Victory! :w00t: USA! USA! :punk:
Click the link to view several graphs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html
QuoteSaudi Arabia may go broke before the US oil industry buckles
It is too late for OPEC to stop the shale revolution. The cartel faces the prospect of surging US output whenever oil prices rise
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
9:59PM BST 05 Aug 2015
If the oil futures market is correct, Saudi Arabia will start running into trouble within two years. It will be in existential crisis by the end of the decade.
The contract price of US crude oil for delivery in December 2020 is currently $62.05, implying a drastic change in the economic landscape for the Middle East and the petro-rentier states.
The Saudis took a huge gamble last November when they stopped supporting prices and opted instead to flood the market and drive out rivals, boosting their own output to 10.6m barrels a day (b/d) into the teeth of the downturn.
Bank of America says OPEC is now "effectively dissolved". The cartel might as well shut down its offices in Vienna to save money.
If the aim was to choke the US shale industry, the Saudis have misjudged badly, just as they misjudged the growing shale threat at every stage for eight years. "It is becoming apparent that non-OPEC producers are not as responsive to low oil prices as had been thought, at least in the short-run," said the Saudi central bank in its latest stability report.
"The main impact has been to cut back on developmental drilling of new oil wells, rather than slowing the flow of oil from existing wells. This requires more patience," it said.
One Saudi expert was blunter. "The policy hasn't worked and it will never work," he said.
By causing the oil price to crash, the Saudis and their Gulf allies have certainly killed off prospects for a raft of high-cost ventures in the Russian Arctic, the Gulf of Mexico, the deep waters of the mid-Atlantic, and the Canadian tar sands.
Consultants Wood Mackenzie say the major oil and gas companies have shelved 46 large projects, deferring $200bn of investments.
The problem for the Saudis is that US shale frackers are not high-cost. They are mostly mid-cost, and as I reported from the CERAWeek energy forum in Houston, experts at IHS think shale companies may be able to shave those costs by 45pc this year - and not only by switching tactically to high-yielding wells.
Advanced pad drilling techniques allow frackers to launch five or ten wells in different directions from the same site. Smart drill-bits with computer chips can seek out cracks in the rock. New dissolvable plugs promise to save $300,000 a well. "We've driven down drilling costs by 50pc, and we can see another 30pc ahead," said John Hess, head of the Hess Corporation.
It was the same story from Scott Sheffield, head of Pioneer Natural Resources. "We have just drilled an 18,000 ft well in 16 days in the Permian Basin. Last year it took 30 days," he said.
The North American rig-count has dropped to 664 from 1,608 in October but output still rose to a 43-year high of 9.6m b/d June. It has only just begun to roll over. "The freight train of North American tight oil has kept on coming," said Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon Mobil.
He said the resilience of the sister industry of shale gas should be a cautionary warning to those reading too much into the rig-count. Gas prices have collapsed from $8 to $2.78 since 2009, and the number of gas rigs has dropped 1,200 to 209. Yet output has risen by 30pc over that period.
Until now, shale drillers have been cushioned by hedging contracts. The stress test will come over coming months as these expire. But even if scores of over-leveraged wild-catters go bankrupt as funding dries up, it will not do OPEC any good.
The wells will still be there. The technology and infrastructure will still be there. Stronger companies will mop up on the cheap, taking over the operations. Once oil climbs back to $60 or even $55 - since the threshold keeps falling - they will crank up production almost instantly.
OPEC now faces a permanent headwind. Each rise in price will be capped by a surge in US output. The only constraint is the scale of US reserves that can be extracted at mid-cost, and these may be bigger than originally supposed, not to mention the parallel possibilities in Argentina and Australia, or the possibility for "clean fracking" in China as plasma pulse technology cuts water needs.
Mr Sheffield said the Permian Basin in Texas could alone produce 5-6m b/d in the long-term, more than Saudi Arabia's giant Ghawar field, the biggest in the world.
Saudi Arabia is effectively beached. It relies on oil for 90pc of its budget revenues. There is no other industry to speak of, a full fifty years after the oil bonanza began.
Citizens pay no tax on income, interest, or stock dividends. Subsidized petrol costs twelve cents a litre at the pump. Electricity is given away for 1.3 cents a kilowatt-hour. Spending on patronage exploded after the Arab Spring as the kingdom sought to smother dissent.
The International Monetary Fund estimates that the budget deficit will reach 20pc of GDP this year, or roughly $140bn. The 'fiscal break-even price' is $106.
Far from retrenching, King Salman is spraying money around, giving away $32bn in a coronation bonus for all workers and pensioners.
He has launched a costly war against the Houthis in Yemen and is engaged in a massive military build-up - entirely reliant on imported weapons - that will propel Saudi Arabia to fifth place in the world defence ranking.
The Saudi royal family is leading the Sunni cause against a resurgent Iran, battling for dominance in a bitter struggle between Sunni and Shia across the Middle East. "Right now, the Saudis have only one thing on their mind and that is the Iranians. They have a very serious problem. Iranian proxies are running Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon," said Jim Woolsey, the former head of the US Central Intelligence Agency.
Money began to leak out of Saudi Arabia after the Arab Spring, with net capital outflows reaching 8pc of GDP annually even before the oil price crash. The country has since been burning through its foreign reserves at a vertiginous pace.
