Crude Oil: Maker and spoiler of fortunes

I just can’t resist sharing this Bloomberg story with the readers of my blog. 

Oil is so much more than a fuel. It’s a force even bigger than its $3.4 trillion market. It’s a weapon, a strategic asset, a curse. It’s a maker and spoiler of fortunes, a leading indicator and an echo chamber. All these roles have a part in setting oil prices. The result is a peculiar market that says as much about global economics and politics as it does about supply and demand.

The Situation

After four years when the highest average oil prices in history seemed to defy economic gravity, petroleum fell in mid-2014. It had risen to $107.73 a barrel that June, even as Americans and Europeans drove fewer miles in more efficient cars, curbing consumption of gasoline, the biggest source of oil demand. Meanwhile, supply expanded as the sustained higher prices made techniques such as deep water drilling and fracking pay off. Those fundamentals started to register in the summer, as Chinese imports sagged, Europe teetered on the brink of recession, and the stronger U.S. economy made barrels priced in dollars relatively more expensive. Instead of stanching the glut by pumping less oil, Middle East exporters engaged in a price war to defend their market share. The price had dropped to $42.03 in March, the lowest since 2009, as U.S. storage tanks brimmed with oil. Then came a rebound above $50 a barrel after the conflict in Yemen. The price collapse had forced high-cost drillers in North Dakota and Texas to idle rigs while international giants like BP, Shell and Halliburton cut thousands of workers and billions of dollars in spending. Those developments led OPEC to declare its strategy a success at its June meeting and to maintain current production levels. With several members eager to increase their own production, Iran poised to ramp up exports after reaching a nuclear agreement with six world powers, and shale output proving surprisingly resilient as drillers cut costs and focused on the best terrain, the supply glut showed little sign of abating.

Crude Oil: Maker and spoiler of fortunes

I just can’t resist sharing this Bloomberg story with the readers of my blog. 

Oil is so much more than a fuel. It’s a force even bigger than its $3.4 trillion market. It’s a weapon, a strategic asset, a curse. It’s a maker and spoiler of fortunes, a leading indicator and an echo chamber. All these roles have a part in setting oil prices. The result is a peculiar market that says as much about global economics and politics as it does about supply and demand.

The Situation

After four years when the highest average oil prices in history seemed to defy economic gravity, petroleum fell in mid-2014. It had risen to $107.73 a barrel that June, even as Americans and Europeans drove fewer miles in more efficient cars, curbing consumption of gasoline, the biggest source of oil demand. Meanwhile, supply expanded as the sustained higher prices made techniques such as deep water drilling and fracking pay off. Those fundamentals started to register in the summer, as Chinese imports sagged, Europe teetered on the brink of recession, and the stronger U.S. economy made barrels priced in dollars relatively more expensive. Instead of stanching the glut by pumping less oil, Middle East exporters engaged in a price war to defend their market share. The price had dropped to $42.03 in March, the lowest since 2009, as U.S. storage tanks brimmed with oil. Then came a rebound above $50 a barrel after the conflict in Yemen. The price collapse had forced high-cost drillers in North Dakota and Texas to idle rigs while international giants like BP, Shell and Halliburton cut thousands of workers and billions of dollars in spending. Those developments led OPEC to declare its strategy a success at its June meeting and to maintain current production levels. With several members eager to increase their own production, Iran poised to ramp up exports after reaching a nuclear agreement with six world powers, and shale output proving surprisingly resilient as drillers cut costs and focused on the best terrain, the supply glut showed little sign of abating.

Source: Bloomberg

The Background

Through the mid-20th century, a group of multinational oil giants known as the Seven Sisters (including the companies that became Exxon Mobil, Chevron and BP) dominated the market. Controlling the barrels from the wellhead to the gasoline tank, they traded mainly with each other on confidential terms; there was no open market. Countries with oil fields wrested more control with the formation in 1960 of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The cartel’s Arab members used their power for political and economic ends, shocking the global economy with an embargo in 1973. Prices spiked again in 1979 because of the Iranian revolution. In the 1980s, OPEC infighting, the emergence of new suppliers and the development of futures exchanges gave rise to new market-based prices. Today the international benchmark is Brent crude from the North Sea. The U.S. benchmark, West Texas Intermediate crude, started trading at less than the Brent price in 2010 as supplies of shale oil became plentiful. In 2013, the European Union raided offices of Shell, BP and others to investigate possible manipulation of reference prices produced by the publisher Platts.

