UAE says four vessels subjected to 'sabotage' near Fujairah port

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-oil-tankers-exclusive/exclusive-insurer-says-irans-guards-likely-to-have-organized-tanker-attacks-idUSKCN1SN1P7

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-iran-denies/iran-denies-ties-to-houthi-drone-attack-on-saudi-oil-installations-idUSKCN1SN1S9

 

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-oil-exports/irans-crude-exports-slide-to-500000-bpd-or-less-sources-idUSKCN1SN2G4

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

https://news.yahoo.com/arabia-calls-urgent-gulf-arab-league-meetings-over-040811446.html

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Various Asian buyers of Middle Eastern crude oil expressed some concerns over the safe passage of their term cargoes following the recent sabotage attack on Saudi oil tankers, prompting several refiners to consider lifting Persian Gulf barrels in smaller vessels as a means of reducing supply disruption risk.

Saudi Aramco’s term crude oil customers in South Korea, China, Thailand and Japan have adopted additional precautionary measures in lifting and bringing in their May-loading term cargoes, refinery sources told S&P Global Platts.

“We have been making numerous calls to the ships’ captains and all relevant logistics management personnel to ensure the safety of the crew, and we are still discussing the most safe and efficient passage options for the cargoes,” an official at South Korea’s biggest refiner SK Innovation said.

Saudi Arabia’s oil minister Khalid Al Falih said two of the kingdom’s oil tankers faced a “sabotage attack” off the coast of Fujairah, UAE, on Sunday, the Saudi Press Agency reported Monday.

The tankers were on their way to cross the Arabian Gulf, with one of them scheduled to load Saudi crude from the port of Ras Tanura for delivery to Saudi Aramco’s customers in the US, SPA said, citing Falih.

According to a survey of major refiners in Asia conducted by S&P Global Platts, at least five companies in South Korea, China, Japan and Southeast Asia said they may consider lifting some Saudi or other Middle Eastern crude and condensate in smaller vessels in the event of additional hostilities on oil tankers in the region.

China’s Sinopec may possibly consider lifting some of its term Middle Eastern crude barrels in smaller vessels, rather than using entirely VLCCs, if such incidents occur frequently, a source at the state-run refiner told Platts.

“Two reasons really, smaller vessels can travel faster and would probably draw less attention from any hostile forces,” a feedstock procurement manager at a Southeast Asian refiner said.

“Two Suezmax tankers, rather than a VLCC … this will be a lot more expensive obviously, so it’s not the best option to take but it’s still one of the options,” a trading source at Hanwha Total Petrochemical said.

Tensions have risen in the Middle East since the US waivers ended on Iran’s shipments of crude. The US has reasserted its commitment to safeguard shipping in the region in response to Iranian threats to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s largest crude oil shipping chokepoint.

Some 30% of all maritime oil trade moves through the Hormuz, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

DUBAI MARKET STRUCTURE
The Dubai crude market structure could extend the upward momentum as the latest trade route disruption in Persian Gulf waters could further tighten medium sour crude and condensate supply for Asian consumers, market participants said.

Sentiment for Middle East sour crude cargoes has been riding the bullish momentum over the past several weeks amid sharply reduced Venezuelan crude exports.

In addition, the US announced in late April that it was not extending waivers on Iranian sanctions, effectively barring Asian end-users, the largest buyers of Iranian crude and condensate, from any Iranian oil purchases.

The Dubai cash to swap spread, an indicator of sentiment in the Middle East sour crude market, was assessed at $2.48/b Friday, up 20 cents/b on the day.

This was the highest the spread has been since November 27, 2013, when it was at $2.56/b.

Similarly, the Oman spread to Dubai swap rose 11 cents/b on the day to be assessed at $3.14/b Friday, the highest since September 18, 2013, when it was at $3.19/b.

Despite Asia’s growing appetite for US and African crude amid ongoing efforts to diversify crude supply sources amid OPEC production cuts, Middle East producers remain the biggest refinery feedstock supplier to East Asia.

South Korea imported 202.12 million barrels of crude from the Middle East in Q1, which accounted for 72.5% of its total imports of 278.69 million barrels, according to latest data from state-run Korea National Oil Corp.

“We are much concerned about the situation around the Strait of Hormuz. The area is a vital oil shipping route because South Korean refiners still depend heavily on Middle East crude,” an official at another South Korean refiner said. “We are very closely watching the situation, and we hope there would be no problems in loading [South Korean] cargoes out there.”

Japan received 1.273 million b/d of crude from Saudi Arabia in March, accounting for nearly 40% of the Asian buyer’s total oil imports for the month, latest data from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry showed.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

https://news.yahoo.com/yemen-rebels-drone-hits-arms-depot-saudi-airport-025330963.html

[Oil_Engineer + 86]

On 5/18/2019 at 1:22 AM, ceo_energemsier said:

Exclusive: Insurer says Iran's Guards likely to have organized tanker attacks

 

LONDON/OSLO (Reuters) - Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) are "highly likely" to have facilitated attacks last Sunday on four tankers including two Saudi ships off Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates, according to a Norwegian insurers' report seen by Reuters.

