agents in Germany who get things done clandestinely.

Saudis have no choice in this case of replacing USA. Siding with Saudi and giving too much technology can risk confrontation with India and that too a genocidal level one. Who is willing to do that? There is none who is willing to do this, not even the USA.

KSA along with other allies like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Maldives etc have caused enough problems to India that India is no longer willing to let things go. Saudis have to forge Islamic Military Alliance and get things done on their own. Expecting others to risk everything for them is not feasible. People are keeping quiet only for the time being in return for Saudi oil flow. India gets investment and remittance on political grounds upto $100 billion.

So, the only way to secure Saudi Arabia is to give sufficient oil for free to countries whom it has picked a fight with in the past. Saudis have causee problems to India, Russia, Yugoslavia etc and none of the countries will ever forgive Saudis or other accomplices for it. The oil flow is also temporary and hence there is very little absolute protection available. One should know not to pick unnecessary fights and not shout later that they are in trouble

[jaycee + 348]

1 hour ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

ERMANY is a neo-colony of USA. So is Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc. Merkel is trying to get rid of it and buying gas from Russia, bringing muslim refugees are just a small step towards gaining support of Russia and Arabs to take on USA. So, attempt at freedom is being made subtly. But as of now, USA has lot of network and deep agents in Germany who get things done clandestinely.

Saudis have no choice in this case of replacing USA. Siding with Saudi and giving too much technology can risk confrontation with India and that too a genocidal level one. Who is willing to do that? There is none who is willing to do this, not even the USA.

KSA along with other allies like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Maldives etc have caused enough problems to India that India is no longer willing to let things go. Saudis have to forge Islamic Military Alliance and get things done on their own. Expecting others to risk everything for them is not feasible. People are keeping quiet only for the time being in return for Saudi oil flow. India gets investment and remittance on political grounds upto $100 billion.

So, the only way to secure Saudi Arabia is to give sufficient oil for free to countries whom it has picked a fight with in the past. Saudis have causee problems to India, Russia, Yugoslavia etc and none of the countries will ever forgive Saudis or other accomplices for it. The oil flow is also temporary and hence there is very little absolute protection available. One should know not to pick unnecessary fights and not shout later that they are in trouble

I have worked in Germany for two years in the past and I can assure you they are not aligned to America despite what you say, Germany has its own objectives and they don’t align with America’s they are more strongly focused on Europe.

I have never heard of the idea that Merkel took Muslim refugees to please Russia, why Russia would be happy I don’t know, and Arabs and don’t fit the facts. Germany has a declining birth rate and a labour shortage and saw the chance of getting potentially more educated refugees than usual to fill the slots as these were not economic refugees. Up till now they have relied on Turkey for that. Your theory on this does not match practical facts.

American agents are working in Germany but they are not very good at doing it as they were caught tapping Merkel’s phone and Germany is buying Russian oil and gas in increasing amounts making them more dependant there. Add in the retaliatory sanctions Europe are putting on the US with Merkel’s backing and they really need to get replaced with ones that can do the job. Brexit by the way was opposed by Obama and Germany did nothing to stop that if anything they actually made it more likely by refusing any concessions to Cameron on the migration issue. Sorry I don’t see Germany being run from the US by their agents.

The rest of your post seems to be off on a tangent to what I was discussing so will not reply to it.

[Bhimsen Pachawry + 72]

2 hours ago, jaycee said:

I have worked in Germany for two years in the past and I can assure you they are not aligned to America despite what you say, Germany has its own objectives and they don’t align with America’s they are more strongly focused on Europe.

I have never heard of the idea that Merkel took Muslim refugees to please Russia, why Russia would be happy I don’t know, and Arabs and don’t fit the facts. Germany has a declining birth rate and a labour shortage and saw the chance of getting potentially more educated refugees than usual to fill the slots as these were not economic refugees. Up till now they have relied on Turkey for that. Your theory on this does not match practical facts.

American agents are working in Germany but they are not very good at doing it as they were caught tapping Merkel’s phone and Germany is buying Russian oil and gas in increasing amounts making them more dependant there. Add in the retaliatory sanctions Europe are putting on the US with Merkel’s backing and they really need to get replaced with ones that can do the job. Brexit by the way was opposed by Obama and Germany did nothing to stop that if anything they actually made it more likely by refusing any concessions to Cameron on the migration issue. Sorry I don’t see Germany being run from the US by their agents.

