OPEC has been exceeding its quota for months and cannot easily raise production without cutting into global spare capacity. Recent attrition in old fields has largely offset new capacity. Libyan oil production has fallen by 1,000,000 bpd so far, with world production at 88,000,000 bpd. When supply is tight, oil prices hinge on spare capacity. Libyan losses have cut that capacity by 1/3. Plans for new Libyan production have stopped.
The editor of Petroleum Review said, "We cling to the comfort blanket that spare capacity exists, but it is mostly fictional, or inoperable. If you take 2m bpd off the figure, the whole dynamic of global oil supply changes."
What there was of Middle Eastern political order has disintegrated in the last month.
The world's economic fate now hangs on the success of Wahabi repression. Any sign that the Saudis are losing their grip risks an oil shock large enough to derail the global recovery. Global recovery is itself a mirage.
#1
Personally, I'm more concerned about whether our OWG-NWO Oil-Gas, etc. Perts are right, or wrong, in their Math as per World Oil-Gas, Minerals, etc. Reserves 2040-2070.
RENSE > [Telegraph.UK]WHY OIL [+ Muslim Middle East] IS SO IMPORTANT TO CHINA?, i.e. competing wid other World Powers for a steadily-diminishing supply of [Cheap?]oil.
ARTIC:
> RUSSIA may run out by circa 2020.
> NIGERIA + Other AFRICAN PRODUCERS = circa 2025?
Despite its Trubles + Radical Islamism, the MUSLIM MIDDLE EAST + PERSIAN GULF remains the most likely reliable source in LT for supplying AMBITIOUS RISING CHINA WID VITAL GLOBAL SUPERPOWER-VITAL ENERGY.
In addition, CHINA'S AMBITIONS + END OF CHEAP OIL = DECLINING OIL SUPPLY > means that, at some time = point in the future, THERE MAY NOT BE ANY ROOM TO SHARE DECLINING OIL = ENERGY SUPPLY WID OTHER MAJOR NATIONS???
[BP DEEPWATER HORIZON,+ "In the End, there can only be One" = HIGHLANDER Movies here].
Staff editorial in the Washington Times, not some little blog somewhere. Even though the liberal Washington elite don't read that other newspaper, they'll hear about it.
#1
"Our novice commander in chief has learned the valuable lesson that talking about being president, at which Mr. Obama was so adept, is a far cry from actually being president, at which he clearly is not."
Yee-ouch! That's gonna leave a mark. :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/09/2011 22:46 Comments ||
Top||
Katrina/Rita FEMA Trailers: Are They Safe or Environmental Time Bombs? Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and the Federal Workforce. Online Privacy, Social Networking, and Crime Victimization. The State of U.S. Coins and Currency. Diversity and the Department of Homeland Security: Continuing Challenges and New Opportunities. Civil Rights Services and Diversity Initiatives in the Coast Guard. Protecting Animal and Public Health: Homeland Security and the Federal Veterinarian Workforce. The Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing Enforcement Act of 2009. Tribal Police Recruitment, Hiring, Training, and Retention at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Organized Retail Crime.
These are some of the topics about which the sundry homeland-security committees and subcommittees of the Democrat-controlled 111th Congress saw fit to hold hearings. The list drastically underrepresents the number of panels concerned with post-Katrina self-flagellation and the ever-impending influenza epidemic, obsessions that suggest DHSs top security priorities are protecting citizens from family orthomyxoviridae and low-pressure systems of uncommon size. And those hearings in the 111th that did focus on man-caused disasters were concerned primarily with overreacting to the Deepwater Horizon spill and the missing the point of the fizzled Christmas Day attack (grope-a-dope, anyone?).
[Dawn] THE fire the PPP tried to fight by starving it of the oxygen of publicity and public debate has just consumed another one of its own. In three years, the party has lost its iconic leader, a provincial governor and a federal minister.
And still, nothing.
Fretting about Shahbaz Bhatti`s security, arguing over how best to mark his death in the National Assembly (believe it or not, the two minutes of silence in the NA was a compromise -- no one dared lead a prayer for a man sentenced to death by turbans), turning on one another out of fear and paranoia that they may be next.
But Rehman Malik isn`t the problem. Babar Awan isn`t the problem. Even Asif Zardari isn`t the problem.
The problem is that the PPP has collectively lost its way. It is fighting yesterday`s battles.
This government`s raison d`être has come down to the narrowest of interpretations of government: completing its term.
