What's the Endgame Here?

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Remember: this is the Middle East.  The war continues.  

If it escalates anymore, you'll still be fighting Iran 20 years from now.  Or until the Dems take both Congress and the presidency.  Remember this prediction.  

Edited January 8, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Escalation is not solely in the hands of the US, as the rockets recently fired at the air base shows. Is it illogical to assume that Iran could choose to de-escalate or is it always, somehow, the American’s responsibility to ‘back off’ when attacked?

The US has essentially been ‘at war’ with Iran for decades, since they stormed the US embassy (deja vu) in Tehran and took Americans hostage at the beginning of the Iranian Revolution. This situation will continue, with no ‘boots on the ground’ until the Iranian people decide that they have had enough of a belligerent theocracy.

Perhaps the Democrats will regain the Presidency and control of Congress in the future. At that time the American people can expect more of what the Democrats gave them in the past; appeasement, giving hundreds of millions of dollars to those who refer to them as the ‘Great Satan, and more dead Americans.

I will definitely remember your prediction.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

As opposed to what Bush and the Republicans and Trump offer? Endless expensive wars in the Middle East? 

At this point the term "Republican" is synonymous with "let's have expensive wars in the Middle East.  Vote Republican if you want to go to war in weird desert places endlessly, and for no particular reason."

Unlike the last war, no Democrat is going to support this war.  They will call it "Trump's War."  Everyone will know who to blame when the bodybags come home and this war goes screwy.  

Edited January 8, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Papillon + 485]

A comparison to Democrats of the past from a Republican who conveniently forgets previous Republican presidents. What a rarity here. 

2 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

At this point the term "Republican" is synonymous with "let's have expensive wars in the Middle East."  Vote Republican if you want to go to war in weird desert places. 

Absolutely sir, but here Mr Trump can do no wrong clearly. 

3 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The US has essentially been ‘at war’ with Iran for decades

Indeed, and half of the Middle East. I don't know about others but I see a pattern here. The concept of 'we should get out and leave them to it' becomes 'all guns blazing' and supported within minutes here, while pre-election promises are utterly ignored and of course now of no interest and with little validity.

6 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

and more dead Americans.

I will definitely remember your prediction.

Irony. Clearly the American public has not quite had enough of soldiers in body bags quite yet, though this is not surprising when users here can change their view of war within minutes. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 minute ago, Papillon said:

A comparison to Democrats of the past from a Republican who conveniently forgets previous Republican presidents. What a rarity here. 

Absolutely sir, but here Mr Trump can do no wrong clearly. 

Indeed, and half of the Middle East. I don't know about others but I see a pattern here. The concept of 'we should get out and leave them to it' becomes 'all guns blazing' and supported within minutes here, while pre-election promises are utterly ignored and of course now of no interest and with little validity.

Irony. Clearly the American public has not quite had enough of soldiers in body bags quite yet, though this is not surprising when users here can change their view of war within minutes. 

Okay Papillon, what do YOU suggest as a way forward? Just disengage internationally and revert to isolationism? That didn’t seem to work out to well in the past.

Instead of casting doubt on others who have at least offered an opinion, could you please let us know exactly how you would propose to address the present situation between the US and Iran? 

[Zhong Lu + 845]

For one:

I wouldn't have bombed Solimani.

And for two:

I wouldn't corner the Iranians until they have no option but to lash out.

And three: 

I wouldn't act like a bully. Never helps.  

At this point I would pull out of Iraq. They voted for us to leave. Saddam is dead. ISIS is beat.  Our job is done: let's leave.  Re-establish bases in countries that want us, like Kurdistan and Saudi Arabia if you want to maintain a presence.  Much harder for Iran to hit American positions there. If there's a long war in Iraq, within 10-20 years, America will be pulling out of Iraq anyways. 'Cuz I don't ever see the Iranians pulling out. No point wasting money and men in holding a losing position in a country that doesn't want us there.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Papillon + 485]

2 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

For one:

I wouldn't have bombed Solimani.

And for two:

I wouldn't corner the Iranians until they have no option but to lash out.

And three: 

I wouldn't act like a bully. Never helps.  

this ^^^ 

It took Mr Lu two minutes sir. 

[PE Scott + 563]

8 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

please let us know exactly how you would propose to address the present situation between the US and Iran? 

Prepare for a wall of text. I suspect you'll receive a thorough response from @Papillon 

 

nvmnd, my suspicions were wrong and posted late. Damn slow connection out here

Edited January 8, 2020 by PE Scott

[Bob D + 562]

What a bunch of nonsense Papillon

So all you want is for us to type exactly the opposite of our beliefs??  That's fair

All you want is for us to tell you what you want to hear??  That's fair

It is you who cannot come to terms with differing opinions.  Think about that.

[Papillon + 485]

22 minutes ago, Bob D said:

So all you want is for us to type exactly the opposite of our beliefs??  That's fair

All you want is for us to tell you what you want to hear??  That's fair

It is you who cannot come to terms with differing opinions.

Not at all sir, we should all be able to express opinion equally. This is a rather bizarre statement from somebody who among others attacks and accuses when presented with a different opinion too in all honesty. 

25 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

Prepare for a wall of text

What are you trying to suggest there?  /sarc

No sir, users' views cannot be altered here and my time is better spent elsewhere. They seem too keen to bring up the past and suggest quite rightly it can be a way of seeing the future. It appears the delusion sets in however when they do not evaluate the past when it comes to the Middle East.

I would rather not read comments from an apparent christian nation about people's brains running down airport walls or bodies filled with shrapnel and so on. Maybe when their young men, yet again, are coming home in body bags then they may evaluate how they view death, rather than in the comedic sense it appears now. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Papillon

[Guest]

Phew I didn't miss anything I see.

2 hours ago, remake it said:

Which part of @DayTrader does the comedy here did you not hear?

 

[remake it + 288]

Sometimes it's helpful for a President to be shown a map of how far away places are from the USA.  

If that does not help, add some color.

Now, can someone please help President Trump by indicating on this map where the USA and Iraq lie, and make sure he knows that Iran is not a part of Iraq.

There are nearly 2 billion Muslims worldwide.  That's a lot of people to take for granted.

[Papillon + 485]

4 hours ago, Bob D said:

What a bunch of nonsense Papillon

Would you care to elaborate sir as to which part of the post was nonsense or suggested I wish to hear my own beliefs, or for you to type the opposite of your beliefs? My post suggested a hypocrisy and comparison to Democrats (which is constant here), a reference to the USA's involvement in the Middle East for three decades (which is true), and then a reference to dead soldiers (which is inevitable due to conflict).

These were all merely facts were they not? Why exactly was it ''nonsense'' or was it rather that you did not enjoy reading facts, like so many here? Or are facts confusing and apparently non-sensical now when about certain nations specifically? 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Papillon

[0R0 + 6,251]

5 hours ago, D Coyne said:

oro,

The Rystad estimates are quite inflated,  it is unlikely that US resources will be anything like the Rystad claims.  The USGS mean estimate for tight oil TRR is about 100 Gb for Permian, North Dakota Bakken/Three Forks, and Eagle Ford. Roughly 80% of the TRR will be economically recoverable, I estimate about 10 Gb URR from other US tight oil plays.

So if we assume 2PCX is about 4 times 24 Gb of conventional reserves we get about 96 Gb of conventional reserves, add the 90 Gb of likely tight oil resources and we get 186 Gb of remaining resources, about 225 Gb of resources had been produced at the end of 2018 so this gives us a URR of about 411 Gb, the half way point would be 206 Gb, and we are past that point.

So we need to focus on tight oil resources, those are likely to peak by 2027.  Using the mean USGS estimates for TRR (note that oil pros think these estimates are ridiculously high (or that seems to be the view of Mike Shellman, an oilman with over 40 years experience running his own oil company), I get the following range of scenarios (see chart attached).  The medium scenario is my best guess based on well economics and an oil price scenario where Brent oil prices rise to $90/bo in 2018 US$ by 2025 and then remain at that level for 15 to 20 years, the low scenario assumes lower prices and lower completion rates and the high scenario assumes higher oil prices and higher completion rates.