The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Norway are investigating the attacks, which also hit a UAE- and a Norwegian-flagged vessel.

A confidential assessment issued this week by the Norwegian Shipowners' Mutual War Risks Insurance Association (DNK) concluded that the attack was likely to have been carried out by a surface vessel operating close by that despatched underwater drones carrying 30-50 kg (65-110 lb) of high-grade explosives to detonate on impact.

The attacks took place against a backdrop of U.S.-Iranian tension following Washington’s decision this month to try to cut Tehran's oil exports to zero and beef up its military presence in the Gulf in response to what it called Iranian threats.

The DNK based its assessment that the IRGC was likely to have orchestrated the attacks on a number of factors, including:

- A high likelihood that the IRGC had previously supplied its allies, the Houthi militia fighting a Saudi-backed government in Yemen, with explosive-laden surface drone boats capable of homing in on GPS navigational positions for accuracy.

- The similarity of shrapnel found on the Norwegian tanker to shrapnel from drone boats used off Yemen by Houthis, even though the craft previously used by the Houthis were surface boats rather than the underwater drones likely to have been deployed in Fujairah.

- The fact that Iran and particularly the IRGC had recently threatened to use military force and that, against a militarily stronger foe, they were highly likely to choose "asymmetric measures with plausible deniability". DNK noted that the Fujairah attack had caused "relatively limited damage" and had been carried out at a time when U.S. Navy ships were still en route to the Gulf.

Both the Saudi-flagged crude oil tanker Amjad and the UAE-flagged bunker vessel A.Michel sustained damage in the area of their engine rooms, while the Saudi tanker Al Marzoqah was damaged in the aft section and the Norwegian tanker Andrea Victory suffered extensive damage to the stern, DNK said.

The DNK report said the attacks had been carried out between six and 10 nautical miles off Fujairah, which lies close to the Strait of Hormuz.

SENDING A MESSAGE

Iran has in the past threatened to block all exports through the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated fifth of the world's oil passes.

According to DNK, it was highly likely that the attacks had been intended to send a message to the United States and its allies that Iran did not need to block the Strait to disrupt freedom of navigation in the region.

DNK said Iran was also likely to continue similar low-scale attacks on merchant vessels in the coming period.

Iranian officials and the Revolutionary Guards' (IRGC) spokesman were not available for comment.

Tehran had already rejected allegations of involvement and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had said that "extremist individuals" in the U.S. government were pursuing dangerous policies. No one claimed responsibility for the attacks.

DNK's managing director Svein Ringbakken declined to comment, except to say that "this is an internal and confidential report produced to inform shipowner members of the DNK about the incidents in Fujairah and the most likely explanation".

The UAE has not blamed anyone for the attack.

Two U.S. government sources said this week that U.S. officials believed Iran had encouraged Houthi militants or Iraq-based Shi'ite militias to carry out the attack.

In a joint letter seen by Reuters and sent to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Norway said the attacks had been deliberate and could have resulted in casualties, spillages of oil or harmful chemicals.

"The attacks damaged the hulls of at least three of the vessels, threatened the safety and lives of those on board, and could have led to an environmental disaster," the letter said.

I would believe an insurance company investigator more than a law enforcement agent.  They are serious about keeping their money.

[NickW + 2,714]

On 5/15/2019 at 6:52 PM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Without massive subsidies, they wouldn't have, so that prediction was mostly correct. 

The subsidies are disappearing.  It remains to be seen if renewables can surmount remaining hurdles without government backing. 

At current prices per watt, Solar is already competitive in the UK for end users without subsidy. If in the cloudy UK solar is competitive it will be in most other locations. 

Onshore wind generally doesn't need subsidy in suitable locations

Offshore wind is heading towards being subsidy free. I think the first offshore farm without subsidy has been agreed in the Netherlands.

Its increasingly looking like they can😊

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

9 hours ago, NickW said:

At current prices per watt, Solar is already competitive in the UK for end users without subsidy. If in the cloudy UK solar is competitive it will be in most other locations. 

Onshore wind generally doesn't need subsidy in suitable locations

 Offshore wind is heading towards being subsidy free. I think the first offshore farm without subsidy has been agreed in the Netherlands.

Its increasingly looking like they can😊

That depends entirely on which costs are included in the calculation.  Come back and make this claim when renewables are cost competitive including batteries, conventional backup generation, increased transmission costs, governments mandating net metering, increased risk of blackouts, and the wholesale price spikes that will inevitably occur. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

24 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

That depends entirely on which costs are included in the calculation.  Come back and make this claim when renewables are cost competitive including batteries, conventional backup generation, increased transmission costs, governments mandating net metering, increased risk of blackouts, and the wholesale price spikes that will inevitably occur. 

