Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

[gnk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

You still don't get it c1ue.

It's about having your guys in place through out the middle east. Would you prefer Chinese friendly regimes in the Middle East as we cross peak conventional oil? As I said in another post - it's about having your hand on the oil spigot. Somebody will have control either way, do you prefer the Chinese to have that control?

Diplomacy and statecraft in a world of limited resources is a messy affair. Either you win, or you lose. The eggheads debate, the actors act.

The Libyan episode was a masterful stroke by the US and Europe. I gotta hand it to them. Russia and China look foolish.

Watch Syria now. The chess game that began almost ten years ago, is getting interesting.

[c1ue]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

You still don't get it c1ue.

It's about having your guys in place through out the middle east. Would you prefer Chinese friendly regimes in the Middle East as we cross peak conventional oil? As I said in another post - it's about having your hand on the oil spigot. Somebody will have control either way, do you prefer the Chinese to have that control?

Diplomacy and statecraft in a world of limited resources is a messy affair. Either you win, or you lose. The eggheads debate, the actors act.

The Libyan episode was a masterful stroke by the US and Europe. I gotta hand it to them. Russia and China look foolish.

Watch Syria now. The chess game that began almost ten years ago, is getting interesting.

Uh no, you still don't get it.

The US' actions in Libya did not benefit the US in any way.

It didn't benefit US oil supply.

It didn't benefit oil prices.

It didn't preserve Libyan oil from being used (i.e. saved for future US consumption).

The only possible benefit - and even that is very indirect - is to Europe, because Europe is the single largest customer for Libya. And even that presumes that somehow Europe will not be able/willing to pay as much or more for oil than China.

As for 'your' guys - go look in the Libya thread and see all of the European leaders shaking hands with Gaddafi. And then tell me what changed between this pictures (2008, 2009, 2010, and even January 2011) and February 2011.

So you can keep on thinking your grand schemes, but proof is distinctly lacking.

[gnk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

You're not getting it c1ue. And your arrogance is really not warranted. It's now coming off as foolishness.

Your microanalysis is losing the big picture, as I said before, don't lose the forest for the trees. It's about tomorrow. It's about peak oil, its about strategic control of the middle east, it's about containment of governments, it's about you having control over someone else's economy via the middle east. A temporary glut of cheap oil could crush the Russian economy... a potential confrontation between China and the US will hinge on who controls the Middle East.

It's a chess match in progress.

Is the US always successful? Are US policies always rational? Those are valid debates.

But the US has the worlds largest navy and tremendous air power, and with it, needs to control the juice that runs the world economy - oil.

You know what changed in Libya and what will change in the future - re-read the article I posted. The new regimes will lean towards the US and leave Russia and China out. That's not to say that China and Russia will never be active in the Middle East - but that their participation will be thru some sort of quid pro quo with the US. More or less, the US still calls the shots. And that Libya war or action, or whatever you want to call it was pure genius. Like it or not - that's how the game is played.

Syria is next... then Iran will be encircled and will eventually fall. The best China can do is side with Pakistan.

The US primarily gets its oil from North and South America. Yet it still is the #1 player in the Middle East.

Why?

It's a friggin SUPERPOWER, and that's what superpowers do. They control the resources that can knock down their current and potential adversaries. They also have the largest stake in the global economy, so the US needs to make sure the oil flows as well.

It's a balancing act between maintaining the world economy and controlling any potential threats to economic and military supremacy. The US needs to control the Middle East to have an advantage over China.

[metalman]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

You're not getting it c1ue. And your arrogance is really not warranted. It's now coming off as foolishness.

Your microanalysis is losing the big picture, as I said before, don't lose the forest for the trees. It's about tomorrow. It's about peak oil, its about strategic control of the middle east, it's about containment of governments, it's about you having control over someone else's economy via the middle east. A temporary glut of cheap oil could crush the Russian economy... a potential confrontation between China and the US will hinge on who controls the Middle East.

It's a chess match in progress.

Is the US always successful? Are US policies always rational? Those are valid debates.

But the US has the worlds largest navy and tremendous air power, and with it, needs to control the juice that runs the world economy - oil.

You know what changed in Libya and what will change in the future - re-read the article I posted. The new regimes will lean towards the US and leave Russia and China out. That's not to say that China and Russia will never be active in the Middle East - but that their participation will be thru some sort of quid pro quo with the US. More or less, the US still calls the shots. And that Libya war or action, or whatever you want to call it was pure genius. Like it or not - that's how the game is played.

Syria is next... then Iran will be encircled and will eventually fall. The best China can do is side with Pakistan.