Once upon a time, the single-point agenda may have made sense. If it were, say, the `90s, just surviving a full term may have helped stem the rot. Back then, society and state were not in freefall. A government completing its term may have helped bring much-needed political stability, back then the first step towards nudging the country on to a better trajectory.
But this isn`t the `90s. We`re no longer on a desultory trajectory, the goofy country trying to feel its way towards a better future.
The problem for the PPP, or at least those inside the party trying to coax its leaders to take more aggressive stands on some issues, is that there is a powerful argument against anything but the narrowest of governance agendas: the liquidation of Benazir Bhutto.
The blinding pace of events since her liquidation -- elections, insurgencies, terrorism in cities, Afghanistan, Mumbai, judicial crises, the list goes on -- has obscured the fact that the party is still in a state of paralysis, ruled by a regent, waiting for its boy king, unsure of what the future holds.
For this, part of the blame must fall on BB. Like most leaders in politically unstable countries, hers was a one-person show. BB had minions around her, not a genuine second-tier leadership with political capital and standing of its own.
So when she was brutally struck down, gone with her was the vision for the party, what it stood for, how it could evolve to meet new challenges. There was no, in corporate parlance, `business continuity plan`; there was just a Bhutto continuity plan.
Paralysed, frozen, frightened and paranoid, the group that has coalesced around Asif Zardari has searched for answers to their predicament -- but by looking backwards to what they think BB would have done.
If you can set aside the deepest of suspicions about their motives and intentions, the political approach of Asif Zardari & co is likely to have been shaped by four things: the Zia experience; the decade of democracy; exile under Musharraf; and the negotiations with Musharraf that culminated in the infamous NRO.
Out, in, out, in -- if you were thinking about how to get in and stay in, the only untested strategy? Complete a term.
Never been done before. Everyone says it`s a good idea. And, perhaps most importantly, in a politics of severe constraints and limitations, one of the few things a politician can genuinely try and achieve.
Complete a term. That`s probably what BB was thinking. And that`s probably where Zardari got the idea from.
But there was a fifth period which also shaped BB`s thinking, a period that was tragically too brief and came too late to filter through to the leaders running the PPP today.
It was the period between Oct 18 and Dec 27 in 2007. Between the two devastating attacks, the bombing in Bloody Karachi which was meant to kill her and the attack in Pindi which did.
By all accounts, BB was a changed woman in those 10 weeks. She seemed to have understood that the game had moved on, that it was no longer just about elections and completing terms and politics of survival.
Pakistain had changed in the decade she was away. What were once distant warnings about inevitable consequences of myopic policies had turned into flesh and blood, stalking the country for prey, seeking to grow its numbers.
BB seemed to grasp the new reality of Pakistain in her final weeks. It meant pressing on, reaching out to reassure a frightened public, dispensing with the policies of appeasement.
For sure, everything we know of those final weeks of her life suggests she also felt afraid. But she didn`t let that fear overwhelm her.
In all the wild conspiracies surrounding her death, one fact remains unchallenged. When she appeared out of that sunroof, there was an element of the visceral in her act. The leader of the largest political party in the country was reaching out to her people. There was a bond that tied leader to ordinary man and BB knew it had to be sustained.
Now, today, with Shahbaz Bhatti dead, with Salman Taseer buried, with BB herself gone, perhaps Asif Zardari and his lieutenants need to focus on the last weeks of BB`s life.
Yes, a full term for a government would be unprecedented. Yes, it would help the democratic project. Yes, Pakistain`s democracy needs strengthening.
But that alone is no longer adequate. BB understood that in her last weeks. Retreat, withdrawal, appeasement, they are no longer options. The cancer has spread too far and wide.
BB is no more with us. But Asif Zardari and the PPP can help ensure her final, pivotal, realisations were not laid to rest with her.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/09/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
"...Retreat, withdrawal, appeasement, they are no longer options. The cancer has spread too far and wide."
They don't say what is being appeased or what the cancer is.
The reason is the the Newspaper is too frightened of Islam to do so. This is Islamophobia and btw, anyone who isn't Islamophobic isn't dealing with reality.
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
03/09/2011 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This is Islamophobia and btw, anyone who isn't Islamophobic isn't dealing with reality.
Well said, Lord Garth, and a truly important point.