It is actually worse than that.  And here is why:

Europe's historical past is thermal plants burning coal.  It was terrible stuff, a soft brown coal with relatively low thermal density and lots of smoke and particle pollution.  Some countries, such as Holland, went over to oil power plants with the oil imported from the Middle East. Eventually there was this partial shift to natural gas, typically from the North Sea.  Along comes the "renewables," which are and were expensive and provided unstable, intermittent power, and thus needed both system dampeners, typically rotational condensers, and full thermal back-up plants, to accommodate.  So what happened was the Renewables drove up the base cost of the power on the grid.  Well, if your bvase cost for comparison purposes is jacked up because of previous Renewables being connected and accommodated, then to say that later versions of Renewables are "competitive" is both a bit disingenuous and a bit silly, because you are now comparing the marginal costs of more advanced versions with the full costs of both the early stuff and the thermal back-up plants that are kept around for those days when there is both no wind and no sun  (happens every winter in Northern Europe). For those of you who doubt this, think back to the two-week stretch on the Battle of the Bulge, when a dense fog and still air grounded Allied aircraft, the fog just sat there, and the Germans made their run smack through the Allied lines in that dash to Antwerp - a gamble that only failed due to lack of fuel and lack of portable bridges. Two weeks is a very long time to have an entire Continent with no power and so there has to be this huge investment in some other power, either thermal as in Germany and Poland, or nuclear as in France, or everything shuts down and the inhabitants have no work, no trains, no trams, and no heat. 

And this is the folly of those Renewables.  You cannot get out from underneath needing the capital investment and inventory of a complete parallel back-up system, plus all those rotary condensers, to make the grid work. OK, you can scrap the grid and make each little town independent, each with some gigantic diesel generator run on HFO 380 so that you can still operate as a society, and each can be self-sufficient.  But you still have to pay for that stand-by system, keep it maintained, and keep it fuelled.  You cannot get out from underneath that.  And that is why your baseline Renewables will always be expensive. 

The Left doesn't want to hear it, but hey, that's the Left.  You cannot educate the Left, they are well beyond that. But nobody is paying attention to those guys in any event, they have become random background noise in society. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

4 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

It is actually worse than that.  And here is why:

Europe's historical past is thermal plants burning coal.  It was terrible stuff, a soft brown coal with relatively low thermal density and lots of smoke and particle pollution.  Some countries, such as Holland, went over to oil power plants with the oil imported from the Middle East. Eventually there was this partial shift to natural gas, typically from the North Sea.  Along comes the "renewables," which are and were expensive and provided unstable, intermittent power, and thus needed both system dampeners, typically rotational condensers, and full thermal back-up plants, to accommodate.  So what happened was the Renewables drove up the base cost of the power on the grid.  Well, if your bvase cost for comparison purposes is jacked up because of previous Renewables being connected and accommodated, then to say that later versions of Renewables are "competitive" is both a bit disingenuous and a bit silly, because you are now comparing the marginal costs of more advanced versions with the full costs of both the early stuff and the thermal back-up plants that are kept around for those days when there is both no wind and no sun  (happens every winter in Northern Europe). For those of you who doubt this, think back to the two-week stretch on the Battle of the Bulge, when a dense fog and still air grounded Allied aircraft, the fog just sat there, and the Germans made their run smack through the Allied lines in that dash to Antwerp - a gamble that only failed due to lack of fuel and lack of portable bridges. Two weeks is a very long time to have an entire Continent with no power and so there has to be this huge investment in some other power, either thermal as in Germany and Poland, or nuclear as in France, or everything shuts down and the inhabitants have no work, no trains, no trams, and no heat.  

And this is the folly of those Renewables.  You cannot get out from underneath needing the capital investment and inventory of a complete parallel back-up system, plus all those rotary condensers, to make the grid work. OK, you can scrap the grid and make each little town independent, each with some gigantic diesel generator run on HFO 380 so that you can still operate as a society, and each can be self-sufficient.  But you still have to pay for that stand-by system, keep it maintained, and keep it fuelled.  You cannot get out from underneath that.  And that is why your baseline Renewables will always be expensive. 

The Left doesn't want to hear it, but hey, that's the Left.  You cannot educate the Left, they are well beyond that. But nobody is paying attention to those guys in any event, they have become random background noise in society.  

I had not thought of that.  Thank you!

What makes you say the left have become random background noise?

