Cardboard
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Cardboard
-
-
"San Bruno California gas pipeline exploded killing 8 in 2010.
Qingdao China oil pipeline exploded killing 52 in 2013.
Care to qualify that?"
San Bruno -> Gas transport, not oil.
Qingdao China -> Same safety standards as TransCanada and Enbridge? Yeah right!
The oil from North Dakota or the Bakken is not your standard oil. It is light and contains a ton of butane, propane. Moreover, some has been found to be highly corrosive. A key difference between pipeline owners and train owners is that standards on what can go into the pipeline and their storage vs trains is vastly different. See this article for example.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/29/column-kemp-bakken-pipelines-idUSL5N0EA3SU20130529
Cardboard
-
http://rt.com/usa/ndakota-train-derailment-explosion-996/
When are you going to pick up the phone Mr. Buffett and tell Mr. Obama to approve the XL pipeline before more people get killed as we have seen in Quebec from this train transportation folly?
Cardboard
-
I would highly recommend that you follow "makedonka" poster on Stockhouse.com under the PWT thread if you are interested in news related to oil & gas. He or she finds very relevant news articles from reputable sources.
Cardboard
-
So many projects... Soon enough there will be too much shipping capacity and this whole discussion about Canadian oil being trapped and major discounts to WTI and Brent will look like a story from a forgotten era.
It works the same for most investments. We get worried about one or two facets of the business and two or three years later these initial worries are not even part of the discussion anymore. As long as a business is priced cheaply, has a decent balance sheet, decent management and its product is in demand, sooner or later it works out to great investment returns. You just need the patience to get through it.
You also need even more patience to hold on after it starts working out since your initial IV often needs to be revised up from dynamic conditions out there and an outlook that was likely too conservative at a time when things were abnormally rough. How many doubles I have missed just 12 months after the initial double is unreal!
Cardboard
-
Who thought MBIA shares could help couples! LOL
Cardboard
-
Could the government have chosen a more efficient place to save on energy?
What about education? Does it take a mechanical engineering degree to learn a few concepts about heat transfer and insulation?
Programmable thermostats are a great example. They save a ton of money and are easily repaid in one year. However, people still don't understand that keeping your home at 21 C all day long and all night long in rooms when you are not there is simply wasted energy. There is this very strong misconception out there that the energy to re-heat or re-cool your home after saving for 8 hours with the thermostat is a wash. Just some basic education about heat vs cold, what insulation does, how a fridge works would help people a lot in choosing better ways.
Just opening and closing your blinds or drapes based on the sun makes also a large difference in the heat or cooling that your house will need.
I have another good misconception: It is always easier to start a car in the winter if it is not exposed to wind. Of course, it is true if your car has been stopped for just a little while since it has retained heat but, after a night out, the oil, the metal is all at the same temperature as the outside no matter what the wind force is. Here people relate to the wind chill factor on their skin, again not understanding the difference between convection and simply what is temperature.
Cardboard
-
In my experience, halogen and incandescent fail at relatively the same number of hours. I just checked my spares and they are both guaranteed for 10,000 hours so I would tend to believe that my gut feel is right.
Then they save about 3 times the power of incandescent but, costs about 3 times as much. It is such a small expense to switch them all in your home as your old ones fail that I can't stand the Tea Party argument of: "Nobody should tell me what to do". In this case, I do believe that as manufacturers stop making incandescent bulbs that cost will come down a lot making the advantage truly worthwhile.
Regarding incandescent generating heat, it is mostly all wasted heat since they are located for the most part close to your ceiling. Moreover, often in some kind of enclosed space. So about the worst location and worst method of heat distribution. Then you have to factor in that most homes have a lot of outside lights (probably half and half for me) and saving energy with LED's makes a lot of sense to me all around. We just need their cost to fall a bit to really help the equation.
Cardboard
-
"I think the people in charge are probably retarded enough to actually do this (then again they might not). I'm interested to hear other viewpoints :)"
It could well happen but, the situation would have to get much worse than it is now as it is getting better. GDP is growing and deficits have narrowed, at least in the U.S. When another recession hits and if the Fed is still in its current condition: can't lower interest rates, has not tapered, then this tool may get discussed more and gain popular traction. Probably the same for Europe.