The US primarily gets its oil from North and South America. Yet it still is the #1 player in the Middle East.

Why?

It's a friggin SUPERPOWER, and that's what superpowers do. They control the resources that can knock down their current and potential adversaries. They also have the largest stake in the global economy, so the US needs to make sure the oil flows as well.

It's a balancing act between maintaining the world economy and controlling any potential threats to economic and military supremacy. The US needs to control the Middle East to have an advantage over China.

+1

rule #1 of superpowers... power... use it or lose it.

[c1ue]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

You're not getting it c1ue. And your arrogance is really not warranted. It's now coming off as foolishness.

Your microanalysis is losing the big picture, as I said before, don't lose the forest for the trees. It's about tomorrow. It's about peak oil, its about strategic control of the middle east, it's about containment of governments, it's about you having control over someone else's economy via the middle east. A temporary glut of cheap oil could crush the Russian economy... a potential confrontation between China and the US will hinge on who controls the Middle East.

Right, it is about tomorrow.

That's why the US has pursued a consistent policy of encouraging wasteful oil use for transportation purposes, thus guaranteeing a bad outcome to peak oil.

That's why the US has alienated Iran - which has numerous historical reasons to find an ally against Russia to the North and India/China to the East.

But by all means keep trying to tell yourself that US policies are driven by clear eyed altruism.

After all, that's what drove the War on Terror. And the Internet Bubble. And the Real Estate Bubble. And the present Government Deficit Bubble.

It's a chess match in progress.

Is the US always successful? Are US policies always rational? Those are valid debates.

But the US has the worlds largest navy and tremendous air power, and with it, needs to control the juice that runs the world economy - oil.

You know what changed in Libya and what will change in the future - re-read the article I posted. The new regimes will lean towards the US and leave Russia and China out. That's not to say that China and Russia will never be active in the Middle East - but that their participation will be thru some sort of quid pro quo with the US. More or less, the US still calls the shots. And that Libya war or action, or whatever you want to call it was pure genius. Like it or not - that's how the game is played.

The problem with your statement is that Gaddafi was already toeing the 'good dictator' line.

The actual message sent by Libya, and Tunisia, and Egypt, is that no matter how good a lap dog you may be as dictator, you're expendable. Smash your opposition and keep it down via the most repression imaginable, or you will find yourself 'Arab Springed'.

Syria is next... then Iran will be encircled and will eventually fall. The best China can do is side with Pakistan.

The US primarily gets its oil from North and South America. Yet it still is the #1 player in the Middle East.

Why?

It's a friggin SUPERPOWER, and that's what superpowers do. They control the resources that can knock down their current and potential adversaries. They also have the largest stake in the global economy, so the US needs to make sure the oil flows as well.

It's a balancing act between maintaining the world economy and controlling any potential threats to economic and military supremacy. The US needs to control the Middle East to have an advantage over China.

If you want to believe that, then by all means do.

The reality is that the US is funding a smaller and smaller military every year.

This goes 100% against your premise.

As for controlling oil - you keep saying this but have never yet presented any credible evidence of successful 'control' of oil.

Iran, Venezuela, Russia are all prime examples of failed control.

Iran may have been under US sway for a period, but I don't think anyone believes that now.

Russia - the Soviet Union collapsed and its oil resources were all 'privatized'. Yet where is the US control of that oil now?

Venezuela: nicely under control, then comes Chavez.

Seems more like things are going the opposite direction overall than what you assert.

rule #1 of superpowers... power... use it or lose it.

There's no question its being used.

The question is if it is being used to significant real effect.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

The heat of the Middle East summer is over. Time for the "Arab Fall"?

Killing of Opposition Leader in Syria Provokes Kurds

Published: October 8, 2011

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Tens of thousands of people poured into the streets of a Syrian city on Saturday for the funeral of a celebrated Kurdish opposition leader whose assassination the day before unleashed fury in the country’s Kurdish regions and threatened to open a new theater of opposition to President Bashar al-Assad’s rule...

...The government has demonstrated little political strategy in coping with the revolt so far, relying almost exclusively on violence since August, deepening opposition in virtually every region of the country, and provoking extended clans in eastern and southern Syria.

Yet picking a full-fledged fight with the Kurdish minority would add a new, dangerous facet to a revolt that has ebbed but remained resilient despite a crackdown that, by a United Nations count, has killed more than 2,900...

...“There’s a real potential for it getting out of hand,” said Peter Harling, a Syria-based analyst and researcher with the International Crisis Group.

He said the killing was a vivid illustration of the consequences of the government’s shift toward what it calls the “security solution,” a decision that seems to have been made before the Muslim holy month of Ramadan began in August.