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

5 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

It is actually worse than that.  And here is why:

Europe's historical past is thermal plants burning coal.  It was terrible stuff, a soft brown coal with relatively low thermal density and lots of smoke and particle pollution.  Some countries, such as Holland, went over to oil power plants with the oil imported from the Middle East. Eventually there was this partial shift to natural gas, typically from the North Sea.  Along comes the "renewables," which are and were expensive and provided unstable, intermittent power, and thus needed both system dampeners, typically rotational condensers, and full thermal back-up plants, to accommodate.  So what happened was the Renewables drove up the base cost of the power on the grid.  Well, if your bvase cost for comparison purposes is jacked up because of previous Renewables being connected and accommodated, then to say that later versions of Renewables are "competitive" is both a bit disingenuous and a bit silly, because you are now comparing the marginal costs of more advanced versions with the full costs of both the early stuff and the thermal back-up plants that are kept around for those days when there is both no wind and no sun  (happens every winter in Northern Europe). For those of you who doubt this, think back to the two-week stretch on the Battle of the Bulge, when a dense fog and still air grounded Allied aircraft, the fog just sat there, and the Germans made their run smack through the Allied lines in that dash to Antwerp - a gamble that only failed due to lack of fuel and lack of portable bridges. Two weeks is a very long time to have an entire Continent with no power and so there has to be this huge investment in some other power, either thermal as in Germany and Poland, or nuclear as in France, or everything shuts down and the inhabitants have no work, no trains, no trams, and no heat. 

And this is the folly of those Renewables.  You cannot get out from underneath needing the capital investment and inventory of a complete parallel back-up system, plus all those rotary condensers, to make the grid work. OK, you can scrap the grid and make each little town independent, each with some gigantic diesel generator run on HFO 380 so that you can still operate as a society, and each can be self-sufficient.  But you still have to pay for that stand-by system, keep it maintained, and keep it fuelled.  You cannot get out from underneath that.  And that is why your baseline Renewables will always be expensive. 

The Left doesn't want to hear it, but hey, that's the Left.  You cannot educate the Left, they are well beyond that. But nobody is paying attention to those guys in any event, they have become random background noise in society. 

I very clearly remember Germany's Windfarce and the serious consequences it had for the average Germans and the German industries and manufacturing. They can spray all the perfume on it, but it still stinks. I also remember the time when Spain went aggressive on wind then had to import power from neighboring countries and paying a lot more. Germany was putting out more CO2 during their windfarce era by burning lots and lots of coal to make up for the losses in power generation from the windfarce.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11425563/The-great-wind-farm-farce.html

 

 

They can tout all the wind and its numbers but it still is a small sector even now

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/wind-produces-over-third-over-germanys-electricity-march-setting-new-record

 

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/can-germany-revive-its-stalled-transition-to-clean-energy

 

 

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/germany-faces-a-gigawatt-scale-loss-of-onshore-wind-power#gs.gis95p

 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/22/germany-moving-from-coal-to-renewable-energy-without-infrastructure.html

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-climate-change-green-energy-shift-is-more-fizzle-than-sizzle/

 

 

May the windfarce be with them LOL.

I remember the days when the German refineries and petchem plants in addition to other industries were hurting so bad because of the forced wind power purchase requirements and people freezing in their homes, the elderly Germans only turning on one light bulb so they could keep the costs of their energy down and be able to live through each month.

 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

5 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

It is actually worse than that.  And here is why:

Europe's historical past is thermal plants burning coal.  It was terrible stuff, a soft brown coal with relatively low thermal density and lots of smoke and particle pollution.  Some countries, such as Holland, went over to oil power plants with the oil imported from the Middle East. Eventually there was this partial shift to natural gas, typically from the North Sea.  Along comes the "renewables," which are and were expensive and provided unstable, intermittent power, and thus needed both system dampeners, typically rotational condensers, and full thermal back-up plants, to accommodate.  So what happened was the Renewables drove up the base cost of the power on the grid.  Well, if your bvase cost for comparison purposes is jacked up because of previous Renewables being connected and accommodated, then to say that later versions of Renewables are "competitive" is both a bit disingenuous and a bit silly, because you are now comparing the marginal costs of more advanced versions with the full costs of both the early stuff and the thermal back-up plants that are kept around for those days when there is both no wind and no sun  (happens every winter in Northern Europe). For those of you who doubt this, think back to the two-week stretch on the Battle of the Bulge, when a dense fog and still air grounded Allied aircraft, the fog just sat there, and the Germans made their run smack through the Allied lines in that dash to Antwerp - a gamble that only failed due to lack of fuel and lack of portable bridges. Two weeks is a very long time to have an entire Continent with no power and so there has to be this huge investment in some other power, either thermal as in Germany and Poland, or nuclear as in France, or everything shuts down and the inhabitants have no work, no trains, no trams, and no heat. 

And this is the folly of those Renewables.  You cannot get out from underneath needing the capital investment and inventory of a complete parallel back-up system, plus all those rotary condensers, to make the grid work. OK, you can scrap the grid and make each little town independent, each with some gigantic diesel generator run on HFO 380 so that you can still operate as a society, and each can be self-sufficient.  But you still have to pay for that stand-by system, keep it maintained, and keep it fuelled.  You cannot get out from underneath that.  And that is why your baseline Renewables will always be expensive. 