The rich will also get the point that to avoid civil unrest and to see their portfolio values decline furthermore along with real economics that this would be a small penalty to pay. They are also well ahead since 2007. Europeans rich maybe not as much as their U.S. counterparts but, still doing well.
Japan is a different story with a massive debt to GDP ratio and I think that such a wealth tax over there could be more easily accepted even now since its people are all in favor of helping the country when asked.
Cardboard
-
"Fortunately, Chinese are not led by populists the way the US is, and I believe their leadership is more rational. "
So a politburo led by a few individuals, with many corrupt, can be more rational than a group of people that debates all day long and all elected by its people?
I guess you must have the same logic with the Iranian leadership where elections are fake. Where is the opposition that says we will remove the Supreme leader? There is none. To claim that this is a democracy is foolish.
History has shown that people who grab power via coup, brutality or whatever means needed are the ones who care very little about their own people and often initiate attacks and try to wipeout other countries and populations. They will go for "total war" concepts and sacrifice them all if necessary.
While I am not American, they have never done such thing. Every time they entered a conflict, it was about regime change, meaning democracy, meaning a better future for their enemy's people. They also always try to minimize their losses and their enemies losses. Why do you think that they launched two atomic bombs against Japan? It was to make them capitulate quickly and to stop fighting. If the U.S. had been more like the other regimes that you admire, they would have invaded Japan and wiped it out.
There is also a very sound reason why the U.S. is protecting Japan: because the Allies during WWII made it a democracy and forced it to not re-arm. It is undeniable that the Japanese people benefited tremendously from being a democracy. One of the most advanced and rich country in the world and a giant leap in its standard of living. It is the only system that works and that has worked throughout history. If the U.S. walks away, Japan will re-arm and with the kind of racial hatred that still exists with Korea and China it is not hard to imagine the worst.
Regarding the NSA and Europeans anger, it is just a side show. I am totally convinced that they are very happy about the existence of the NSA and the number of attacks that it has prevented. Another one in Wichita yesterday! Even with Merkel being tapped, I see no evidence of corruption or that its power was used for other purposes than defending the American people and its allies including all Europeans against evil doer's.
Snowden is a traitor and should be executed. This kind of man is a very dangerous threat to open societies since the NSA and CIA are most likely the only line of defense against enemies that constantly seek ways to destroy a country that allows its people to operate freely.
Cardboard
-
By the way, this thinking of: "Bring the soldiers home" simply does not work. While one might think that the U.S. should mind its own business and stay away from the Japanese/Chinese fight over inhabited islands, IMO this whole episode is about testing U.S. resolve in supporting its allies. And never forget that China still has deeply in mind to eventually bring Taiwan into the fold.
They own a massive amount of U.S. treasuries, they are getting stronger militarily including through cyber warfare and have to deal with their own issues at home: property bubble, massive need for more and better jobs and large cultural differences. It is pretty easy to imagine a scenario where they become more agressive.
The U.S. being the big boy in town simply can't just walk away unless you are willing to abandon your friends. So this cat and mouse game will go on. Unfortunately, it just takes one captain, one jet fighter to get something much worse going. Remember the incident in the Gulf of Tonkin that started the Vietnam war?
Regarding the Russians and Iran, this is hypocrisy on steroids. The Russians have zero interest in seeing flowing more Iranian oil. Being friendly with the Iranians gives them a buyer for their weapons and technology and helps reduce terrorism risk at home but, if tension, sanctions or even some conflict occurs around the Straight of Hormuz never forget how much they would benefit.
Cardboard
-
And this:
http://freebeacon.com/iranians-pull-out-of-nuke-talks/
And this:
http://freebeacon.com/russian-official-threatens-to-nuke-u-s/
Even if this is not appearing for the most part in mainstream media, you can see that there are always some form of tension between powers. It just takes one incident to escalate things.
Cardboard
-
Because there is so much opposition to pipelines which are much safer than any other source of transportation for oil, now there is consideration to ship crude via the Great Lakes which is a primary source of fresh water for many large U.S. and Canadian cities!!!
In case you didn't know, the water in Lac Megantic where the train derailed and exploded still has contaminants in it according to some studies. This could also potentially affect residents of cities downstream this Spring.
Furthermore, another train exploded in Alabama in November. Very little has been mentioned since it happened in a very low populated area but, still managed to polute some wetlands.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/08/nation/la-na-nn-alabama-train-explosion-20131108
If environmentalists are to manage to block pipelines, then they should also manage to block more dangerous forms of transportation. If not, this is absolutely retarded.
Cardboard
-
What is amazing to me is how bad they are on the timing which would resolve 90+% of the bad deal issue for the acquiring company.
They never seem to buy stocks that are down or when a sector is down. They always seem to buy after the stock or the sector has almost fully recovered. Sometimes their own stock is doing relatively well and they won't even think of using their stock as a currency to buy a beaten down peer. It is almost like they are afraid to suffer a similar fate upon announcing such acquisition.
I think that is just it, they simply don't want to do anything controversial. The majority have gone up through the corporate ladder trying to please everybody and not making too many waves. So when it becomes time to do something uncomfortable or that may be interpreted negatively even if all the mathematical evidence suggests otherwise they won't act.
Cardboard
-
I think that Chanos returns are amazing IF he is or was a short only fund. Otherwise, if it is more like a 50% long -50% short fund then it is pretty pathetic if I am to use the logic of Julian Robertson.
Now, assuming that he is much more short than long then yes delivering 2% a year over time against a rising market is very hard to do. Just go ask or see for yourself how difficult and detrimental it has been for hedge funds over the last 2 or 3 years to short stocks. Even with stocks in secular decline, they find ways to get lower cost funds, to restructure, to get bought out and to even attract fund managers in a rising market since they are cheap.
Personally, I have had it with shorting, hedging and all that. When Ron Baron started as an analyst, his boss called him into his office. He told him that he had talent but, that he should stop wasting time finding shorts. He then asked him: "Where are the short sellers yachts?"
If you look at all the rich people or money managers, how many do truly benefit from shorting? Buffett, Icahn, Nelson Peltz? Nope. They focus on finding good businesses at cheap prices and just buy them.
Chanos does have a yacht for sure but, he is in a tiny minority and that is because he has been able to offer that niche "service" built on the reputation from one huge win or Enron. I still think that this "service" is detrimental to pension funds since they could instead just go more into cash (10 or 20% more) when the S&P is high on a simple P/E basis and then invest that whole extra and more when the market is cheap. They would make the 2% in money market fund and a lot more with the cash invested on the rebounding market. While deploying 10% of their capital into Chanos means "locked" at 2% over the long haul or through thick and thin.
I think that a Kyle Bass approach is much more appropriate or to be mostly long and to find asymmetrical bets that will pay off based on very specific events.
Cardboard
-
I find this whole discussion very interesting. It is clear by now that no one has the perfect path to doing good. Improvements can always be made
What I admire from this man is that he obviously sacrificed some spending and time and ended up giving more to charity. I also find very interesting that this is a man who inherited and found a way to try to help. Remember how Buffett thinks about kids who inherit?
Sacrifice is at the core of what all of us here do on this board. If you do not sacrifice (at least at the beginning), you will never have a dime to invest. And if you blow it all once you have it, then you are back to square 1. Look around you, look at the people who constantly bitch about not having money. They always want this and that and always have their credit cards loaded up. Compare with peers earning the same thing and the difference is often striking. Envy and jealousy dominates their thinking. They never ask themselves: what could I do to improve my situation? This person has done great, is there something that I can learn from them? Unfortunately, it is always others who are responsible for their situation. These people will never help anyone else with their savings and display selfishness at such a level that they will never volunteer either. They are victims if you listen to them, but I would argue that the vast majority had their chance in society.
Now, that sacrifice may just be greed or the desire to accumulate. It can be an habit that sticks around from the earlier part of saving. It could be also a hobby, but if it is spent eventually on things that do good then it has to be good.