The Muslim Brotherhood used the protests in Cairo as an avenue for weakening Hosni Mubarak and forcing his ouster. Likewise, Al Qaeda in Iraq, its affiliates, and even some Sadrists have a continuing interest in fomenting unrest and instability in Iraq to embarrass Malaki, the Iraqi Army, and the Iraqi Police. Their goal remains to crack the government of Iraq to either introduce an Islamic dictatorship or to incite a civil war.
Yet, rather than being concerned the exploitation of the Arab street by the Islamists, the mainstream media wrings their hands about the government's response to recent Iraqi protests. A front page headline in the Washington Post on Mar. 4 screamed, "Activists Under Attack in Iraq." The article describes unnamed witnesses who reported that Iraqi Security Forces "attacked protestors, rounded up others from cafes and homes and hauled them off, blindfolded, to army detention centers," without providing any numbers or examples of who, what, where, or when said protestors were detained. Meanwhile, the New York Times bemoaned the, "growing concerns that Mr.Maliki's American-backed government is using force and other measures to stifle dissent."
The Iraqi government is trying to protect the fragile stability it has earned. It is not as if we're talking about a jack-booted self-appointed thugocracy gassing and firing upon peaceful demonstrators. This is a democratically elected coalition government that is worried about insurgents using well-meaning demonstrations for reform as a vessel to deliver chaos.
Therefore, the concern over heavy-handed tactics by Iraqi authorities is misplaced. Iraqi officials should be true to their word in allowing peaceful demonstrations, but it is within the government's purview to regulate the time and place of demonstrations. Restricting vehicle traffic, maintaining already existing curfews, and requiring permits are common sense steps. Riot control measures like using shields, blockades, batons, water cannons, and yes, even small arms fire, may become necessary in situations where protestors physically assault government officials and attempt to seize government buildings.
The security measures are also about showing that the government of Iraq has the wherewithal to manage security. It is a positive signal that Iraqi Security Forces have been able to maintain public order during protests without the direct involvement of any U.S. Forces. It's a signal to future agitators that they are unlikely to succeed in toppling the government.
Suppose that Malaki took no security precautions and let tens of thousands of demonstrators pour into the streets. In the best case scenario, the demonstration would remain peaceful and calm. However, a strong potential exists for 1) violence and damage to government facilities, 2) sectarian violence among the crowds, 3) the discrediting of the Iraqi government. The violence could spin out of control, which would make the government of Iraq look even weaker. The Washington Post and New York times would be off to the presses with the Iraqi government's obituary.
The most logical course of action is for Malaki and his forces to stand firm. The sanctimonious jerks in the mainstream media should stand down.
Posted by: American Delight ||
03/09/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
[Asharq al-Aswat] Previously, the Iran's diminutive PresidentMahmoud Short Round Ahmadinejad had said -- as quoted by "Fars" news agency -- that "the media should not be considered a means of communicating information, but rather it serves long term goals at the political level".
Interestingly, Ayman al-Zawahiri, ... Second in command of al-Qaeda, occasionally described as the real brains of the outfit. Formerly the Mister Big of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Bumped off Abdullah Azzam with a car boom in the course of one of their little disputes. Is thought to have composed bin Laden's fatwa entitled World Islamic Front Against Jews and Crusaders. Currently residing in the North Wazoo area. That is not a horn growing from the middle of his forehead, but a prayer bump, attesting to how devout he is... al-Qaeda second-in-command, and President Ahmadinejad, share the same view on this subject. Al-Zawahiri had previously said that more than half of Al Qaeda's battle was taking place in the media realm! Today we can notice the reality [of the media being used as a political tool], with the proliferation of attempts to misinform Saudis, through a specifically designed system of information. When the Council of Senior Scholars in Soddy Arabia reaffirmed in a statement that it was forbidden to incite sedition and unrest in the country, the Iranian media emerged, citing previous fatwas belonging Sunni scholars to refute the Saudi scholars' decree. This move came in conjunction with increased instances of misinformation found in the Iranian media, albeit in the Arabic language.
These days, Iran is also attempting to undermine the Saudis with regards to another issue, away from the subject of protests, and specifically focusing on petroleum. Iran wants to take advantage of the Libyan crisis that has led to significant increases in oil prices, not to mention the global tremors taking place in the oil markets. Iran wants to compensate for the losses it has incurred due to the economic sanctions imposed on it by the West, and develop its revenue as a result. Therefore, Tehran opposes the idea of increasing [oil] production and maintaining stable oil prices, whilst Soddy Arabia seeks to do the opposite. Because Soddy Arabia is trying hard to support the stability of oil markets, as the country is well aware of the consequences of high oil prices, which, if they were exaggerated, would be disastrous for everyone, whether the producer or the consumer. Riyadh is aware that an exaggerated rise in oil prices may actually lead to the collapse of states, rather than markets. This is of course a battle that is being conducted out of sight [between Iran and Soddy Arabia], and few are aware of its existence.