The Left doesn't want to hear it, but hey, that's the Left.  You cannot educate the Left, they are well beyond that. But nobody is paying attention to those guys in any event, they have become random background noise in society. 

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05/if-saving-the-climate-requires-making-energy-so-expensive-why-is-french-electricity-so-cheap/#627648651bd9

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-electricity-retail/german-household-power-prices-at-record-high-verivox-idUSL8N1MZ30X

 

 

https://www.thelocal.de/20190129/electricty-prices-could-rise-by-20-percent-due-to-coal-withdrawal

 

https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/companies/energy-bill-power-price-hikes-shock-germanys-mittelstand/23582558.html?ticket=ST-2749695-zcqlTLsPQccjcxVSlhKP-ap4

 

 

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2014/07/15/why-are-power-prices-higher-in-germany-than-the-u-s/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

12 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

What makes you say the left have become random background noise?

Nobody is listening to anything they say. 

You have Leftists preaching to Leftists, and they reinforce each other, but other than the left press and the mainstream media, nobody pays attention and nobody follows up. Where the Left controls legislatures you get these Leftist laws passed, and the public reacts by moving away or out of State.  The Leftists are left preaching to themselves, and in political subdivisions such as cities and States they rapidly become insolvent.  But nobody is reacting.  You see no movement in say Chicago to deal with the public worker pension deficits, an overhang which is disastrous. People just move out.  Knoxville Tennessee is now Little Chicago, by the number of taxpayers from Chicago that have moved there. All those States with Leftist uni-party politics lose lots of population, and nobody sticks around either to pay more money or to work towards solutions (for example, California, Connecticut, Illinois, the three worst).  Those States are totally bankrupt by any rational accounting.  SO they go through election cycles and elect or re-elect the same people that caused and continued the problems.  There are no solutions.  I think the Left hopes that some seriously Left person will be elected President and he will do a massive bail-out, say several hundred billion for any of the three states I mentioned above.  I think that is a fantasy.  Not gonna happen. 

It is hard to imagine being more upside down than in New Jersey.  there the debt overhang is running at some $130,000 per capita.  Can that ever be paid?  Nope.  There is no plausible way that NJ can ever pay its bills.  All it can do is issue more debt to use to pay the old debt.  And that only works as long as (1) the rich people you are taxing do not move away, and (2) interest rates at the Fed discount window stay nice and low.  Neither of those two events are plausible in the future.  What happens to NJ?  Well, it follows in the footsteps of Argentina: it defaults.  Then crushing poverty will set in.  Stick around: those Leftist States have no hope of ever paying their debt, and they will all go into default, and be basket cases.  Who pays?  The only possible solution would be the American Taxpayer, via the Federal Budget, and I just don't think that is plausible. So they become the New Mississippi - redoubts filled with poor people, and very poor first-generation immigrants. You will end up with social collapse.  But not in the States next door that have less debt overhang. 

Will the debt overhang collapse the US Federal Govt?  Probably not.  That debt is also not payable, but the Feds can gently inflate it away.  And they will. 

Edited June 4, 2019 by Jan van Eck
typing error

[Rodent + 1,424]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Nobody is listening to anything they say. 

You have Leftists preaching to Leftists, and they reinforce each other, but other than the left press and the mainstream media, nobody pays attention and nobody follows up. Where the Left controls legislatures you get these Leftist laws passed, and the public reacts by moving away or out of State.  The Leftists are left preaching to themselves, and in political subdivisions such as cities and States they rapidly become insolvent.  But nobody is reacting.  You see no movement in say Chicago to deal with the public worker pension deficits, an overhang which is disastrous. People just move out.  Knoxville Tennessee is now Little Chicago, by the number of taxpayers from Chicago that have moved there. All those States with Leftist uni-party politics lose lots of population, and nobody sticks around either to pay more money or to work towards solutions (for example, California, Connecticut, Illinois, the three worst).  Those States are totally bankrupt by any rational accounting.  SO they go through election cycles and elect or re-elect the same people that caused and continued the problems.  There are no solutions.  I think the Left hopes that some seriously Left person will be elected President and he will do a massive bail-out, say several hundred billion for any of the three states I mentioned above.  I think that is a fantasy.  Not gonna happen. 

It is hard to imagine being more upside down than in New Jersey.  there the debt overhang is running at some $130,000 per capita.  Can that ever be paid?  Nope.  There is no plausible way that NJ can ever pay its bills.  All it can do is issue more debt to use to pay the old debt.  And that only works as long as (1) the rich people you are taxing do not move away, and (2) interest rates at the Fed discount window stay nice and low.  Neither of those two events are plausible in the future.  What happens to NJ?  Well, it follows in the footsteps of Argentina: it defaults.  Then crushing poverty will set in.  Stick around: those Leftist States have no hope of every paying their debt, and they will all go into default, and be basket cases.  Who pays?  The only possible solution would be the American Taxpayer, via the Federal Budget, and I just don't think that is plausible. So they become the New Mississippi - redoubts filled with poor people, and very poor first-generation immigrants. You will end up with social collapse.  But not in the States next door that have less debt overhang. 