IMO, the U.S. and other developed countries will largely take care of themselves including cancer research, hospital and even artists! When I think of charity, my priorities are towards the ones who truly don't have a chance in life: can't get 3 meals a day, no chance to go to school, handicapped, etc. IMO, this where you can do the most good and where capitalism is less likely to spend a dollar. I also want as little of my hard earned funds to go to the whiners that I described above and feel entitled to receive that new PS4!
Think about countries where infant mortality is still a really high number or where adults still mostly die in their 40's or 50's. Or if you want to think closer to home, think about the kid that has losers for parents and will likely end up in the same mold if something isn't done. You are less likely to receive honorary degrees and have your name on some building if you do that but, if you are to deviate money away from a developed society or the regular capitalist system, then IMO that is where it needs to go.
Cardboard
-
It seems to me that some PHD in economics must have come up with some equation to determine the advantages and disadvantages of that model: "Save, Invest, Give away" vs "Save, Invest, Spend it all".
If the model is beneficial to the world on a "net" basis and one is a great compounder (wired for that), then the only answer is for one to give it all once the compounding talent is exhausted or at last breath. For that, I would think that the answer lies once one cannot compound any faster than world's GDP growth rate.
To give some before in very limited fashion seems to make the most sense if that is true. And to do volunteering seems like the best way to give now assuming that it does not take too much time away from the compounding part. To give a lot like Buffett before death seems like a disservice. Almost seems like someone wanting to attract fame and recognition while obviously more could be done later on. Finally, the only risk to waiting is that humanity disappears and that money ended up serving no purpose.
It is also pretty clear to me that money or capital is simply deviated from one place in society to another via charity. If it is not used on "teach to fish" type of charity, then it may be net negative on a GDP or standard of living improvement standpoint. I realize that I am talking coldly about this but, I would think that Buffett and others have spent some time thinking about it to make sense of it all.
Cardboard
-
While giving away your money seems like to be on higher moral ground than spending it on a lavish lifestyle, things have never been muddier, for me anyway. And by the way, I don't believe that lavish spending makes anyone happier. Once you have a nice place to live, a car or two and can do the activities that you enjoy, you have pretty much spent enough. You won't attract true friends by showing off, the circle of friends may actually shrink and you will just be lonely in your castle or 2nd Ferrari.
When you invest and make money there are only two places where it could come from:
1- You buy a security from someone at a low price because that person panics, wants to sell or whatever other reason. You then sell it a little while later at a profit and it now trades at fair value. In that case, money just went from one well off individual to another. Same if you short sell or sell something overvalued or buy high to sell higher.
2- You buy a security and its price increases over time because the company's profits are growing. Eventually, you decide to sell for whatever reason and make a profit. That money you made, is the result of the hard work and ingenuity of the people who work for that corporation.
Of course, #1 and #2 could act as a combination but, unless I miss something that is where my gains mostly if not entirely come from. In essence if you are a good investor, you are just wise but, create zero value for society.
So if I spend my life investing (current plan) and give the majority of what I have earned to charity since I will not spend most of it, is that good? That money that I am accumulating like a squirrel accumulates nuts, could it not be better used by someone else or society now vs in 10, 20 or 50 years?
Of course if I am a good investor, the rate of return will make the pile bigger overtime and may look like a fine endeavour but, again looking at point #1 and #2, it is someone else money that I am hoarding or society's money. That money could have been spent on some goods and make someone work right way. That is even if it was spent on some lavish spending. It could also have been reinvested in some new technology helping the human condition earlier which is now not possible since I am holding that capital.
It may sound like doing Robin Hood's work but, sometimes I wonder.
What happens if humanity gets wiped out tomorrow? Was this a worthwhile endeavour?
Cardboard
-
I have a full position Longlake95. I have added close to the lows.
I still can't believe that acquisitions are not occurring in this sector. It is not like the entire sector is down, it is more smaller, lighter oil oriented firms that are trading cheaply. Even growing firms like LEG are very cheap. If you look at the charts of majors, CNQ, SU and others they are close to 52 week highs. Something is way out whack. But, again most executives seem to buy at the tops or just like average Joe investors.
While I agree that PWT still has too much debt and that most cash flow is reinvested into capex, eventually lower decline rates will mean free cash flow. The assets are good and netbacks are high and will be higher under the new direction.
