by Pepe Escobar for RT
Relying on these Oil Analysts (OA) does not necessarily mean you will be handed straightforward answers, but perhaps with some luck you will see a ray of light.
Saudi Arabia is saying that they are raising oil production to 12 million barrels a day. That’s highly debatable. Russia is saying that they can raise oil production to 13 million barrels a day. OA1 cuts to the chase: “Both are bluffing. Prices are still rising. That means no one believes them.”
OA2 kicks in, reminding that, “oil price is holding because of the 1.5 million barrels a day pulled off the market by a strike in Kuwait of about 10,000 workers. That cut their 3 million barrels a day production in half. Now they are going back to work. Yet the price of oil is still rising.”
I had explained before how the oil price was holding over $40.00 a barrel even with concerted Washington pressure over Saudi Arabia to keep it down. Then, OA3 had told me: “that’s because oil demand and supply is tightening.”
But then OA4 came up with a totally different outlook; the whole thing was about ‘The Big Long’, upon which I based my prediction of $45/$50 per barrel when I was in Tehran in November 2011 and the price was approaching $100 a barrel. The Saudis have been supporting the price and while they have plenty of capital to do so at high prices, storage is finite. Aligning with this, OA4 added that: “the market is about to crash, and is only being supported by the financial positions of the Saudi/GCC support operation, now unwinding.”
OA5, predictably, could not agree that the Saudis are supporting the market and about to let it collapse. He elaborated on how “hard it is to predict day-to-day prices. The only way you can know what is happening is to watch by satellite or surface observation the tankers coming out of each exporter, assume they are full, check their names to look up their capacity, and then add up what is leaving each exporter. What they say otherwise means nothing. There are services that do this that cost about $300,000 a year.”
OA6 kicked in with some perspective, explaining what happened in the middle of 2014: “The oil price started to crash with no visible increase in production. The deduction had to be that the surplus in the Gulf – which was the only place where there was a surplus – was being dumped in the market by the Gulf States, under orders from Washington. And this fit geopolitically with the uprising in Kiev as a replay of Afghanistan.”
If there is a consensus amongst most OAs, it is that Saudi Arabia is hurting. OA7 says he’s been “watching the markets, and a lot of this static comes from Iran trying to break into the market. The Gulf States are trying to prevent that as much as possible and trying to cut Iran’s throat.
However, I do not see overall that the situation is deteriorating. Such a severe drop in price restrains production. The amount of excess was not more than about 5 percent of the market; not 20 per cent, as in 1985. It has to be tight now based on macro-logic and that is why a famous Goldman Sachs former trader who picked the collapse is not massively buying.”
Still confused? You should be. Because now another variable kicks in – the rise of US gasoline demand. OA8 has a fine take on the matter: “I was expecting this in the second quarter, not now. We should be over fifty to sixty dollars a barrel then. Fundamentals always prevail in the end.”
The $2 trillion game
So a credible scenario seems to be a world not exactly awash in crude oil, and with the price of a barrel going up soon. And right at this juncture we find China’s CNPC making a play to become a major shareholder of Rosneft – Russia’s top oil producer, which plans to sell 19.5 percent of its shares.
Predictably, US analysts don’t seem to understand why Rosneft may become a top Russia/Chinese-owned corporation. This has nothing to do with selling oil assets when prices are down; Rosneft shares are doing fine, by the way. It’s about the energy/financial consolidation of the Russia-China strategic partnership – from Pipelineistan (those massive, $300 billion gas deals clinched in 2014) to the close connection of Moscow and Shanghai stock exchanges. Translation: all these sophisticated moves further bypass the US dollar.
Oil, in this complex equation, is just one component. For instance, the Ministry of Economic Development in Moscow works with two basic hypotheses: best case at $40 a barrel, and worst case at $25 a barrel. It is duly preparing for both.
And now comes what could be a potential game-changer: the House of Saud’s “vision” for a post-oil economy.
These are the basics, as announced by Warrior Prince Mohammed bin Salman, 30, the conductor of the – illegal – war on Yemen that is overflowing with “collateral damage”. Saudi Arabia’s power stems from its possession of Mecca and Medina, and geostrategic “Arab and Muslim depth”; it’s central to global trade, with 30 percent passing through the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf; and the future lies in the creation of a $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund, coming from the sale of 5 percent of shares in Aramco, the number one oil company on the planet.
Riyadh, we got a problem. Assuming that Aramco’s partial IPO will yield that astonishing $2 trillion, and these funds are invested all across the West, Saudi Arabia could collect around $100 billion a year. Not much; in fact, only 1/6 of Saudi Arabia’s GDP in 2015 ($653 billion, of which 70 percent come from oil exports). In a nutshell: this plan will not deliver Saudi Arabia a viable post-oil economy.
As if this was not enough, the oil hacienda is currently invested in two expensive wars – in Yemen (directly) and Syria (indirectly). Crucial: the Warrior Prince de facto conducts both. Moreover, the House of Saud will continue to buy spectacularly costly weapons from the usual suspects – the US, UK and France – like there’s no tomorrow.
Back to our OAs. OA8 says that the Saudis under the Warrior Prince made a major mistake: “They have now antagonized the Russians and the Americans. Brennan wants their blood no matter what he says as he thinks of them as terrorists. Also, he believes that they have nuclear tipped missiles from Pakistan. The US cannot reconcile themselves to this.”
Moscow, on the other hand, wants friendly relations with Riyadh, but there’s a perception Russia was betrayed at Doha (cutting oil production was a done deal until the Warrior Prince scuttled it on the very day of the signing.)
Which brings us to OA9: “The self-inflicted wound of cutting the oil price by the Saudis for market share is foolish. The time now is to conserve oil and refrain from selling it, awaiting the tripling of the Chinese economy with the Belt and Road plan. Demand in five or ten years would be massive and oil will be then near $200 a barrel.”
So, in the end, our oil thriller will be all about China; Beijing will need to buy all the energy it needs to pursue the completion of the New Silk Roads. Meanwhile, the House of Saud faces a stark choice. Its “post-oil economy” plan will fail, as others before failed. The Warrior Prince must decide which of the superpowers to ally with. If he thinks he can pull it off all by himself, there’s a cab driver gig waiting for him in London. If he can make it to Heathrow in one piece.
Pepe Escobar is great! “No one knows anything” about sums it up…..
Shouldn’t be really “nobody knows nothing no more”?
If so… “somebody knew something until”.
Chinese government is smarter than most of the analysts can think of. China has entered into long-term Energy Partnership with Russia (sourcing along with equity stake in organisations involved in exploration-refining-transportation) through which (at least one-third of requirements of) Oil and Gas will flow uninterrupted during coming decades … Then there are existing suppliers in central Asian ‘stan’s and Iran, which will supply majority of the unfulfilled requirement. Finally, sourcing from Saudi Salafists will, albeit continue, till the patience of Chinese government reach breaking point – the Salafist groups are dead serious to convert Xinjiang into a bloody Jihadi spot. Chinese government surely will not relish the fact that, their money is being channeled into secessionist movement in their own country !
This, “US analysts don’t seem to understand why Rosneft may become a top Russia/Chinese-owned corporation. This has nothing to do with selling oil assets when prices are down; Rosneft shares are doing fine, by the way. It’s about the energy/financial consolidation of the Russia-China strategic partnership – from Pipelineistan (those massive, $300 billion gas deals clinched in 2014) to the close connection of Moscow and Shanghai stock exchanges. Translation: all these sophisticated moves further bypass the US dollar.” is key.
Focus your attention on the on-going and accelerating energy and financial consolidation of the Russia-China strategic partnership. This bypasses the US and the UK. It also bypasses Europe. In the case of Europe, the later Europeans realise the advantages of the Makinder World Island and join the Silk Road, the worse their condition, the weaker their economies and culture, the more inferior their bargaining position, the worse their ability to trade…
As for oil, I am most suspicious of the $200.00 per barrel figure. Oil is common. Technology continues to yield improvement in extraction. Further, China, Russia, India and Iran are researching thorium cycle nuclear reactors (with the liquid salt version seeming to have the most potential). My understanding is that China is the most advanced in liquid salt reactors. This is going to compete with both coal and oil.
A wise man stated, “The solution to high prices is high prices.” Expect that if oil were to get anywhere near $200.00 that would stimulate alternatives which would come to market withe the result of overall energy prices soon declining.
In summary, this was an interesting article by Pepe Escobar. It represents yet another confirmation that the present order of arrangements is coming to an end and that there are going to be significant changes. We do indeed live in interesting times.
Siotu
Hey, The World Island is the World Island and its heart is the Heartland. Its arteries are the pipes and the veins the railways.
Hi WizOz
Please elaborate. I am interested to learn more.
Siotu
Well, it’s all about Geopolitics. the formulas belong to the ‘father’ of Geopolitics Halford Mackinder.
In 1904 he submitted to the Royal Geographical Society of England the article “The Geographical Pivot of History” in which he advanced his Heartland Theory. I recommend to look in Wikipedia under the entries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halford_Mackinder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
https://www.sott.net/article/276668-Geopolitics-of-Empire-Mackinders-Heartland-Theory-and-the-Containment-of-Russia
Hi W
Thanks for the links. They are interesting. I knew about Mackinder and the World Island, but I am still interested to see what WizOz was getting at. I had hoped he had a few ideas or insights to share.
Regards
Siotu
I was just a bit ‘poetical’. Anyhow, I am convinced that the process of Eurasian integration is inevitable and all attempts short of nuclear devastation, to stop it will fail.
Yes.
The electric cars are coming.
OA10 here. Climate changers tell us that a third of oil and gas will have to be left underground to meet targets already agreed. Saudi claims to have 90 years of reserves Venezuela claims more (though doubts are expressed about both).
Whatever – the prospects for renewables, fission & fusion in an electric, not diesel world, look good, and we can imagine a time when oil & gas is no longer sources of energy, just abundant feedstocks for the chemical industry.
So suppose it is 2050 – and the only use of oil is as a lubricant. What are the Saudis going to do with all that oil. Suppose OA9 got it wrong and instead of massive future demand we get alternative energy.
The smart crown prince would try to get his oil sold before anyone elses (and especially before Venezuela becomes an investible alternative). Triple the market share of oil sales – even if it halves the market price. Get the stuff sold in 30 years not 90. (And the current rally is just a Dead Cat Bounce after a massive drawn out fall in prices.
OA10 is aware that no one gets the oil market right. But at least this is a theory that predicts current events. And for the conspiracy theorists we have the mess that the US is trying to create in Venezuela and Brazil, countries who have the oil that they want to stay underground.
Michael D
“Climate changers tell us that a third of oil and gas will have to be left underground to meet targets already agreed.”
No-one knows how much oil and gas there is. Anyone talking about how a third will remain unexploited is telling big porkies built upon even bigger furphies. Anyway, hydrocarbon fuels are going to remain with us for a very long time to come. With the advent of energy, from sources like thorium, the prices will be reduced, true. Nevertheless the physical properties of those fuels, as well as their affordability and utility, will keep them in the energy mix well into the long future.
In regards to the “targets already agreed” the questions are: Agreed by whom? Will those who did the agreeing still be in a position to agree with those targets, let alone act? Fact is, they are doing much talking and nodding at each other and that’s about the extent of it. Change is coming and it isn’t going to be kind to existing arrangements, those of the talkers and noddies included.
Apart from the toxic scientism and lies they are all based upon, the agreements themselves are silly. Read them! Among other nonsenses they are an attempt to establish a world-wide taxation regime beholden to a central authority. Meanwhile everyone knows that they are not enforceable the moment that particular interests and national groups are placed at economic disadvantage by them. With the development of a multi-polar economic system, the possibility of enforceability declines even further. After all, we have had the regime of the oil-dollar fix, why would anyone want a regime of a carbon-dollar fix (talkers and noddies aside)?