The rest of your post seems to be off on a tangent to what I was discussing so will not reply to it.

Arabs are the reason for USA Petrodollar. So, securing Arab support by getting muslim refugees is the idea of merkel. Otherwise, Japan also has low fertility, they don't get any refugees. Germany took very little muslims before that and only in key areas, not wholesale like in case of refugees. This impresses Arabs, not Russia.

USA was not caught tapping Merkel but Snowden or WikiLeaks leaked it. Obama was an arab plant and so was Hillary clinton. This should have been clear to you. Otherwise, what was Obama's credentials at the age of 44 to become president? Weren't there more experienced people? Also, since Merkel had long ruling time, she has consolidated power and has reduced American influence greatly.

After Obama tool over and effect of 2008 high oil price, USA influence has declined and Arab influence has risen. Many govt in EU are Arab favouring ones. USA power is declining in general. Nevertheless, the legacy of USA control still remains. Many countries may get freedom from USA soon but not yet. Germany is one such countries.

[Dennis Coyne + 82]

On ‎10‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 9:22 AM, mthebold said:

 

Regarding US oil independence: production levels are a function of price and technology. 

Technology will advance, ensuring that more resources can be harnessed at lower prices.  Unconventional oil is already profitable at acceptable prices.  Current Fischer-Tropsch technology breaks even around $100/bbl, but the next generation of plants aims for $50/bbl.  They'll accomplish this not through some amazing new science, but by designing smaller, more cost-effective plants.  It's low-risk technology.  Once the US has both unconventional & FT at acceptable prices, it can do as it pleases. 

What's an acceptable price?  Well, we're doing just fine on $75/bbl.  I would argue that, as fuel efficiency improves, the US would do just fine on $100/bbl.  Fast forward to 2025 when we're a net exporter & electrification is taking off, and $150/bbl might be to our advantage.  At that price, we could theoretically destroy OPEC countries one-by-one to steal their market share. 

Which raises the question:  once they're not needed for oil, why should anyone - least of all a free, democratic nation like the US - care about the "Arab world"?  What, exactly, do these countries offer?  Aside from oil, the only things I've seen from them are political dickery, hubris, oppression of women, and incessant violence.  What part of that are we hoping to gain from them? 

Not likely US has as much energy supply as you believe, we have a fair amount of natural gas, but oil is very limited, your estimates for GTL cost improvement seems a bit far fetched.  US  LTO compared to the average of the EIA's AEO2018 tight oil reference and high oil price scenarios in chart below AEO case is 110 Gb from 2006 to 2050, my best guess scenario (uses oil price assumptions very close to the average of the AEO reference and high oil price cases.

[Dennis Coyne + 82]

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 7:42 PM, ronwagn said:

As oil finds decrease, we will gradually switch to natural gas, ethanol, renewables, etc. Gasoline and diesel will become too expensive for most people someday, as your chart shows.We will not run out of energy. 

I agree we will not "run out of energy", but the illusion that the US will become a net exporter of crude oil and petroleum products, is incorrect.

We might export natural gas, if our consumption of natural gas does not increase as rapidly as shale gas output, but as can be seen from my chart we will see roughly a 3 Mb/d decrease in US tight oil output from 2022 to 2030, and another 2.2 Mb/d decrease in tight oil output to 2035, an updated chart in comment above.

 

 

Edited October 8, 2018 by Dennis Coyne

[Dennis Coyne + 82]

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 8:09 PM, ceo_energemsier said:

It does not factor in newer, emerging and evolving technologies to find and extract crude O&G @ lower costs.

The price of Brent crude has been increasing, the evolving technology is up against resource limits, eventually an old industry such as the petroleum industry starts to run out of ideas to lower cost any further.  Why is it that oil prices have increased, do you think?  Why isn't the price of oil $30/b today with all that "emerging and evolving" technology. 

The scenario is based on past data, not future fantasy.

[jaycee + 348]

4 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Arabs are the reason for USA Petrodollar. So, securing Arab support by getting muslim refugees is the idea of merkel. Otherwise, Japan also has low fertility, they don't get any refugees. Germany took very little muslims before that and only in key areas, not wholesale like in case of refugees. This impresses Arabs, not Russia.