The Argument

As the world industrializes and consumes more energy, each new barrel of oil costs more because the cheapest and easiest oil has already been pumped. This observation gave rise to a theory called “peak oil,” which holds that world production will eventually max out and decline as oil fields deplete. Skeptics of this notion point to the technological innovations that let U.S. producers extract oil and gas from previously impermeable shale, unlocking vast new resources, albeit at greater expense; the issue isn’t quantity but cost. The other variable is demand; no one knows oil’s future as consumers grow more efficient and switch to alternative fuels such as natural gas and renewable power. Oil supplied 31 percent of the world’s energy in 2012, down from 46 percent in 1973. There may come a day when oil gets cheap because it’s unwanted. That’s the argument often advanced by advocates of divestment. They warn of a financial crisis caused by a bursting “carbon bubble” of inflated energy-company valuations after fossil-fuel prices rise to account for the costs of contributing to global warming.

 

Source: Bloomberg

The Background

Through the mid-20th century, a group of multinational oil giants known as the Seven Sisters (including the companies that became Exxon Mobil, Chevron and BP) dominated the market. Controlling the barrels from the wellhead to the gasoline tank, they traded mainly with each other on confidential terms; there was no open market. Countries with oil fields wrested more control with the formation in 1960 of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The cartel’s Arab members used their power for political and economic ends, shocking the global economy with an embargo in 1973. Prices spiked again in 1979 because of the Iranian revolution. In the 1980s, OPEC infighting, the emergence of new suppliers and the development of futures exchanges gave rise to new market-based prices. Today the international benchmark is Brent crude from the North Sea. The U.S. benchmark, West Texas Intermediate crude, started trading at less than the Brent price in 2010 as supplies of shale oil became plentiful. In 2013, the European Union raided offices of Shell, BP and others to investigate possible manipulation of reference prices produced by the publisher Platts.

The Argument

As the world industrializes and consumes more energy, each new barrel of oil costs more because the cheapest and easiest oil has already been pumped. This observation gave rise to a theory called “peak oil,” which holds that world production will eventually max out and decline as oil fields deplete. Skeptics of this notion point to the technological innovations that let U.S. producers extract oil and gas from previously impermeable shale, unlocking vast new resources, albeit at greater expense; the issue isn’t quantity but cost. The other variable is demand; no one knows oil’s future as consumers grow more efficient and switch to alternative fuels such as natural gas and renewable power. Oil supplied 31 percent of the world’s energy in 2012, down from 46 percent in 1973. There may come a day when oil gets cheap because it’s unwanted. That’s the argument often advanced by advocates of divestment. They warn of a financial crisis caused by a bursting “carbon bubble” of inflated energy-company valuations after fossil-fuel prices rise to account for the costs of contributing to global warming.

 

Tianjin Blast: Profound negligence or an act of terror

The blast at Tianjin shattered the entire world due to significant deaths and colossal economic losses. The Chinese authorities have not issued any official statement hinting towards possible cause of the blast. However, the western media is holding Chinese government responsible for the ‘negligence’. The reports refer to past incidents also where negligence was evident.

Ironically the west is not only the biggest buyer of Chinese goods but also has made huge investment. It may be true that Chinese government condoned violation of ‘good management practices’. However, the west can’t avoid even bigger blame as it buys Chinese products due to lower cost, which at times tantamount to compromising safety measures and allowing low wages for the workers.

Yet no one seems to be classifying this blast an act of terrorism. Keeping in view whatever is going on in South China Sea and adjoining areas, one just can’t rule out that this was an act of terror. Many of the developed countries including the US are afraid of China becoming a phantom eating up many industries of the developed economies.

The slow and gradual withdrawal of the US from the Middle East and MENA often creates suspicions that the after having attained self-sufficiency in crude oil production the new focus is South China Sea, particularly China and North Korea.