“The security solution essentially amounts to giving a free hand to the security services to dramatically raise the levels of violence in an attempt to restore the wall of fear,” Mr. Harling said. “In doing so, the regime has undermined its own ability to think and act politically. This is sheer violence, with no limits, a ‘solution’ that has every chance of creating many new problems.”...

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Saleh keeps Yemenis guessing with talk of step-down

SANAA | Sat Oct 8, 2011 6:19pm EDT

SANAA (Reuters) - Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh suggested Saturday that within days he would step down, a promise he has made three times already this year, and analysts said it was yet another stalling tactic...

...Confusion over Saleh's intent was familiar fare in a conflict that has dragged on since January when protesters first took to the streets to demand reform and an end to the grip on power that Saleh and his family have had for 33 years...

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

October 7, 2011, 1:28 pm

Protests Swell in Bahrain After Boy’s Death

Large numbers of people filled the streets west of Bahrain’s capital, Manama, on Friday as a funeral march for a 16-year-old boy — who activists said was killed by the police — grew into one of the largest demonstrations in the tiny Gulf nation in recent weeks.

Toward evening, activists said the police began using tear gas and sound grenades to disperse the crowd as protesters lingered on a central highway after the funeral procession had broken up. Al Jazeera reported on its live blog that at least one person had been severely injured in the face. There were also reports of gunfire, though it was unclear what type of bullets were being used.


The protest, among the largest in the country since the Sunni monarchy put down an uprising in March with the help of forces from neighboring Saudi Arabia, was touched off by the death on Thursday of the teenager, identified by authorities as Ahmed Jaber...

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Egypt: The Cry of the Copt - Continuing Sectarian Violence

6 October 2011

History teaches us that with change, with revolution, comes improvement. But it seems that is not always the case, especially if the improvement is expected but fails to materialise.

For many of Egypt's Coptic population, things have become worse rather than better. The latest statistics from the Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organizations (EUOHR) show that since March, nearly 100,000 Egyptian Copts have left the country with the number possibly rising to 250,000 by the end of this year. Though some skeptics have questioned the number, saying it is "exaggerated", there is nonetheless a genuine concern and fear that the increasing levels of sectarian violence will lead to a mass exodus of Egypt's Christian community, who form 10 per cent of the country's population.

According to Naguib Gobrail, a lawyer and the head of EUOHR, the latest bout of destruction of Christian places of worship is part of a "systematic policy of ethnic cleansing" by Salafi (hard-line Islamist) groups targeting Copts...

[mmr]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Do you have a sense of whether this announcement reflects their inability to reach 15 million barrels per day, or just their unwillingness to do so?

Saudis See No Reason to Raise Oil Output Capacity

DHAHRAN, Saudi Arabia—A senior oil executive said Saudi Arabia is unlikely to proceed with plans to raise its oil output capacity to 15 million barrels a day, as expansion plans in other producing countries such as Iraq and Brazil should be enough to satisfy world markets.

"There is no reason for Saudi Aramco to pursue 15 million barrels [of output capacity]," Saudi Arabian Oil Co. chief executive Khalid Al Falih said in an interview Saturday.

"It is difficult to see [an increase in capacity] because there are too many variables happening," he said. "You've got too many announcements about massive capacity expansions coming out of countries like Brazil, coming out of countries like Iraq. The market demand is addressed by others."

Saudi Arabian Oil Co., better known as Saudi Aramco, is currently producing about 9 million barrels of oil a day, having raised output sharply earlier this year to make up for lost output from Libya. Saudi Aramco's current output capacity stands at 12 million barrels a day, though the kingdom as a whole could produce 12.5 million barrels a day if output from the so-called Neutral Zone shared with Kuwait is taken into account.

In 2008, when oil prices surged to a record $147 per barrel, Saudi Arabian oil minister Ali al-Naimi said the kingdom was examining plans to raise the country's production capacity to 15 million barrels a day in an attempt to reassure markets concerned about long-term security of supply.

With most members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producing at full capacity, the amount of Saudi Arabia's unused output is closely watched by oil markets.

Saudi Arabia is the only OPEC state that can significantly raise output in order to offset market disruptions, such as the loss of Libyan output earlier this year and the suspension of Kuwaiti output during the Iraqi invasion of 1990. Two of the strongest periods of oil price increases—from 2003 to 2005 and 2007 to 2008—coincided with OPEC spare capacity falling to historic lows.

Mr. Falih's comments suggest Saudi Arabia is comfortable with is current level of spare capacity....

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Do you have a sense of whether this announcement reflects their inability to reach 15 million barrels per day, or just their unwillingness to do so?

