What's the Endgame Here?

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

Just now, Rob Plant said:

Both are pretty fuc*ed up IMO

agree. 

Just now, Rob Plant said:

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

True. but the overall cost per barrel of oil output would astronomically less. 

1 minute ago, Rob Plant said:

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

True again. But as many have stated - the only reason the US is interested in the ME is because of oill... and Israel of course. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Trump enforces the red line on Iran

President Trump’s decision to kill Iranian Quds Force commander Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani should have come as no surprise to the Iranian regime. The administration had drawn a clear red line, warning Iranian leaders they would pay a severe price if they killed a U.S. citizen.

The Washington Post reported last summer that, during a May visit to Baghdad, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo “privately delivered warnings intended for Iranian leaders that any attack by Tehran or its proxies resulting in the death of even one American service member will generate a military counterattack.” The United States had seen a spike in intelligence that Iranian-backed militias might resume the kinds of attacks against U.S. forces that were common during the Iraq war. Pompeo said this would not be tolerated.

The message the administration sent to Iran was crystal clear: (1) any attacks on Americans would elicit a military response; and (2) the United States would henceforth hold Iran responsible for the actions of its terrorist proxies. To underscore the message, Trump designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — including its Quds Force — as a foreign terrorist organization. This made Soleimani a legitimate military target.

For months, Iran danced around Trump’s new red line, carrying out increasingly bold attacks against U.S. targets, allies and interests — but assiduously avoiding U.S. casualties. First, it attacked Japanese and Norwegian oil tankers. Then, it shot down an unmanned U.S. drone (while avoiding a manned American P-8 aircraft that was reportedly flying in the area). Then, it attacked Saudi oil facilities.

In each case, the president demonstrated enormous restraint. He tightened economic sanctions on the regime in Tehran. He launched cyberattacks against Iran’s military capabilities. And he warned Iran that his patience was not without limits. “I think a lot of restraint has been shown by us but that doesn’t mean we’re going to show it in the future,” Trump said.

Iran misread Trump’s restraint for weakness — and miscalculated. On Dec. 27, an Iranian proxy militia, Kataib Hezbollah, launched a rocket attack against a military base in the Iraqi city of Kirkuk that killed a U.S. military contractor. With that attack, Iran crossed the red line Trump had set. Trump struck back militarily, hitting Kataib Hezbollah targets in Iraq and Syria — and U.S. officials began discussing a strike against Iran.

Meanwhile, Iran escalated further. Kataib Hezbollah overran and set fire to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, an attack a senior U.S. official told me was coordinated with Soleimani. U.S. officials watched as Soleimani flew into Baghdad to meet with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the leader of the Kataib Hezbollah militia. According to the U.S. official, the United States had “exquisite intelligence” that the two men were planning an attack that could have killed hundreds of Americans.

Seizing that opportunity, Trump took them both out. His action was defensive, preemptive and lawful. Had Trump not acted and more Americans had died, he would have been excoriated — and rightly so. Instead, he took bold action that disrupted that attack and took Soleimani and Muhandis off the battlefield.

Trump hit Soleimani in Iraq because he made the mistake of coming there to plan a terrorist attack. But if Iran miscalculates again, then the regime has been warned: Next time, the target will likely be Iran.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

The Article Mr. Kirkman quote in full, above, was written by Marc Thiessen, who currently works at the American Enterprise Institute, perhaps the penultimate American right-wing "think tank."  A little bit about Mr. Thiessen, to put his writings into perspective:  he went to the Taft School, a (very) expensive and (very) tony private college-preparatory school in very tony Litchfield County, located in the Northwest corner of the state of Connecticut.  The school caters to the sons of the very wealthy of New York City, and true to form, Thiessen grew up in Manhattan.  After that, he went to Vassar Collage, historically again a very private and very tony Women's College located North of New York City, which at that time started accepting men also as students. Then, after a stint at the Naval War College, he ended up as an employee in the lobbying firm of the notorious Paul Manafort in Washington, DC.  Manafort was a complete disgrace, was a bagman and money launderer for disreputable people around the globe, including dictators, gun runners, all manner of political criminals, and ended up indicted (and, I recall, jailed) for his involvement in Ukrainian corruption and gun-running scandals.   Eventually, Thiessen became the Chief Speechwriter for George Bush, which surprises me personally as George typically liked to staff his White House with trusted Dekes, but obviously made an exception for a Taft School man.    

Readers might want to be careful to distance himself from the hustles of Marc Thiessen.  He has no pipeline into the Trump Administration, and is corrupted by his past.  Mr. Trump will deal with Iranian criminals his own way, and is not about to pay heed to the writings of Marc Thiessen. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

Breaking news from France

Couldn't resist posting this

Edited January 8, 2020 by Rob Plant

[D Coyne + 305]

8 hours ago, 0R0 said:

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. 

oRo,

I think you might be misled by investor presentation hype.  The Argentina shale is mostly a natural gas resource, it is unlikey we will see significant tight oil output from anywhere except the US,  I would ignore EIA resource estimates, those are garbage.  For USGS estimates, they might be too optimistic if anything, but regardless I have used those for Permian, Eagle Ford, and Bakken (no recent estimates for Niobrara or Anadarko).  When reasonable economic assumtions and oil price scenarios are applied to tight oil using a discounted cash flow analysis whereby wells are only completed in the future if the discounted net cash low over the life of the well is greater than the full cycle capital cost of the well for an assumed future oil price scenario (a nominal 10% annual discount rate is used for this analysis).  For the anadarko and niobrara combined I assume a TRR of about 10 Gb for a total US TRR of about 113 Gb, about 80% of the TRR will be economically recoverable for a URR of about 90 Gb, about 13 Gb of tight oil has been produced by the end of 2018 and tight oil reserves were about 23 Gb at the end of 2018.

So remaining tight oil resources are about 77 Gb and reserves about 23 Gb so the ratio of resources to reserves is about 3.35.

For crude oil I think supply will be short and oil prices high from 2023 to 2035, by that time demand may moderate as alternatives to crude are developed in the transportation sector.  I agree natural gas is currently plentiful, but unless consumption levels off (perhaps as lower cost wind and solar are developed, and perhaps nuclear, though that is likely the more expensive option) natural gas will also peak by 2035 or so, despite claims of unlimited natural gas, as oil production falters natural gas production will become more expensive, the resource is limited, just like crude.

Chart below give longer range scenario for US tight oil, the plateau expected by the EIA in the AEO 2019 reference case from 2022 to 2050 is not likely to be correct.  From 2025 to 2040 my best guess scenario has a decrease in US tight oil output of about 4500 kb/d.  The World will be hard pressed to make up for this decline in US output and World output will decline at 1.3% per year on average from 2030 to 2040.  High oil prices may destroy enough demand so that the World may be able to adjust, but it will without a doubt be challenging, it would be best to start the transition now as it will not happen overnight.

[Bob D + 562]

Papillion

You have thin skin, sir.  There two cabals on this website and depending on the thread it's either 1] World vs America, 2] Conservative vs Liberal, 3] Democrat vs Republican etc.  The point is we all agree and disagree with each other generally along easily identifiable political, social, cultural affiliations.  Most of the time we are aligned with the same people across the full spectrum of conversations.  

While I appreciate your skill at building a post with quotes and rebuttals I will simply state my case without the quotes.  You'll have to trust me that I'm accurately presenting the information and most assuredly you'll call me out if I'm not.

Multiple times you've stated how close minded others are.  Most recently you typed this,

       " So with regard to the 'minds of residents in the West', they appear here atleast rather one sided and closed, and only wish         to hear views they agree with, whether from him or any other user'. 

News flash ... that's exactly what you do.  In fact, the cabal on the pro-America side could easily write "So with regard to the 'minds of residents who oppose America', they appear here at least rather one sided and closed, and only wish to hear views they agree with, whether from him or any other user.  AND WE WOULD BE 100% correct.  Because we disagree with you just like you disagree with us.  

Douglas Buckland threw his hands in the air and asked you this 

       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? 

Keep in mind Douglas posts his opinions and gets rebuttals all day long from the World (anti-American military cabal) but he specifically asked you for your opinion.  Zhong Lu types out a quick response (aligned with you and diametrically opposed to Douglas).  You responded with this:

         this ^^^ 

         It took Mr Lu two minutes sir. 

That is the nonsense I'm talking about.  Douglas asked you for a response and not only did you NOT respond, you pointed to a view point Douglas (and his cabal) would never ever express.  But that's what you wanted from Douglas otherwise he is, according to you, "closed minded".  That is your intolerance toward opposing views and your desire to only hear views you agree with.  I think you do this constantly.   

And guess what, You think we do this constantly.

I look forward to your next post.

[Papillon + 485]

Unlike you I am not a military strategist sir, so my opinion of how to solve the Iran issue is rather irrelevant is it not? I also do not have the inside information Mr Trump and global militaries have, as you appear to.   /sarc

My desire is to only hear views I agree with? That would be a lot more users than you imagine sir. However I do not appreciate the accusation I am a 'handler' as I occasionally agree with a certain user. I appreciate the views of many here, the majority of which I do not fully agree with, and I presume that would come as a surprise to you? That is a genuine question. 

Also I agreed partly with Zhong Lu and his solution yes, and this as you say was an opinion the 'cabal' as you put it would not agree with. I do not understand the section that this is what I 'wanted' from Mr Buckland sir, or that this insinuates he is close minded. It is obvious he would not express or agree with that view, so I fear I am reading this section wrongly? Why in your eyes does that suggest my intolerance to opposing views? There was a question, and Zhong Lu answered it. To me that was the end of the matter in effect.

41 minutes ago, Bob D said:

 with regard to the 'minds of residents who oppose America', they appear here at least rather one sided and closed, and only wish to hear views they agree with, whether from him or any other user.  AND WE WOULD BE 100% correct.

I appreciate this statement sir but I guess my reply would be that when it is the other way round there are not various members of your cabal accused of being bots and handlers. This is one of the key differences but I do genuinely accept your view here. As stated before, Remake It for example does not resort to constant insult as certain members of the cabal do, especially when they realise he has a point and have no answer to his statements. To be frank I wish I had his patience sir! You may have noticed that I do not.

With respect, and thankyou sincerely for your reply and explanation, Papillon. 

41 minutes ago, Bob D said:

I look forward to your next post.

Of course you do.    /semi sarc

Edited January 8, 2020 by Papillon

[specinho + 465]

May be we should keep all kids busy with quizes like this............. Keep the future generations uninformed and blind about the past for peace.......... ?? 

Edited January 8, 2020 by specinho

[Bullwinkle + 6]

4 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

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

 

Hello everyone, long-time discussion board lurker here.  I generally decline to post anywhere because most discussions deteriorate into sheer lunacy (see ZH for examples).  But oilprice seems to be a good deal more sane than anywhere else, with many knowledgeable posters.  I will answer Tom's and Zong Lu's question with my opinion.

Short term I think the USA should get the hell out.  Leave the tribes to their own devices; fanatics can't be reasoned with.  Let them re-draw the middle-east map to suit; the arbitrary borders made up after WW1 have never worked.  Maintain a presence in the ME as needed to keep the straight of Hormuz open and keep the oil flowing from Saudi Arabia at least.  Israel will still need to be supported but they're just as belligerent as everyone else and pretty good at taking care of themselves.  Iraqi and Iranian oil is no longer a concern; there is enough oil elsewhere in the world.  Instead of spending money on endless wars and occupations spend it on developing economical oil alternatives so we are not so dependent on it.  If the USA must have oil security then Venezuela has lots of oil they can't even get out of the ground and a despotic government that needs replacing.  It's much closer to home and a lot less complicated.

Long term the Iranian theocracy needs to be eliminated or rendered powerless.  Fanatic lunatics should not be running a country.  Mustafa Kemal showed how an Islamic country should conduct itself in the modern age and these people are still stuck in dark-age brutality.

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Bullwinkle said:

Short term I think the USA should get the hell out.

Great sentiment but short on the mechanics which are are otherwise called optics and, sadly for the USA, would become "not a very good look."

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

5 hours ago, Bob D said:

There two cabals on this website and depending on the thread it's either 1] World vs America, 2] Conservative vs Liberal, 3] Democrat vs Republican etc.

Some much needed humor, thanks.  The competing cabals seem to be coming to a head today.

Paul Krugman's meltdown today on Twitter was totally unexpected and hilarious.  Parodies of Krugman's tweet are springing up all over the place.  Cabal vs cabal.  Top kek.

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

On 1/8/2020 at 12:51 AM, remake it said:

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

Well said Papillion, err I mean remake it. 

No one would guess

Really no one

[remake it + 288]

2 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Well said Papillion, err I mean remake it. 

It is an ink blot on your copybook when your chickens come home to roost - yes we are watching!

[Papillon + 485]

3 hours ago, remake it said:

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Well said Papillion, err I mean remake it. 

 your chickens come home to rooster - yes we are watching!

If you are going to attempt comedy sir may I suggest or rather hope you atleast spell my name correctly? I appreciate little details and certain facts can be a burden to you but the effort would be appreciated. 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Papillon
Try harder with your avatar sir.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

16 minutes ago, Papillon said:

If you are going to attempt comedy sir may I suggest or rather hope you atleast spell my name correctly? I appreciate little details and certain facts can be a burden to you but the effort would be appreciated. 

Whatever you say Sybil

[fozzir + 68]

On 1/5/2020 at 4:18 PM, Zhong Lu said:

Generally you go to war for a reason. So what's the reason? What is the US hoping to accomplish with further expenditures in the Middle East? 

Remember Afghanistan? We go to war to prevent evil doers like Bin Ladin from killing thousands of Americans again or countries like Iran from taking hundreds of Americans hostages. It's quite simple. If we do nothing they'll just keep doing it. 

[frankfurter + 562]

What's the Endgame Here?

Is it not obvious?  Hint: it is not "peace on earth". 

That you and others here raise this question displays how seriously devoid your education has been. In your USA, ignorance of the law is no excuse to form a basis for defence. I suggest you extend this precept into your daily lives and educate yourselves based upon an entirely altered paradigm. But have you the courage? Given the persecution of Assange, fear is a very effective tool to control people and stifle truth. Respectfully, you should read books and media that have been banned; for they are banned to prevent the truth be told. Only a weak society desires the truth be banned: a strong society can digest truth and learn its painful lessons, thus to become ever stronger. 

Edited January 12, 2020 by frankfurter

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, fozzir said:

Remember Afghanistan? We go to war to prevent evil doers like Bin Ladin from killing thousands of Americans again or countries like Iran from taking hundreds of Americans hostages. It's quite simple. If we do nothing they'll just keep doing it. 

You mean like we all remember Vietnam and the millions of civilians who  were killed because the USA was threatened by an idea?

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, frankfurter said:

In your USA, ignorance of the law is no excuse to form a basis for defence.

Actually,it is.  The requirement in US criminal law is that the defendant have a "culpable state of mind."   And, that is "intent."

The major and most common category is drunken driving offenses.

2 hours ago, frankfurter said:

Given the persecution of Assange

The persecution of Assange is just abysmal, a grotesque bastardization of all the USA stand for.  Note that John Kerry is the person responsible.  And, he is a "proper democrat," a classic limousine liberal.  Ugh.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Jan van Eck

[Zhong Lu + 845]

The persecution of Assange is a bipartisan activity.  

Edited January 12, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[remake it + 288]

27 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Actually,it is.  The requirement in US criminal law is that the defendant have a "culpable state of mind."   And, that is "intent."

The only exception is in drunken driving offenses.

You have a habit of concocting laws Mr van Eck.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

10 minutes ago, remake it said:

You have a habit of concocting laws Mr van Eck.

Booo.  Pour cold water on this robot and short out its circuits. "Pretty useless, if you ask me. "

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

23 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

The persecution of Assange is a bipartisan activity.  

Booo.  The Republicans ignored him.  The Dems went crazy to pillory himandput him in jail.

Note to readers: the Bot never quits.  I write this.rebuttal not to engage with the Bot, but to inform the readership. Trust this explains.

[Papillon + 485]

Users will notice, as always, that Mr van Eck is continually engaging in conversation with somebody he views to be a bot. While he does this, every single day, he tells the rest of the site not to do so, while attempting to even speak for the entire site. Mr Smith appears to join him hypocritically in these dynamics also.

Mr Buckland made a comment to myself about ignoring users if you continually disagree with them. Mr van Eck gave this comment a little green arrow and it appears the irony of this arrow is quite telling, as is Mr van Eck's understanding of the comment that he upvoted. 

I have chosen to ignore him personally due to his recent ignorant, racist comments and the fact his ego appears to know no bounds.

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Papillon

[frankfurter + 562]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Actually,it is.  The requirement in US criminal law is that the defendant have a "culpable state of mind."   And, that is "intent."

The major and most common category is drunken driving offenses.

The persecution of Assange is just abysmal, a grotesque bastardization of all the USA stand for.  Note that John Kerry is the person responsible.  And, he is a "proper democrat," a classic limousine liberal.  Ugh.

Very interesting. I shall research your point. If we use the IRS tax cases [re civil] as a guide, you may find my assertion to be accurate without exception. Using your assertion [re criminal], the conclusion I draw is this: your Honour, I did not know murder was a criminal offence. I doubt any judge would accept this excuse for any party linked to a murder. I wonder if you are confusing this with the "degree": ie murder with intent versus murder by accident? -regards.