.

[John Foote + 1,135]

At least in the USA you won't really see a correlation between gun ownership and gun/homicide by gun rates. Hawaii is up there on ownership, but that Maui wowie or something keeps them chill. The states that like to shoot each other the most per 100,000 people, with the exception of Missouri which is average, also have high ownership.

DC is a special kind of goofy, low ownership and seriously trigger happy. An NRA lobbyist's statistical dream, but since we don't have closed borders among the states, let alone cities, it's pretty stilly to think localized gun rules can be effective within a city, especially as one as odd as DC.

Pretty sure overall homicide by gun rates are slightly down over the past 40 years.  In 2015 New Hampshire's rate per 100,000 was 1.1. That sportmen's paradise known as Lousiana was at 10.3 per 100,000. 

[butasha + 123]

As stated before. I own a fairly large ranch in South Texas. We seldom go any place unarmed. Most of my friends and family live on ranches and are also usually armed as well. I don’t know the statistics but image our crime rate is much higher than most of rural US. With that said most of our crime down here is related to the close proximity to the Mexican border and of course drug related issues. We stay away from the druggies and the low life’s understand that most of the ranchers and there families down here are very heavily armed and capable of defending our homes.

Our house is basically a 4 acre fenced compound in the middle of our ranch with a few ranch dogs that will let us know if someone decides to come visit. I typically hit what I shoot at and seriously doubt if I will hesitate to protect my family. 

That is the reality that we live in today down here. Not perfect by a long shot but reality. What worries me is when Texas turns blue and the Libs remove our ability to defend ourselves from the lowlifes. I sure don’t look forward to leaving the ranch but if we continue turning left it will eventually have to happen. Our kids are currently pursuing their lives in the big city and my wife and I have suggested they raise our grandkids far away from the ranch.My family has been here for many generations and it hurts to think that I may be the last of my family to actually live on our family ranch. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

58 minutes ago, John Foote said:

At least in the USA you won't really see a correlation between gun ownership and gun/homicide by gun rates

And that is an interesting feature of the USA.  The Southern and Southwestern States settle personal disputes with guns. The Northeast States of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont do not.  Neither does Minnesota nor Iowa, yet sparsely populated South Dakota and North Dakota have ten times the gun murders than you find in NH and VT.  Because Vermont has no gun laws, and thus no laws on concealed carry or open carry, it issues no permits, thus there are no "reciprocity" arrangements with other States.  It is totally common for young men to be on hikes with unsheathed M-16 rifles and backpacks on their ROTC  (Reserve Officer Training Corps) 20-mile hikes, nobody thinks anything if it.  And if the guys (and gals) look exhausted, the locals simply off them a ride back to campus, automatic rifle, ammo magazines, and all, and nobody thinks anything of it.  I remember one day of serious marching where 1,600 Officers with their guns were marching down a rather narrow Vermont country road.  The motorists very gently hop-scotched around them at 10 mph, nobody ever tooted the horn.  Indeed, in the last two years nobody has ever blared a car horn at me.  It is unbelievably heavily armed, totally peaceful, and the total number of murders is about 2 per year  (and those are family disputes, no surprise).  

I don't have to bother with a gun, even though the nearest policeman is at least 15 minutes away, and more like 30 minutes.  My neighbors are my police force.  No worries! 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

@Jan van Eck as my favorite sci fi author said, "An armed society is a polite society".

As for the insurance companies and ships, I read some articles about it but can't be bothered to look for them now. Insurance companies call all the shots

[Jeff_Calgary + 68]

On 7/19/2019 at 3:57 PM, Falcon said:

Iran Oil exports dropped 2 mm bbls/day to 500K bbls in last 15 months.

( 2mm bbls X $65 = $130 million)

Great for world oil producers.

Iran can keep the Tanker.  No British citizens on board. Some crew are from India, one of Iran's best clients. Wonder how India feels about that ?

The IRANIAN'S tanker hostage taking piracy MADE JOHN BOLTON'S AND BENJAMIN NETANYAHU'S DAY. They are tingling with anticipation.