If 9/11 could be termed a melodrama staged by CIA, ISIS being ‘B’ team of intelligence agencies of the US, Britain and Israel, Tianjin blast could also be termed an act of terrorism to contain growth of China for a while. Signs of civil commotion have already started appearing and one has to wait and see how quickly the balloon is created and burst.

Is Israel bent upon destroying the US?

The success or failure of the P5+1 accord with Iran is expected to have momentous, world-historic consequences that go far beyond the Middle East. US President Obama is right in posing the question of choosing either a diplomatic accord or a large scale, long-term devastating war. While rest of the world including peace lovers in Israel wish to bring peace to this world, many war mongers including Israeli Prime Minister and other leaders having vested interest  are demanding continuation of proxy wars in general and in the Middle east in particular. The basic question to all the US citizens and peace lovers is, should they act independently for pursuing peace through diplomacy, the one currently sees unfolding with Iran and Cuba, or a submissive military instrument, directed by Israel’s proxies hell-bent on destroying America for Israel?

While many US intellectuals, liberals, progressives and leftists support the P5+1 accord (see the Scientists’ Letter to Obama on Iran Nuclear Deal, August 8, 2015 with 29 top scholars and Nobel laureates support diplomacy), few would dare to identify and attack Israel’s US proxies as they promote Tel Aviv’s agenda pushing the US to war with Iran.

The recently concluded accord has implications far beyond the ending of nearly 40 years of regional confrontation. Several fundamental factors deciding the basic question of continuing proxy wars is dependent on the US Senate and UN, feared to be acting on the dictate of Zionists. They have a common goal, “Keep the arsenal factories working at full capacity; irrespective of the fact how many million innocent people are killed to achieve this objective”.

All the major US spy agencies, including the CIA, long concluded that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program. Its nuclear program has been proven to be limited to legal, internationally sanctioned peaceful civilian use. When the US intelligence establishment went ‘off-script’ and cleared Iran of a nuclear weapons program, Israel responded by brazenly assassinating five Iranian scientists and engineers, leaking faked evidence of a nuclear weapon program and directing its US proxies to push the US toward greater economic sanctions. They escalated their media campaign demonizing Iran, pushing for an economic and military blockade of Iran using the US naval forces in the Persian Gulf and its military bases in adjoining countries. Israeli officials want yet another US war for Israel along the lines of the Iraq invasion.

This has infuriated the Netanyahu regime. Its government leaders and agents met with the Presidents of the 52 Major American Jewish Organizations, leading Zionist Washington insiders and told them to launch an all-out campaign to sabotage the P5+1’ accord. The entire Zionist political apparatus immediately organized a multi-prong, multi-million dollar campaign. They followed the dictates of the Israeli Prime Minister against their fellow Democrat US President Obama.  The 52 organizations brazenly announced a $40 million budget to fund an Israeli front group “Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran” to undermine P5+1 diplomatic efforts .Netanyahu’s ‘megaphones’ in the US mass media spread his message in their daily reports and editorial pages.

Israeli foreign and domestic policy is driven by its unchallenged regional supremacy. Military dominance through wars, territorial occupation, brutal armed interventions, extra territorial political assassinations of opponents and favorable one-sided treaties. To ensure its unquestioned dominance Israel has developed nuclear weapons/arsenal and largest missile launch capacity in the region and has openly declared its willingness to use nuclear weapons against regional rivals.

Israel’ mantra that it faces an ‘existential threat’ from its Arab neighbors and subjugated Palestinians has no factual basis. On the contrary, history has proved that Israel, directly and indirectly, has engaged in a series of aggressive wars devastating its Arab and Muslim neighbors. Israel has bombed and/or invaded Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Palestine and Sudan.  Israel has assassinated scientists in Iran and Palestinian political leaders as well as intellectuals, writers and poets in the Gulf, Jordan and Europe. Even family members were not spared by the Israelis.

Israel has been brutalizing its neighbors with total impunity because of its vast military superiority, but its real power is found in its overseas proxies, the Tel Aviv-dominated Zionist power configurations, especially in North America and Europe. The most important proxy organizations and individuals operate in the US. Thanks to them Israel has received over $150 billion dollars in economic and military grants and loans from US taxpayers in the past half-century. Each year Israel rakes in billions in tribute, billions in tax-free donations from billionaire Israel loyalists with dual US citizenship, who extract their wealth from American workers, investors and gamblers, and hundreds of billions via unrestricted investments, privileged market access and technology transfers.

Zionists supporting Israel are making and implementing of US Middle East policy that has led to the US invasions of Iraq, Syria and Libya; the current economic boycott and blockade of Iran; the breakup of Sudan; and the bombing of Somalia. Zionists in the US operates through various political instruments in different institutional settings. The pro-Israel mass media moguls and TV networks unconditionally defend Israel’s bombing, dispossession and repression of Palestinians while demonizing any Arab or Muslim states which has opposed its brutality – frequently calling for the US to impose sanctions and/or to launch armed attacks against Israel’s critics.

The US military campaign known as the ‘Global War on Terror’, includes brutal invasions and ‘regime changes’, launched after the attacks of September 11, 2001 was formulated and promoted by fanatical Israeli proxies in strategic positions within the Bush government, especially Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, ‘Scooter’ Libby, Elliott Abrams and Richard Perle. The boycott of Iran was designed and implemented by US Treasury officials Levey and Cohen. The drumbeat for war in Iraq and the phony ‘intelligence’ about ‘weapons of mass destruction’ was propagated by New York Times scribe Judith Miller, designed by Wolfowitz and Feith, backed by the 52 President of Major American Jewish Organizations and ultimately paid for with the lives of over five thousand Americans and well over a million Iraqi civilians.

The destruction and breakup of Iraq, a long-time supporter of Palestinian national rights, was accomplished without the loss of a single Israeli life – despite the enormous benefit the Jewish state has enjoyed from the war! The extraordinary success of this highest Israeli military priority was due entirely to the machinations of Israel’s highly placed US proxies. Yet the cost of the war has been very high for the US citizens that include a over a quarter million physical and mental casualties among US troops; two trillion dollars and counting in military expenditures crippling the US economy and a vast and growing army of disguised Islamist, killing Muslims around the world.

Ruling Elites of Pakistan

In the recent past I got a unique opportunity to talk to the students of various business schools. The topic of my presentation was “Pakistan: Opportunities, Challenges and threats”. The consensus arrived at was that the country offers enormous opportunities but people in general and investors in particular suffer from ‘confidence deficit’.

Peeping into the history reveals that the country has been ruled by those having common vested interest and most of the sitting/past members of Senate, National and Provincial Assemblies could be labeled ‘turn coats’. They change loyalty because they wish to remain part of ruling junta, be it democratic or autocratic rule.

 The younger generation continues to suffer from illusion because of mudslinging by the leading political parties i.e. PML-N, PPP, MQM and PTI. Some claim to be opposition parties but have been part of ruling junta for decades. The incumbent prime minister and chief mister of Punjab are the legacy of a ‘Military Dictator, Zia ul- Hq. PTI has formed government in KPK province after 2013 election and is in fact part of ruling junta. MQM has remain in power for considerably long time

Some critics say the country is a victim of geopolitics because super powers install and dislodge rulers in Pakistan to pursue their ‘expansionism’ and politics prove to be ‘loyal than king’. Starting from Liaquat Ali Khan to Nawaz Sharif all the rulers have been towing the US foreign policy for the region.

Ayub Khan’s ten year rule was due to Pakistan’s assigned role in ‘cold war’. For ten years Zia ul Haq fought the US proxy war in Afghanistan to avert USSR attack on the country and frustrate its attempt to get access to ‘warm waters’ that also led to installation of Taliban government  there. When the status of Taliban turned to foe from friend the crusade against them was led by Pervez Musharraf. Asif Zardari did the same and Nawaz Sharif also seems to be following his footsteps.

People believed that PTI would usher a change but forgot that the same old faces control its hierarchy and political agenda. The only inspiration of its chief is to become the next prime minister of Pakistan. Though the decision of Judicial Commission is out, the perception prevails that elections were engineered to create history by making Nawaz Saharif prime minister of Pakistan for the third time.

Many term hanging of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto ‘judicial murder’ and the mystery surrounding assassination of   Benazir Bhutto and earlier dismissal of her government twice pre-maturely raises many question. Many critics find some similarity in killing of Mr. Aquino and his wife becoming president of Philippines and Benazir’s widower becoming president of Pakistan after her assassination, the strings in both the cases were moved from outside.

Decades of participation in the proxy war has proliferated political uncertainty, religious fanaticism, arms and drug trade. On top of all funding of local terrorist, be it in the name of creation of supremacy of Shariah or fighting for the deprived has resulted in assignation and destruction of civilian and military installations.

Some experts say all this is part of a great plan to keep Pakistan dependent on multilateral donors i.e. International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Asian Development Bank and even Islamic Development Bank.  Keeping the country dependent on these institutions that are arms of super powers makes it easier to rein Pakistan. It is difficult to bring any change in the country without changing the mindset of masses.

Political turmoil in Pakistan, changing loyalties of politicians, ongoing proxy war in the region,   

Key malicious US interests in Pakistan

For more than six decades Pakistan has been fighting proxy US war in the region. Those in power are reluctant in admitting this harsh reality. The US terms Pakistan front-line partner in war against terrorism. The country might have received peanuts in terms of military support but the focus of economic cooperation has remained India.

The US has been a major buyer of textiles and clothing but when it comes to outsourcing India is the preferred choice. The logic is that India is one of the biggest democracies, its economic policies are consistent and above all foreign investment in that country is more secure. Political instability and precarious law and order situation does not permit American investors to make any substantial investment in Pakistan.

In one of the previous blogs I have stated categorically that the US install and dislodges governments in various countries to pursue its foreign policy and more importantly establish its hegemony in any specific area. South Asia and MENA have remained prime focus, it was to counter communism in the past and now controlling natural resources, particularly oil.

An important point to be kept in mind is that the US first creates phantoms like Al Qaeda and ISIS, which get funds and arms to pave way for the entry of US combat forces under the disguise of UN approved assaults or peace keeping forces, the worst examples are Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

The facts of US policy become evident when one reads the details of briefing of Marine Corps General Joseph F. Dunford Jr. He currently heads the US Marine Corps and is the next chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. According to him the areas of divergent interest with Pakistan include “our views on the use of proxies and the importance of a positive and stable Pakistan-India relationship”.

He specified the US still has three key interests in Pakistan, averting Al Qaeda’s re-emergence, preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and promoting regional stability. He said that the US-led coalition and the Afghan government were closely watching the ISIS’s attempt to expand its reach to Afghanistan and Pakistan and were collaborating closely to prevent this threat from expanding.

The US-Pakistan relationship, according to general, was fundamental to US vital national security interests. The US needs to continue cooperation with Pakistan to defeat Al Qaeda, support Pakistan’s stability and achieve a lasting peace in Afghanistan.

Dunford said, “Regional partners have an important role to play in ensuring a stable, democratic Afghanistan. We have encouraged stronger ties between Afghanistan and Pakistan and have been pleased with their recent bilateral efforts to address their security concerns.”

Dunford said Pakistan had been, and remained, the largest recipient of the Coalition Support Fund. It is in US interests to have an enduring partnership with Pakistan. He expressed his commitment by saying “I will continue to evaluate the efficacy of the mil-to- mil cooperation we have with Pakistan and identify ways in which we can work with Pakistan to enhance regional stability.”

Do more mantra was also evident as Dunford said the US assistance to Pakistan had enabled operations in Afghanistan and operations against Al Qaeda and helped secure its strategic interests. “If confirmed, I will continue to work with the Pakistani military to ensure that they continue to do more.”

His statement has come at a time China is supporting Pakistan in the development of infrastructure under China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). One fears that the US once again wishes Pakistan to fight its proxy war rather than focusing of its economic development. For the implementation of projects under CPEC peace is the prime requirement, which can’t be achieved unless all the militants, be it foreign or funded by outsiders are weeded out.