The reserves peaked at $737bn in August of 2014. They dropped to $672 in May. At current prices they are falling by at least $12bn a month.
Khalid Alsweilem, a former official at the Saudi central bank and now at Harvard University, said the fiscal deficit must be covered almost dollar for dollar by drawing down reserves.
The Saudi buffer is not particularly large given the country's fixed exchange system. Kuwait, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi all have three times greater reserves per capita. "We are much more vulnerable. That is why we are the fourth rated sovereign in the Gulf at AA-. We cannot afford to lose our cushion over the next two years," he said.
Standard & Poor's lowered its outlook to "negative" in February. "We view Saudi Arabia's economy as undiversified and vulnerable to a steep and sustained decline in oil prices," it said.
Mr Alsweilem wrote in a Harvard report that Saudi Arabia would have an extra trillion of assets by now if it had adopted the Norwegian model of a sovereign wealth fund to recyle the money instead of treating it as a piggy bank for the finance ministry. The report has caused storm in Riyadh.
"We were lucky before because the oil price recovered in time. But we can't count on that again," he said.
OPEC have left matters too late, though perhaps there is little they could have done to combat the advances of American technology.
In hindsight, it was a strategic error to hold prices so high, for so long, allowing shale frackers - and the solar industry - to come of age. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle.
The Saudis are now trapped. Even if they could do a deal with Russia and orchestrate a cut in output to boost prices - far from clear - they might merely gain a few more years of high income at the cost of bringing forward more shale production later on.
Yet on the current course their reserves may be down to $200bn by the end of 2018. The markets will react long before this, seeing the writing on the wall. Capital flight will accelerate.
The government can slash investment spending for a while - as it did in the mid-1980s - but in the end it must face draconian austerity. It cannot afford to prop up Egypt and maintain an exorbitant political patronage machine across the Sunni world.
Social spending is the glue that holds together a medieval Wahhabi regime at a time of fermenting unrest among the Shia minority of the Eastern Province, pin-prick terrorist attacks from ISIS, and blowback from the invasion of Yemen.
Diplomatic spending is what underpins the Saudi sphere of influence in a Middle East suffering its own version of Europe's Thirty Year War, and still reeling from the after-shocks of a crushed democratic revolt.
We may yet find that the US oil industry has greater staying power than the rickety political edifice behind OPEC.
If the end result could be the collapse of Russia, the Saudis and Venezuela, I'm going to be a happy camper. :D
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2015, 11:30:58 PM
If the end result could be the collapse of Russia, the Saudis and Venezuela, I'm going to be a happy camper. :D
But won't you at least shed a tear at the collapse of Alberta? :cry:
Quote from: Barrister on August 06, 2015, 11:37:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2015, 11:30:58 PM
If the end result could be the collapse of Russia, the Saudis and Venezuela, I'm going to be a happy camper. :D
But won't you at least shed a tear at the collapse of Alberta? :cry:
Doesn't Alberta and Canada in general have a lot of shale oil?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 06, 2015, 11:47:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 06, 2015, 11:37:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2015, 11:30:58 PM
If the end result could be the collapse of Russia, the Saudis and Venezuela, I'm going to be a happy camper. :D
But won't you at least shed a tear at the collapse of Alberta? :cry:
Doesn't Alberta and Canada in general have a lot of shale oil?
No. Our oil sands are not the same as shale oil. :(
Quote from: Barrister on August 06, 2015, 11:49:23 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 06, 2015, 11:47:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 06, 2015, 11:37:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2015, 11:30:58 PM
If the end result could be the collapse of Russia, the Saudis and Venezuela, I'm going to be a happy camper. :D
But won't you at least shed a tear at the collapse of Alberta? :cry:
Doesn't Alberta and Canada in general have a lot of shale oil?
No. Our oil sands are not the same as shale oil. :(
What's the difference?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 06, 2015, 11:55:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 06, 2015, 11:49:23 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 06, 2015, 11:47:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 06, 2015, 11:37:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2015, 11:30:58 PM
If the end result could be the collapse of Russia, the Saudis and Venezuela, I'm going to be a happy camper. :D
But won't you at least shed a tear at the collapse of Alberta? :cry:
Doesn't Alberta and Canada in general have a lot of shale oil?
No. Our oil sands are not the same as shale oil. :(
What's the difference?
I have BSc in Geology. I don't think I have the time or energy to describe the difference. Sorry.
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2015, 11:30:58 PM
If the end result could be the collapse of Russia, the Saudis and Venezuela, I'm going to be a happy camper. :D
I really don't think I can think of anything worse then a collapse of Saudi Arabia. To paraphrase FDR, they may be sons of bitches but they are our sons of bitches. If Saudi Arabia falls it'll be an ISIS like state that takes over. God only knows what it would look like if Russia fell apart. Civil war there is not desirable either.
Quote from: Barrister on August 06, 2015, 11:37:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2015, 11:30:58 PM
If the end result could be the collapse of Russia, the Saudis and Venezuela, I'm going to be a happy camper. :D
But won't you at least shed a tear at the collapse of Alberta? :cry:
Isn't that where Neil comes from? :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 07, 2015, 12:10:18 AM
God only knows what it would look like if Russia fell apart. Civil war there is not desirable either.