Iran, US is going on summer vacation. See ya in 6 weeks.  US will talk with you then . . . . . only if you want.

6 weeks: that's 42 days X $130 million = $5,460,000,000. lost oil revenue.

TIMING IS GREAT !

Cactus II Pipeline on schedule $670 K bbls/day in Corpus Christi for export .  The Epic pipe coming up next. Getting close to commence line fill. Epic will provide additional 900K bbls/day for export.  

Saudis working on signing long term contracts with Iran's buyers. US should pick up contracts also.  Don't have to worry about Tanker Piracy in Gulf Of Mexico. 

I actually think Iran wants (needs) to negotiate.  The problem with Iran is they neeed to look strong to their population or they lose control  (Just like North Korea and China). Hopefully Iran's antics are just positioning . . . .  

I think Iran understands where the line is drawn and will abide by it.

If Trump allows a little "face saving" opportunity for Iran maybe there is a deal to be had.

 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  or Iran could try to hold out till next election at a cost to them of $58,460,000,000. of oil revenue.

450 days to election X 2 mm bbls/day X $65 = $58,460,000. Lost Revenue

 

 

It is not lost revenue -it is delayed revenue. The oil is still there to be sold at a later date. The US seems to not have learned that lesson since they will be running out of oil long before Iran.

[Falcon + 222]

10 hours ago, Jeff_Calgary said:

It is not lost revenue -it is delayed revenue. The oil is still there to be sold at a later date. The US seems to not have learned that lesson since they will be running out of oil long before Iran.

SO FOR EXAMPLE  you are saying if an NFL Football player is paid $15 million a year. Then he is suspended for 1 year without pay for beating his wife. He hasn't lost the $15 million . . .  It's only delayed.  ?  How does that work ? Delayed till when ?

ALSO  . . . . You're assuming (1) EV's and renewables never grow to force Strandard Assets. (2) That lost contracts and clients all return to Iran (3) increased supply and slowing demand do not drop Brent price below today's price $65.

...................................................

HERE IS THE ACID TEST 

TIME VALUE OF MONEY. . . PRESENT VALUE.

Have you every taken a Finance course. Do a PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS with year one at $0.00 (zero dollars) THEN second time with year one at $58.5 B.   .  .  .  It's Gone.

Even if Iran sells 2mm bbls/day at $65 into perpetuity . . . .  IT'S GONE

.,,........,..............,......................

Iran can't ask Obama to put it on a plane , all cash and send it to them . .  .  . 

U.S. HAS NOT LEARNED ITS LESSON ? YEA RIGHT. 

THE U.S. CAN DO THE MATH. TAKE A LESSON IN BASIC FINANCE. 

Iran has never been squeezed like they are today.  Iran does't show you the thousands protesting in Iran on TV.   Great people in Iran , too bad the regime is absolutely nuts. 

The West has been very patient with Iran. The U.S. has given Iran government every opportunity to move from the 7th Century into the 21st Century become a citizen of the world.

IRAN better not breach the bondery of acceptable antics. The guns are locked and loaded. Target plan signed off on.  

The $58.5 Billion only delayed ?  Please.  

LOL.

 

 

Edited July 21, 2019 by Falcon

[James Regan + 1,776]

14 hours ago, ronwagn said:

It is actually an economic war. We are weakening all nations that are overly reliant on oil and natural gas income by maximizing our own production. That includes Russia and the Middle East. It benefits China and all other countries that are not big producers themselves. That is the big picture. 

The Russian economy is barely above that of Spain.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/russia-economy-facts-2019-4-1028116037#russia-loses-700-people-every-day1

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/map-sums-economy-middle-east/

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/map-countries-most-oil-reserves/

 

Now slide Opium over into Iran, Iran will do and are doing what Afghanistan did during the war, flooding Europe with Heroin and bring down society.

The main reason given to the British public to use British forces in Afghanistan after 9/11 was to purely clear the UK of Afghan Taliban Herion which was in epidemic at the time in the UK.

