Tag Archives: Brent

Lets talk about corruption

It is a hard stage, but it is time to ask the difficult question “Is the BBC too corrupt?” It is not a question you saw coming. It is not one we would consider, but the stage is set. We need to ask the question because too much has happened. And today with ‘What could Saudi Arabia and UAE do to help lower oil prices?’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62352272) I am asking that question. After the issues with Jimmy Saville and Martin Bashir we now see increased oil misrepresentations. You see, the question seems fair, but what I do not see is that Brent Crude oil prices are set to the fact that the US exports about 8.63 million barrels per day and they net imported 6.11 million barrels, so why import when you also export? For the price and we see none of that. They want cheap oil from Saudi Arabia, the UAE and any other OPEC source, so that they can sell at a profit, but we see none of that. We are merely given “Saudi Arabia is the biggest single producer in the cartel and after meeting with Saudi crown prince, Mohammed Bin Salman, President Biden said he expects supply to increase. However, Saudi officials have also stressed any decision to increase supplies would be done in consultation with Opec+.” It is my opinion that until the US and EU show firmly to be allies of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that OPEC+ does NOTHING! We need to become less dependent on oil, and the only option is to reduce its need. Not by Matt McGrath and his stupid airline articles, but by setting a clear boundary of what oil can be used for. In the US transportation requires 67.2% of all the oil available. How about setting markers to reduce that to 65% in the next 3 years? How about reducing these BS flights? On November 13th 2021 in the article ‘A COP26 truth’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/11/13/a-cop26-truth/) I wrote “over the last 15 years 15,000,000 additional flights were added. That amounts to 41,000 flights a day, every single day. So how much CO2 do these flights create? More people and more flights, not the flights from the uber rich, no normal airline flights. I am willing to take a bet that at least 25% of those flights are useless and could be scrapped.” So people like Taylor Swift were not the polluters, and jokes like Matt McGrath (BBC) who go on about the rich jet owners. How much pollution are they making? How much pollution do these EXTRA 41,000 flights each day create? There is your oil savings, right there. One source (AFR) gave us in 2018 “the flights have been departing only 78.1 per cent full, on average, since the route was launched – meaning dozens of empty seats.” One destination, one liner. So how many more liners are too empty? Prestige at the expense of the environment, but the BBC will not give us that, will they? 

As I see it, the KSA must do what is best for the KSA and its citizens and as I see it. When you can sell strawberries by taking your time with each portion gives the farmer more to work with. You see oil is a finite commodity and when it is gone, it is gone forever but we seem to forget that, do we not? The media keeps on giving us the Middle East story about infinite oil reserves, but that is not the case and the US is passed over in all that reporting. The media oil reports give us none of the Brent Crude oil parts, are they? So when I saw the Line and the KSA options to set itself apart, I saw a station for at least three of my IP to flourish, and if they see that too the KSA will get it. I would have preferred it to go to Amazon or Google, but they weren’t biting and that is before some realise that there is still a treasure trove of 50 million streaming users around. And when the oil falls down then so does electricity (unless they make a deal with Elon Musk). Elon was the clever one, with the seats of power changing, space becomes a much more interesting commodity. Yet the foundation is that the media (including the BBC) have watered down the events of attacks by Houthi terrorists on Saudi civilian targets for too long, the US did pretty much the same thing and keeps on shouting Khashoggi (the columnist no one really cares about). In that environment why should the KSA do anything? It seems that oil will sell no matter what and at this point at a much higher price. For two years the KSA gave light to project Neom, the media shunned it. Why?

There is only so much BS we can stand for and there comes a time when people ask “How corrupt is the media?” And in light of the events I just showed you, I name my bewilderment by its name, a specific name. I wonder how corrupt the BBC has become. You need not believe me, but watch what is reported and I gave you 5 topics in this article. And when you realise that the BBC started the settings that would be the death of Princes Diana, princes of Wales, you need to get angry. The media is very set on reporting on the death dealer of Princes Diana (Martin Bashir) all whilst we see speculation after speculation on others and a remarkable avoidance of fact checking. I will admit that the BBC is still better than most, but in the Houthi settings they let too much go and this time around they need help from the victim of Houthi attack. So how do you think that will end?

It is merely the setting of a stage, but I will let you look at all the elements of that stage. I gave the evidence (as I personally see it) in my articles often enough. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

For those not seeing the oil field

There is a larger field, a larger oil field if you wish. And the people aren’t getting it. I get it, it isn’t an easy equation and it is not really your fault, because the media is guilty as hell in all this, but lets start at the beginning (well, some kind of beginning). One such headline is ‘Oil trumps human rights as Biden forced to compromise in Middle East’, it is one way to look at it, but it is the wrong way. My headline would have been ‘Greed is eternal at the expense of everything else’. The point here is that we get to see a few sides that the media is not giving us. It starts with the oil and that part is a lot more important than you think it is.  So lets take a look at the three nations and the barrels per day they pump.