Better one megalomaniac with nukes than a dozen, I suppose.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 07, 2015, 12:10:18 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2015, 11:30:58 PM
If the end result could be the collapse of Russia, the Saudis and Venezuela, I'm going to be a happy camper. :D
I really don't think I can think of anything worse then a collapse of Saudi Arabia. To paraphrase FDR, they may be sons of bitches but they are our sons of bitches. If Saudi Arabia falls it'll be an ISIS like state that takes over. God only knows what it would look like if Russia fell apart. Civil war there is not desirable either.
Saudia Aradia is the same as ISIS. No difference there. To be honest, it's the one place where'd I'd be quite happy to see chaos there, as it should mean that it will reduce any donor revenue for other extremist groups elsewhere.
Quote from: PJL on August 07, 2015, 01:19:50 AM
Saudia Aradia is the same as ISIS. No difference there.
Other than the relative lack of beheadings, destruction of ancient artifacts, and expansive tendencies, maybe.
I still think the rulers of SA are more interested in money than jihad.
Uh, no. It's not the same as ISIS. Case in point, there are millions of foreign workers who are not being sold as slaves or being beheaded. There are thousands of US citizens there. I imagine the State Department would have some complaints if they were all beheaded or sold as slaves.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 07, 2015, 01:30:29 AM
Quote from: PJL on August 07, 2015, 01:19:50 AM
Saudia Aradia is the same as ISIS. No difference there.
Other than the relative lack of beheadings, destruction of ancient artifacts, and expansive tendencies, maybe.
Actually the first years of ascendance of the house of Saud were marked by the destruction of early Islamic mosques and shrines around Mecca and Medina.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_early_Islamic_heritage_sites_in_Saudi_Arabia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_early_Islamic_heritage_sites_in_Saudi_Arabia)
QuoteMuch of the Arabian Peninsula was politically unified by 1932 in the third and current Saudi State, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The military campaign led by King Abdulaziz ibn Saud and his Bedouin army of tribesmen conquered the Hejaz and ousted the ruling Hashemite clan. The new Najdi rulers, nomadic Arabs largely tribal and illiterate, found themselves at the reins of a highly sophisticated society. A cohesive political structure based on the Majlis al-Shura (consultative council) system had been in place for centuries. A central administrative body managed an annual budget which allocated expenditure on secondary schools, military and police forces. Similarly, the religious fabric of the Najd and the Hejaz were vastly different. Traditional Hejazi cultural customs and rituals were almost entirely religious in nature. Celebrations honoring Muhammad, his family and companions, reverence of deceased saints, visitation of shrines, tombs and holy sites connected with any of these were among the customs indigenous to Hejazi Islam. As administrative authority of the Hejaz passed into the hands of Najdi [Wahabi] Muslims from the interior, the Wahabi 'ulema (body of religious scholars) viewed local religious practices as unfounded superstition superseding codified religious sanction that was considered a total corruption of religion and the spreading of heresy. What followed was a removal of the physical infrastructure, tombs, mausoleums, mosques and sites associated with the family and companions of Muhammad.
I mean, back in 1804, the Saudis first captured Mecca and Medina and even intented to destroy Mohammed's tomb because they considered the cult around it idolatrous.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 07, 2015, 01:30:29 AM
Quote from: PJL on August 07, 2015, 01:19:50 AM
Saudia Aradia is the same as ISIS. No difference there.
Other than the relative lack of beheadings, destruction of ancient artifacts, and expansive tendencies, maybe.
I still think the rulers of SA are more interested in money than jihad.
beheading is part of the Saudi penal code (iirc), the destruction of archaeological artifacts by the Saudi's is well known (and ongoing in both Mecca and Medina iirc) and it's expansive tendencies might not translate in ground captured atm but they've surely been sponsoring the expansion of the vile thing that is Wahabism. All over the globe.
Luckily the Saudi-population at large has been made so disfunctional they seeminly can't wipe their own arses anymore without the help of foreigners. Foreigners that are in many cases treated as nothing more than slaves (harder to do with expats holding western passports and who are needed to keep the oil flowing). Leading to the situation Raz describes.
In the end it's just a difference of degrees and , well, execution
Quote from: Razgovory on August 07, 2015, 01:30:59 AM
Uh, no. It's not the same as ISIS. Case in point, there are millions of foreign workers who are not being sold as slaves or being beheaded. There are thousands of US citizens there. I imagine the State Department would have some complaints if they were all beheaded or sold as slaves.
Actually, beheadings are common for apostates and the like; the conditions of foreign workers (especially those menial) are atrocious and often compared to slavery (they have their passport frequently taken away, are beaten by their masters and cannot leave - but the authorities turn blind eye to the abuse).
Crazy Ivan and Larch spelled out other similarities. So, at the end of the day, the only difference is that the US deals with the Saudis but it does not deal with the ISIS - which is kind of the point.
For example, as at 15 June 2015, Saudis have already beheaded 100 people this year:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-carries-out-100th-execution-this-year-and-is-on-course-to-set-beheadings-record-10320995.html
As for reasons of beheading:
(https://media.vocativ.com/photos/2015/06/saudi_deaths_2.png)
I already kinda knew all of this, but still.... :wacko:
It's like Saudi Arabia is in a medieval time warp or something.