Saudi has been producing oil in material quantities for more than 60 years. Saudi has never ever produced at a rate of more than 10 million barrels per day on a sustained basis. For any mature oil province in the world to suggest it can increase its production under those circumstances by 50% [from 10 mm bpd to 15 mm bpd] is absurd. Even more absurd is that anyone believed such fantasies.

Link to a post I made on 09-28-07 on a thread in the Select area.
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...16855#poststop

For those that may not have access [and at the risk of breaking an iTulip rule?] here's an excerpt:

"...A couple of things about Saudi oil to toss into the debate that, hopefully, are not redundant with previous commentary and may be useful observations for the already well-informed iTulip community:

• There is no technology gap. Aramco employs all the same state-of-the-art exploration, extraction and processing technologies available to the global oil industry. Two decades ago oil companies discovered there was no sustainable competitive advantage from proprietary technology, and many closed their R&D shops in the last low price phase. Today most technology is developed and commercialized in the service companies, often with pooled funding from the oil companies (including NOCs), and available to any paying customer.
• There is no material organizational capability gap. Aramco, IMHO, is by far the best managed NOC on earth. In all my discussions with Aramco staff (mostly expatriates) over the years I have come away with the firm conviction that Aramco's management systems, and complex project capabilities are every bit as good as the Fortune 100 multi-national oil company I used to toil for (which consistently outperformed its peer group in on-time, on-budget project performance).

In other words, contrary to what some people in "the west" seem to believe, there is no "low-hanging-fruit", "let's-get-in-there-and-show-the-Arabs-how-its-done", cheap and easy production increment available from Saudi Arabia (not that knowledgable iTulipers would think such things in the first place).

I listen most carefully to a pair of very experienced expat Aramco earth scientists. Expect Aramco to quietly back away from its forecast of 15 mm bbls/d in the next decade (that's already happening), and its 12.5 mm bbls/d output target for the end of this decade (coming soon)..."

[llanlad2]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

The heat of the Middle East summer is over. Time for the "Arab Fall"?
[INDENT]Killing of Opposition Leader in Syria Provokes Kurds

After the Chinese and Russian veto against the European and US promoted resolution the other day the current regime will have carte blanche to deal with uprisings anyway they likefor the forseeable future. No Western "rescue" for the people this time. They'll be an Arab Tianamen Square before long. Neither the Russians or Chinese leaders will be happy seeing "successful revoulutions" happening too frequently unless (in)directly supported by them.

From the article below

The way Russia's ambassador to the U.N. Vitaly Churkin sees it, the U.S. and its partners are trying to pick and choose who are legitimate leaders in the Arab world. First it was Libya, he says, now they are trying it again in Syria.

"We have to reflect on the concept of legitimacy," Churkin says. "It's a very complicated concept, but what I know for sure [is that] it is not for Paris, Washington or London to pass a definitive judgment about the legitimacy of certain leaders in the Arab world or anywhere else."

U.S. 'Reset' With Russia On Edge After U.N. Vote

by Michele Keleme

Russia's decision to veto a Security Council resolution on Syria set off an angry response in Washington.

The two countries sparred publicly, with the U.S. accusing Russia of being on the wrong side of history and Russia complaining that the U.S. can't use the Security Council to promote regime change. With all the mudslinging, it's becoming difficult to know what happened to the Obama administration's reset of relations with Russia.

The way Russia's ambassador to the U.N. Vitaly Churkin sees it, the U.S. and its partners are trying to pick and choose who are legitimate leaders in the Arab world. First it was Libya, he says, now they are trying it again in Syria.

"We have to reflect on the concept of legitimacy," Churkin says. "It's a very complicated concept, but what I know for sure [is that] it is not for Paris, Washington or London to pass a definitive judgment about the legitimacy of certain leaders in the Arab world or anywhere else."

U.S. officials shouldn't have been surprised, says Matthew Rojansky of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He says the Russians felt burned by Libya and don't want the Security Council to be in the business of choosing the winners in the Arab uprisings — particularly in Syria.

"They've picked their own winner and for now that's Bashar Assad, just as it's been the Assad family in Syria for decades," Rojansky says. "There are still weapons sales debts, there are still relationships in the intelligence and military and diplomatic communities that date back to pre-1991 — and these things still have resonance."

And besides, he says, the Russians just see things differently in these Arab uprisings.

"The Russians view it much more cynically, to begin with" he says. "I don't think they see some sort of deterministic outcome of liberal, Western-style democracy as either desirable or inevitable."

In fact the Russians have a natural aversion to revolutionary upheavals and international meddling, says Fiona Hill of the Brookings Institution.