Will the debt overhang collapse the US Federal Govt?  Probably not.  That debt is also not payable, but the Feds can gently inflate it away.  And they will. 

That is all extremely interesting. I absolutely and wholeheartedly see the Left slipping further and further from being in touch with its base. I looked at some population numbers (not that that's the only metric by any means) after I read your post and found some interesting things. First, I looked to see which states had a population loss. Which is kind of staggering given that population grows naturally. So a loss is a big deal, really. While people may be migrating away from the ridiculously taxed California, their population is still growing, just at a slower rate. But some states actually saw a dip:

Wyoming: A small loss but still, a loss is a loss. Leans Republican, but population leaving as coal mining, one of its main employers, slows.

Connecticut: Left. "The primary reason for the outbound moves were job related (34 percent), followed by retirement (30 percent) and lifestyle (20 percent). Jobs were the primary cause of inbound migration as well, but the number of outbound moves far outpaced the number of people moving into the state."

Alaska: Republican. "Unemployment, of course. With the nation’s highest unemployment rate at 6.3 percent, as of November 2018, some Alaskans are looking for job opportunities outside the state. Unemployment rates in the last two years in Alaska have consistently topped 6 percent. The national average in November 2018 was at 3.7 percent," 

Mississippi: Republican. "“There’s no jobs here," said Ollie Jackson. "No entertainment. Nothing.”"The Mississippi Center for Public Policy makes note that this migration trend shows that people are leaving progressive income tax states and moving to income tax free states like Tennessee."

Hawaii: Left. "underscores the tough choices families are making as the cost of living in the islands continue to rise." 

Louisiana: Republican. "the state does not have a diverse economy that can attract large numbers of new people, particularly younger people, to move here for jobs."

West Virginia: Republican: ?

Illinois: Left."prime working-age Illinoisans are leading the exodus, thanks to the state’s underwhelming labor market driven by high taxes and by policies that hinder job creation." 

New York: Left. Unaffordable. 

 

Seems like jobs jobs jobs and taxes taxes taxes.

Thoughts?

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

9 hours ago, Rodent said:

Seems like jobs jobs jobs and taxes taxes taxes.

Thoughts?

But of course, people always vote with their wallets.  I am reminded of the guffaw about the (French-speaking) guys in the Ottawa area, which sits on the Gatineau and the suburbs are in Quebec but the Capitol is in Ontario.  So you have all these Francophones with the strident voices ab out Quebec separation and the Homeland and the Motherland, where everyone will live, speak, breathe and eat French, even by provincial Statute (Bill 101; Bill 22), and this stalwarts go buy a house in Ontario because the Quebec Provincial taxes are higher!  So much for being a supporter of the Francophone State. 

The States you recite have a profile more subtle than that.  For example, New York and Connecticut both have shrinking populations.  CT dropped over 25,000 residents last year.  But what is not being discussed is that the people leaving are the entrepreneurs and the upper classes, and the people moving in are economically distressed migrants from Puerto Rico.  Now folks in P.R. are U.S. Nationals, although apparently without voting Congressional representation,  So they can move to the mainland any time they choose.  After the Island was wrecked by that hurricane  (the one where The Donald showed up and tossed rolls of paper towels to the survivors, great show that) it became clear that Washington was not going to do much of anything about the wreckage, so masses of Ricans have moved to the NY-CT area.  Those people speak Spanish, not English, cannot function in a complex English-speaking society, and become a drain on the State coffers, especially if they have no money.  And they do not, as all was wiped out by that hurricane. 

So the States take the financial hit by having wealthy residents (who would be paying large taxes) replaced by the poor, still losing population, and then having those poor require expensive social services including housing support and food. OK, you can put those guys to work on the pothole repairing crew, you can do that in Spanish as long as there is a bilingual foreman, but how many guys can you absorb doing that sort of work?  And therein is the problem: those old States with legacy industries cannot absorb the migrants, so it becomes a disguised welfare issue. 

California has a net in-migration only because of migrants from Central America and Mexico, and migrants from China.  If you subtract those, it is hemorrhaging population, especially the monied population.  Now, the movie star crowd is not going to leave Santa Barbara, but those do not tip the scales.  Go into the Central Valley, places such as Stockton, and recognize that there is 25% unemployment and 50% below the poverty line, and realize just how disastrous the policies of de-industrialization have been.  And you can thank the Leftists for that. 

As the impoverished move in, all social services get costly.  Vermont, a heavily Left State, one which is out of touch with reality, spends 50% of its taxes on social services.That is $3 billion, for a state of 625,000.  And so you see the scale of the problem. 