We (UK) had no other reason to get involved after The Iraq war after no WMDs were ever discovered, as in the current climate of Tankers it wasn’t our Buildings that got attacked but we needed a reason for the British public to get onboard again.

DT May wish to think hard about the special relationship and our history, turning a blind eye now shows his true selfish agenda.

USA and NATO cannot be split.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102158/Heroin-production-Afghanistan-RISEN-61.html

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jan/09/how-the-heroin-trade-explains-the-us-uk-failure-in-afghanistan

[Falcon + 222]

8 hours ago, James Regan said:

 

The main reason given to the British public to use British forces in Afghanistan after 9/11 was to purely clear the UK of Afghan Taliban Herion which was in epidemic at the time in the UK.

 .  .  .  .  .  .  we needed a reason for the British public to get onboard again.

USA and NATO cannot be split.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102158/Heroin-production-Afghanistan-RISEN-61.html

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jan/09/how-the-heroin-trade-explains-the-us-uk-failure-in-afghanistan

You mention the Heroin.  

I know someone who was an agent for U.S. Federal Agency ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco,Firearms). After the fighting subsided a bit in Afghanistan the ATF was looking for ATF agent volunteers to go to Afghanistan to destroy poppie fields right before the harvest, a high risk deployment. 

For some legal technicality the military could not directly participate in the destruction of the Afghanistan  poppie fields.

It was a three month stint and agents were paid triple salary high risk pay.

The agents were escorted by US Military, dropped into a field, destroyed the crop and hightailed it out of there.

The person I know took the assignment.  He came home with some wild stories.

As far as England's "no other reason to get involved" , how about their obligation as a NATO member.

Edited July 21, 2019 by Falcon

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 hours ago, James Regan said:

Now slide Opium over into Iran, Iran will do and are doing what Afghanistan did during the war, flooding Europe with Heroin and bring down society.

The main reason given to the British public to use British forces in Afghanistan after 9/11 was to purely clear the UK of Afghan Taliban Herion which was in epidemic at the time in the UK.

We (UK) had no other reason to get involved after The Iraq war after no WMDs were ever discovered, as in the current climate of Tankers it wasn’t our Buildings that got attacked but we needed a reason for the British public to get onboard again.

DT May wish to think hard about the special relationship and our history, turning a blind eye now shows his true selfish agenda.

USA and NATO cannot be split.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102158/Heroin-production-Afghanistan-RISEN-61.html

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jan/09/how-the-heroin-trade-explains-the-us-uk-failure-in-afghanistan

President Trump never said he wanted to split up NATO. He only said that Germany, France and others should pay the minimal amount that they had agreed to. Thy have not. The United Kingdom and Lithuania are the only countries that have. The United States, I have read, pays 70% of NATO's budget. They need to pay their fair share. As it is Germany is enriching Russia by buying most of its natural gas from them. I spent 26 months of my life as a soldier protecting the Germans from the Soviet Union. We are repaid by disdain now. 

Edited July 21, 2019 by ronwagn
correction

[Falcon + 222]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

President Trump never said he wanted to split up NATO. He only said that Germany, France and others should pay the minimal amount that they had agreed to. Thy have not. The United Kingdom and Lithuania are the only countries that have. The United States, I have read, pays 70% of NATO's budget. They need to pay their fair share. As it is Germany is enriching Russia buy buying most of its natural gas from them. I spent 26 months of my life as a soldier protecting the Germans from the Soviet Union. We are repaid by disdain now. 

The NATO budget is about $6 Billion.  US pays over half of that.  The US bases, troops and anti-missile systems in Europe cost the US between $26 and $31 Billion a year. This is not considered part of the NATO Budget even though it is the real deterrent of an attack on Europe. 

US spends $100 Billion year protecting  Mideast shipping lanes even though US no longer benefit from Mideast crude oil.  US recently asked Europe and Asian countries that depend on Mideast oil supply to help out.  No takers .  .  .  .  all refused to help. 

What are we doing there.  For what little interest we have there (if any) is it worth $100 Billion a year ?  