Merkel did take Muslim refugees before the Arabs. You will notice I mentioned they were taking Turkish workers in before the Arabs, Turkey is 98% Muslim, and there is a large Turkish population in Germany from all the previous migration, my drinking buddy when I worked there was a Turk. Japan is probably the most racist country in the world allowing immigrants to replace the missing generations is not on the agenda, there they are using automation to prolong workers ability to work and substitute for humans rather than have a labour shortage. They are very hot on robotics for that reason.

4 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Obama was an arab plant and so was Hillary clinton. This should have been clear to you. Otherwise, what was Obama's credentials at the age of 44 to become president? Weren't there more experienced people? Also, since Merkel had long ruling time, she has consolidated power and has reduced American influence greatly.

I dont indulge in conspiracy theories that there is no evidence off.

[Bhimsen Pachawry + 72]

12 hours ago, jaycee said:

Merkel did take Muslim refugees before the Arabs. You will notice I mentioned they were taking Turkish workers in before the Arabs, Turkey is 98% Muslim, and there is a large Turkish population in Germany from all the previous migration, my drinking buddy when I worked there was a Turk. Japan is probably the most racist country in the world allowing immigrants to replace the missing generations is not on the agenda, there they are using automation to prolong workers ability to work and substitute for humans rather than have a labour shortage. They are very hot on robotics for that reason.

I dont indulge in conspiracy theories that there is no evidence off.

Turks back then were highly deislamised by Atatturk and USA sponsored coups of islamic govts. Very few had expected Erdogan to come and change the situation. Kazhakstan, Kyrgyzstan also had muslims but were deislamised. These people tended to drink alcohol, indulge in non-islamic practices very regularly and even did not consider themselves to be muslims in many cases. Moreover, the population of muslims in Germany was around 4% in 2010 which was minimal. Many turks had given up islam while in germany. However, the refugees were hardcore muslims and had no intent of assimilating or giving up Islam.

Your idea is that whatever is officially told is true even if tehre is no evidence but any other theory is conspiracy theory is absurd. Is there any evidence to say that Obama was a worthy person to become president? What were his credentials? Is the election based on voting by 100% informed people or just votes by bunch of people who do what they are told to do?

Edited October 9, 2018 by Bhimsen Pachawry

[jaycee + 348]

9 minutes ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Turks back then were highly deislamised by Atatturk and USA sponsored coups of islamic govts. Very few had expected Erdogan to come and change the situation. Kazhakstan, Kyrgyzstan also had muslims but were deislamised. These people tended to drink alcohol, indulge in non-islamic practices very regularly and even did not consider themselves to be muslims in many cases. Moreover, the population of muslims in Germany was around 4% in 2010 which was minimal. Many turks had given up islam while in germany. However, the refugees were hardcore muslims and had no intent of assimilating or giving up Islam.

You said there were no Islamic migration to Germany I point out Turks are Islamic your say not Islamic enough. I am tired of discussing with you I point out facts and you say that's not what you meant this  happens everytime. What you type is never what you mean so discussing any point is..... pointless.

 

9 minutes ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Your idea is that whatever is officially told is true even if tehre is no evidence but any other theory is conspiracy theory is absurd. Is there any evidence to say that Obama was a worthy person to become president? What were his credentials? Is the election based on voting by 100% informed people or just votes by bunch of people who do what they are told to do?

I am the least likely person to believe that what I hear officially your assumption I only believe official news channels is a straw man argument. What I said in my previous post is there is no proof of your theory which is a reasonable suggestion otherwise I would have to believe any lie a liar comes up with.  How about me suggesting there is a big spaghetti monster in the sky that nobody can see, just because there is no proof does not make it untrue according to your rational. 

[Dennis Coyne + 82]

20 hours ago, mthebold said:

I don't generally assume projections of anything are correct, but for the sake of argument, let's assume US LTO goes exactly as your chart predicts.  I would still bet on US net oil exports because costs are falling for all oil resources, fuel-switching is already happening, there are always up-and-coming extraction technologies, and we've only scratched the surface on energy efficiency.  I would expect US demand to decline even as our overall supplies increase.  To wit:

- Curious as to how auto companies could meet fuel economy mandates, I looked up all of the proven technologies trickling into automobiles.   This isn't future tech; it's being done right now.  When these technologies are implemented, a 20-40% decrease in fuel consumption out of a conventional automobile is trivial.  Add in hybrid technology, and that drops even further.