There is no ready solution, other than to vote out the Leftists.  And I don't see that happening in the States in trouble, mostly because the Republicans cannot get their act together in those States and there is no effective leadership in Washington.  So, it will only get worse. 

Edited June 4, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

1 minute ago, Jan van Eck said:

But of course, people always vote with their wallets.  I am reminded of the guffaw about the (French-speaking) guys in the Ottawa area, which sits on the Gatineau and the suburbs are in Quebec but the Capitol is in Ontario.  So you have all these Francophones with the strident voices ab out Quebec separation and the Homeland and the Motherland, where everyone will live, speak, breathe and eat French, even by provincial Statute (Bill 101; Bill 22), and this stalwarts go buy a house in Ontario because the Quebec Provincial taxes are higher!  So much for being a supporter of the Francophone State. 

The States you recite have a profile more subtle than that.  For example, New York and Connecticut both have shrinking populations.  CT dropped over 25,000 residents last year.  But what is not being discussed is that the people leaving are the entrepreneurs and the upper classes, and the people moving in are economically distressed migrants from Puerto Rico.  Now folks in P.R. are U.S. Nationals, although apparently without voting Congressional representation,  So they can move to the mainland any time they choose.  After the Island was wrecked by that hurricane  (the one where The Donald showed up and tossed rolls of paper towels to the survivors, great show that) it became clear that Washington was not going to do much of anything about the wreckage, so masses of Ricans have moved to the NY-CT area.  Those people speak Spanish, not English, cannot function in a complex English-speaking society, and become a drain on the State coffers, especially if they have no money.  And they do not, as all was wiped out by that hurricane. 

So the States take the financial hit by having wealthy residents (who would be paying large taxes) replaced by the poor, still losing population, and then having those poor require expensive social services including housing support and food. OK, you can put those guys to work on the pothole repairing crew, you can do that in Spanish as long as there is a bilingual foreman, but how many guys can you absorb doing that sort of work?  And therein is the problem: those old States with legacy industries cannot absorb the migrants, so it becomes a disguised welfare issue. 

California has a nit in-migration only because of migrants from Central America and Mexico, and migrants from China.  If you subtract those, it is hemorrhaging population, especially the monied population.  Now, the movie star crowd is not going to leave Santa Barbara, but those do not tip the scales.  Go into the Central Valley, places such as Stockton, and recognize that there is 25% unemployment and 50% below the poverty line, and realize just how disastrous the policies of de-industrialization have been.  And you can thank the Leftists for that. 

As the impoverished move in, all social services get costly.  Vermont, a heavily Left State, one which is out of touch with reality, spends 50% of its taxes on social services.That is $3 billion, for a state of 625,000.  And so you see the scale of the problem. 

There is no ready solution, other than to vote out the Leftists.  And I don't see that happening in the States in trouble, mostly because the Republicans cannot get their act together in those States and there is no effective leadership in Washington.  So, it will only get worse. 

Labor anger over Green New Deal greets 2020 contenders in California

 

By CARLA MARINUCCI and DEBRA KAHN

06/01/2019 09:00 AM EDT

 

 

https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2019/06/01/labor-anger-over-green-new-deal-greets-2020-contenders-in-california-1027570?fbclid=IwAR0eOZYJwfO73DZAJtBbYUb3vi287wtNFxVi58YXgaCO9SK-0DT2WchPge0

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

But of course, people always vote with their wallets.  I am reminded of the guffaw about the (French-speaking) guys in the Ottawa area, which sits on the Gatineau and the suburbs are in Quebec but the Capitol is in Ontario.  So you have all these Francophones with the strident voices ab out Quebec separation and the Homeland and the Motherland, where everyone will live, speak, breathe and eat French, even by provincial Statute (Bill 101; Bill 22), and this stalwarts go buy a house in Ontario because the Quebec Provincial taxes are higher!  So much for being a supporter of the Francophone State.  

The States you recite have a profile more subtle than that.  For example, New York and Connecticut both have shrinking populations.  CT dropped over 25,000 residents last year.  But what is not being discussed is that the people leaving are the entrepreneurs and the upper classes, and the people moving in are economically distressed migrants from Puerto Rico.  Now folks in P.R. are U.S. Nationals, although apparently without voting Congressional representation,  So they can move to the mainland any time they choose.  After the Island was wrecked by that hurricane  (the one where The Donald showed up and tossed rolls of paper towels to the survivors, great show that) it became clear that Washington was not going to do much of anything about the wreckage, so masses of Ricans have moved to the NY-CT area.  Those people speak Spanish, not English, cannot function in a complex English-speaking society, and become a drain on the State coffers, especially if they have no money.  And they do not, as all was wiped out by that hurricane.  