I think it was de Gaulle who said, “Treaties are like roses and young girls. They last while they last.” These ones won’t.
Siotu
I hate that “we don’t know the numbers so we can’t say anything approach”.
And the Saudis certainly have a good idea of how much oil they have – even if we can’t trust what they say.
Do you really think that we will run out of oil before climate change forces us to stop using it?
Seriously?
And sure I agree that current climate change treaties aren’t going to work – but the ones in 20 or 30 years time surely will work. It isn’t diplomacy driving this – it is real and visible climate change.
Does anyone really think we will be driving oil driven land vehicles and running our mains electricity and heating on oil and gain 2050?
Clearly not.
So an oil seller with abundant cheap oil has to sell almost all he has before 2050 – which for Saudi might mean doubling or tripling current sales – who needs to see the estimates to know the market effect?
Michael D
You write, “I hate that “we don’t know the numbers so we can’t say anything approach”.”
That’s not what I argue. My position is that if you do not know something, then you do not know it. In that situation it is invalid to make fantastic assertions. In this particular case those shills screaming that a third of the oil must be left unexploited are behaving in delusional fashion. They do not even know how much there is. No-one does.
An aside. Some forty years ago when I departed school and was free to begin traveling about to see the world I was told that there was only enough oil to last for 30 years at then current consumption rate. Ten years later there was still only enough for 30 years. That was odd since ten years had passed. Surely there was only 20 years oil reserve remaining. A further ten years on and there was still enough oil for a further 30 years. This was double odd since now twenty years had passed and the rate of consumption was increasing. Surely there was only ten years left and something had to be done. A further ten years on and there was STILL said to be another 30 years of oil available. By that point annual oil consumption was even higher than before. So much for running out. Remember that by that time the original predictions asserted that the oil wells would be pumping dust! Yet they were gushing oil out at a prodigious rate and there was still…………. 30 years! So much for these sorts of predictions. They just do not know how much. (There is a reason for the magical 30 years number though, but it isn’t to do with running out.)
You write, “And the Saudis certainly have a good idea of how much oil they have – even if we can’t trust what they say.”
They don’t really know. They, like everyone else, are guessing.
You write, “Do you really think that we will run out of oil before climate change forces us to stop using it?”
I do not think mankind will run out of oil.
Did you notice the assumptions in the question though? Climate change. Force.
Now what is climate change supposed to be? Is it climate variability? Is it the mythological anthropogenic global warming? How can it force anyone to do anything (like stop consumption of oil)? Or is it that certain authorities are going to use it as an excuse to impose yet more coercion and force upon other people? What is the occurrence is it exactly that you are expecting to experience? What is the force you are referring to (because it isn’t climate)?
Seriously, all this sky is falling nonsense is silly. It is a classic example of scientism and it is a fraud. It would be funny to watch the parade of delusional silly people blundering about the show blurting out mindless assertions making fools of themselves if it were not for the fact that their idiocy is creating impoverishment all over the world. The trouble is that this rich man’s hobby horse is absolutely killing the poor, the workers, the coloured and all those minorities of us that never get seen on the TV… Guess we are not photogenic enough or wealthy enough or influential enough for our welfare or interests to matter.
You write, “it is real and visible climate change.”
Really? The climate varies. It always has and it always will. Now, if you are talking about anthropogenic global warming, know there is absolutely no real evidence to support the theory for it. Even if there were such evidence, there is a chain of proofs you’d need to make to arrive at the conclusion that anything needs to be done about it anyway. No-one (and I mean no-one) has made ANY of those proofs.
Another aside. When I was at school, decades ago, we were informed that the emissions of CO2 made by industrial man was about to cause global cooling and a man-made ice age would soon be upon us. By the year 2000 the Earth’s temperature would be well on the way towards the ice age. We of the Pacific could expect that there would be many climate refugees swarming to our poor islands. How awful. Many of the “scientists” (shills would be a better descriptor) who promoted this are still influential and some are still active. Oddly, they now spread a slightly different message of impending man-made global climate doom.
The year 2000 came and went, not so long back. We are still waiting for the ice age that we were instructed to prepare for. Can you imagine, though, what would have happened if we had prepared for this non-existent threat? Emergency housing for all the climate refugees would have been built. This would have been a huge project. There would have been new power stations installed near home (for the extra power for heating for all the new houses and apartment buildings). We’d have needed more port facilities, hospitals, schools etc etc etc. There would have been a need to develop new local food supply infrastructure and processes (hence new crops and so forth). And all of this would have to have needed to be done while reducing or eliminating the use of oil based fuels… Now pause here for a moment and consider the costs to undertake all that. All that useless preparation. All the useless consumption of wealth and resources. That would have been crippling. It would have led to penury and even to perdition. Lucky no-one took any of the climate change age stuff seriously then.
What is interesting though is that a decade and a half later the same message of man-made climate change danger reappeared. It was resurrected. This time though there was a slight modification. The new deal was that the climate was getting hotter. It wasn’t a man-made ice age any more, now it was a man-made global warming. The islands would be flooded by rising sea level. Apart from that all the rest of the deal was exactly the same- imposition of taxes, regulation, restriction, control and so forth. All exactly the same as the first time around.
This time, the story we were expected to swallow was that rising sea levels would overwhelm us and by 2000 many of the islands would be flooded. Year 2000 came and went and the climate has remained as it was. We were not flooded or underwater. We were not experiencing an ice age either.
The sky did not fall.
You write, “Does anyone really think we will be driving oil driven land vehicles and running our mains electricity and heating on oil and gain 2050?”
Very likely that oil will remain a component of the energy scene in 2050, predominantly in transportation but likely in other sectors also. So, yes. I’m expecting it. Tell me Michael, what mix are you predicting for energy for aircraft prime movers, truck prime movers, passenger car prime movers etc?
You write, “So an oil seller with abundant cheap oil has to sell almost all he has before 2050….”