There is also another story that has preoccupied the Saudis, this time coming from a British newspaper, and perhaps with the help of some of Iran's allies in our region. An article was recently published claiming that [U.S. President] Obama had asked the Saudis to arm Libyan rebels against Muammar Qadaffy. The article added that Soddy Arabia was yet to respond to the request, but stressed that the Saudis abhor the Qadaffy regime, which once plotted to assassinate King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, when he was the Crown Prince. Is this [U.S. move] conceivable? Of course not, especially as Obama himself announced yesterday that NATO was considering military options against Libya, just as the White House announced that it would be out of the question to arm the Libyan rebels, so how could America secretly ask the Saudis to do so?
Clearly, such news as a whole is preoccupying Soddy Arabia, and bringing it into the eye of the Libyan storm, by saying that the Kingdom is interfering in Libya, or saying that Riyadh is colluding with the United States against another Arab country. As I said, this is a clear attempt to preoccupy and misinform the Saudis at this particular time. But the question here is: why are these masters of misinformation unwilling to reveal to us, for example, the content of a phone call which Qadaffy recently made to another Arab leader, especially since this was Qadaffy's last contact with an Arab leader?
Posted by: Fred ||
03/09/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
When the first OPEC oil shock hit the U.S. in 1973, President Nixon encouraged Americans as a voluntary gas-saving measure to drive 55 mph on the interstate. Not long after, the infamous "double nickel" became mandatory as Congress made states choose between adopting the lower speed limit and losing millions in federal aid. For two decades, most Americans voted with their gas pedals and flagrantly ignored the federal speed limit. It had become the least respected law since Prohibition by the time President Clinton repealed it in December 1995.
Now, as we learn more about Obamacare, the odds are good that it will ultimately rank right down there with Prohibition and the double nickel in public esteem. First, there is the matter of those 1,040 waivers issued by President Obama's secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius. The waivers allow corporations, health insurance providers, nonprofits and unions to cap how much they spend on individual health insurance policyholders in a year. Obamacare makes it illegal for providers to impose such caps after 2014. The common justification among those seeking the waivers is that they cannot afford Obamacare's removal of coverage caps. Why should anybody continue to believe Obama's endlessly repeated claim that Obamacare will reduce health costs as long as his HHS chief issues hundreds of such waivers?
Then there is the parade of unpleasant surprises like this week's discovery of $105 billion secretly tucked away in the law by its authors to fund implementation of Obamacare. Former Oklahoma Rep. Ernest Istook discovered the stash and wrote about it on a Heritage Foundation blog, then Reps. Steve King, R-Iowa, and Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., took up the issue by demanding that Congress rescind that money. "People say, 'Well, what's wrong with you members of Congress, why didn't you know it's there?' It's because we didn't get the bill until literally a couple of hours before we were supposed to vote on it, and it's 2,900 pages long," Bachmann told Fox News. "We're doing everything we can to alert people and to say to Congress, give the money back." No law can command public respect if its authors felt compelled to hide billions of dollars for its implementation.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson got it right by staying his ruling that the law was unconstitutional and directing the Justice Department to request an expedited appeal by Thursday. "The battle lines have been drawn, the relevant case law marshaled, and the legal arguments refined," Vinson wrote in his opinion. He's right, Obamacare should go before the nation's highest tribunal, and the sooner that happens, the better it will be for everybody concerned.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Dawn] THE fire the PPP tried to fight by starving it of the oxygen of publicity and public debate has just consumed another one of its own. In three years, the party has lost its iconic leader, a provincial governor and a federal minister.
Mahmoud 
When the first OPEC oil shock hit the U.S. in 1973, President Nixon encouraged Americans as a voluntary gas-saving measure to drive 55 mph on the interstate. Not long after, the infamous "double nickel" became mandatory as Congress made states choose between adopting the lower speed limit and losing millions in federal aid. For two decades, most Americans voted with their gas pedals and flagrantly ignored the federal speed limit. It had become the least respected law since Prohibition by the time President Clinton repealed it in December 1995.