"Every military scenario that the Russians basically engage in, in their annual exercises either on their western or eastern flank, always involved some kind of local revolt pulling outside forces," Hill says. "So it is not just a paranoia, this is something they actively prepare against."

There's another reason why the Russians wanted to stand up to the U.S. in the U.N. Security Council she says — internal politics. The U.N. vote came soon after Vladimir Putin announced that he'll be switching places with President Dmitry Medvedev.

"In spite of the fact that Mr. Putin has already declared his presidency in effect, it's still an electoral season," she says. "And being forceful with the United States and not letting the United States have its way is always good politics in the Russian domestic environment."

But she says that doesn't mean an end to the Obama administration's "reset" of relations with Russia. Andrew Kuchins of the Center for Strategic and International Studies agrees.

"The Russians have their own reasons for having their own relationship with us, and for why they support us in Afghanistan, particularly in the new transit corridors," Kuchins says. "Why they found it in their interest to sign the (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty); I don't think we should necessarily anticipate that the Russians are going to start applying linkage in their policy toward us, because we really don't toward them."

Analysts say the challenge for the administration is to keep its close ties with Medvedev on track and reopen channels to the president-in-waiting, Putin.

[llanlad2]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Saudi has been producing oil in material quantities for more than 60 years. Saudi has never ever produced at a rate of more than 10 million barrels per day on a sustained basis. For any mature oil province in the world to suggest it can increase its production under those circumstances by 50% [from 10 mm bpd to 15 mm bpd] is absurd. Even more absurd is that anyone believed such fantasies.
I listen most carefully to a pair of very experienced expat Aramco earth scientists. Expect Aramco to quietly back away from its forecast of 15 mm bbls/d in the next decade (that's already happening), and its 12.5 mm bbls/d output target for the end of this decade (coming soon)..."

[/INDENT]

Very sobering. At the same time they've never needed the revenue more than now with their population growing from 4 million in the 1960s to 28 million at the last census with a median age of 24 many of whom essentially need bribing to be kept obedient and are still having 6 kids per family. With demographics like that the world needs them to produce more than ever just to sustain/provide tfor such a crazy growth of population in a desert. I also think that recent moves for greater equality for women are linked to worries about their out of control breeding as they must know they are storing up a whole load of problems a generation down the line when the extra production fails to materialise.

As an aside I know a guy who is in the Saudi military and I had a discussion with him once where he tried to convince me they could rampup to 15 million bpd. I am fairly sure he believed what he was telling me (he may have been lying) but it made me wonder who in charge actually realises they can't.

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

At the same time they've never needed the revenue more than now....

there are 2 ways to increase revenues. one way is to increase production....

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Egypt: The Cry of the Copt - Continuing Sectarian Violence

6 October 2011

History teaches us that with change, with revolution, comes improvement. But it seems that is not always the case, especially if the improvement is expected but fails to materialise.

For many of Egypt's Coptic population, things have become worse rather than better. The latest statistics from the Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organizations (EUOHR) show that since March, nearly 100,000 Egyptian Copts have left the country with the number possibly rising to 250,000 by the end of this year. Though some skeptics have questioned the number, saying it is "exaggerated", there is nonetheless a genuine concern and fear that the increasing levels of sectarian violence will lead to a mass exodus of Egypt's Christian community, who form 10 per cent of the country's population.

According to Naguib Gobrail, a lawyer and the head of EUOHR, the latest bout of destruction of Christian places of worship is part of a "systematic policy of ethnic cleansing" by Salafi (hard-line Islamist) groups targeting Copts...

Summer is over. Let the killing resume...

Coptic Christians, Egyptian Forces Clash in Cairo

Oct 9, 2011 4:00 PM MT

Coptic Christian protesters clashed with security forces in Cairo yesterday, killing more than 20 people and injuring more than 180 as shooting broke out and cars were set on fire, according to news reports.

Several hundred Egyptian Christians protesting a recent attack on a church came under assault by people in plain clothes who fired pellets at them and pelted them with stones, according to the Associated Press. Some protesters may have snatched weapons from soldiers and turned them on the military, in addition to throwing rocks and bottles, the AP said.

The death toll from the violence was at least 22, Al Jazeera reported, citing security officials. The official Egyptian Middle East News Agency said 183 were injured in the clashes, citing health officials.

Protesters set military vehicles on fire as soldiers fired into the air to disperse the Coptic Christians, who were protesting the demolition of a church in Aswan, Egypt, last week, Al Jazeera reported...

...Coptic Christians are the largest religious minority in the Middle East and account for about 9 percent of Egypt’s population of more than 80 million people, according to The World Factbook published by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency...