Tag Archives: Oil

June 21, 2025 · 12:14

Wars according to the TWT principle

Yes, that is the setting and as we are all seeing that the wars are mentally decided to President Trump according to his setting of two weeks. You see, there is no doubt, there is no hesitation. The setting is that Trump seemingly doesn’t have the balls to go against the wishes of President Putin. Even the ABC is giving us ‘Donald Trump has delayed making a decision on attacking Iran. What’s his strategy?’ And there is a nice benefit in it for me. You see, I showed DARPA whose boss (my very own delusion). I created a submarine stealth system to hinder (read: stop) Iranian ships traffic (and make their harbours inaccessible in the process) it also would cripple their naval settings. Then the FDD gave us in 2024 “The governor of an area in Yemen has “revealed” how Iranian weapons arrive by sea to the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen, UAE-based Al Ain news site reported. This is important because the Gulf Cooperation Council has been discussing the Houthi threat to shipping and Gulf-Yemen ties in recent days. The Houthis have also increased their attacks on shipping. According to the report, ships enter Houthi-controlled ports in Yemen without inspection. There are “renewed talk about the flow of Iranian weapons to the port of Hodeidah,” the report said, adding that the legitimate government of Yemen, and not the Houthi rebels, has confirmed and monitored the “movement of Iranian ships directly from the port of Bandar Abbas to the port of Hodeidah recently, while the British government documented the entry of 500 ships over the past 8 months, and for the first time since 2016, into ports controlled by the Houthis without being subject to the UN inspection mechanism.”” I created the weapon a few months after I heard that Houthi forces attacked civilian targets against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. At that point I decided to design the idea I had and I left a little hint like a fish as a hint, but apparently DARPA was evidently taken “like a stunned mullet” because nothing came of it and handing the idea over to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was an idea but they have no idea who I am (unlike DARPA and the DIA) as such it went nowhere, so I placed it online. Then as time progressed and Iran is seemingly becoming a nuclear danger I gave it another shot and I created a nuclear solution (an untested one) and it was a larger setting that their nuclear reactors would melt down, which had a few additional options. But that idea was floated on my blog in ‘Keeping my promise, part 1’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/12/14/keeping-my-promise-part-1/), I even created IP to hide the attack creating IP that could be civilian used. The idea was not a nuclear bomb, but to make the reactor meltdown giving a nice solution making the hundreds of millions be seen as a lousy investment for Iran. There were a few other upsides as my setting was not to explode but to make the reactor literally useless for the better part of a century and the upside here was that as it was Russian designed, there would be every option that it could be used against Russian reactors as well. The benefits of a larger consideration, which now in light of Russia might not have been a bad idea as 2-3 reactors melting down would Russia require all its oil to keep people warm. 

So in this light consider the strategic thinking of Two Week Trump and the golden coin of the cake is that America has had decades to seek solutions against Iran. Iran has been at this for a long time, so any administration seeking two weeks should not be in power, no matter what the blonde spokesperson of this administration states. The Pentagon should have been ready, right from the start. And Russia seeking other solutions is not the concern of America. Russia is halted by the 20th largest army in the world. So what is America afraid of? I get it, it is not an easy decision, but Iran and Russia have been at this for years, so calling their bluff of either pressing a little red button is a little overthought.

As such, America stood to gain three deeper connections with allies. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as the attack on Houthis was extremely likely to stop. When you cannot be handed weapons, you cannot attack, Israel as it loses the nuclear fear they seek and Europe as Iran is no longer a real concern. But what do we hear? A simple ‘Trump denies approving Iran attack plan but will make decision ‘within two weeks’’ and in the years preceding his indecision I created two weaponized solutions. And I am not stating that they will work, there is every chance that DARPA will have to recreates a few nuts and bolts, but the working solution was there and with a stealth solution in place, there is not finger pointing. That requires factual evidence and it has the benefit of Russia standing in stance at the stop at the nearly ready because even as it is less effective in the way Russian harbours have been designed, the optional seafare of goods would be removed from the table, so as I said all benefits. So what gives? Why the two weeks when an engineer designed a solution years ago? I will let you brood on that and ask yourself. When America has these bunker busters, as it is showing to have such a strong benefit of technology, in light of the terror fundings it has done through Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthi terrorist forces. What gives for the delays we see? We have been presented more than once that America with its Pentagon could make global decisions in under an hour. Sp what gives, did they become chicken? I hesitate there, as calling Marines chicken tends to be not the greatest idea on anyones mind. But you tell me, why the delay? The only thing that could make sense is that America is a lot more broke than anyone is willing to admit to and I get that, but the fact that America is now hinging on the shear hairs of any dog is weird, because the media has been in denial of that for far too long. So what is the truth?

The media cannot be trusted to give it to us because the filters stop them, the stakeholder filter is the most worrisome. I see it (after I saw the Politico article last year) as the largest problem. You see, several Americans are making a lot of money as they process Iranian oil. You see, processed oil is free from ‘sanctioned oil’ issues and we see how much oil is ‘sold’ but the processed oil is clear from those restrictions, as such someone is making a lot of money here. And these stakeholders get near unlimited finding to censor what needs to be censored. Is this a real case for America? I reckon it is and the two weeks trump setting might be the implied stage we are not seeing clearly as the media is muzzled on that setting. 

So we are in a pickle. When greed driven persons get to decide what we are allowed to know, the world seemingly turns to shit. Am I right? Am I wrong? You decide, but the stories (read: articles) as I saw it have been out in the open even the Russian oil setting in ‘Are we being lied to?’ Consider that this was ‘ready’ for Russia in January 2025. This would never have flown if it wasn’t ready for Iran years before this. That story (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2025/01/13/are-we-being-lied-to/) might have been news 6 months, but that larger setting was used in more than one way for years as I personally see it. How much media had been talking about ‘expensive sanctions’ all whilst there was a loophole and it wouldn’t have made sense in that setting, unless it was placed for the benefit of Iran. So how many people gave us the shallow goods that the industrials were hiding behind? Consider that setting, would you play the shallow bitch for $1,000,000 plus per day? I definitely would, especially considering the prices at McDonald rising the way they seem to be.

Have a great day. I am running off to get a nice cappuccino.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 17, 2025 · 22:10

SYSMIS(plenty)

Yes, this is sort of a hidden setting, but if you know the program you will be ahead of the rest (for now). Less then an hour ago I saw a picture with Larry Ellison (must be an intelligent person as we have the same first two letters in our first name). But the story is not really that, perhaps it is, but i’ll get to that later.

I will agree with the generic setting that most of the most valuable data will be seen in Oracle. It is the second part I have an issue with (even though it sounds correct), yes AI demands is skyrocketing. But as I personally see it AI does not exist. There is Generic AI, there are AI agents and there are a dozen settings under the sun advocating a non existing realm of existence. I am not going into this, as I have done that several times before. You see, what is called AI is as I see it mere NIP (Near Intelligent Parsing) and that does need a little explaining. 

You see, like the old chess computers (90’s) they weren’t intelligent, they merely had in memory every chess game ever played above a certain level. And all these moves were in these computers. As such there was every chance that the chess computer came into a setting where that board was encountered before and as such it tried to play from that point onwards. It is a little more advanced than that, but that was the setting we faced. And would you have it, some greed driven salesperson will push the boundary towards that setting where he (or she) will claim that the data you have will result in better sales. But (a massive ‘but’ comes along) that is assuming all data is there and mostly that is never the case. So if we see the next image

You see that some cells are red, there we have no data and data that isn’t there cannot be created (sort of). In Market Research it is called System Missing data. They know what to do in those case, but the bulk of all the people trying to run and hide behind there data will be in the knowing nothing pool of people. And this data set has a few hidden issues. Response 6 and 7 are missing. So were they never there? Is there another reason? All things that these AI systems are unaware of and until they are taught what to do your data will create a mess you never saw before. Sales people (for the most) do not see it that way, because they were sold an AI system. Yet until someone teaches them what to do they aren’t anything of the sort and even after they are taught there are still gaps in their knowledge because these systems will not assume until told so. They will not even know what to do when it goes wring until someone tells them that and the salespeople using these systems will revert to ‘easy’ fixes, which are not fixes at all, they merely see the larger setting that becomes less and less accurate in record time. They will rely on predictive analytics, but that solution can only work with data that is there and when there is no data, there is merely no data to rely on. And that is the trap I foresaw in the case of [a censored software company] and the UAE and oil. There is too much unknowns and I reckon that the oil industry will have a lot more data and bigger data, but with human elements in play, we will see missing data. And the better the data is, the more accurate the results. But as I saw it, errors start creeping in and more and more inaccuracies are set to the predictive data set and that is where the problems start. It is not speculative, it is a dead certainty. This will happen. No matter how good you are, these systems are build too fast with too little training and too little error seeking. This will go wrong. Still Larry is right “Most Of The World’s Valuable Data Is in some system”

The problem is that no dataset is 100% complete, it never was and that is the miscalculations to CEO’s of tomorrow are making. And the assumption mode of the sales person selling and the sales person buying are in a dwindling setting as they are all on the AI mountain whilst there is every chance that several people will use AI as a gimmick sale and they don’t have a clue what they are buying, all whilst these people sign a ‘as is’ software solution. So when this comes to blows, the impact will be massive. We recently saw Microsoft standing behind builder.ai and it went broke. It seems that no one saw the 700 engineers programming it all (in this case I am not blaming Microsoft) but it leaves me with questions. And the setting of “Stargate is a $500 billion joint venture between OpenAI, SoftBank, Oracle, and investment firm MGX to build a massive AI infrastructure in the United States. The project, announced by Donald Trump, aims to establish the US as a leader in AI by constructing large-scale data centers and advancing AI research. Initial construction is underway in Texas, with plans for 20 data centers, each 500,000 square feet, within the next five years” leaves me with more questions. I do not doubt that OpenAI, SoftBank and Oracle all have the best intentions. But I have two questions on this. The first is how to align and verify the data, because that will be an adamant and also a essential step in this. Then we get to the larger setting that the dat needs to align within itself. Are all the phrases exact? I don’t know this is why I ask and before you say that it makes sense that they do but reality gives us ‘SQUARE-WINDOWED AIRPLANES’ 1954 when two planes broke apart in mid-flight because metal fatigue was causing small cracks to form at the edges of the windows, and the pressurized cabins exploded. Then we have the ‘MARS ORBITER’ where two sets of engineers, one working in metric and the other working in the U.S. imperial system, failed to communicate at crucial moments in constructing the $125 million spacecraft. We tend to learn when we stumble that is a given, so what happens when issues are found in the 11th hour in a 500 billion dollar setting? It is not unheard of and as I saw one particular speculative setting. How is this powered? A system on 500,000 square feet needs power and 20 of them a hell of a lot more. So how many nuclear reactors are planned? I actually have an interesting idea (keeping this to me for now). But any computer that leaks power will go down immediately and all those training time is lost. How often does that need to happen for it to go wrong? You can train and test systems individually but 20 data centers need power, even one needs power and how certain is that power grid? I actually saw nothing of that in any literature (might be that only a few have seen that), but the drastic setting from sales people tends to be, lets put in more power. But where from? Power is finite until created in advance and that is something I haven’t seen. And then the time setting ‘within the next 5 years’ As I see it, this is a disaster waiting to happen. And as this starts in Texas, we have the quote “According to Texas native, Co-Founder and CFO of Atma Energy, Jaro Nummikoski, one of the main reasons Texas struggles with chronic power outages is the way our grid was originally designed—centralized power plants feeding energy over long distances through aging infrastructure.” Now I am certain that the power-grid of a data centre will be top notch, but where does that power come from? And 500,000 sqft needs a lot of power, I honestly do not know how much One source gave me “The facilities need at least 50 Megawatts (MW) of power supply, but some installations surpass this capacity. The energy requirements of the project will increase to 15 Gigawatts (GW) because of the ten data centers currently under construction, which equals the electricity usage of a small nation.” As such the call for a nuclear reactor comes to mind, yet the call for 15 GW is insane, and no reactor at present exists to handle that. 50MW per data center implies that where there is a data centre a reactor will be needed (OK, this is an exaggeration) but where there are more than one (up to 4) a reactor will be needed. So who was aware of this? I reckon that the first centre in Texas will get a reactor as Texas has plenty of power shortages and the increase in people and systems warrant such a move. But as far as I know those things will require a little more than 5 years and depending on the provider there are different timelines. As such I have reasons to doubt the 5 year setting (even more when we consider data). 

As such I wonder when the media will actually look at the settings and what will be achievable as well as being implemented and that is before we get to the training of data of these capers. As I personally (and speculatively) see it, will these data centers come with a warning light telling us SYSMIS(plenty), or a ‘too many holes in data error’ just a thought to have this Tuesday. 

Have a great day and when your chest glows in the dark you might be close to one of those nuclear reactors. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 1, 2025 · 05:38

What was that about London Town?

There is a setting that we see and for some reason the media is ‘unable’ to highlight. It reminded me of a setting we saw in Love Actually, the masterpiece by Richard Curtis which included Keira Knightly as the newly created bride, Denise Richards as the pretty one of the family, Claudia Schiffer as the new girlfriend of Liam Neeson. Yet they are not the setting. It is the interaction of Hugh Grant as the Prime Minister and Billy Bob Thornton as the US president. You see, that part reflects on now when we hear Hugh Grant (as Prime Minister of the UK) say “A friend who bullies us is no longer a friend. And since bullies only respond to strength, from now onward I will be prepared to be much stronger.” Words that have been unlikely to come from Keir Starmer. On the side of President Trump it was a good tactic. Divide and conquer. An age old tradition to take the UK out of the race to support Canada. That is my first concern. Our Commonwealth brother is in a tough spot and they need our help. I for one was all about setting the stage of the Commonwealth and it has merit. If Whatever is exported to the USA, should now (for as much as possible) set among us, the Commonwealth nations. Moreover, the tariffs need to include all exported energy to America. The said 25%, fine, Canada can do that too. But the larger requirements are to set exports from America to Commonwealth and Europe. The first setting is oil, Crude Petroleum ($107B), Petroleum Gas ($15.7B) and Refined Petroleum ($15.1B). Then we get to deal with the rest. And as far as I can see, either Australia and New Zealand aren’t on their list, or their parts are too small. So lets ramp up what these two nations can deal with. The benefit there is that Vancouver will get a boost of income through shipping and optionally jobs too. After that there is the option how much can we shift towards Europe, as well as how much more can Canada sell to the United Kingdom. It only takes care of 40% of the current needs, but with America losing the 40% of that, especially oil, America has created their own problem. As far as I am concerned we all need to take America off the shopping lists. Australia has its own settings. Two weeks ago we saw “It came after comments on Tuesday from the US president that there would be no exceptions or exemptions on the tariffs, which will start on 12 March unless Anthony Albanese can secure an exemption.” So was there an exemption? And March 12th is less than two weeks away. For Australia the ‘loss’ is a ‘mere’ 51 billion all whilst we import from America $34.6 billion in goods and services. So what happens if we decide to drop the bigger part of $34 billion and get that from Canada and India? I don’t know if it completely balances its out, but two nations dampening America for half a trillion dollars will have an effect. As such we can state that ‘America first’ could become an essential ‘America first to the sewer’. I like it when life balances the bully into desperation. I don’t know that much about New Zealand but that has its own margins, and when that falls down for America as well, and their goods find another destination, we will have been much stronger against the so called ‘bully’.

In the other side there is nothing against America phrasing ‘America first’ it is a nationalistic setting I never opposed it. Not for Denmark, not for Germany, not for France of any other nation. National pride is essential for any nation. But the larger issue isn’t that America has a Fentanyl problem. It is related to the quote “Since 2013, the illegally manufactured fentanyl problem in the United States has become more deadly and more diverse.” The other side is that federal data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection show Canada plays almost no role in the smuggling of fentanyl or other deadly street drugs into the U.S. Despite that fact, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised in December to step up efforts to secure the northern border. (Source: NPR) so how is “Canada plays almost no role” the setting for the tariffs? It does not. As I personally see it America is now so broke that they have to cut every corner and alleviate every spending that they can dismiss. That is the setting I see and I have been watching this for some years. It might help, but at the most a few months and as we cull the needy Americans from resources they need, that setting will expedite matters against President Trump. And we have a duty to our Commonwealth brothers and now we must unite, because when the Wall Street boat sinks, we need to be ready for what comes next. If you want to guess what comes next. Wait until you see, social funding goes to zero. Veterans, healthcare, pensions, unemployment it all falls down. I reckon that this mess will be ten times worse than the Great Depression, which was a global economic crisis that began in 1929 and lasted until the 1930s. It was caused by the Wall Street stock market crash in the United States. And it will do so again, but this time the stakes are higher. Europe and Japan are directly impacted this time too and what comes next will fuel movies for a decade or two. Perhaps Richard Curtis will create his next gem called ‘Funds Actually’ and its release will be under 5 years after this point is reached. Perhaps a more international cast like the stock broker in Tokyo (played by Hiroyuki Sanada) who sees his wealth and family life dissolve as he trusted the words of Wall Street. And for rockers, the role of Donald Trump played by Alec Baldwin, dropping in on 10 Downing Street asking “Can I have some more please?” I actually doubt that President Trump ever used the phrase ‘please’ but it makes for a better Oliver Twist reference. 

When you see the elements stack up, I see that this is the most prevalent setting and when the numbers are counted, can anyone give rise to the Fox statement “The massive GOP bill would also direct $4 trillion toward raising the debt limit” I think America is about to surpass its debt limit with exceeding arrogance and that is never good, because like gamblers going all in again and again disregarding the issue in front of them just as long as they get one win, that setting is one of the most dangerous. Not only because the current administration is ignorant of the setting of now, but they let the bet it hoping they get some too. When you take approach to the budgets, how does this ever help anyone?

Have a lovely weekend. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, movies, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 25, 2025 · 05:31

How does commerce work?

That is at times the question. As I see it President Trump has a flawed nd warped view of one. We get that from the Middle East Monitor, aka MEMO (at https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250123-trump-calls-for-1-trillion-saudi-investment-lower-oil-prices/) where we are given ‘Trump calls for $1 trillion Saudi investment, lower oil prices’ And I thought it was an error, but it was not (several publications give me a similar view). The weirdest part is “US President Donald Trump, on Thursday, said he will demand Saudi Arabia and OPEC bring down the cost of oil and will ask Riyadh to increase a planned US investment package to $1 trillion from an initial reported $600 billion” (source: Reuters). And the weird part is set in fact. When we see that USA exports 10.15 barrels of oil daily and IMPORTS 8.53 million barrels of oil, we come to the conclusion that America want cheap oil so that they can get a better margin on selling their oil (which will not be cheaper). So why would Saudi Arabia and Aramco do that? Would anyone do that? As such I think that America is thinking of getting the (speculated) $40,000,000 a day margin to settle their mega trillion dollar debt. It also makes me wonder how close are they to becoming bankrupt? And beside that, they want Saudi Arabia to invest a trillion dollars over 4 years. To be honest it seems like a radical stupid notion to get someone to invest a trillion dollars and lower the price of oil so that Saudi Arabia will be regarded as a friend? Sounds a weird approach to business to me. The quote given is ““But I’ll be asking the Crown Prince, who’s a fantastic guy, to round it out to around $1 trillion,” Trump told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “I think they’ll do that because we’ve been very good to them.”” So exactly how has America been good to Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia has not been able to acquire the F35? Whilst Saudi Arabia civilian targets were hit by Houthi Terrorists, America did not come forward to sell necessarily equipment. So how has America shown themselves as a worthy ally?

You see, in my books an ACTUAL ally will aid when needed and supply hardware when needed (and paid for in some cases). There is also the notion that Iran have been circumventing the US Navy in several cases to deliver hardware to Houthi Terrorists, some navy. The funny part that MEMO describes “he will demand Saudi Arabia and OPEC bring down the cost of oil”, so now Saudi Arabia is seen separate from OPEC? OPEC is called that as it is the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. So, Saudi Arabia is not part of OPEC? A weird setting as I see it and if America is as broke as it seems to be, it makes some sense, but this would be regarded as a desperate knee jerk move (as I see it).

And on this setting, it has every notion of driving the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia straight into the fold of China and their plans for the world according to China. So how does that help America?

Just a thought to have this lovely Saturday morning.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 8, 2024 · 21:00

All the way from Ottawa

Yup, that was the question mark that I had. I saw it at the CBC (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/guilbeault-china-saudi-arabia-climate-1.7376007) where we get ‘China, Saudi Arabia should pay up to help the planet cope with climate change: Guilbeault’ OK, I like my sarcasm with plenty of Maple Syrup (a personal choice). A wholesome breakfast as it says. We are given “Guilbeault wants emerging economies to contribute to a new climate goal”. This sounds nice on paper, but it doesn’t hold the pastrami. I feel uneasy as the idea sounds nice, but it seems to have all kinds of unforeseen complications. And as we consider “Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said Wednesday he wants China and Saudi Arabia to contribute money to international efforts to help poorer countries struggling with the worst effects of climate change.” You know, America and Europe take its own share of decades of looting in wealth the established setting of the commodity of oil. Oh, and why give OPEC and China that bill? Where is Am Erica for that bill? I am pretty sure that some president of the US give Steven Guilbeault the finger the moment he states that out loud. There is a larger setting. You see, we could decrease the allowed oil for any nation by 10%, then there is my favourite, decrease global flights by 15% (taken in account that there are way too many flights happening). You see, the last 15 years we have seen a million flights per year more. I did a calculation once (in 2021) where I stated “That amounts to 41,000 flights a day, every single day.” I did this on November 13th 2021 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/11/13/a-cop26-truth/) in ‘A COP26 truth’ As I see it, this will have a better result. But Steven Guilbeault does not want that. He merely want to point the finger at China (to get the blessing of some president), he’ll also point the finger at Saudi Arabia which will not go anywhere. As I personally see it, this is a limelight piece. Get the shiny lights thrust upon him whilst the solution goes nowhere, and those poor poor emerging economies? Ad when we consider ““China will become, in fact, one of the biggest historic polluters in the coming years,” Guilbeault said.” What data does he have? In the coming years is speculation, as I see it, Russia will have to become a much larger polluter to get any fingers over the edge of disaster at present. There is no real data to consider that China will be anything like that. I wonder where he got the data, as the ‘data’ in march gave us all “India was declared as the third-most polluted country in 2023, after Bangladesh and Pakistan, according to a report released by Swiss air quality monitoring body, IQAir.” Which is interesting as they have a significant loss of longevity They went from eight position in 2022 to third position in 2023. Of that list of 50 cities 42 are in India. As such I call his bluff and wish him a nice day with what he has. Yes something needs to be done, pretty much everyone agrees with that. What it is, remains the question. Giving the Ace of Spades to China and Saudi Arabia is folly as I see it. The issue with any fire is to take away the air for a fire to breath, take away the fuel that propels the fire or put out the fire (the third is the lamest idea). As such you can limit oil to everyone, which will drive the price up, or take away the air for oil to burn (extremely hazardous to people). As such we are in a bind. Making this about emerging economies is just a bad option, or we lessen EVERYONE’S access to oil and the the emerging countries get their 100% and the largest economies get that limit decrease as well. I wonder how long it will take for everyone to ‘diminish’ the emerging economies. You see Steven Guilbeault blasted his statement to ‘merely’ include China and Saudi Arabia. In 2021 the United States used 20.4% of the petroleum-consuming countries it was number one with 5% more then number 2 (China), as such why didn’t Steven Guilbeault mention America? Oh, and Saudi Arabia isn’t even in that top 5. India (4.8%), Russia (3.8%) and Japan (3.5%) had those positions. As such it makes kinda sense to hand the spade to China, but not before America gets the spade as well. They both Amount to 36.1% of the petroleum-consuming countries. As such, when you consider these numbers. Is he anything more than a windy politician (like the ones from Chicago)?

It’s not all seemingly bad news. We are also given “According to one estimate, $2.4 trillion US in climate finance is needed by 2030 for investments to meet the Paris Agreement targets and related development goals.” Yes, that works with any nation with a gross federal debt surpassing $35,000,000,000,000. That really seemingly works and don’t blame President-elect Trump for that, Harris wouldn’t have been able to do that either. This is the result of sitting on your hands and too many presidents have done that going all the way back to President Clinton, which was 21 years ago. The easiest option is that we allow climate change to kill 27.8% of the population, making the decrease of 49,000 flights a day and 24.1% less oil used a manageable achievement. You see, the solution is very simple if you see the problem as simple as an arithmetic problem. Take away the people using oil and you get the same result. Oh, as a bonus consider that less food is required at that point. All simple solutions towards a conundrum that people aren’t willing to see as a real problem. Did I oversimplify the problem for you?

Have a lovely day and consider how much oil you used this week. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 28, 2024 · 07:43

The setting of coins

The BBC had an interesting article yesterday. I was drawn between two settings. There is nothing wrong with the article. It is a point of view and anyone has that right. My setting was that the dimensionality is wrong. Some see Iran as a wimpy weasel, others as a weaselly wimp. I think they are both at the same time. That is as far as the difference is seen. The BBC in the shape of Jeremy Bowen hands us ‘Iran faces hard choices between risks of escalation or looking weak’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2742rynqgo). I don’t think they look weak, they are weak. When you have to rely on terrorists to bring your message across, you are weak. And the setting that this brings is that a stabilising effect that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia brought was torpedoed (for a lack of a better word) by Iran. Iran is so afraid to be the trivialising party in the middle east that they rely on three terrorist entities. Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthi forces. 

We are given “They must decide on the least bad of a series of difficult choices. At one end of the spectrum is hitting back with another wave of ballistic missiles. Israel has already threatened to retaliate again if that happens” And the options of a bad series of choices is ‘encouraged’ by the west. Politico brought me this month the setting of loopholes that were created to enable other players to sell Russian oil, all legal (which is why we call it a loophole), yet this wasn’t created for Russia. Russia got to exploit the loophole the west made for Iran (my presumptuous thinking). Do you really think that Iran could have played the game this long if they didn’t have that loophole?

We are then given “Iran’s official media in the hours before and after Israel’s attacks carried defiant statements that, at face value, suggest the decision to respond had already been taken. Its language resembles Israel’s, citing its right to defend itself against attack. But the stakes are so high that Iran might decide to walk its threats back” which sounds nice on paper, but the reality is that this weasel was hiding behind three terrorist organisation. Hamas has now been bombed back into the stone age and their leaders are hiding in Doha, Qatar (according to some sources). As far as I see it, Gaza did this to themselves. Hezbollah decided to rely on pagers and the top of Hezbollah basically messaged themselves to death. That is number two down. The assault was so complete that pretty much the entire top of Hezbollah blew themselves up. Who ever didn’t do this will follow soon I reckon. Then there is just the Houthi brach left. I reckon that the next 3-5 years amounts to Iran calling that branch with requests for the good of Shia Islam. Not sure how they will bring that news, but it is likely to take on that form. All the money that Iran invested would now be asked to validate through actions. Hamas has seemingly lost around 50% of its fighting force and the rest is dubious of continuing and finding real solutions for their family. Hezbollah has no top, this means that Iran needs to put advisors on the ground, or lose whatever they had left. And the Houthi’s will go in a new direction. As I personally see it, with the recruitment of child soldiers they are taking on the direction Hamas had and as some drone technology that evolved in the Ukraine, we will see soon a new frontier develop where drones can be sent to a generic location and start auto targeting a scope of realistic issues. There is every consideration that whatever drone abilities the Saudi government has will soon gain serious teeth. 

We are then given “Iran’s foreign ministry invoked its right to self defence “as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter”. A statement said Iran believed it was both entitled and obligated to respond to foreign acts of aggression”, this sounds nice, but Iran played the terrorist card and has done so for years, which makes its statement baseless. We can see America ‘pleading’ with Israel not to hit the oil reserves and the loophole for oil makes it a desired move, but Israel has its own concerns. These terrorist actions are funded by Iran and defund their oil is a tactical move to temporary stop funding, making the tactic valid. As we see “The men in Tehran thought they had a better idea than all-out war. Instead, Iran used the allies and proxies in its so-called “axis of resistance” to attack Israel. The Houthis in Yemen blocked and destroyed shipping in the Red Sea. Hezbollah rocket fire from Lebanon forced at least 60,000 Israelis from their homes.” We are confronted with the harsh reality that Iran is considering extreme options and that is the final straw for Israel. They could bring to bare 125 missiles on Iranian oil fields and with that Iran will have no more options. A setting that was accelerated since 1979 comes to a stop when the oil becomes to tainted to be sold, it will be the oil that glows in the dark. And the world is fearing that moment. Too many stakeholders with their slice of pie that came from the oil loophole will end and there will be a lot of voices trying to delay this point. On the upside it would enable Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to set some solid work to make these two the solidifying hub of international cooperation on the Arabian peninsula. 

The largest question for the world will be what will Iran decide and they could find a way to make hay out of that. Because any escalation will lead to the end of Iran, a path that started 6000 years ago. It is anyones guess if the Iran of today realises that they are out of survivable options. I see three paths and two remain silent because it amounts (without evidence) to fear mongering. And I am not inclined to openly support that view. The play nice card sounds nice, but it would require Iran to disband sections of the IRGC as well as stop supporting terrorism. Will Iran see that light? When people have been on that violent streak for decades, it is hard to stop. I get that, but does Iran have any resolution left? Empty threats will not bring home the veal as they say.

Well, it’s Monday now, so have a great new day. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 6, 2024 · 20:05

Is it merely political?

That was the thought I had. It came from Politico, as such I would believe that it was political. Yet the larger premise is on the setting of circumstance. This sounds weirdly spooky, but it is the best I can offer. The story (at https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-war-economy-pain-saudi-arabia-sink-global-oil-prices-energy-russia-opec/) starts with ‘Putin’s war economy faces pain if Saudis sink global oil prices’ which is a partial truth, but it goes further then that. We are given “A Saudi move to grab market share will squeeze the Kremlin’s finances, experts argue” which is only a partial truth. The entire part is followed by “Riyadh is increasingly frustrated with other petrostates’ failure to coordinate on cutting supply to raise oil prices to about $100 per barrel — up from the current $70. Oil traders say Saudi Arabia is now set to respond by flexing its muscles and turning the tables on smaller producers, exporting more oil itself to grab market share and profits, even as prices fall.” We are also given “The Financial Times reported last week that Saudi Arabia could abandon its long-held ambitions to limit the crude supply to push prices to around $100 a barrel. Oil market experts have little doubt that Saudi Arabia has the enormous production and export capacity to change tactics and gun for market domination through volume instead.” In this view I need to align a few positions. What is missing is that America (the United Kingdom also) are depending in keeping oil cheap. So that is missing. Hanging it on the Russian needs is a bit dorky. Yes, they both matter, but the US an EU need for cheap oil missing as a pre-made need, is just dorky (I can’t find a better word for this). You see when there is a lack of a commodity prices go up and now this fails? The world requires (at present) that 2.4 million barrels per day pumped more than now and that is not done. I actually speculated this a year ago when I stated that we can pump 4 barrels at $3, or 3 barrels at $4. The amount gained is still the same but at 25% less oil. It is a simple equation (and an incorrect version) but the the premise remains. I went through to the next stage that Saudi Arabia could pump 2 barrels as the price goes up to $6, still the same revenue but now at half the oil delivered. This is how commerce works on commodities. I still doubt the statement that the $100 per barrel cannot be reached, I merely believe that certain stakeholders want the premise to keep their pockets lined. How? I cannot tell, I am not an oil person, I merely use it through various means. So what gives? 

When we get to ““The global economy is fairly sluggish and oil demand is not as high as the Saudis would want,” said Ajay Parmar, director of oil markets analytics at commodities intelligence firm ICIS.” I have issues here. You see, this means that the Russia delivers all oil. There is not a lack of demand, some people are playing a high end game to keep their pockets lined. If I had it my way (pretend that I am the new CEO of Aramco, a very fake one) I would stop 5.5 million barrels a day from reaching the US, EU and UK, in the combination 3,2 and .5 it would take less than 90 days for it all to implode. As Tesla is more and more lacking is quality, the other nations will need 2-3 years to overcome their downfall and in that time China is the new superpower with America stumbling over the edge of the abyss. That is clear in my (optionally wrong) point of view. The setting that Politico gives is too partial and slightly too flawed. 

Yes Russia has a problem and they are welcome to the problems they get to harvest now. A second problem is “Russia’s fossil fuel profits have also risen by 41 percent in the first half of this year alone, according to Moscow’s finance ministry, despite Western sanctions imposed over the war in Ukraine.” I don’t doubt these numbers, but who paid for that oil? I doubt is was merely China, North Korea and India. Although these countries were involved. I saw last year that India was buying some of the oil, China is a definite and I guess that North Korea had to pay for their weapons and it seems like a logical choice for them to accept oil as payment. So who more? 

Politico should have stated “Russia’s fossil fuel profits have also risen by 41 percent (from 1M barrels to 1.41M barrels)” but they didn’t if Russia only sold 50,000 barrels it will not be an issue, but that is not the case, is it?

Now if you doubt my reasoning. That is fine. But we have seen plenty of issues where prices go up the moment that commodities has a higher demand. Yet the article does not give us that does it? And who is Ajay Parmar? This article leaves me with plenty of questions and no answers. So in all this, Is Russia in actual trouble? To some degree, but I see this as an alternative way for Saudi Arabia to give in to the west requiring cheap oil. I personally believe that Politico missed their mark and as such loses credibility as such. The one part that I do see is “A loophole allows middlemen in countries like Turkey, China and India to refine Russian oil in petrol and diesel before selling it elsewhere — exempt from sanctions. According to a report first seen by POLITICO, Western countries spent $2 billion on this rebranded fuel in the first half of 2024” As such that should be the story and the story is that more and more nations are fuelling Russian revenue through refining Russian oil and filling their pockets. As such there is a momentum being built, one that is not addressed and one that is trivialised as such I expect that plenty of newspapers will fuel their revenue by posting this story. The 41% is now shown to be big business, especially when we see Turkey and India and how they are short on cash pretty much all of the time.

So we are seeing a larger stage. In the first on where is Russian oil going to and in the second what countries are fuelling their demands for cheap oil? A nice spreadsheet would have been nice, but that was a part that Politico oversaw (I guess).