Adultery - not a federal crime in the US? What does that mean? It is a crime in some states?
Probably. Not one that's been enforced in decades though.
Also not unenforceable. Might as well say not a crime.
Some of those crimes easily justify the death penalty.
Wow. Some of you people are really stupid.
Oh, and I'm also questioning why "treason" doesn't get a skull and crossbones. It's still on the books and nothing has suggested it's unconstitutional, right?
A buddy of mine in Houston has an oil industry buckle. It's big.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 07, 2015, 10:17:27 AM
Oh, and I'm also questioning why "treason" doesn't get a skull and crossbones. It's still on the books and nothing has suggested it's unconstitutional, right?
The implementing law (18 US Code 2381) does specify death as a possible punishment, so you are correct that it should have the skull and crossbones.
I'll fix it, I have a sharpie.
It is possible that if Saudi's were to go down, thing might become even worse there? I guess. But let's try anyway and see what happens. :)
Quote from: DGuller on August 07, 2015, 10:51:48 AM
It is possible that if Saudi's were to go down, thing might become even worse there?
I think things would become way worse. They're the devil we know. But if we were to have enough oil to keep us running, I admit it would be interesting to wall them off and see what happens.
Quote from: derspiess on August 07, 2015, 10:54:54 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 07, 2015, 10:51:48 AM
It is possible that if Saudi's were to go down, thing might become even worse there?
I think things would become way worse. They're the devil we know. But if we were to have enough oil to keep us running, I admit it would be interesting to wall them off and see what happens.
Yes, they are the devil we know. And what we know is that this devil is essentially a settled down ISIS state, and that this devil spreads Wahhabism all the over globe. Can we get to know a different devil, please?
Quote from: DGuller on August 07, 2015, 10:51:48 AM
It is possible that if Saudi's were to go down, thing might become even worse there? I guess. But let's try anyway and see what happens. :)
Worse locally but probably with much less influence (read: money) to stir up shit in our part of the world.
Anyway, I'm hoping Trump wins and nukes Mecca and Medina.
Quote from: Martinus on August 07, 2015, 11:08:48 AM
Anyway, I'm hoping Trump wins and nukes Mecca and Medina.
Has he made this a campaign promise? :hmm:
Saudipologists are cute.
Quote from: Martinus on August 07, 2015, 11:08:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 07, 2015, 10:51:48 AM
It is possible that if Saudi's were to go down, thing might become even worse there? I guess. But let's try anyway and see what happens. :)
Worse locally but probably with much less influence (read: money) to stir up shit in our part of the world.
Anyway, I'm hoping Trump wins and nukes Mecca and Medina.
Okay, so next time there is a video of ISIS tossing gays off a roof top, don't bitch.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 07, 2015, 11:51:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 07, 2015, 11:08:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 07, 2015, 10:51:48 AM
It is possible that if Saudi's were to go down, thing might become even worse there? I guess. But let's try anyway and see what happens. :)
Worse locally but probably with much less influence (read: money) to stir up shit in our part of the world.
Anyway, I'm hoping Trump wins and nukes Mecca and Medina.
Okay, so next time there is a video of ISIS tossing gays off a roof top, don't bitch.
You are retarded. Saudis already murder gay people too. So nothing will change - but at least ISIS is unable to fund fundamentalist clerics in the West.
p[-o;0l
Quote from: Martinus on August 07, 2015, 11:55:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 07, 2015, 11:51:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 07, 2015, 11:08:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 07, 2015, 10:51:48 AM
It is possible that if Saudi's were to go down, thing might become even worse there? I guess. But let's try anyway and see what happens. :)
Worse locally but probably with much less influence (read: money) to stir up shit in our part of the world.
Anyway, I'm hoping Trump wins and nukes Mecca and Medina.
Okay, so next time there is a video of ISIS tossing gays off a roof top, don't bitch.
You are retarded. Saudis already murder gay people too. So nothing will change - but at least ISIS is unable to fund fundamentalist clerics in the West.
Guess, what. It can get worse. ISIS is the example of things getting worse. It can always get worse.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 07, 2015, 01:30:29 AM
Quote from: PJL on August 07, 2015, 01:19:50 AM
Saudia Aradia is the same as ISIS. No difference there.
Other than the relative lack of beheadings, destruction of ancient artifacts, and expansive tendencies, maybe.
Saudi Arabia does all three (albeit the last one by proxy and education).
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 06, 2015, 11:55:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 06, 2015, 11:49:23 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 06, 2015, 11:47:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 06, 2015, 11:37:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 06, 2015, 11:30:58 PM
If the end result could be the collapse of Russia, the Saudis and Venezuela, I'm going to be a happy camper. :D
But won't you at least shed a tear at the collapse of Alberta? :cry:
Doesn't Alberta and Canada in general have a lot of shale oil?
No. Our oil sands are not the same as shale oil. :(
What's the difference?
shale oil is oil pockets in rocks. You inject a lot of water under pressure to push it out of the rocks.
Tar sand oil is oil mixed with sand, you need a lot of hot water to wash the sand, and it's a little ticker than regular & shale oil.
Tar sand oil:
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/
Shale oil:
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm
Quote from: Martinus on August 07, 2015, 11:55:21 AM
but at least ISIS is unable to fund fundamentalist clerics in the West.
Wishful thinking.
The Muslim Brotherhood is an illegal assocation in many western countries, it does not stop them from funding many mosques and pro-muslim groups. Hamas always had a humanitarian branch and until recently (2011, I think), it was allowed to do pretty much anything in Canada.
Right now, ISIS is the big bad guy and their resources is spent on fighting Jihad. Once they've toppled local government, they may set about to export their ideology via "humanitarian work". After all, Al-Queida did it in many muslim african countries.
Quote from: PJL on August 07, 2015, 01:19:50 AM
Saudia Aradia is the same as ISIS. No difference there. To be honest, it's the one place where'd I'd be quite happy to see chaos there, as it should mean that it will reduce any donor revenue for other extremist groups elsewhere.
do you think Iraq, as of today, is the best outcome possible for the occidental world? 'Cause a collapse of Saudi Arabia will certainly not lead to a free, democratic country respectful of human rights.
A long time ago after a night of drinking in Newark, Delaware I hit my usual late night spot-- a Turkish-owned diner. I donated my change to some "Suleiman the Magnificent Muslim School" or whatever it said on the donation bucket they had next to the cash register. Hope I didn't fund any terrorism :unsure:
I don't expect anything good from it, but it would satisfying to see the vile House of Saud fall.
Quote from: viper37 on August 07, 2015, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: PJL on August 07, 2015, 01:19:50 AM
Saudia Aradia is the same as ISIS. No difference there. To be honest, it's the one place where'd I'd be quite happy to see chaos there, as it should mean that it will reduce any donor revenue for other extremist groups elsewhere.
do you think Iraq, as of today, is the best outcome possible for the occidental world? 'Cause a collapse of Saudi Arabia will certainly not lead to a free, democratic country respectful of human rights.
People fighting each other in their own country have generally less time to export their ideology abroad. Al Qaeda only gained traction in Afghanistan once most of the country was under Taliban control. For the West internal chaos is better than a horrible regime, immigrant crisis notwithstanding.
Quote from: derspiess on August 07, 2015, 01:54:11 PM
A long time ago after a night of drinking in Newark, Delaware I hit my usual late night spot-- a Turkish-owned diner. I donated my change to some "Suleiman the Magnificent Muslim School" or whatever it said on the donation bucket they had next to the cash register. Hope I didn't fund any terrorism :unsure:
No, just future Socialist presidents.
Quote from: PJL on August 07, 2015, 02:54:22 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 07, 2015, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: PJL on August 07, 2015, 01:19:50 AM
Saudia Aradia is the same as ISIS. No difference there. To be honest, it's the one place where'd I'd be quite happy to see chaos there, as it should mean that it will reduce any donor revenue for other extremist groups elsewhere.
do you think Iraq, as of today, is the best outcome possible for the occidental world? 'Cause a collapse of Saudi Arabia will certainly not lead to a free, democratic country respectful of human rights.
People fighting each other in their own country have generally less time to export their ideology abroad. Al Qaeda only gained traction in Afghanistan once most of the country was under Taliban control. For the West internal chaos is better than a horrible regime, immigrant crisis notwithstanding.
They're fighting each other in their country because we have troops and airplanes fighting some of these groups over there.
Otherwise, Iraq would have been overrun. And it does not prevent terrorism acts to be perprated or attempted all over the world in the name of ISIS.
Quote from: The Brain on August 07, 2015, 03:02:06 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 07, 2015, 01:54:11 PM
A long time ago after a night of drinking in Newark, Delaware I hit my usual late night spot-- a Turkish-owned diner. I donated my change to some "Suleiman the Magnificent Muslim School" or whatever it said on the donation bucket they had next to the cash register. Hope I didn't fund any terrorism :unsure:
No, just future Socialist presidents.
DAMNIT
Quote from: derspiess on August 07, 2015, 01:54:11 PM
A long time ago after a night of drinking in Newark, Delaware I hit my usual late night spot-- a Turkish-owned diner. I donated my change to some "Suleiman the Magnificent Muslim School" or whatever it said on the donation bucket they had next to the cash register. Hope I didn't fund any terrorism :unsure:
You probably funded a trip to the Carribean by the founders of the charity and some of their employees.
Quote from: viper37 on August 07, 2015, 03:04:59 PM
You probably funded a trip to the Carribean by the founders of the charity and some of their employees.
Glad I could help, then. That 38 cents wasn't going to do much for me.
Anyway the buckle I was talking about looked something like this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fep.yimg.com%2Fay%2Fyhst-43692464399972%2Foval-drilling-rig-and-drill-bits-oil-field-belt-buckle-2.gif&hash=cf7e3a72eab4e86ff1e2391638c6485b908f4562)
Quote from: derspiess on August 07, 2015, 01:54:11 PM
I donated my change
That's your problem right there :weep:
If he'd just invested it, today he'd have enough money for a baked empenada.
Quote from: PJL on August 07, 2015, 02:54:22 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 07, 2015, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: PJL on August 07, 2015, 01:19:50 AM
Saudia Aradia is the same as ISIS. No difference there. To be honest, it's the one place where'd I'd be quite happy to see chaos there, as it should mean that it will reduce any donor revenue for other extremist groups elsewhere.
do you think Iraq, as of today, is the best outcome possible for the occidental world? 'Cause a collapse of Saudi Arabia will certainly not lead to a free, democratic country respectful of human rights.
People fighting each other in their own country have generally less time to export their ideology abroad. Al Qaeda only gained traction in Afghanistan once most of the country was under Taliban control. For the West internal chaos is better than a horrible regime, immigrant crisis notwithstanding.
Yeah, I mean it was decades after Russian civil war before there was any Communist uprisings in Europe. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 07, 2015, 06:13:47 PM
Quote from: PJL on August 07, 2015, 02:54:22 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 07, 2015, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: PJL on August 07, 2015, 01:19:50 AM
Saudia Aradia is the same as ISIS. No difference there. To be honest, it's the one place where'd I'd be quite happy to see chaos there, as it should mean that it will reduce any donor revenue for other extremist groups elsewhere.
do you think Iraq, as of today, is the best outcome possible for the occidental world? 'Cause a collapse of Saudi Arabia will certainly not lead to a free, democratic country respectful of human rights.
People fighting each other in their own country have generally less time to export their ideology abroad. Al Qaeda only gained traction in Afghanistan once most of the country was under Taliban control. For the West internal chaos is better than a horrible regime, immigrant crisis notwithstanding.
Yeah, I mean it was decades after Russian civil war before there was any Communist uprisings in Europe. :rolleyes:
All the initial communist uprisings were more due to a collapse of central authority from the First World War rather than a orchestrated effort from a organised communist country. Otherwise, it pretty much was decades afterwards.
Quote from: PJL on August 07, 2015, 06:54:46 PM
All the initial communist uprisings were more due to a collapse of central authority from the First World War rather than a orchestrated effort from a organised communist country. Otherwise, it pretty much was decades afterwards.
Fortunately radical Islam must come from a organized country. Can't happen from the collapse of central authority, so we are in the clear.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 07, 2015, 07:46:27 PM
Quote from: PJL on August 07, 2015, 06:54:46 PM
All the initial communist uprisings were more due to a collapse of central authority from the First World War rather than a orchestrated effort from a organised communist country. Otherwise, it pretty much was decades afterwards.
Fortunately radical Islam must come from a organized country. Can't happen from the collapse of central authority, so we are in the clear.
It's following the same pattern as the Communist ones. Initial uprising by Islamists (Saudis) caused by collapse of central authority (Ottomans) leads to a radical state which then sponsors other like minded uprisings in other areas once it has the funds to do so.
TL;DR: Saudis got it into their heads that they're more important than they are. In reality, Washington is a bigger threat to shale drilling than Saudia Arabia.
Quote from: PJL on August 08, 2015, 03:15:26 AM
It's following the same pattern as the Communist ones. Initial uprising by Islamists (Saudis) caused by collapse of central authority (Ottomans) leads to a radical state which then sponsors other like minded uprisings in other areas once it has the funds to do so.
Er, no. The Saudis were never really ruled by the Ottomans. Ottoman authority did not extend out into the middle of the desert at best they were allies. They weren't even part of the Arab revolt, the Saudis just were piratical opportunists who simply conquered newly independent states.
Not good news at all.
The Saudis are dicks but I really don't think a particularly great alternative is in the offing.
There is nine million foreign workers in that country. If the government fell there would be an enormous humanitarian crisis. If an ISIS like government took control it could result in a vast genocide.
Ah yes, The Vast Right-Wing Genocide. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2015, 03:03:20 PM
There is nine million foreign workers in that country. If the government fell there would be an enormous humanitarian crisis. If an ISIS like government took control it could result in a vast genocide.
Damn they have more slaves than the 1860 American South.
Anyway a political collapse is not needed for Wahhabism to stop polluting the minds of Muslims around the world, an economic one should suffice just fine.
It is intriguing we need to keep the Saudis around to combat the thing they created but it is a weird world we live in.
Hmm, as much as the Saudis are antithetical to western and democratic thinking I'd still find it more of a problem if SA collapses. For one that would remove a powerful military and financial opponent to Iran, and as it is we see what Iran does all over the Mid East now. Plus it would remove an ally that helps fund other nations such as Egypt and Jordan who are US/western allies and who oppose the local extremist groups. Then the vacuum in SA and resulting civil war as radicals would likely take over would be a huge negative. Although it would stop the Wahabis from spreading their extremist influence to Mosques worldwide, we might find that those who take over are worse in similar or other ways which seems to be the norm for failed ME nations. I tend to think the Saudis are capapble of becoming more liberal, slowly over time, rather than those who would take over if SA falls.
Quote from: KRonn on August 11, 2015, 01:31:37 PM
I tend to think the Saudis are capapble of becoming more liberal, slowly over time, rather than those who would take over if SA falls.
Not while they have all that oil wealth. And further if they do not have the oil wealth whether or not they are liberal is far less important.
Quote from: KRonn on August 11, 2015, 01:31:37 PM
I tend to think the Saudis are capapble of becoming more liberal, slowly over time, rather than those who would take over if SA falls.
I haven't seen any indication of that so far.