I found this today under Stockhouse and I think it is well worth thinking about. Sorry for the format:
"Toil for oil means industry sums do not add up By Mark Lewis Rising costs are being met only by ever smaller increases in supply. The most interesting message in this year’s World Energy Outlook from the International Energy Agency is also its most disturbing. Over the past decade, the oil and gas industry’s upstream investments have registered an astronomical increase, but these ever higher levels of capital expenditure have yielded ever smaller increases in the global oil supply. Even these have only been made possible by record high oil prices. This should be a reality check for those now hyping a new age of global oil abundance. According to the 2013 WEO, the total world oil supply in 2012 was 87.1m barrels a day, an increase of 11.9mbd over the 75.2mbd produced in 2000. However, less than one-third of this increase was in the form of conventional crude oil, and more than two-thirds was therefore either what the IEA calls unconventional crude (light-tight oil, oil sands, and deep/ultra-deepwater oil) or natural-gas liquids (NGLs). This distinction matters because unconventional crude has a higher cost than conventional crude, while NGLs have a lower energy density. The IEA’s long-run cost curve has conventional crude in a range of $10-$70 a barrel, whereas for unconventional crude the ranges are higher: $50-$90 a barrel for oil sands, $50-$100 for light-tight oil, and $70-$90 for ultra-deep water. Meanwhile, in terms of energy content, a barrel of crude oil is worth 1.4 barrels of NGLs. Threefold rise The much higher cost of developing unconventional crude resources and the lower energy density of NGLs explain why, as these sources have increased their share of supply, the industry’s upstream capex has increased. But the sheer scale of the increase is staggering: upstream outlays have risen more than threefold in real terms over the past 12 years, reaching nearly $700bn in 2012 compared with only $250bn in 2000 (both figures in constant 2012 dollars). Coinciding with the rise in US tight-oil production, most of this increase in upstream capex has occurred since 2005, as investments have effectively doubled from $350bn in that year to nearly $700bn in 2012 (again in 2012 dollars). All of which means the 2013 WEO has the oil industry’s upstream capex rising by nearly 180 per cent since 2000, but the global oil supply (adjusted for energy content) by only 14 per cent. The most straightforward interpretation of this data is that the economics of oil have become completely dislocated from historic norms since 2000 (and especially since 2005), with the industry investing at exponentially higher rates for increasingly small incremental yields of energy. The industry has been able and willing to finance such a dramatic increase in its capital investment since 2000 owing to the similarly dramatic increase in prices. BP data show that the average price of Brent crude in real terms increased from $38 a barrel in 2000 to $112 in 2012 (in constant 2011 dollars), which represents a 195 per cent increase, slightly greater in fact than the increase in industry capex over the same period. However, looking only at the period since 2005, capital outlays have risen faster than prices (90 per cent and 75 per cent respectively), while in the past two years capex has risen by a further 20 per cent (the IEA estimates 2013 upstream capex at $710bn versus $590bn in 2011), while Brent prices have actually averaged about $5 a barrel less this year than in 2011. Iran not a game changer That prices have fallen slightly since 2011 while capex has risen by a further 20 per cent is a flashing light on the industry’s dashboard indicating that its upstream growth engine may finally be overheating. Without a significant technological breakthrough reversing the geological forces that have driven the unprecedented increase in upstream investment over the past decade, prices will have to rise further in real terms from here or else capex – and with it future oil production – will fall. It should also be emphasized that this vast increase in capex has occurred during a prolonged period of record-low interest rates. Once interest rates start rising again, this will put further pressure on the industry’s ability to make the massive capital outlays required to keep supply growing. Of course, the diplomatic breakthrough achieved with Iran over the weekend could provide some much needed short-term relief to the market, as Iran’s exports could ultimately increase by up to 1.5m barrels a day if and when western sanctions were to be fully lifted. But this would not change the dynamics of the industry’s capex treadmill in any fundamental sense. Even if global oil demand only grows at 1 per cent a cent a year, those extra barrels would be would be fully absorbed by the market within about 18 months. And that is probably how long it would take for Iran’s production and exports to return to pre-sanctions levels in any case. Alternatively, if we take the IEA’s estimate that global production of conventional crude oil from all currently producing fields will decline by 41m barrels a day by 2035 (that is, by an average of 1.9m barrels a day per year), then Iran’s potential increase of 1.5m barrels a day would compensate for just 10 months of natural decline in global conventional-crude output. In short, behind the hubbub of market hype about a new age of oil abundance, the toil for oil is in fact now more arduous and back-breaking than ever. This should worry everybody, because with the evidence suggesting that consumers are reluctant to pay much above $110 a barrel, it is an open question what happens next to the industry’s investment plans and hence, over time, to the supply of oil. Mark Lewis is an independent energy analyst and former head of energy research in commodities at Deutsche Bank; Daniel L Davis, a lieutenant colonel in the US Army, is co-author"
I have also seen a chart that shows U.S. oil production peaking in 2016. Despite the best efforts from the industry, I would tend to believe that they have cherry picked best locations for horizontal drilling and unconventional techniques and that once the Bakken and Eagle Ford mature that it will be difficult to find new fields with such high initial payouts to replace the high decline rates from these large productive plays. We also hear little about Saudi Arabia and their Ghawar field lately, but eventually this will run out or at least become more expensive to milk.
Cardboard
-
Alertmeipp,
Actually, I don't think that the author is that optimistic about the prices that it could get for the Cardium or Bakken asset. A recent transaction between Angle Energy and Bellatrix was done at about 6.5 times cash flow for mostly Cardium assets. However, it was much lower on a $/boe/d at about $52,000, but Angle was producing a lot of gas and only in Q3 were they able to reach 58% liquids. It is also mostly a share for share exchange so NGL holders get to participate in the better managed BXE and overpaying would not be good for the combined company.
So he is probably on the high side, but I would envision $1.8 to $2.0 billion a reasonable amount that they could get now. Doing as he says would dramatically transform the company and would be a path to make a lot of money as shareholders. However, as I said before, Wright seems to be a corporate builder. He likes acquiring assets or kind of like Tom Ward. Although, I have not seen him switching back and forth between strategies and the assets he has bought are top notch. I have not seen corporate abuse either other than for his involvement with Petrobank where one could question if there is a conflict of interest or not.
Also, the plan presented by management does not align at all with the scenario from the author or the article. It is more about squeezing through the issues and hoping for the best vs really redefining the company. The thinking may change but, we have not gotten any hint of that. The risk becomes dilution, some bank review or being forced to sell assets too cheaply if events turn negative against the company.
I welcome them finally buying some shares on the open market, but I wish we could see more of it, a potential change in direction like the author suggests and more focus on per share metrics and realizing the importance of a sound financial structure in such a volatile and risky sector. I added recently by the way, but I can't go "all in" because of my concerns.
Cardboard
-
I did.
My point is simply start somewhere before it gets out of hand. And Iran IMO could be a trigger to get 6 or 7 more into the nuke club. I think that the permanent security members get that and that is why they told them to stop.
Cardboard
-
Palantir,
I have a hard time following your logic. So since a few have nukes, then let them all have nukes, it will be safer? We can also argue all day long about who hates more the U.S.: extremists Sunnis or Shiites, but neither camp seems to like you too much don't they? Then what about the Kurds? They should have that weapon too since the others now have it?
My point is simple and is in line with Buffett: reduce the amount out there of that material so that control of it becomes a little easier and reduces the probability for it to end up in the wrong hands.
Anyone here still remember the Fall of 2008 and early 2009? Do you remember looking at your screens and seeing the carnage caused by human fear on stock prices? And now this is just fear of losing money. Now, combine fear with anger, religion or ideology and imagine what kind of reaction and emotions it results in the human brain. You don't think it could cause over-reaction?
Pakistan having nukes is also bad, I fully agree. Since I can't see a peaceful solution in the Kashmir without that deterrent, it is hard to foresee how we can force India and Pakistan to disarm. Then India has its own problems with China. Should Taiwan have nukes? Then what about South Korea and Japan?
At the end of the day, I think that the trend should be to disarm and not the opposite. If Iran gets it, then forget about ever having a chance to get Pakistan and India to sit down. We need to stop somewhere, then get into reverse.
Errors typically happen because of a rare series of events occurring. That is what you find out in most accident investigations. This makes them very hard to anticipate and the only prevention is to break up the "chain". We already came very close at multiple times. There is no benefit to keep playing that game and ending up on the wrong combination.
Cardboard
-
I think what is nuts is the minimalization of this issue as described by many here. Iran is a known sponsor of terrorism and has mentioned publically the desire to wipeout Israel. The danger of escalation is high and these guys sit with their neighboors on one of the world largest source of energy. There are too many scenarios possible to even start listing them.
The only military threat to Iran has been removed and it was Saddam. That is with him that they fought for years in the 80's. Israel never had any intention to attack Iran other than for removing the nuke potential. Nor the U.S. or anyone else for that matter. They have already enough conventional forces to deter anyone in the region to attack them.
Iran could peacefully develop itself and give a real chance to its average people if it stopped obssessing about enriching. I would be very happy with that and the world as well. However, turning into some capitalist state with more individual freedom does not appear to fit the Supreme leader vision.
Some here are also wrongly assuming that North Korea and its leadership are now safe because they have nukes. The only reason why they are still in power is because China supports them. They did fight along with them against U.N. forces during the Korean war and not in a small way. That regime could be wiped out in a few hours but, the repercussions between China, U.S., Japan, South Korea and Russia would be too great. I find that China really plays a disservice to the people of North Korea since they are near starving under that regime. You would think that China has seen by itself the benefits to its people of a more open society.
Having nukes does not guarantee safety. There are dozens of times where the U.S. and Soviets came really close to launch the unthinkable. And by the way, it is still a possibility today. A conflict in the middle East could degenerate into a worldwide one and it came very close a few times like during the Yom Kippur war in 1973.
Some of the folks here are younger than I am but, I recall vividly being terrorized when Reagan and Andropov where going at each other in the early 80's. So forget about the benefits of MAD. MAD is mad!
Cardboard
-
You are completely wrong Wellmont! It takes the scenario front and center.
The only way to avoid confrontation was to force Iran to completely abandon its enrichment program. This does none of it and Iran has claimed publically that this deal recognizes their right to enrich. This is also the same group or right before the meeting that was accusing Israel of bombing their embassy in Lebanon. I had never heard about Israelite suicide bombers. Did you?
Regarding the markets, oil did not collapse today and gold actually finished up. So much for your sniffing market!
Cardboard
-
What a deal... for Iran!
They got 6 months free of potential attacks from the U.S., billions in cash and they get to keep all their facilities. In return, they only need to stop at a certain level of enrichment which will be controlled by U.N. inspectors. ::)
You gotta be kidding me. Do you guys remember how many U.N. inspectors were rolling around Iraq before the U.S. invasion trying to hunt down weapons of mass destruction? So there were dozens of people on the ground and despite that, the U.S. intelligence could not even figure out if they had or not WMD's. And now, we are going to rely on the same people to control a country about 3 times as large not to enrich past a certain point while we likely don't even know about all their facilities.
This is naivety on a scale that I have rarely seen before. Israel is now cornered, so is Saudi Arabia. Things will now get much worse before they get better. This deal is as bad as the non-aggression treaty between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and appears very similar in terms of Iran gaining time to organize.
As I mentioned before, there is no need for a country to enrich. The stuff is already available to produce energy in commercial form. Gaining that knowledge and capacity can only be for one purpose.
Cardboard
So much safer than pipelines...
in Berkshire Hathaway
Posted
Mr. Obama just looks nice to environmentalists.
For example, flaring is allowed in the U.S., not in Alberta. If natural gas is cheap and a Bakken producer just wants to produce light oil and avoid natural gas treatment cost, they just burn it. So Alberta oil is cleaner than U.S. oil on a CO2 basis.
I don't know the exact math about oil sands natural gas usage and oil used in the process vs what is being shipped out but, it has to be close or better than flaring since it was argued in a recent decision by the EU.
http://www.euractiv.com/energy/canada-attacks-eu-data-labelling-news-531692
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/08/12/eu-fuel-directive-demonizes-oil-sands/
It is all hypocrisy on a grand scale.
Cardboard