 So the States take the financial hit by having wealthy residents (who would be paying large taxes) replaced by the poor, still losing population, and then having those poor require expensive social services including housing support and food. OK, you can put those guys to work on the pothole repairing crew, you can do that in Spanish as long as there is a bilingual foreman, but how many guys can you absorb doing that sort of work?  And therein is the problem: those old States with legacy industries cannot absorb the migrants, so it becomes a disguised welfare issue.  

California has a nit in-migration only because of migrants from Central America and Mexico, and migrants from China.  If you subtract those, it is hemorrhaging population, especially the monied population.  Now, the movie star crowd is not going to leave Santa Barbara, but those do not tip the scales.  Go into the Central Valley, places such as Stockton, and recognize that there is 25% unemployment and 50% below the poverty line, and realize just how disastrous the policies of de-industrialization have been.  And you can thank the Leftists for that.  

As the impoverished move in, all social services get costly.  Vermont, a heavily Left State, one which is out of touch with reality, spends 50% of its taxes on social services.That is $3 billion, for a state of 625,000.  And so you see the scale of the problem. 

There is no ready solution, other than to vote out the Leftists.  And I don't see that happening in the States in trouble, mostly because the Republicans cannot get their act together in those States and there is no effective leadership in Washington.  So, it will only get worse. 

Is there any hope that destitution will drive down fertility in those states? 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

4 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Is there any hope that destitution will drive down fertility in those states? 

it might just turn out to be the opposite LOL , what would poor and destitute people do more? and what is driving the growth of the "immigrant" population in the US?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 5/14/2019 at 11:48 AM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Y’all just aren’t grasping that renewables won’t dominate the grid.

Natural gas can do it if used. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

17 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

it might just turn out to be the opposite LOL , what would poor and destitute people do more? and what is driving the growth of the "immigrant" population in the US?

Perhaps.  On the other hand, it's been shown that birth rates decline when immigrants move to the US.  It would also be interesting to see if they kept coming after social programs collapsed and violence matched their home countries. 

The final question is whether Latin Americans would keep having kids if they had no way to care for those kids.  Up to now, illegal immigrants were able to find at least some work.  What happens when that work disappears? 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

Natural gas can do it if used. 

Very true.  And indeed, I suspect that both it and HFO 380 will end up dominating. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

3 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Natural gas can do it if used. 

 

1 minute ago, Jan van Eck said:

Very true.  And indeed, I suspect that both it and HFO 380 will end up dominating. 

That sounds like high, unstable electricity prices waiting to happen. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 minute ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

 

That sounds like high, unstable electricity prices waiting to happen. 

Not necessarily.  Both are thermal plants, the difference being the nozzle shooting the fuel at the boiler tubes.  You can build dual-fuel boilers by conversion of the front end of a coal or oil boiler system, that is cheap enough to do.  And as for HFO, remember that there is a staggeringly vast amount in both Canada and Venezuela.  Both those countries will get their extraction and distribution obstacles sorted out soon enough. At that point the stuff is cheap, and if one starts to rise, then the burners are switched over to the other, and you are good to go. 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

6 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Perhaps.  On the other hand, it's been shown that birth rates decline when immigrants move to the US.  It would also be interesting to see if they kept coming after social programs collapsed and violence matched their home countries. 

The final question is whether Latin Americans would keep having kids if they had no way to care for those kids.  Up to now, illegal immigrants were able to find at least some work.  What happens when that work disappears? 

They will keep on doing it, we have seen it across the globe in 3rd world countries, 4th world countries, poverty leads to more pregnancies therefore more child births.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Very true.  And indeed, I suspect that both it and HFO 380 will end up dominating. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

5 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Up to now, illegal immigrants were able to find at least some work.  What happens when that work disappears? 

Disaster.  The US economy is built upon cheap labor from undocumented immigrants - who also pay substantial sums into Medicare and FICA via payroll deduction taxes, and those would also disappear. 

To illustrate, I point you to the Alabama potato harvest.  Alabama uses stoop labor to pick the potatoes.  One season, I think it was two years ago, the ICE  [immigration and customs enforcement] people decided to go lean on the farm fields in Alabama.  All the workers scurried, with the result that the entire State crop rotted in the fields. 

And is is not just the stereotypical farmhand from Guatemala that will affect US crop harvesting that you need to worry about.  Additional to all those other crops, there is the problem of some 25 million Canadians. Aside from the ones that dress in lumberjack plaid and end every sentence with "eh?", you cannot tell a Canadian from an American - so they blend right in. Nobody questions you. Other than right at the Border, everyone just assumes you are a Local, and nobody does anything.  Canadians have been strolling back and forth across the Border for centuries and think nothing of it  (so do the Americans). These people become accountants and business managers and whatever.  What is ICE going to do - deport them all?  Hopeless.  Don't even bother.  Won't work.  Cannot work. The economies are totally intertwined, even if Donald says they are not.  I say they are.  Who are you going to believe - him or me?