Still as we see one part, we also see the part that some want us to see, appointed awareness. A combination of social awareness and the influence of appointing. A formal arrangement to create a designed social awareness. The ability to understand a situation as the offical parties would like others to see them. But as I see it, this will be at the expense of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Is that fair all whilst Russia is handed loophole after loophole, as long as the west gets its oil cheap. How is this not exploitation? 

Consider what is being done and at what expense? The question is simple enough. 

Enjoy the Sunday you have left to you.

4 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 28, 2024 · 22:22

How I fall short

That is the stage, that is the setting. I do not know everything (too boring anyways) and even as I see how things develop and are optionally staged. The fact that I do not know everything gets in the way of some things. Now, I know very little about oil. It is a commodity everyone needs, it is a commodity only some countries have and the two biggest players in that field are Aramco and ADNOC, oil is black and it is needed for the production of petroleum. That’s about all I know. The current price is about $68 dollars per barrel. So when I saw ‘Oil price drops, and BP and Shell shares slide, as Saudi Arabia ‘prepares to abandon $100 crude target’’ I didn’t think too much of it. The story comes from the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2024/sep/26/european-reconstruction-bank-cuts-growth-forecasts-energy-ukraine-elon-musk-uk-investment-summit), there were more sources, but I am handing you this one. We get “Saudi Arabia is reportedly ready to abandon its unofficial price target of $100 a barrel for crude as it prepares to increase output” yet Oil&Gas journal gives us “Saudi Arabia is preparing to abandon its informal target of $100/bbl for crude oil as it plans to increase production, signalling the kingdom’s acceptance of a period of lower prices and intentions to take back market share, according to sources cited by the Financial Times”, now in my book the shortage of one commodity means prices go up. I do understand that any player will protect market share, as such I get the increase of product to protect your market share. That makes sense. And as such we see Saudi Arabia deciding an increase for about 1 million barrels per day as per December 2024. There are a few players on this field and I like the idea that the increase will make sure that Russia has less customers to get it from Russia is not happy. And as several media are giving us the goods, there is no other way for me than to agree with the setting. In overall there is still a larger concern I have. Oil is a commodity with a finite supply, so how much supply is there? I believe that the middle east has the bulk of it, but the finite session gives us the dangerous setting that at some point, the three countries with supply will be Russia, Iran and Venezuela. That is not a setting I want to wake up to, although at present it is highly unlikely that I will be around the morning we get that piece of news. In the meantime there is a larger issue at stake. How will Aramco increase its creation of oil with an additional 159,000,000 litres of that black fluid. You see everyone is looking at the end result and no one is looking at the how. What is required to that level of increase? I feel certain that it will require a lot more than one pump. It is the increase of 10% (near to that) and comes from 300 rigs. The simpleton in me sees this as an additional 30 rigs. It takes 18 months to five years to commission a rig, the construction timeline for an oil rig can vary significantly depending on several factors and that is if the oil comes from rigs. Saudi Arabia has one hundred oil and gas fields, so if it comes from there, other means are needed. The largest oil field is the Ghawar field. So how can you increase the production there? And is that the only place? We are so desperate for oil that the basic security is overlooked and there is at present Iran, Houthi forces and a few others who are very willing to hurt Saudi Arabia. So what more is needed, because when by November that increase is realised, some will take offence to this and that problem will possibly create all kinds of new problems. And we do not see enough information on that side of the equation.

And advice from me? Nope, I know next to nothing on that topic. I can merely see hurdles and optionally a personal belief that I see options, but that is not what the actual expert on the topic has. And the media? Solutions do not make their digital wallet fat, flames do that and in that view it is not a good idea to put flames close to oil, a mere personal view on the matter.

Have a great weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 3, 2024 · 21:40

A strange evolving setting

I saw the article last night (really really early this morning) and it gave me something to think about. The article (at https://www.deccanherald.com/business/economy/with-russian-oil-imports-falling-india-turns-to-saudi-arabia-2832708) comes from Deccan Herald. I do not know them, but it is an Indian paper. The west doesn’t seem to have this. So lets look at what is weird. 

It starts with “at least five cargoes of the sweet Sokol variant heading to other locations, data from vessel tracking agencies showed.” Then there is “China appears to be the final solution for some cargoes” so whilst we see that imports of Saudi oil, rose by about 4 per cent, Russian oil declined by 22%, the numbers do not add up. I personally believe that Russia is in more trouble then they are letting on. I personally believe that a chunk of that oil is going to Iran to pay for drones. Iran might have oil, but it is embargoed, Russian oil is not and they can make transfer sales and fill their coffers up that way. Now, all this needs to be taken lightly, because there is only one source and I am speculating of that. Consider the deal Russian suppliers had with India. Also consider that by late July 2023, Iran had sent at least 400 Shahed and Mohajer series drones to Russia. That is close to $20 million, per $60 a barrel that is a whole lot of oil and the fact that India is getting less implies (implies is not a fact) that Russia has more than one issue at present. The Shahed drones are running out, more are needed and Russia (through several sources) are lacking in capabilities to get their own drones to the front. This all adds up that Russia has increasing issues to maintain their battlefronts, to maintain their Russian oil supplies and to maintain their manufacturing facilities. Napoleon lost with a lot less problems.

So whilst Saudi Arabia is seeing more revenue from their oil stocks, the question is how long that happens. It is not on Saudi Arabia, but once it is shown that Russia is lacking in a few ways the larger station comes that Russia will be fighting internal and external wars. 

So how right am I?
That remains the larger question. If any of the presented facts through sources is wrong, the entire domino wall comes tumbling down. None of this could be verified and the fact that only the Deccan Herald had this is also a point for debate. There are differences between the data of Kpler and Vortexa and that is fine. But the stage where Russia is delivering 22% less whilst there are implied reasons and none of this backed up by facts, together with the one mention of China with “China appears to be the final solution for some cargoes” makes me think that there is more going on and somehow someone paid for all those drones, Iran doesn’t give these toys away. 

So there is a stage where merely some of it could be right, but which part? 

In addition to Yesterday
Yesterday I talked about tourism. What I failed to mention is that there was data on the UAE. Reuters gave it 4 days ago (at https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/uaes-abu-dhabi-sees-non-oil-gdp-growth-77-q3-2023-statement-2023-12-29/), I missed it.  There we see ‘UAE’s Abu Dhabi sees non-oil GDP growth of 7.7% in Q3 2023 -statement’. This is huge and it is non-oil growth. Now, this is not merely tourism, this is on more sides, but tourism will be taking a chunk of this. Poland with 1.4% growth is the biggest in the EU last year. This implies that the United Arab Emirates outperformed all EU nations by well over 500%. That is massive. Now, comparing GDP’s is unbalanced and incorrect, I get that. However, these settings imply that tourism in the US and EU are taking a serious dive in 2024. We can debate that this is merely a hiccup, or that it is nothing, a mere blip on the radar. But in light of their faltering GDP and places like Greece, Spain, Italy, London, Paris, New York and Florida need tourism these blips could have severe impacts in these places. If continued there is every chance that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates will get access to $25-$30 billion and other places do not. Do you still think it is a little hiccup? Even when we see “Florida visitors contributed $101.9 billion to Florida’s economy and supported over 1.7 million Florida jobs (2021)” now consider that to be 5% less. How many jobs will go south? The European nations cannot even consider losing that much, it would be like the impact of Greek tourism (2002-2008) but now over three nations. That impact will be seen. 

So how accurate is this?
It is not. The reported numbers from Saudi Arabia and the UAE are, but how it affects others is not directly seen and can only be speculated on. What is clear that money spend there will not be spend anywhere else and that implies well over 25 billion lost to other places. How much each is impacted remains a guess. 

So enjoy the day and consider that special deals this summer will be all over Europe and America, so you might get a decently prized vacation this year.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Tourism

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 14, 2023 · 19:52

Our menu: Delusional stew for all.

Yup, a meal that is free of charge, but that is how it feels to me (and I am hungry). This has started some time ago for me and the blablabla is nice, but it distracts me. On the up hand I came up with the pilot of yet another TV series, but I have enough at present. You see, what set me off today (off being a big word), was ‘No ‘phase-out’, but Dubai deal puts oil and gas sector on notice’ (at https://www.climatechangenews.com/2023/12/13/no-phase-out-but-dubai-deal-puts-oil-and-gas-sector-on-notice/), you think it is delusional, think again. We are also given “The “UAE consensus” did not go so far as to call for a “phase-out” as more than a hundred countries wanted. It settled on “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems”.” You want to see how delusional this is? Lets take a look. In the first OPEC removes their delivery by 1,000,000 barrels of oil per day, they keep on producing for China, but the West (USA, Canada, UK, EU) get that less per day, this is not phasing out, but it is moving that way. Now consider that impact

USA 450,000 bpd less, Canada 100,000, United Kingdom 100,000 an the EU loses 350,00 bpd. I give it less than 60 days before all hell breaks lose. Brent will export less than 5% as all goes to America and with that change America collapses broke in 60 days, Canada will lose most of its shit, UK will become too expensive to live and the EU breaks down on its own issues. 60 days is all that is required for chaos to unfold in the west. That is what you are celebrating, aren’t you?

I am not against diminishing oil, but at present it isn’t realistic. Alternative solutions were stopped for the longest of times and the funny part here, when that comes back the crows will shout All hail Musk. That is the reality. You see, the internet without powers is not a nice thing and that makes the Musk solution the only internet on the planet. With that much less oil fuel prices will double and with proper isolation (example London), the people will freeze to death. I am game for all that, are you?

You see, the second part is “One delegation not joining in the ovation was Saudi Arabia. Oil-exporting states fought hard against the phase-out language that appeared in earlier drafts.” This makes sense, but what does not is that EVERYONE steered clear from the noise by Brent crude oil, the one American supplier to hundreds of nations and that stops soon after the limitations are reached. And with that all on the table you see that Crude becomes nationalistic and the rest suffers and drowns (or chokes) on a lack of oil.

All these people, all collectively talking on what needs to be done and nothing is being done. I saw it before COP26 and with the animosity against Elon Musk, the one solution holder this merely goes from bad to worse. I reckon that he has his solutions in place in has house and that people like Bill Gates have similar solutions in place. As such when this goes south really far, we have America and about 2000 houses with power. The rest? I think it was the Roman senate who said in unity ‘fuck the poor’ and that will be a simple repetition. 

As such when we get to “Samoa complained they were not yet in the room when the deal was adopted. Small island states had pleaded for a rapid fossil fuel phase-out to hold global warming to 1.5C, seen as critical for their survival.” Their is your first example of the world screwing over the poor. So why were they not in the room? Anyone? Anyone? 

I already stated that this point would be broken at the end of COP26, and so far my numbers hold up (partial coincidence) and that larger stage is merely fuelled by the joke that we see is presented now. Phasing out oil sounds nice, but the four players mentioned earlier cannot see the reality of that ever happening, on the upside, when America collapses, all the eyes will suddenly look at Brent oil for the first time and wonder what will happen there, because a collapsed America implies that Brent will have to export nearly all its oil making life in the USA a lot harsher. The only thing I found was by Reuters giving us “Brent crude futures edged back down towards $97 a barrel on Tuesday because (whatever reason) after two days of back-to-back speeches by world leaders, the COP28 climate” You don’t think Brent has its extensions and override policies in place? That is the reality of things and board of directors tend to be greed driven, so that was easily seen. 

A stage that has a restaurant, it serves a delusional menu. It is free and you can have as much as you like.

That is what is happening and when the world settles bak in 2-3 weeks the issues start arriving on how impossible these goals really are. I reckon the ‘depending’ media already have speakers in place for that event.

Enjoy your day. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,