- EV's will take off, and they will have an effect on oil demand disproportionate to their numbers.  The reason for this is that the most economical use case for an EV is when it's run at maximum capacity.  Delivery vehicles, taxis, ride-sharing, people with long commutes, etc are already economical cases for EV's.  Class-8 trucks running 200-500 miles/day, which represents the majority of trucking miles, will also be economical.  There's no technological barrier to building them and companies are working on it right now; it's only a matter of time.  These high-consumption use cases will electrify first.  This alone could halt - if not put a dent in - oil demand. 

- America simultaneously has problems with fuel demand, ever-growing landfills, and waste products from various industries.  The anything-to-liquids plants I mentioned will first be used to consume waste.  This is proven technology, and it's economical today because the plants profit both from tipping fees and from oil production.  Curious about this, I checked to see if anyone had estimated the amount of waste generated worldwide.  They had; the world's waste products are equivalent to approximately 30MMbpd of oil - nearly a third of world oil demand.  Granted, the world won't convert all of that, but it will certainly make an impact - esp. in the US where we generate so much waste. 

- Oil and natural gas prices have diverged, creating an opportunity for arbitrage.  Back in 2008 when oil prices peaked, there were plants to convert nat gas to oil.  The plans were only scrapped because oil prices tanked.  Either an increase in oil prices or an improvement in anything-to-liquids technology could revive those plans.

- LTO isn't the only resource that will benefit from improved technology.  My understanding is that oil companies are using knowledge gained to improve all operations, which brings with it the potential for production increases across all resources.

- There are untapped oil reserves.  Utah has its own type of oil sands; technology to extract it is already in the pilot production plant stage.  It's not proven, but there's some probability it will succeed. 

- The next-gen FT plants I mention have only one new technology: improved catalysts.  This technology is plausible because our ability to design & manufacture catalysts has dramatically improved with modern supercomputers, on which we can perform engineering analyses that were previously impossible.  That's only half of the equation though.  The other half is that they're scaling down the plants.  Much of the cost of a large plant is in the financing.  It takes many years to build, during which you accrue interest, before you make a dime off it.  If you build smaller plants - as Nucor started doing with steel decades ago - you slash costs w/o a single technological improvement.  As a bonus, smaller plants can be economically sited in a wider variety of locations.  This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff; it's application of simple, proven principles. 

So there are multiple ways to increase supply, multiple ways to decrease demand, and many players in the market.  That complexity decreases my confidence in simple projections and increases my confidence that, even if LTO fails, people will find a way. 

As for the price of oil, there's an interesting link between efficiency and prices: the more efficient our economy becomes, the higher prices we can tolerate.  We're doing just fine at $80/bbl.  In another 10 years, our GDP/BTU could easily improve 30%, at which point $100+/bbl oil will have less effect than $80/bbl oil has today.  That trend will continue.  At some point, it will be cheaper to seek marginal domestic resources than it will to police the world.  That's the tipping point.  When we have economical alternatives to OPEC's nonsense, we'll throw them to the wolves and mind our own business.  Without us footing the security bill, the Europe et al may find it cheaper to buy from stable nations - of which we're one.

I guess I misunderstood your meaning of new technology.  I thought you meant new technology for extracting oil, I agree that higher oil prices are likely to lead to substitution of other types of energy for crude oil as well as more efficient use of crude oil.  There is plenty of potential to replace falling C+C output (which I think will begin for World C+C output in 2023 to 2027 with a best guess of 2025) with other sources of energy (natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, and coal) and I think a transition to electric powered transportation is likely, though it will take 20 to 30 years for this transition to occur.  The higher the price of oil, the faster the transition will occur, natural gas and coal will also peak by 2030 to 2035 and so a push to replace oil with those energy sources will be a poor capital investment as those prices will also rise.  Wind, Solar, nuclear, and hydro are more promising energy resources with a smattering of natural gas backup and a widely dispersed highly interconnected high voltage direct current (HVDC) grid connecting it all together to reduce the need for expensive backup technologies, excess capacity built into the system (about 3 times average load) reduces the need for backup and reduces overall system cost.