My guess is that there is about a 3 in 4 chance output of US tight oil will be between the low and high scenarios with a 37.5% chance it will be between the low and medium scenario, and a 37.5% chance it will be between the medium and high scenario. About a 12.5% chance output will be below the low scenario and about a 12.5% chance it will be above the high scenario.

The probabilities are subjective as the future is unknowable.

Great, thanks.

My point is that the recoverable classification keeps increasing and the costs keep dropping, and you don't need to hit a sweet spot to get good well economics with the latest techniques and equipment. Meanwhile, proven reserves and probable reserves will continue growing as the geology is delineated, as those require upfront money that you don't put in before you intend to drill, or rather fund drilling with a loan or equity raise. We are still unable to estimate refrac potential, which apparently is significant from the little that has been tried so far, so that too will be added back into reserves when the oldest wells start dying off. So estimating the reserves of a young industry is premature. Besides which, there are other quality shales like the Argentine one.

I believe that the most significant change will be a reduction in demand before any supply constraints show up due to the tight gas directly or via LNG taking over as the main petrochemical input and the main heavy transportation fuel. Then further shrinkage as demographics show a decline in active populations in OECD + China, and a lack of compensating population growth elsewhere. Births have already declined globally last year. Probably earlier, since China has inflated birth statistics for a number of years recently.  

I understand Shellman's issues with the shale economics and I was entirely blown away by colossal losses that looked like internet bubble era income statements and balance sheets on some of the midcycle production in 2013 and definitely so after the crash. But things have become an order of magnitude more sophisticated. If you just wait for the NG pipeline to make it then you have much better economics and you get money rather than flare the gas. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Okay Papillon, what do YOU suggest as a way forward? Just disengage internationally and revert to isolationism? That didn’t seem to work out to well in the past.

Instead of casting doubt on others who have at least offered an opinion, could you please let us know exactly how you would propose to address the present situation between the US and Iran? 

The issue is not about the US needing to be there for itself, it is for the clueless in Europe that are ignoring the security of their future energy supplies, and to prevent China from gaining control of gulf oil. In the meantime, as an oil exporter, the US enjoying a discount in the oil price of 8% or so vs. Brent for domestic industries, the US can benefit from small risk premium increases in the price of oil while it is there stirring trouble, something Trump seems quite adept at. Particularly useful would be causing everyone to increase their emergency petroleum reserves in the next year or two.

Ultimately, the US will leave entirely or only remain as part of a broad coalition with European and non-China Asian partners taking the lead. Both to retain the oil flowing vs. leaving the locals to blow each other up, and to prevent China from stepping in and taking control. But we first need China to lose its hegemonic ambitions in the aftermath of a credit crisis, depression and currency devaluation. 

[remake it + 288]

20 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

Great, thanks.

Not that this info is unwelcome in "geopolitics", but those keen to know more about oil from those in the know might like to see these types of posts in that part of the site for "oil" - https://community.oilprice.com/forum/64-oil-general/

[remake it + 288]

3 hours ago, 0R0 said:

But we first need China to lose its hegemonic ambitions in the aftermath of a credit crisis, depression and currency devaluation. 

Ha, sir, blame China - who woulda thought - so obvious.

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

5 hours ago, 0R0 said:

But we first need China to lose its hegemonic ambitions

Good luck with that!

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

Good insight by Kurt Kobb actually on Oil Price and he hits the nail on the head for me!

https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/The-Real-Reason-The-US-Is-Interested-In-Iran.html

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

@Papillon would you like to answer @Douglas Buckland question, bolded below?

Zhong replied to Douglas with a "what I would not have done" style comment, which is not really an answer to address the question of

"how you would propose to address the present situation between the US and Iran?"

 

8 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Okay Papillon, what do YOU suggest as a way forward? Just disengage internationally and revert to isolationism? That didn’t seem to work out to well in the past.

Instead of casting doubt on others who have at least offered an opinion, could you please let us know exactly how you would propose to address the present situation between the US and Iran? 