While US tries to lessen the nuke threat with Iran the French and Germans are doing substantial business with Iran. 

US spends over $130 Billion protecting NATO countries and Asia's oil supply.  When US asks for a little help or cooperation they laugh in the US's face.  US plays the fool willingly . . . .  why ? ? ? 

Edited July 21, 2019 by Falcon

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

4 minutes ago, Falcon said:

The NATO budget is about $6 Billion.  US pays over half of that.  The US bases, troops and anti-missile systems in Europe cost the US between $26 and $31 Billion. This is not considered part of the NATO Budget even though it is the real deterrent of an attack on Europe. 

US spends $100 Billion year protecting  Mideast shipping lanes even though US no longer benefit from Mideast crude oil.  US recently asked Europe and Asian countries that depend on Mideast oil supply to help out.  No takers .  .  .  .  all refused to help. 

What are we doing their.  For what little interest we have there (if any) is it worth $100 Billion a year ?  

While US tries to lessen the nuke threat with Iran the French and Germans are doing substantial business with Iran. 

Actually, just one state imports more than 50% of its oil through the Strait of Hormuz. I won't name the state, but here's a hint, it is populated by the most hypocritical humans on the planet, who tanked their own oil industry, calling it Evil, while increasing consumption of foreign oil every year. Oh and that one state accounts for 10% of US consumption by themselves. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

22 hours ago, John Foote said:

At least in the USA you won't really see a correlation between gun ownership and gun/homicide by gun rates. Hawaii is up there on ownership, but that Maui wowie or something keeps them chill. The states that like to shoot each other the most per 100,000 people, with the exception of Missouri which is average, also have high ownership.

DC is a special kind of goofy, low ownership and seriously trigger happy. An NRA lobbyist's statistical dream, but since we don't have closed borders among the states, let alone cities, it's pretty stilly to think localized gun rules can be effective within a city, especially as one as odd as DC.

Pretty sure overall homicide by gun rates are slightly down over the past 40 years.  In 2015 New Hampshire's rate per 100,000 was 1.1. That sportmen's paradise known as Lousiana was at 10.3 per 100,000. 

New Orleans is probably where most of those murders took place. Same as Chicago in Illinois. Chicagoland has the most shootings and the strictest gun laws. 

[Falcon + 222]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Actually, just one state imports more than 50% of its oil through the Strait of Hormuz. I won't name the state, but here's a hint, it is populated by the most hypocritical humans on the planet, who tanked their own oil industry, calling it Evil, while increasing consumption of foreign oil every year. Oh and that one state accounts for 10% of US consumption by themselves. 

Chevron has co-development contracts with Saudis for their oilfields . Actually, Chevron's early version was an original owner in ARAMCO.

If you haven't noticed the international market for crude oil is getting very competitive. Companies like Exxon and Chevron were the dominant refiners around the world.  Not so much today.  Asian countries want there own refiners.  The US majors still refine around the world but the growth is from local companies.  

Chevron has to find their own buyer of their share of Saudi oil. Chevron dominates California refining and gasoline retail. 

Cali used to get most of their oil from Alaska before production dropped in half. 

Too much crude supply.

Too much refining capacity.

Captive markets for oil, vertical integration wins going forward.

US has little interest in keeping shipping lanes in Persian Gulf open at a cost of $100 Billion a year.

$100 Billion a year would fix a lot of Roads and Bridges in the US.

Don't start on the petro dollar argument.   LOL.

 

 

Edited July 21, 2019 by Falcon

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Falcon said:

Chevron has co-development contracts with Saudis for their oilfields . Actually, Chevron's early version was an original owner in ARAMCO.

If you haven't noticed the international market for crude oil is getting very competitive. Companies like Exxon and Chevron were the dominant refiners around the world.  Not so much today.  Asian countries want there own refiners.  The US majors still refine around the world but the growth is from local companies.  

Chevron has to find their own buyer of their share of Saudi oil. Chevron dominates California refining and gasoline retail. 

Cali used to get most of their oil from Alaska before production dropped in half. 

Too much crude supply.

Too much refining capacity.

Captive markets for oil, vertical integration wins going forward.

US has little interest in keeping shipping lanes in Persian Gulf open at a cost of $100 Billion a year.

$100 Billion a year would fixe a lot of Roads and Bridges in the US.

Don't start on the petro dollar argument.   LOL.

I wasn't going to name the state but you seem to have guessed it. The PADD  in Cali is not well served by pipelines from the states to its East, so their only supply is seaborne. Alaska and Middle East oil sell for Brent prices, not WTI, so there's already a $8-10 price delta typically, something the "genius" legislators there can't seem to comprehend. Oh, and the highest fuel taxes, all leading to the highest gasoline and diesel prices in the country. 

The American in Aramco (Arab American Oil Company) is LONG GONE. Chevron doesn't participate in those fields anymore than they do in Pemex fields.  I'm not disagreeing on global supply and demand.  The US grows demand at a paltry 1% per year, and we've increased US production by what, 130% or so? But Cali is (and wants to be) its own country. Their oil production decline is also 50% or so, so they're importing 1.5 million bbls per day at full Brent numbers, while every state around them gets WTI pricing or better. Sucks to be them, and they'll scream the loudest if their supplies get cut off by the Iranians doing, oh This kind of mischief

[Falcon + 222]

4 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

 

The American in Aramco (Arab American Oil Company) is LONG GONE. Chevron doesn't participate in those fields anymore .

ARAMCO nationalized many many. years ago.  Chevron has signed and participated to some extent in today's Saudi fields.  

The Saudis do it for "security" reasons more so than economic ones. Can't hurt to have a company with Washington DC connections at hand.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Falcon

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 7/20/2019 at 5:25 PM, Jan van Eck said:

And that is an interesting feature of the USA.  The Southern and Southwestern States settle personal disputes with guns. The Northeast States of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont do not.  Neither does Minnesota nor Iowa, yet sparsely populated South Dakota and North Dakota have ten times the gun murders than you find in NH and VT.  Because Vermont has no gun laws, and thus no laws on concealed carry or open carry, it issues no permits, thus there are no "reciprocity" arrangements with other States.  It is totally common for young men to be on hikes with unsheathed M-16 rifles and backpacks on their ROTC  (Reserve Officer Training Corps) 20-mile hikes, nobody thinks anything if it.  And if the guys (and gals) look exhausted, the locals simply off them a ride back to campus, automatic rifle, ammo magazines, and all, and nobody thinks anything of it.  I remember one day of serious marching where 1,600 Officers with their guns were marching down a rather narrow Vermont country road.  The motorists very gently hop-scotched around them at 10 mph, nobody ever tooted the horn.  Indeed, in the last two years nobody has ever blared a car horn at me.  It is unbelievably heavily armed, totally peaceful, and the total number of murders is about 2 per year  (and those are family disputes, no surprise).  

I don't have to bother with a gun, even though the nearest policeman is at least 15 minutes away, and more like 30 minutes.  My neighbors are my police force.  No worries! 

You are far more likely to be killed with your own gun (suicide mainly, but also accidents) than it to be used in self defense. 

If there is any crime reduction from guns it's probably because the mentally ill took themselves out.  Joking sorta.

[Jakridge + 122]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

You are far more likely to be killed with your own gun (suicide mainly, but also accidents) than it to be used in self defense. 

If there is any crime reduction from guns it's probably because the mentally ill took themselves out.  Joking sorta.

Why are the strictest gun law areas in America always the ones with the most gun violence?

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 minutes ago, Jakridge said:

Why are the strictest gun law areas in America always the ones with the most gun violence?

Why are firetrucks always near fires?   It's possible the crime came before the laws.  Criminals don't follow laws and in a country where guns are easy to get/everywhere the gun laws can't work.  NRA logic is "more guns" in a country where guns literally outnumber people.

Yeah, let's give kindergarten teachers guns...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DQ-2tDzJxw

 

[oilexpert.nl + 36]

Admittedly, that in itself is not perfection, as the USA itself is a violent place, but hey, it is a lot better than being knifed in Hamburg or Rotterdam or London, let's be fair here.)

@ Jan, Let's be fair here? Are you serious? Do you know the statistics? The USA has many great things, you can be proud of. But definitely, when it come to "safe places", Europe is higher on the list than the USA. So please be fair here. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 7/21/2019 at 12:11 AM, John Foote said:

At least in the USA you won't really see a correlation between gun ownership and gun/homicide by gun rates.

From a European perspective the correlation is : More gun proliferation = more guns deaths. 

I completely get that guns are part of American culture and that regulation is more difficult because guns are so prolific already. 

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,237]

How did this thread get on gun violence in America?? Long ways from oil and gas....

[James Regan + 1,776]

23 hours ago, Falcon said:

You mention the Heroin.  

I know someone who was an agent for U.S. Federal Agency ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco,Firearms). After the fighting subsided a bit in Afghanistan the ATF was looking for ATF agent volunteers to go to Afghanistan to destroy poppie fields right before the harvest, a high risk deployment. 

For some legal technicality the military could not directly participate in the destruction of the Afghanistan  poppie fields.

It was a three month stint and agents were paid triple salary high risk pay.

The agents were escorted by US Military, dropped into a field, destroyed the crop and hightailed it out of there.

The person I know took the assignment.  He came home with some wild stories.

As far as England's "no other reason to get involved" , how about their obligation as a NATO member.

Exactly NATO , is the US not in NATO also, read the post again it will make sense, I think...

[James Regan + 1,776]

17 hours ago, ronwagn said:

President Trump never said he wanted to split up NATO. He only said that Germany, France and others should pay the minimal amount that they had agreed to. Thy have not. The United Kingdom and Lithuania are the only countries that have. The United States, I have read, pays 70% of NATO's budget. They need to pay their fair share. As it is Germany is enriching Russia by buying most of its natural gas from them. I spent 26 months of my life as a soldier protecting the Germans from the Soviet Union. We are repaid by disdain now. 

You pay a percentage of GDP, big GDP bigger payment, it’s simple.

[Falcon + 222]

1 hour ago, James Regan said:

You pay a percentage of GDP, big GDP bigger payment, it’s simple.

Yes, supposed to be 2% of GDP.  MOST NATO under 1% .

US troops, bases and missile defense system cost US over $26 Billion a year.  This is above and beyond NATO dues.

Same in Persian Gulf US $100 BILLION YEAR. US do sent benefit from that oil.

South Korea ?  How many US Billions ?

Japan ?  How many Billions ? 

NO OTHER COUNTRY WOULD PUT UP WITH THIS FISCAL ABUSE. PROBABLY CLOSE TO $200 BILLION PROTECTING OTHER COUNTRIES.

$200 Billion EACH YEAR BUILDS A LOT OF ROADS, BRIDGES AND POWER PLANTS.

The biggest insult is  when you ask for a little cooperation to say stop nuclear proliferation, stop genocide or remove a tyrant from office they all say great go ahead but don't expect them to cooperate. They even keep supporting business with the perpetrator. 

 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Falcon

[James Regan + 1,776]

@Falcon Why are you insulted?

USA were the driving force for NATO to assist in the Korean War , after the second WW Europe had their own organization and USA wanted in.

Please DONT forget the USA inquisition of pinkos in the 50 & 60s and bay of pigs etc. so it suited for decades for the USA to have strategic bases all over Europe to try end stem the red wave so feared by USA.

Take a look who’s is in NATO and you will see a great deal of the countries have no beef or reason to with anyone and are quite small countries with zero world agenda.

USA pays its fair price in NATO, as it took the role of world police for one thing OIL, but now they are “self sufficient” the game has changed.

US in Korea and Japan serves as you northern command as Guam won’t get it it’s all relative 

All huge US aircraft carriers, nothing more nothing less , not charity but essential to the US war machine.

Edited July 22, 2019 by James Regan