Yes and no. It depends on what his time preferences are. Is it worth more to him to have the money now or in the future? Is it likely the oil will be worth substantially more in the future than presently? Can he derive more value by waiting to sell his oil and getting his money in the future? Alternatively can he derive more value by getting the oil sold now to get the money as fast as possible so he can invest in sectors which will provide him higher return? What are his expectations of future conditions as compared to the present?
In the case of the Saudi rulers the suspicion must be that they need to get the money right away. They have a deficit presently and started borrowing, hence getting into debt. The oil-dollar arrangement is steadily being undermined. They must realise this. There is significant unrest right throughout their locale. There are plenty of men of violence about and many of them are not loyal friends to the House of Saud. There are new suppliers of oil appearing (or in the case of Iran, reappearing). There are new technologies for oil extraction (fracking for one) and oil precursors which are being developed (peat, tar sands, etc). There are new energy sources in preparation for deployment (thorium, for example). Finally, for them the future is very unclear, save the knowledge that it portends great changes. Probably a good idea to take the money right now (and salt some of it away).
BTW did you notice oil is up again presently? It dumped from well over $140 down to the high $30s, a great short for the retirement fund to ride all the way down! It went as low as $29 in some deals but has now bounced back up to the high $40s again. I wonder whether it is going higher yet again. It is certainly possible. Game on, but not for more shorts. Probably a good time to consider going after precious metals for the superann fund though. The Chinese and Russian central banks seem to be hinting something is up…
Siotu
Siotu
“toxic scientism and lies”?
First of all, on matters of science, science is the method of choice, and it is anti-science is toxic. Are you saying climate is not a matter for scientific study?
And, secondly, are the earth sciences the only ones where you feel able to second-guess the scientific community?
And, thirdly, what lies?
Alex
“Are you saying climate is not a matter for scientific study?”
No. I did not state that. Why did you generate that idea?
By the way, please define this “scientific community” to which you refer.
Word of friendly advice. Your smears are noted. It is recommended you refrain from playing the man rather than addressing the issue at examination.
E pala ma’a, ‘ae le pala ‘upu.
Siotu
Siotu, I love snappy one liners! Can you translate…I’m not even sure what language it is!
On fake science or “scientism” I am in full agreement with you.
A study of the career of Stephen Schneider is most instructive in that regard. The Stanford “Science” prof who went from Nuclear Winter to Global Warming specialist without missing a beat: “Follow the grant money!” pseudo science.
Tried to get link documentation on him, but found this instead:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf
This article analyzes real science, fake science, and these short sentences early on in the article point to the motivation and the prostitution of science in order to “get the grant money”:
“This was probably the main aim of this clearly political paper, prepared by governmental and United Nations bureaucrats, and published more than three months before the IPCC’s 1,600-page scientific report, which is to be released in May. In the words of the IPCC, this delay is needed for adjustment of the main text, so that “Changes . . . [could be] made to ensure consistency with the ‘Summary for Policymakers.’ ” Not a single word in these 1,600 pages is
to be in conflict with what politicians said beforehand in the summary! This is a strange and unusual method of operation for a scientific report, and even stranger is the frankness of the IPCC’s words about the delay, disclosing its lack of scientific integrity and independence. It is exactly the same modus operandi demonstrated in the three former IPCC reports of 1990, 1995,
and 2001: First the politics, then the science.”
Hello Bro Anon
The Samoan “E pala ma’a, ‘ae le pala ‘upu” translates as, even the rocks themselves do wear away, while the words will endure. It refers to the power of what you say (or write) to have lasting effect, especially if insulting and the insult is taken. In English language you might say something like “take care with what you say, lest your words insult and be not forgotten for an extended period of time.” Basically a warning not to carelessly insult people.
Thanks for the link. I’ll go there this evening and take a read.
You are correct about scientism and the grant seeking mentality that accompanies it. We used to call it tax looting. It is absolutely amazing how many robed and hooded “academics” whore themselves for cash and title. It brings to mind the comment of a colleague. He asked, “There are 775 academics at this institution conference today. If you laid them all down on the ground head to foot, what would the distance be?” The answer was, “About three metres since they can’t even lie straight.” These are people whose dishonesty & utter lack of integrity is so complete that their pretense to science is THE great insult to honest scientific enquiry and to human decency.
The IPCC “adjustment to the main text” is an example of the commission of fraud. Interesting that they actually check through all 1,600 pages these days. That’s new. In previous iterations they’d just collect the all the work, add the Summary for Policymakers and publish the lot, body unchanged. There was some considerable embarrassment whenever it was revealed that the Summary was contradicted by much of the body. The corruption of the whole IPCC show had the result that many of the world’s leading climatologists refused to continue making submission to the IPCC. It was seen for what it is, a cover to smuggle in a particular political agenda. As a relative said to me a few years back, “This aint science. It’s UNscience.”
Siotu
Thanks, Siotu.
I am a novice in esoteric studies of ancient and modern cultures, but I am going to stick my neck out a mile at Le Saker (Moveable Feast) Cafe before I turn in here on the Left Coast @ 1 am. It should be closing time for me, but I am going to reverse reality and pretend to be an expert in esoteric knowledge at a Cafe just opening its doors, when soon after pasting my long comment, my eyelids will be closing.
I don’t know whether I will get stunned silence, rotten tomatoes or vibrant discussion. NO idea! But I shall soon plunge into the Unknown, post my comment and hope for sweet sleep, blessed by the Goddess of True Care.
In short, what you and I discuss above is that almost no one seems to “care”, about truth, anymore.
My thesis is that that “death of Care”, death of Love itself (especially love of truth) ain’t no accident, but that it has been symbolically ritually assassinated, and the Goddess herself besides being ambushed, raped and immolated (911) is now slated for eternal slander, fear and hatred, in a far, far more hideous, diabolical and perverse distortion of Natural Law and morality than the climate shenanigans we have discussed here in Pepe’s Corner, in terms of the psychopathic imagination driving all of these horrors, and the extent of horrific mind control being attempted: literally a right brain lobotomy for humanity. Check it out! The April 30 Cafe just opened…………..
I am optimistic that blow back “beyond belief” is a building like a furious hurricane. Or whatever the Wind God is in the Samoan lore. Invoke his or her power and care tonight! Speak it, Siotu!
Siotu
Scientism: “please define”. When used as a derogatory term as here, it is usually taken to mean the excessive application of scientific methods, especially where they are considered by the speaker to be inapplicable.
So, the question is, Why do you think science is not applicable to climate or is being applied excessively?
And what are the “lies”?
It is odd to require a definition of “scientific community”. In this instance we are talking about climate change, so in this instance “the scientists engaged in the study of the climate”,(the ninety whatever per cent who find it highly probable that humankind is contributing to climate change, the few per cent who are sceptical and the zero point whatever who deny it.) It is of course a fuzzy definition, best thought of in institutional terms, like any other use of the term “the scientific community”. The term certainly does not get in the way of you answering the question.
So what makes you think that you can second-guess the scientific community?
Talk of smears is silly. What you say (and it is you who say it, so I have to address my questions to you) conveys that you think the scientific community mistaken in applying science to climate. And that lies have been told.
I merely ask why you say what you say.
Alex
Sadly, your response is not an honest one. Nevertheless, for clarification here are a few comments and recommendations.
The term scientism means the inappropriate employment of scientific method. That does include pretense of the use of the scientific method to promote an non-scientific agenda. For example, adjustment and outright fabrication of research data (both of which are creation and conveyance of falsehood, that is, lies) in order to meet the requirements of the funder of the research (such as a political agency or government) or in order to gain career advantage, money, resource and title & even, most commonly, to attain peer acceptance. Another example is the pretense of use of scientific method to attain respectability for an activity or for a recommendation. Yet another is use of pretense of science for the purposes of gaining an authority. In this particular case we have an example of scientism in that the appearance of use of the scientific method is employed to justify a political agenda.
“It is odd to require definition…..”
No it is not odd to require definition. Your objection to the expectation of a standard of clarity and logic in communication is noted. It is also noted that you were unable to deliver a precise definition for your terminology. We’ll come to that shortly.
Your paragraph contains an interesting assumption. It is worth taking the time to elaborate a little.
In science it does not matter whether all (or a majority) believe a contention. That does not make it fact of reality. The support of the consensus does not it make a contention correct. It may lend the contention the appearance of a scientific truth, but to rely on that appearance as a proof is unscientific. Science does not work by majority. It is not a democracy. Consensus is invalid as a means of doing science and discovering fact of reality. It only takes but one sole individual to demonstrate that the consensus is incorrect by disclosing fact. When the consensus is wrong, it does not matter how many people are in the consensus, they are all, each and every one, wrong. So, in science it is impossible to determine what is correct by a head count.
Conclusion: argument to consensus is not scientific. It can’t be relied on to establish scientific fact. It is invalid.
Lesson: do not use it.
The applicability of the lesson to the assumption inherent in your paragraph is clear. Even if it were correct that 90% of scientists believed in something (or thought it may be “highly probable”), that adds it no scientific validity whatsoever.
Anyway, in the case of man-made climate change it is not correct to pretend that 90% of climate scientists support that it has been established as proven fact of reality. Further, of those who do believe that it has been established as proven fact of reality it would not be correct to state they all hold to the contention that man-made climate change is dangerous threat, let alone one requiring serious action. Consider also that some of the World’s leading climatologists are outspoken, well published on the the climate issue, remaining extremely critical of the so-called consensus in climate science. Look, there is no scientific consensus anyway. There are just far too many competing theories, far too much that is unknown and far too many differing scientific opinions to pretend there really is a consensus at all.
……..which brings us back to just exactly who or what is this “scientific community” you referred to.
In relation to that you write, “It is of course a fuzzy definition, best thought of in institutional terms, like any other use of the term “the scientific community”.”
Fuzzy, eh.
Indeed it is fuzzy.
It is not clear to you to whom it is you refer. As it isn’t clear to you, how can you expect anyone else to understand you? You employed that fuzzy term and yet you can’t define it. What does this demonstrate about your thinking?
Recommendation: If you ask a leading question it would pay to make certain you understand the meaning of your own terminology.
I’ll let you in on this. After many years in research culminating in six years managing research commericalisation at a university and four years prior to that doing same for a private company I can state this “best thought of in institutional terms” “scientific community” you attempt to conjure up is imaginary. Until you can define your terminology, by relating to and identifying something real and existing, it will remain but a product of your own fuzzy imagination. How is anyone outside that imagination supposed to answer queries pertaining to nothing more substantive than the arbitrary product conjured up from that imagination?
In regards to smearing, is it really necessary to explain in detail exactly how the smear operated? Come now. There are more civil ways to address a question than what you did.
Siotu
You are not alone in identifying the troll and the dishonest way to argue, which reveals that his only aim is to clog the comments space and derail discussions.
OTOH, you made me think again about my ‘insights’ into the heart of the Heartland.
Let’s say that the regions around were known from ancient times as being under the constellation of the Ursa Major, the Great Bear, The Big Dipper, “Pei Tou”, the Northern Ladle as the Chinese called it. In actual fact, it is the entire North Circumpolar Region–the region of the sky that is always visible at any time of the year north of the equator and which “rotates” around the current Pole Star, Polaris. The ancient Chinese (even up to the last Emperor) believed that the North Circumpolar Region was the abode of the Imperial court, since the Emperor was the center of their life and ruled the earth, just as Polaris (“Tai I”–the Celestial Monad) governed the course of the heavens. even main stars are the source of the seven primary energies, or Rays, which go toward making up our solar system and all the associated modes of perception within it. The seven stars of the Great Bear were considered by all ancient sages to be the source or distributors of the Will of God for our solar system (and not a few other systems, as well). It was from there that the Emperor received the ‘Mandate of Heaven’ ( tiānmìng; literally: “heaven decree”) to govern well and fairly.
In fact, the same beliefs were proper to what is called Tengrism, the ‘religion’ of the Shamans. Tengri’ or ”Mongke Tengri’ was the Eternal Heaven. Tengriism was the ‘religion’ of the Great Mongol Empire. The original Great Mongol Khans, although they were followers of Tengri and believed to have received a heavenly mandate to rule the world from him, were nonetheless known for their tolerance towards other confessions (that before they fell under Islam).
After the Russian conquest of Siberia, the Russian Emperor came to be seen as taking over the functions of the Khans. Were not Buddhist lamas hailing the Russian Tsars as descended from Sucandra, a legendary king of Shambhala? Aiming at the creation of a Russo-Tibetan-Mongolian federation?
From the European side it was the grand vision of Leibniz that Europe, Russia, and China would form an alliance, based on the infrastructural exploration of these countries, in particular Russia’s Siberia. He considered the idea of the scientific mission in China and Russia as the essential aim of his creations, the Academies of Berlin and Petersburg. Only through the mediation of Russia, would it be possible in the future to tie Europe with China, which would bring both sides, not only political-economic but also spiritual-cultural, mutual benefits. As he wrote in the instruction drafting the Berlin Society of Science: “By this means, Chinese products and news from China would come to Europe, and on the other hand the Christian faith would spread to China and indeed spread through Moscow as the means of communication.” Leibniz found in Peter the Great the man of vision and means to implement these plans.
Is it not symbolic that the new Russian Cosmodrome was built near the Chinese border?
Hi WizOz
Thank you for writing more about the Heartland (a.k.a. the World Island). I’m glad you did as I was curious to learn more. I have been interested to read more about the topic for some time- the more I can find out about it the better.
There is a lot of detail I’d like to find out about next up. For example, the present state of play in regards to building the new infrastructure. Has the building work started and where and how far has it progressed and what is being built first etc. The daily progress of works is not well reported or discussed. It’d be nice to know more about that.
Anyway, you’ve delivered an insight for me to follow up on (particularly the historical aspect). Thanks for doing that.
Cheers
Siotu
@the present state of play in regards to building the new infrastructure
I am not myself too familiar with the details on the ground. Naturally there are enormous but feasible projects, but as a famous saying of the Tao Te Ching puts it: “Action should be taken before a thing has made its appearance; order should be secured before disorder has begun. The tree which fills the arms grew from the tiniest sprout; the tower of nine storeys rose from a (small) heap of earth; the journey of a thousand li commenced with a single step.” (The “tower of nine storeys” is a mythical theme common to China and the folklore of Eastern Europe).
Some indications of the stage of the project @http://www.railway-technology.com/features/featureconnecting-eurasia-mapping-the-myriad-of-high-speed-rail-routes-4593227/
“Moscow-Kazan: Russia’s first high-speed railway:
Russia is on track to build the first true high-speed railway line in its territory. The 15-station link will see 250mph trains run along a 480-mile route between Moscow and Kazan, connecting some of the country’s most important economic areas. Once completed in 2018, the route will slash journey times between the two cities from the current eleven hours to only three and a half hours.”
“Beijing-Moscow: the Eurasian transport corridor
China and Russia are strengthening their ties via a direct line between Moscow and Beijing that is set to become the longest high-speed railway in the world on completion.
Despite a Memorandum of Understanding signed between the two countries’ leaders in October 2014, the project was initially met with incredulity due to a number of practical hurdles. However, details emerging in January and March 2015 are starting to give the project a clearer shape.
The 250mph bullet trains will race across a total of 4,800 miles, traversing China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan and Russia. Much of the distance will run in parallel with the Trans-Siberian Railway, but compared to a six-day journey on the famous line, the new bullet train will reach its destination in just 33 hours.
While the project has been estimated to take between five and ten years to complete, works have already begun on the first leg of the journey between Moscow and Kazan.”
It is the revival of the ancient Silk Road, which was much older than believed. Archeological findings of the last century, especially of the last quarter, revealed the intense links of “East and West” since the neolithic era at least. The stupendous similitudes of the painted ceramic of China and that of the areas surrounding the Black Sea (especially the spiral Ying-Yang decoration) indicate that these links were deep and run for a long time.
Archeology and refinement of linguistics showed that these links have been disrupted since antiquity in a similar way with what happens today.
Mackinder’s famous adage: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world”, was the response given to his primordial question: “True that the Trans-Siberian Railway is still a single and precarious line of communication, but the century will not be old before all Asia is covered with Railways. The spaces within the Russian Empire and Mongolia (read Mongolia and China today-w.e.) are so vast, and their potentialities in population, wheat, cotton, fuel and metals so incalculably great, that it is inevitable that a vast economic world, more or less apart, will there develop inaccessible to oceanic commerce.”
So, the policy of the “maritime Powers” was from the start “to counter those physical and technological factors which favoured the formation of great continental empires on the Eurasian landmass.” They understood that they were naturally excluded from the center of the action because of their position on the peripheral ‘outlying islands’. Therefore, they figured out that the only way they could ever hope to establish a global empire was to periodically organize a wrecking party by maneuvering the countries on the landmass into slaughtering one another, then before anyone could recover from the shock and become economically and militarily strong enough, then stepping in to ‘reset’ relations between peoples in a way they calculate will be favourable to the maintenance and advancement of Anglo-American hegemony”. WWI, WWII, Revolutions, all had the role of preventing alliances between the Eurasian powers (especially Russia-Germany). It is the policy formulated by PNAC: preventing the emergence of powers or combination of powers which could threaten the hegemony of US, by maintaining a permanent state of chaos and mayhem.
Siotu
At least we seem to have made some progress.
You think the bulk of climate science to be mere scientism. The climate science whose conclusions you agree with you think genuine science. You feel able to make the distinction.
You are not comfortable with fuzzy concepts. You are however sufficiently clear on what the climate science community is to tell me my estimate of the proportion of it in agreement is false. You are well enough able to perceive the community to tell me that it has not arrived at a consensus (simply false, by the way) Your struggle with the notion of a community does seem more strenuous than it need be.
The concept is indeed fuzzy. And it is complex. You will get a better idea from “The Advancement of Science” by Philip Kitcher, a conscientious and thorough effort to define it, one that comes not from my fuzzy imagination but the mind of a distinguished philosopher of science in discussion and debate with his equally distinguished colleagues..
I do think you understand well enough for our purposes. If you wished to study for an advanced qualification in earth sciences I think you would choose not to go to one of the independent research institutes funded by the oil companies but to one of the universities.
Your comments on consensus in science are wholly misguided. (Advocates of loop quantum gravity and of string theory agree on everything and anything up to and including the Standard Model.)
Scientists are well aware that almost any part of the consensus is always fallible. And that there is at any given time a spectrum from what is generally accepted as well established to what is subject to fierce debate. It is a distortion to point to the fierce debate as proof there is no consensus.
It is not difficult to learn what the consensus is, at least as much of it as a lay person can follow:
Oxford University Press has published a series of Very Short Introductions, there are volumes on “The Earth”, “Earth Systems Science” “Climate” and “Climate Change”. If you want a more advanced summary, Sir John Houghton “Global Warming: the Complete Briefing”. If you want to learn about the perfectly practicable measures that can be taken, Nicholas Stern, “Why are We Waiting?”
You feel able to dismiss it. The question remains, Why do you feel able to dismiss the consensus of the climate science community?
No amount of umbrage or Samoan sayings (!) makes it other than fair questioning of what you said.
Siotu
And I’m struggling to picture how you think science where consensus is irrelevant can work. Wegener proposes continental drift as an explanation of the evidence generations of scientists have accumulated, and others provide a mechanism explains how it can happen – but there’s no consensus on their conclusions, or at least the consensus is irrelevant, so continental drift remains contested and we still don’t know how the crust behaves or the mantle or… or whether there is a mantle… Or some particle physicists propose spending billions on the LHC to determine whether there is a Higgs Boson – but there’s no consensus there is such a thing, so it doesn’t get built, or they build it to settle it once and for all – but can’t agree the evidence shows anything… How does it work without consensus?
Siotu
Your response is noted.
Recommend to read F. W. Engdahl book “Myths and Lies and Oil War” chapter 10 or in another words about “biotic oil” fundamental science perspective in this field.
Tanto
Thank you, Tanto for referencing Mr Engdahl’s book. I made the same recommendation here a few months ago.Then a few weeks ago I noticed a whole thread of comments referencing other sources for the abiotic origin of petroleum, with no mention of Myths, Lies, And Oil Wars. No matter, Bill would still be pleased. That’s the moral sort he is.
What I never mentioned before here is that I know William Engdahl personally and had dinner with him and his wife Inge February 14, 1990 in Wiesbaden, Germany. My wife at that time, and I were given a going away present by the Engdahls after 3 months in Germany, Denmark, France and Sweden:
Romantische FLUGBILDER Aus Deauthschland (aerial photos of Germany). I just went to my display case and opened it for the first time in maybe 20 years!
The Heart chakra must not be neglected that long!
I invite you to the Cafe Le Saker tomorrow. Moveable Feast Cafe, I mean. I have something rather extensive prepared for presentation there. I hope you can make it and that the next one, for weekend, is not closed for Easter!! Tschuss!!
Deutschland. Key board acting up.
OA 6 was right on.
The Saudis have reason to be enraged at Washington.
I have read several times that that the Saudi Warrior Prince, though quite bright, is also dangerously unstable.Doubt the UK would even issue him a taxi licence, did he make it there.
The US never honours any Agreements, Russia always does.
I really really like the fact in this Oil Triller, China catches the golden ring.
“… there’s a cab driver gig waiting for him in London …”
:-)
In the meantime, while their oil dough lasts, Manhattan is good enough…….
A slob in Manhattan: Saudi Prince Abdul Aziz bin Fahd, the favourite son of the late King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, spending some of his $10 billion.
http://nypost.com/2016/04/26/saudi-prince-hits-the-clubs-looking-like-an-average-joe/
A related article — also very interesting:
http://www.vineyardsaker.co.nz/2016/04/27/brics-under-attack-western-banks-governments-launch-full-spectrum-assault-on-russia-part-i-by-eric-draitser/
The Eric Draitzer article at the Oceania Saker should be read and commented on here. It makes a very strong case that the drop in oil prices is a deliberate (künstlich, as the Germans would say) political move against the BRICs, representing economic warfare against Russia in particular. We are definitely in a new cold war against Russia, which could easily turn hot as Russia gets pushed into a corner. It seems apparent that Venezuela, Iran, and Brazil are also being targeted and that article also mentions South Africa, thus undermining the BRICs in general. Because of the economic downturn, the oil deal between Russia and China will also be less profitable for Russia. There is an express policy to hit Russia where it is most vulnerable. They are starving the bear.
Excellent.
Agree that the piece could be featured at The Saker blog.
Draitser is very sharp.
Katherine
China/Russia, oil, petro dollar.
National businesses as against multinationals are losing out in the cold war. European/Russian trade. Australia SE Asia/China trade.
Those businesses though not multinationals can put a lot of pressure on their respective governments. I read somewhere that it is when the tradesmen revolt that a revolution succeeds.
In this case I am keeping an eye on national companies because they will feel some pain.
US seems to becoming more open with direct threats against so called allies.
It seems the perfect storm is brewing for the US empire. Now we just have to wait on the US elections to see if the US will keep steering directly into the storm.
Pepe describes what sounds to my ears like revolution, like the meat to feed a monster…It is said that revolutions aren’t really made – favorable circumstances are exploited – but the situation is far too complex to really predict. However, there are general empirical “rules”. The most general rule is that revolutions happen when things can’t go on as they were. Hoffer argued that change causes revolution, and it sometimes does, but not always. I moot that lack of change is equally a cause – and one that’s often seen to be exploited. Another rule is the rule of betrayal – there is always betrayal – it is the sinister hand-maiden of victory. Princes come and go…history’s subtle and fickle. Pax
A very nice article indeed.
Informative, easy and entertaining to read all at the same time.
Keep up the good work Mr. Escobar.
“In a nutshell: this plan will not deliver Saudi Arabia a viable post-oil economy.” — yes, but it will off-shore the loot for the 1% when Madam Guillotine ‘does the Hajj’ and comes to town.
Watch out for what you wish for, because in these unstable times it could come true beyond your wildest scariest nightmares!
Reason is here into summer solstice June 21 we have a scary cluster of dates in history past 2 centuries where huge crises & wars, panics have occurred in the May 10- May 15 timeframe, which is .345- .37 into the year.
1756, 1837, 1846, 1884, 1893, 1969, 1984,…
Then there’s June 20-22 itself, where that date acts as a terminus or stop/end (same stop as in solstice= sun stop) for whatever calamity unfolds in the months just before it.
Identified by WD Gann almost 4 generations ago.
Geneva piece talks restart May 10 Geneva, news out.
Fact is crude going up despite all the Iranian crude coming online is befuddling the ‘seers’ showing us they’re about as much a seer as the one in ‘seersucker’.
John Williams has it correct—it’s forecasting a dollar collapse.
Interview is up 2 days ago utube under Greg Hunter.
Timing would be perfect, as it would set in stone the epitome of hubris witnessed a week ago where Mr. Ed the walking talking horse’s ass was bragging publicly to his buddies what a non-deal deal he suckered Iran into.
For a laugh, go here read in comments Ziads’s very words excoriating the glorious Russian tag team of military geniuses and farsighted ‘leaders’ for once again selling out instead of pushing through at another critical moment, this latest being when the US put in the upgraded airstrip there in north Syria near Turkey border, and guess where those 250 special forces troops Lord O ordered in just days ago are now? LOL!
He’s got especially choice words for Sideshow Sergei.
http://syrianperspective.com/2016/04/bad-day-for-alqaeda-in-syria-terrorist-leaders-killed-by-syrian-army-operatives-alqaedanusra-collapsing.html#comments
Here are some of my own thoughts on oil & gas (the reason behind the Global Hybrid War we discuss on this blog all the time)
1. If the claims made in the Western MSM about “The shale revolution”, “Canadian tar sands” and “green energy” were remotely true, then why is NATO at all interested in a) Russia and b) The Middle East? If oil & gas were on their way out anytime soon, then Russia’s and the Middle East’s geo-political value would collapse. Both regions would simply then be largely ignored by NATO. However, we are witnessing the exact opposite. NATO is literally “going all IN” on both fronts (Russia & Middle East) This is as clear an indication as one could possibly hope for, that the value of the “shale revolution”, tar sands and alternative energy is limited at best. If anything, I seriously suspect that “green energy” is almost always loss-making and can only be sustained in peripheral usage under a regime of costly state subsidies (EU energy policy reflects this)
2. As I have been saying since the oil-price collapse commenced in the latter stages of 2014, the current oil price cannot be sustained in the long-term. Much of current global production is happening in high-cost geological regions. Yes, there are new and very fancy technologies for extracting oil, but the problem is that they are all extremely costly. These high-cost oil-producing regions go far beyond US shale (on which almost all the media attention has fallen) They also include Canadian tar sands (even higher-cost than US shale, when referring to “full-cycle” costs) as well as Ultra-deep-water (Gulf of Mexico, offshore Latin America, offshore Africa and the North Sea)
3. However, the low oil price can indeed be sustained (as it has) in the short-term. Much investment has already taken place in these high-cost regions and will continue to produce for years. Yes, natural decline of oil-fields is always present, but with the exception of shale production, this process is quite slow, albeit very real.
4. Another reason why low oil prices can be sustained in the short-term (even up to 3-5 years, we are a year and a half into a low price environment) is something I have been arguing with “peak-oil-ers” for quite sometime now. The world’s low-cost producers: Russia, KSA, Kuwait, UAE, Iraq, Iran, to a lesser extent, Kazakhstan and potentially Libya (if stability is imposed on that country) have been sand-bagging for many years. They seem to easily be able to maintain their current production, and it also seems quite likely that they are able to increase it even further. Even at the current low-price environment. The aforementioned countries seem to be in possession of massive oil reserves and should be able to pump at high rates for several decades into the future. I have no way of definitively proving this claim of mine, but all rational analysis points in this direction. This is especially true in the case of Russia. Remember that Russia’s oil industry not only has to deal with low prices, but also with NATO-imposed sanctions both on credits and on oil equipment. Yet Russian oil production has actually INCREASED under this full-spectrum assault.
5. Predicting oil prices in the short-term is a fool’s game. If I would wager a short-term prediction, it would be that oil-prices will probably retest their lows in the coming summer months (just in time to for creating internal discontent in Russia before the Sep elections) before beginning a long road to recovery in the latter half of 2016.
6. What can delay the oil price recovery into 2017 and beyond, would be a continued oil-price war between the major producers, a return of Libyan production (Libya can add almost 1.5m barrels of daily supply if fully restored) as well as continued resilience in the low-cost producing countries (GCC, Russia, Iran & Iraq)
7. The longer the low oil price environment is maintained, the more investment in high-cost producing regions will be diminished. This will set the stage for massive oil shortages, probably before the end of the decade and a resultant, demonic rally in oil prices.
IIRC back during the OPEC issues, Nixon asked the oil companies of the day to provide estimates of domestic available supply.
He was pretty much told: ‘Go F**k yourself.’
These numbers are way above Top Secret.
T1
Now THAT is very telling.
Siotu
I was in my early 20’s. It was for me the first indication of the limits of presidential power.
The Saudi’s are cryptos. While they may have a few nukes from the Paki’s they have always had Israeli nukes. Possibly the Paki nukes are meant to be red herrings to cloak the Israeli connection.