 

8 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

For one:

I wouldn't have bombed Solimani.

And for two:

I wouldn't corner the Iranians until they have no option but to lash out.

And three: 

I wouldn't act like a bully. Never helps.  

At this point I would pull out of Iraq. They voted for us to leave. Saddam is dead. ISIS is beat.  Our job is done: let's leave.  Re-establish bases in countries that want us, like Kurdistan and Saudi Arabia if you want to maintain a presence.  Much harder for Iran to hit American positions there. If there's a long war in Iraq, within 10-20 years, America will be pulling out of Iraq anyways. 'Cuz I don't ever see the Iranians pulling out. No point wasting money and men in holding a losing position in a country that doesn't want us there.

 

8 hours ago, Papillon said:

this ^^^ 

It took Mr Lu two minutes sir. 

 

7 hours ago, Papillon said:

Not at all sir, we should all be able to express opinion equally. This is a rather bizarre statement from somebody who among others attacks and accuses when presented with a different opinion too in all honesty. 

What are you trying to suggest there?  /sarc

No sir, users' views cannot be altered here and my time is better spent elsewhere. They seem too keen to bring up the past and suggest quite rightly it can be a way of seeing the future. It appears the delusion sets in however when they do not evaluate the past when it comes to the Middle East.

I would rather not read comments from an apparent christian nation about people's brains running down airport walls or bodies filled with shrapnel and so on. Maybe when their young men, yet again, are coming home in body bags then they may evaluate how they view death, rather than in the comedic sense it appears now. 

 

So after the give and take around the question, it might be a good idea to return squarely to addressing the valid question (not directed only at Papillon, anyone please feel free to chime in here)

"how you would propose to address the present situation between the US and Iran?"

 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

14 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Good insight by Kurt Kobb actually on Oil Price and he hits the nail on the head for me!

https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/The-Real-Reason-The-US-Is-Interested-In-Iran.html

I can't follow the logic. It would make way more sense for the US to establish a friendly government in Venezuela and pull out of Iran. And I guarantee you that, that is country ready for change... 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

8 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

For one:

I wouldn't have bombed Solimani.

And for two:

I wouldn't corner the Iranians until they have no option but to lash out.

And three: 

I wouldn't act like a bully. Never helps.  

At this point I would pull out of Iraq. They voted for us to leave. Saddam is dead. ISIS is beat.  Our job is done: let's leave.  Re-establish bases in countries that want us, like Kurdistan and Saudi Arabia if you want to maintain a presence.  Much harder for Iran to hit American positions there. If there's a long war in Iraq, within 10-20 years, America will be pulling out of Iraq anyways. 'Cuz I don't ever see the Iranians pulling out. No point wasting money and men in holding a losing position in a country that doesn't want us there.

I do not remember addressing the question to you Zhong. I was specifically seeking a response from Papillon.

To set the record straight, the Iraqi Parliament essentially passed a resolution asking the US to leave. This issue is not in the portfolio of the Parliament and is therefore simply a symbolic gesture. In the future this issue can, and probably will, be taken up by the responsible section of their government. If they then want the Us to leave Iraq, we should honor their wishes and let them become the newest province of Iran.

Kurdistan is autonomous and will likely welcome the Americans with open arms.

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

20 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I can't follow the logic. It would make way more sense for the US to establish a friendly government in Venezuela and pull out of Iran. And I guarantee you that, that is country ready for change... 

I think Russia is too entrenched in Venezuela for the US to pull out of Iran.

i agree Venezuela is ready for change but I can’t see it happening 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Rob Plant

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

17 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

I think Russia is too entrenched in Venezuela for the US to pull out of Iran.

i agree Venezuela is ready for change but I can’t see it happening 

To me Iran is a far more dangerous powder keg than Venezuela. They have larger oil reserves too by the way. 

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

Both are pretty fuc*ed up IMO

venezeula infrastructure needs massive expenditure due to lack of maintenance work over the last few years.

this isn’t just about oil either it’s also about Geopolitical regional power and control