United States11,184,870
Russia10,111,830
Saudi Arabia (OPEC)9,313,145

So America pumps out a lot of oil, now it makes perfect sense that they will not deal with Russia, but it is at present still an unequal information package.

You see the United States exported about 8.63 million barrels per day (b/d) and imported about 8.47 million b/d of petroleum. And now you think it does not make sense. So lets just say that the US is selling oil at $50 a barrel and buys it at $35 a barrel, so they get 8 million (rounded) times $15, is $120 million of profit a day and that amounts to $43.8 billion a year. Profit they basically got for free. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not willing to give away $43.8 billion after the way the US treated the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. There is just so much any person will take and I reckon the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has taken enough of the treatment handed to them. So the US instead of catering to self sells 73% of all the oil they pump, so why should the KSA after the way they were treated cater to that situation? Even an alternative that the us keeps 50% of their sales, they hand the KSA 50% it might be seen as a compromise. The US could stop selling 2,500,000 barrels a day and cater to its own needs, but the profit of some are not easily swayed. They are seemingly willing to let the US population freeze to death (or boil to death). And these numbers are out there, the media has had them for the longest time. All these BS articles on going crude oil free whilst the US is selling 73% of whatever they drill. Seems a little hypocritical, doesn’t it? 

That 73% does cater to 176 countries and 4 U.S. territories, no one denies that, but the profit goes somewhere and not all of it to the US coffers owned by the US treasuries. Someone is getting rich and the media is happy for you to be in the dark about it. Ask yourself “How many media outlets have given view of the amount sold? Why is the US short on oil whilst the oil harvested goes somewhere else?” I get it, there is a need for profit, no one denies that, but we see all these articles that imply and suggest that the Saudi’s are the bad paty whilst the US is trying to get cheap oil so that they can sell it at a profit. And believe me, when we change the prices of the earlier given $50 and $35 into the real numbers the equation changes really quick and the numbers become exceedingly large. 

So why should the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia hand over profit that they are entitled to? Did you honestly think that Aramco was some non profit organisation? If it is it will be non profit for Saudi Arabia and its citizens, not for the US and their citizens, or the 176 countries that they could cater to. And the media does not really give you that, do they? So when the Guardian gives us “Brent crude hit a 14-year high of $139.13 a barrel in March, fuelling global inflation and a worldwide cost of living crisis. In the US, inflation is at 9.1% and accelerating, which is likely to translate into lost seats for the Democratic party in November’s midterm elections.” What happens when they sell 2.5 million barrels a day less and let that go to the US shortage? The equation changes by a lot does it not? 29% less sales will be felt all over the US and by Brent in particular, so why exactly does the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia need to play ball with the US, especially when China is exceedingly courting Saudi Arabia for all kind of goods and when I see the revenue setting of 375 billion + 530 billion that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is spending on improving Saudi Arabia, there is every setting where the US has overplayed its hand and China is now in a premium position to get their revenue balls rolling. A setting I warned about before Covid before 2019, there were courters in the field and when that overpriced US plane wasn’t going there, China could sell the Chengdu J-20 at a nice price to Saudi Arabia (I admit I was trying to get my foot in the door and make a play for a simple 3.75% commission), and when you consider that this bill might go up to 15 billion, my 3.75% makes for a nice half a billion (we all have overly big dreams), and merely to play the courier? You have got to be kidding, I am so ready for that part! 

But this was about oil and the US played the wrong hand several times over (like shaking hands with air) and now Saudi Arabia and especially Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud might feel that the US played them for a fool and the problems start when the US could not afford problems. A stage where we see that Brent Crude is not so innocent and the media should have been on top of this, but I will let you people decide how that should be seen.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Costing in the key of life

Over the last decade, political parties have squandered the needs of their constituents. Liberals, conservatives and Labour alike in both the UK and Australia. I have seen the pressure as housing is no longer an options for many. It is a skewed approach to a solution that fit only the truly wealthy. It is a system that has been ignored, shovelled all over the place and no one has done anything serious to address it. How much longer can this go on?