Those who would take over in a civil war from a Saudi collapse would probably be far worse and much more long standing in their extremism. More like ISIS or Iran on steroids, I would think.
Quote from: KRonn on August 11, 2015, 01:53:44 PM
Those who would take over in a civil war from a Saudi collapse would probably be far worse and much more long standing in their extremism. More like ISIS or Iran on steroids, I would think.
How could a country half the population of Iran, and devastated by civil war, be 'Iran on steroids'?
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2015, 02:04:03 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 11, 2015, 01:53:44 PM
Those who would take over in a civil war from a Saudi collapse would probably be far worse and much more long standing in their extremism. More like ISIS or Iran on steroids, I would think.
How could a country half the population of Iran, and devastated by civil war, be 'Iran on steroids'?
If taken over by ISIS types or an equivalent their ideology could be just as nasty as ISIS. They'd still have lots of oil revenue and they don't have to be as big as Iran to be a tough and radical problem.
My thinking is that just because one nasty regime as in the Saudis are gone doesn't mean that the next one to take over is going to be better. I think that's a pretty safe supposition. We may not have relations with them at all, but with the Saudis the West and Saudis have worked towards similar goals a number of times.
Quote from: KRonn on August 11, 2015, 02:11:06 PM
If taken over by ISIS types or an equivalent their ideology could be just as nasty as ISIS. They'd still have lots of oil revenue and they don't have to be as big as Iran to be a tough and radical problem.
KRonn the entire premise of this thread and this discussion is that they go broke. It is right there in the title.
QuoteMy thinking is that just because one nasty regime as in the Saudis are gone doesn't mean that the next one to take over is going to be better. I think that's a pretty safe supposition. We may not have relations with them at all, but with the Saudis the West and Saudis have worked towards similar goals a number of times.
Nobody is assuming that. I am not sure what your point is. Saudi goes broke and cannot spend money destroying Islam throughout the world...but that is bad since the local Saudis might go radical? Eh I think it is better if 1 billion people have a better chance even if 30 million might become more radical than Saudi is today.
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2015, 10:51:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2015, 03:03:20 PM
There is nine million foreign workers in that country. If the government fell there would be an enormous humanitarian crisis. If an ISIS like government took control it could result in a vast genocide.
Damn they have more slaves than the 1860 American South.
Anyway a political collapse is not needed for Wahhabism to stop polluting the minds of Muslims around the world, an economic one should suffice just fine.
It is intriguing we need to keep the Saudis around to combat the thing they created but it is a weird world we live in.
Well, it includes technical experts from other countries. Still, it's rather telling that a country with 30 million people and 12% unemployment needs nine million foreign workers. It's a deeply dysfunctional country.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 08, 2015, 09:58:17 AM
In reality, Washington is a bigger threat to shale drilling than Saudia Arabia.
We can block them with Oregon and use Idaho to flank.
Nuke it from orbit.
I'd rather Iran ruled the ME than Saudi Arabia. At least they fund their terrorists more openly, and seem to have more control over them. Whereas Saudi Arabia is more insidious with theirs.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2015, 03:03:20 PM
There is nine million foreign workers in that country. If the government fell there would be an enormous humanitarian crisis. If an ISIS like government took control it could result in a vast genocide.
That's almost 1/3 of the total population of Saudi Arabia, though. Plus, a large number are clustered in a small area. They could probably take and hold significant amounts of territory if they wanted to.
Tet says that's a bad/good idea.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on August 11, 2015, 04:56:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2015, 03:03:20 PM
There is nine million foreign workers in that country. If the government fell there would be an enormous humanitarian crisis. If an ISIS like government took control it could result in a vast genocide.
That's almost 1/3 of the total population of Saudi Arabia, though. Plus, a large number are clustered in a small area. They could probably take and hold significant amounts of territory if they wanted to.
If they were one armed and trained body, then yeah. As it is they are Indian construction workers, Indonesia farm laborers, American engineers, Jordanian teachers etc. Saudi Arabia is a corrupt and nasty regime that rules over a rather nasty and unpleasant populace. I imagine the regime will fall one day, but I do not look forward to it. ISIS will millions of foreign victims makes me shudder. It would be like Apocalypse Now with turbans.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2015, 05:17:00 PM
If they were one armed and trained body, then yeah. As it is they are Indian construction workers, Indonesia farm laborers, American engineers, Jordanian teachers etc. Saudi Arabia is a corrupt and nasty regime that rules over a rather nasty and unpleasant populace. I imagine the regime will fall one day, but I do not look forward to it. ISIS will millions of foreign victims makes me shudder. It would be like Apocalypse Now with turbans.
It's one of those many vicious circles of the Middle East. The populace is nasty and unpleasant because it was raised by nasty and unpleasant rulers. But, yeah, if you cut down the current nasty and unpleasant rulers, then what population are you going to draw the new rulers from?
It's like the seesaw battle between religious fundamentalists and secular butchers. You need secular butchers to keep fundamentalists from power, which is going to have destructive results, but the act of butchering secularly just adds fuel to the fundamentalist fire.
So what is to be done? Finding plenty of oil in other places, I guess.
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2015, 06:16:28 PMFinding plenty of oil in other places, I guess.
Pretty much. I mean, can you imagine what kind of entitlement mentality must exist there? Once the oil no longer pays the bills there's basically going to be riots by people who want back what was never really feasible in the first place. Kinda like Greece I guess.
Nuke.from.orbit.
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2015, 06:16:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2015, 05:17:00 PM
If they were one armed and trained body, then yeah. As it is they are Indian construction workers, Indonesia farm laborers, American engineers, Jordanian teachers etc. Saudi Arabia is a corrupt and nasty regime that rules over a rather nasty and unpleasant populace. I imagine the regime will fall one day, but I do not look forward to it. ISIS will millions of foreign victims makes me shudder. It would be like Apocalypse Now with turbans.
It's one of those many vicious circles of the Middle East. The populace is nasty and unpleasant because it was raised by nasty and unpleasant rulers. But, yeah, if you cut down the current nasty and unpleasant rulers, then what population are you going to draw the new rulers from?
It's like the seesaw battle between religious fundamentalists and secular butchers. You need secular butchers to keep fundamentalists from power, which is going to have destructive results, but the act of butchering secularly just adds fuel to the fundamentalist fire.
So what is to be done? Finding plenty of oil in other places, I guess.
Actually I think it's the other way around. Nasty countries breed nasty leaders who must use nasty methods to keep their countries under control. The Saudi citizens refuse to do work they deem beneath them, so you have this massive number of guest workers. The Saudis resent these laborers and hold them in contempt. They also want to be a world power and have other nations respect them, but are to proud and indolent to do the hard work to make that happen. So you have perpetually angry, hateful, and idle population. This problem seems to be endemic over the entire Arab world, but I think it might be worst in the Gulf Arab states. I don't think it's a coincidence that these countries had legal slavery in living memory. Were it not for oil they would probably be like Somalia. I suspect that is what their future will look like.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2015, 05:17:00 PM
If they were one armed and trained body, then yeah. As it is they are Indian construction workers, Indonesia farm laborers, American engineers, Jordanian teachers etc.
More than a few examples of untrained groups taking ground and holding it long enough to become trained. Getting them to work together might be another thing...
US to become world's top producer by 2019 at the latest.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/us-will-overtake-russia-as-top-oil-producer-by-2019.html
Quote
US will overtake Russia as top oil producer by 2019, says the International Energy Agency
•The United States will overtake Russia as the world's biggest oil producer by 2019 at the latest, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Tuesday.
•U.S. crude oil output rose above 10 million barrels per day (bpd) late last year for the first time since the 1970s, overtaking top oil exporter Saudi Arabia.
Published 12:22 AM ET Tue, 27 Feb 2018
The United States will overtake Russia as the world's biggest oil producer by 2019 at the latest, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Tuesday, as the country's shale oil boom continues to upend global markets.
IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said at an event in Tokyo the United States would overtake Russia as the biggest crude oil producer "definitely next year", if not this year.
"U.S. shale growth is very strong, the pace is very strong ... The United States will become the No.1 oil producer sometime very soon," he told Reuters separately.
U.S. crude oil output rose above 10 million barrels per day (bpd) late last year for the first time since the 1970s, overtaking top oil exporter Saudi Arabia.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration said early this month that U.S. output would exceed 11 million bpd by late 2018.
That would take it past top producer Russia, which pumps just below that mark.
Birol said he did not see U.S. oil production peaking before 2020, and that he did not expect a decline in the next four to five years.
The soaring U.S. production is upending global oil markets, coming at a time when other major producers — including Russia and members of the Middle East-dominated Organization of the
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) — have been withholding output to prop up prices.
U.S. oil is also increasingly being exported, including to the world's biggest and fastest growing markets in Asia, eating away at OPEC and Russian market share.
Meanwhile, U.S. net imports of crude oil fell last week by 1.6 million bpd to 4.98 million bpd, the lowest level since the EIA started recording the data in 2001, reflecting further erosion in a market OPEC has been relying on for decades.
Birol said production growth was not just strong in the United States.
"Canada, especially the oil sands, and Brazilian offshore projects. These are the two major (non-U.S.) drivers," he said.
On the demand side, Birol said the IEA expected growth of around 1.4 million bpd in 2018.
Thanks Trump!
Quote from: The Brain on March 05, 2018, 06:16:26 PM
Thanks Trump!
Has nothing to do with Trump, Obama or any other presidential policy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 05, 2018, 06:18:33 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 05, 2018, 06:16:26 PM
Thanks Trump!
Has nothing to do with Trump, Obama or any other presidential policy.
And certainly nothing to do with the green policies/news items you often trumpet here. ;)
:P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 05, 2018, 06:14:11 PM
US to become world's top producer by 2019 at the latest.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/us-will-overtake-russia-as-top-oil-producer-by-2019.html
This is pretty amazing. It's been happening for some years now and is going even stronger as more areas are opened up. But I think one of the biggest factors is how fracking has become a lot more efficient, even to often keeping up with low crude oil prices as OPEC tried to force prices down. That didn't work. And I believe fracking is becoming more enviro friendly which is another huge plus.
The US, I think under Trump but maybe Obama, loosened laws to allow exports of crude oil. Before US laws only allowed export of refined petro products which US companies were doing as it had surpluses.