Saudi Arabia and the "trillion dollar gambit"

[PJL]

Whatever topples that kleptocracy the sooner the better; pity it's citizens and the wider Middle East will probably have to suffer.

Have to disagree there. Lets get Syria and Libya sorted out first.

Toppling that Saudi kleptocracy will go a long a way to sorting Syria & Libya.

[grumbler]

I called you out on your bad behavior.  It wasn't in retaliation on an attack on me, but it was far from unprovoked. 

And yes, something is seriously wrong with you.  Normal people, even ones with really difficult personalities, do not act this way.  I know there is zero chance that at this moment you will take anything I say to heart, but hopefully after some reflection some message will get through that maybe you are conducting yourself in a less than dignified manner.

There is a zero percent chance I will take any of your raging to heart.  It is vague and thus seems wholly insincere.  it is way out of proportion to the statement it ostensibly refers to, and it commit the very sins it ostensibly attacks.

Now, you may, indeed, believe that you possess the ability to see into the hearts of men and "know" from the extremely tangential contact you have with me here that "something is seriously wrong" with me, but that's a delusion you should just hug to your chest while you rock back and forth mumble over and over again how much smarter than everyone else you are.  It doesn't carry the slightest weight with me.

[grumbler]

So are we seeing another event of the same proportions as 2008 (talking both of Middle Eastern and Asian markets now), or will we simply have these bubble bursts every few years from now on and this is the new normal?

As Yi says, this wasn't asset bubble bursting, but simply a slowdown in demand (not just China, but also all the nations supplying raw materials to China) combined with an increase in supply (new technology).  No one was buying up oil or oil futures in anticipation of a steady increase in price. 

China's economic woes have been compounded by the government's intervention in the market, creating a pent-up demand to sell.  A crash of some sort is inevitable, but doesn't have to be disastrous if it is prepared for properly.  It will be very painful no matter what.

[grumbler]

Toppling that Saudi kleptocracy will go a long a way to sorting Syria & Libya.

That would depend on what it was replaced with.  The Saudi regime is status quo oriented; a successor that was change oriented would create the opposite of the result you want.

[mongers]

Ah, so "widespread speculation" counts as fact for you (and Hamilcar), eh?  Unfortunately for you conspiracy wackos, I know a bit more about the world oil market, and the economics of it, than you do.  I note and reject your attempt to save your argument and counter mine by trying to shift the goal posts to "North American" rather than "US" oil (despite Hami's clear mention of "the US oil industry" as a target).   

The problem with the conspiracy theory is that Iran's ally, Iraq, is the country that is increasing production, not Saudi Arabia.  Saudi production did return to 2012 and 2013 peak levels of production (north of 10m bbd) for periods in 2015, but isn't at that level now, and 2015 production was much like that of 2012 and 2013.  The Saudi oil output data just doesn't fit your conspiracy. 

Further, while tar sands oil production is certainly vulnerable to the current crude oil price slump, typical American oil fields are not.  The expense in US oil isn't production, but discovery.  The UK, Brazil and Nigeria find oil much more expensive to actually bring to market than does the US.  They are the ones that are being hit by the oil price slump.

Now, this isn't to say that Saudi Arabia isn't being as foolish in their energy production decisions as US and other oil companies are, by responding to a price slump by increasing or maintaining production of an irreplaceable product.  But that's mere greed and stupidity.  Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.

I'll give you and Hami that same consideration.

What is your problem? I haven't even made an argument in this thread. I was only trying to stand up to (rather pathetic) online bullying, from a cranky old troll with apparently nothing better to do than derail promising threads on an internet forum.

He'll be dead soon enough, just ignore him till then, then post something a bit insincere in the Grumbler RIP thread.

[Legbiter]

Usually it's Marti having these January/February winter blues meltdowns. 

Go get some outdoors sunlight and eat some steak guys. 

[grumbler]

Usually it's Marti having these January/February winter blues meltdowns. 

Go get some outdoors sunlight and eat some steak guys. 

[grumbler]

Ah, so "widespread speculation" counts as fact for you (and Hamilcar), eh?  Unfortunately for you conspiracy wackos, I know a bit more about the world oil market, and the economics of it, than you do.  I note and reject your attempt to save your argument and counter mine by trying to shift the goal posts to "North American" rather than "US" oil (despite Hami's clear mention of "the US oil industry" as a target).   

The problem with the conspiracy theory is that Iran's ally, Iraq, is the country that is increasing production, not Saudi Arabia.  Saudi production did return to 2012 and 2013 peak levels of production (north of 10m bbd) for periods in 2015, but isn't at that level now, and 2015 production was much like that of 2012 and 2013.  The Saudi oil output data just doesn't fit your conspiracy. 

Further, while tar sands oil production is certainly vulnerable to the current crude oil price slump, typical American oil fields are not.  The expense in US oil isn't production, but discovery.  The UK, Brazil and Nigeria find oil much more expensive to actually bring to market than does the US.  They are the ones that are being hit by the oil price slump.

Now, this isn't to say that Saudi Arabia isn't being as foolish in their energy production decisions as US and other oil companies are, by responding to a price slump by increasing or maintaining production of an irreplaceable product.  But that's mere greed and stupidity.  Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.

I'll give you and Hami that same consideration.

What is your problem? I haven't even made an argument in this thread. I was only trying to stand up to (rather pathetic) online bullying, from a cranky old troll with apparently nothing better to do than derail promising threads on an internet forum.

He'll be dead soon enough, just ignore him till then, then post something a bit insincere in the Grumbler RIP thread.

Just locking in this "advice."

[PJL]

Toppling that Saudi kleptocracy will go a long a way to sorting Syria & Libya.

That would depend on what it was replaced with.  The Saudi regime is status quo oriented; a successor that was change oriented would create the opposite of the result you want.

But the status quo has failed. Backers in Saudi Arabia (and the other Gulf States) are the source of most of the Islamist terrorist funding (including ISIS), directly or indirectly. Destroying that source would help, so any alternative would be better.

[grumbler]

But the status quo has failed. Backers in Saudi Arabia (and the other Gulf States) are the source of most of the Islamist terrorist funding (including ISIS), directly or indirectly. Destroying that source would help, so any alternative would be better.

The Saudi regime isn't the source of most of the funding for Islamic terrorists and ISIS.  The people that you would risk putting in power in SA by overthrowing the regime are, and you propose to risk giving those people control not only over their private funds, but the government's funds as well.  I propose that this is a bad idea.  The Saudi regime is neither a true ally nor a friend of the West, but any replacement regime is likely to be worse.

[PJL]

But the status quo has failed. Backers in Saudi Arabia (and the other Gulf States) are the source of most of the Islamist terrorist funding (including ISIS), directly or indirectly. Destroying that source would help, so any alternative would be better.

The Saudi regime isn't the source of most of the funding for Islamic terrorists and ISIS.  The people that you would risk putting in power in SA by overthrowing the regime are, and you propose to risk giving those people control not only over their private funds, but the government's funds as well.  I propose that this is a bad idea.  The Saudi regime is neither a true ally nor a friend of the West, but any replacement regime is likely to be worse.

I didn't say the regime itself officially supported them, I said backers, of whom some are in the regime, who support these on a personal level. And I disagree that any replacement would be worse, Saudi Arabia are basically no better than ISIS. If anything I think ISIS would be slightly better as they are in favour of a centralised religious authority (the Cailphate) which IMO would in the long run be a moderating influence in the region. Right now, the decentralised system that's in place means that no matter how radical a group becomes there will always be some other group that will be even more radical. Whereas a central authority like in Iran would at least keep some order on the terrorists they back.

[Admiral Yi]

Saudi Arabia are basically no better than ISIS.

I bet there are some foreign aid workers, Coptic migrants, Yazidi child brides, and at least one Jordanian pilot who might disagree.

[grumbler]

I didn't say the regime itself officially supported them, I said backers, of whom some are in the regime, who support these on a personal level. And I disagree that any replacement would be worse, Saudi Arabia are basically no better than ISIS. If anything I think ISIS would be slightly better as they are in favour of a centralised religious authority (the Cailphate) which IMO would in the long run be a moderating influence in the region. Right now, the decentralised system that's in place means that no matter how radical a group becomes there will always be some other group that will be even more radical. Whereas a central authority like in Iran would at least keep some order on the terrorists they back.

You don't think any Saudi regime can be worse than the current one.  I disagree.  In fact, I think that all of the likely alternatives are worse.

I also disagree that ISIS represents a stabilizing/moderating influence in either the short term or the long. 

But I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[katmai]

Usually it's Marti having these January/February winter blues meltdowns. 

Go get some outdoors sunlight

Fuck you and your Icelandic Legbiting friend.

[Eddie Teach]

Why does he bite legs anyway? Is he a midget?