Yesterday’s article in the Guardian by Robert Booth is only the tip of the iceberg that sank the good ship lollipop (at http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jan/01/london-flats-costing-up-to-1m-outsell-more-affordable-homes). The title ‘London flats costing up to £1m outsell more affordable homes‘ is on one side deceptive on the other side it is illustrative of several administrations that have not considered any solution, just a propagation of the Status Quo. The quote ‘sold more than twice as many two-bedroom apartments costing between £650,000 and £1m as cheaper homes priced at about £300,000‘ is partially deceptive. You see when you see the data ‘Sales of London homes banded by asking price per square foot’, we see the numbers, but what is missing is not ‘what is sold‘ but the metric ‘available places that people can afford‘, Even higher educated barristers admitted to the bar will not be able to show an annual income of £200,000, which means that even the highest educated are not in line for anything decent any day soon. In Australia the Commonwealth Bank of Australia is now marketing the alternative in the trend of ‘Use your spare room to help pay off your mortgage!‘, they voice it like ‘my new business‘, but in the end, it is a risky approach to either a mortgage that is higher than you bargained for or one that was outside your reach an they are voicing the ‘entrepreneurial’ edge to hide the risk. What if that person suddenly gets into a financial wash? What if the Granny involved dies? All elements that take weeks if not months to resolve and the mortgage is still due. In addition permits might be needed. Nothing of that is clearly shown. The entire housing market is in a dangerous place because the political parties have ‘conveniently’ ignored the lower branches of income and in all that the rent is also still rising whilst incomes are not moving forward. So we are in a place where London, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth are pricing their cities into non-sustainable situations and it has been going on for the better part of two decades. All these places have been trailing demand for over a decade by a decadent amount, whilst they should have been ahead of the curve for at least a decade.

When we look at the following quote in the Guardian “Campbell Robb, the chief executive of homelessness charity Shelter. “It is promising to see the government finally focusing on building more homes. But the only way to truly solve this housing crisis is for both the mayor and central government to finally prioritise building homes that Londoners on ordinary incomes can afford to rent or buy, instead of just higher earners.”“, question marks should be clearly placed, because ‘finally focusing on building more homes’ should have started in 2003 in both London and Sydney. Now, we have to accept that the city is no longer an option for many, yet when we look 4 minutes away from there we see the same trend of shortage. We are face with either not enough, or not affordable. A increasingly larger population in Sydney is now confronted that their income will at best support the rent of a mere studio apartment, meaning that the bulk must rely on 2 incomes to get anything above a one bedroom apartment, more than that, the current growth of rent means that any year that an annual increase of 3% is not met or exceeded, the living standard goes down on a quarterly base. These numbers might sound scary, but compared to London it is nowhere near as bad as it gets. The political parties have abandoned its population all for the need and premise of inviting wealth into the UK and Australia, whilst there is no evidence that these people are spending a great deal in those places, other than supporting and funding new unaffordable buildings. This goes far beyond these mere borders, we see a similar evolution in the Netherlands, where the issue is even more interesting as larger proportions of the Netherlands are facing a similar issue we see in London and Sydney. There is no ignoring the act that the Netherlands is only a fraction of the size of the UK (and an even more diminishable part of Australia), which of course drives prices up even faster. The Guardian article shows the most dangerous part at the very end with the quote “Since 2009, the fastest growing locations for new housing have been Barnet, Brent, Croydon, Newham and Wandsworth. In Croydon, the price of dozens of flats in the Coombe Cross development have increased by around a quarter, with one-bedroom flats rising £63,000 to £287,950“, now implying that the outer doughnut is no longer affordable, moreover, the fact that not more alerts are ringing all over Whitehall with an increase of 25% is even more unsettling. The average UK salary might be set at £26,500, but that implies that well over 50% of the UK is faced with a house price well over 1,000% of their income, making it never an option. That same trend is seen in Australia, where the median house price is now set at one million, setting the house price on average between 1,500% and 2,000% of their income, an issue that could have been avoided if the parties a decade ago had set clear paths in motion to battle this dangerous trend. Whilst both places are steering towards the New York unaffordability we are also faced with a situation that our values of life are in equal decrease, because as we move from nations that are no longer ‘working to live’, but nations that moved to ‘live to work’, our values will diminish faster and faster and it is all due to a path of greed and a path of flaccid and unreliable politicians. Labour UK 1997 – 2010, Labour AUS 2007 – 2013, in Australia partial fault is also with the Liberals as John Howard was sailing the good Ship Wallaby from 1996 – 2007. All parties that seemed to forget that not everyone can afford to live on a $100K+ income and we will be paying for their shortcomings for a long time to come.

I wonder if it ever gets properly solved without having to resort to ‘culling’ the population at large.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics