Refugees

Started by Mayo4Sam14, September 03, 2015, 04:42:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Kursk

It is a warzone. the plane should never have been there in the first place. The key question is whether they knew the plane was a civilian craft when they shot it down. If they did it is a war crime. If they didn't then they are idiots that should have taken more care to identify if it was a legitimate target but it would not count as a war crime.

Anyway, who cares what the Dutch say. What are they actually going to do if they find them guilty ?

Putin, rightfully, will just ignore them.  It matters not a jot what these international courts do or what the UN says. Its all just talking shop nonsense. Nobody will enforce the judgements.


muppet

The reason the Dutch are involved is that the flight originated in Amsterdam. Under international law they are obliged to be involved. 

The answer to 'who cares what the Dutch says' is: quite a significant part of the rest of the world. And certainly the nations who had passengers on board, including Germany, UK, Australia and the USA.

If they prove it was a war crime it and find Russia guilty, it will be a big deal. If the Russians refuse to co-operate they will probably face UN sanctions and more Putin allies will have their foreign assets frozen. Russia is big enough to tough isolation out for a while, but it is far more likely that a diplomatic solution will be worked out, probably involving an admission by the Russians and some form of compensation.

MWWSI 2017

Kursk

..and what you are seeing in Syria is , partially, Russias response to those sanctions. Europe will be made pay for their sins. Also keep in mind that eastern European countries have also been hurt by Russian counter sanctions. When 4million more refugees turn up in Europe next year and , especially when they start shunting them into Eastern Europe, then farmer Josef,  whose livelihood has been decimated because he cant sell his cheese to Russia will be apoplectic with rage when he sees people tramping across his fields. Things will get very tasty then.  When push comes to shove people wont give a shite about the people on that plane. I know that sounds harsh but it is simply a fact of life.

That's even before we start talking about North Africa. Who knows what devilment can be started there. All Russia has to do is start some fires and leave the Europeans and US to deal with the consequences. There could be 10's of millions flooding into Europe if Europe and the US up the ante.

So yes, Europe/US can certainly make like difficult for them. However Russia, by virtue of it not being tied to any PC nonsense, have myriad ways of responding.Also don't underestimate Russian nationalism. they were humiliated after the collapse of the Berlin wall and they have a much higher threshold for economic hardship than westerners. It will take an awful lot to make them back down and turn on Putin. Europe will suffer greatly if they take them on.


muppet

Quote from: Kursk on October 30, 2015, 06:06:47 PM
..and what you are seeing in Syria is , partially, Russias response to those sanctions. Europe will be made pay for their sins. Also keep in mind that eastern European countries have also been hurt by Russian counter sanctions. When 4million more refugees turn up in Europe next year and , especially when they start shunting them into Eastern Europe, then farmer Josef,  whose livelihood has been decimated because he cant sell his cheese to Russia will be apoplectic with rage when he sees people tramping across his fields. Things will get very tasty then.  When push comes to shove people wont give a shite about the people on that plane. I know that sounds harsh but it is simply a fact of life.

That's even before we start talking about North Africa. Who knows what devilment can be started there. All Russia has to do is start some fires and leave the Europeans and US to deal with the consequences. There could be 10's of millions flooding into Europe if Europe and the US up the ante.

So yes, Europe/US can certainly make like difficult for them. However Russia, by virtue of it not being tied to any PC nonsense, have myriad ways of responding.Also don't underestimate Russian nationalism. they were humiliated after the collapse of the Berlin wall and they have a much higher threshold for economic hardship than westerners. It will take an awful lot to make them back down and turn on Putin. Europe will suffer greatly if they take them on.

Russia's ability to punish countries in Europe is waning with the falling cost of energy among other things: http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-losing-european-gas-2015-1?op=1?r=US&IR=T
MWWSI 2017

macdanger2

Quote from: muppet on October 30, 2015, 02:24:31 PM

The Democrat in the White House, since then, played a smart game and crashed oil prices. This has really put the squeeze on Putin while it also brought Iran to the negotiating table.

I don't think Obama can take credit for falling oil prices. Is it not just a case of the emergence of shale oil / gas in the last few years coupled with the global recession which has driven down oil prices due to OPEC not cutting production levels in order to preserve market share and put the squeeze on the shale producers 

muppet

Quote from: macdanger2 on October 30, 2015, 06:50:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 30, 2015, 02:24:31 PM

The Democrat in the White House, since then, played a smart game and crashed oil prices. This has really put the squeeze on Putin while it also brought Iran to the negotiating table.

I don't think Obama can take credit for falling oil prices. Is it not just a case of the emergence of shale oil / gas in the last few years coupled with the global recession which has driven down oil prices due to OPEC not cutting production levels in order to preserve market share and put the squeeze on the shale producers

They aren't taking credit for it.

But Saudi and the US are crashing the price of oil to hurt Putin and Iran. Russia and Iran are allies of Assad. Saudi and the US are not.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Did-The-Saudis-And-The-US-Collude-In-Dropping-Oil-Prices.html
MWWSI 2017

macdanger2

A theory backed up with little enough tbf muppet

Kursk

The price of energy rises and falls. This is a fact that all energy producers have to deal with. Also, there are too many vested interests in the US to keep the price artificially low for too long. The Russians know this and they Russian people know this as well and they are willing, and able, to outlast the effects of any economic war. The thing about an economic war in the modern globalized economy is that the effects are felt worldwide. The cant be controlled fully and , unlike the collateral damage of an actual battlefield,  the collateral damage will affect the populations of the aggressor as well e.g, my example of the east European  farmer.

There is also the Saudi angle. The Russians know that the Saudies  are vulnerable on the human rights issue. Have you noticed the uptick of stories about floggings of human rights activists etc ? I don't think that is entirely accidental. Western media is overwhelmingly anti-Russian but with the rise of alternative news sources this is beginning to change. The Russians can actively use this trend. Show enough images of Saudi brutality and link it to the economic war and eventually people will start wondering why, exactly, are Russia the enemy and these are our "friends".

Europeans need to understand that this is a fight they cannot win. They simply don't have the will. Europe is to the modern world as the Ottoman empire once was to Europe. They are the weakest link. The US is far away and , ultimately, will become isolationist because their indecisive, muddled actions will cost them too much.

muppet

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/30/us-venezuela-oil-idUSKBN0K802020141230

Maduro blames plunging oil prices on U.S. 'war' vs Russia, Venezuela

..........Giving the latest figure for Monday, Maduro repeated his socialist government's accusations that the plunge in oil was a U.S.-planned conspiracy primarily intended to harm Russia.

"Did you know there's an oil war? And the war has an objective: to destroy Russia," he said in a speech to state businessmen carried live on state TV.

"It's a strategically planned war ... also aimed at Venezuela, to try and destroy our revolution and cause an economic collapse," he added, accusing the United States of trying to flood the market with shale oil....


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-fall-in-oil-prices-is-treachery/

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said Wednesday that the sharp fall in global oil prices is the result of "treachery," in an apparent reference to regional rival Saudi Arabia, which opposed production cuts.

Oil prices have plunged by more than 40 percent since June to less than $70 a barrel, placing severe strain on Iran's economy, which is already hobbled by international sanctions imposed over its nuclear program. An OPEC meeting last month failed to reach agreement on production curbs, mainly because of Saudi opposition.

Rouhani told a Cabinet meeting Wednesday that the fall in prices is at least partly "politically motivated," the result of a "conspiracy against the interests of the region, the Muslim people and the Muslim world."


http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-secret-stupid-saudi-us-deal-on-syria/5410130

....Since June when ISIS suddenly captured the oil-rich region of Iraq around Mosul and Kirkuk, the benchmark Brent price of crude oil dropped some 20% from $112 to about $88. World daily demand for oil has not dropped by 20% however. China oil demand has not fallen 20% nor has US domestic shale oil stock risen by 21%.....

ISIS or any other terrorist outfit gaining control of oil-rich regions should trigger a RISE in oil prices, in the way potential hurricane damage used to, for fears of a reduction in supply.
MWWSI 2017

Kursk

it wont work. Too many vested interests. The money will eventually talk in Washington.  Halliburton cut their workforce by 16% do you really think they will stand for much more ? and we all know that these companies run the US government.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/sudden-drop-in-crude-oil-prices-roils-u-s-energy-firms-rebound-1437903002

QuoteJuly 26, 2015 5:30 a.m. ET

200 COMMENTS   
 
U.S. energy companies are planning more layoffs, asset sales and financial maneuvers to deal with a recent, sudden drop in U.S. crude-oil prices to under $50 a barrel, the lowest level in four months.

The companies had been banking on a rebound in oil prices in the second half of 2015 after falling sharply late last year. Prices began to regain ground in the spring, rising so quickly that some American producers started hiring back drilling rigs to pump more crude. That speedy return to the oil patch and the threat of new Iranian oil production have pushed down prices more than 20% over the past six weeks to $48.14 as of Friday , bringing storm clouds back to the energy patch.

Oil-field services providers that help drill wells have quietly revealed job cuts that were deeper than initially announced, and warned of more layoffs to come.  Halliburton Co.  and  Baker Hughes Inc.,  two big service companies that plan to merge, disclosed last week that they had cut 27,000 jobs between them, double the 13,500 they announced in February.

Initially, Halliburton expected to reduce its workforce by 8%, but ultimately cut it by 16%. Baker Hughes first announced it would cut about 10% of its jobs, but cut 21%.

"We continue to evaluate our operations and will make further adjustments as required to adjust to market conditions,"  Christian Garcia, Halliburton's acting chief financial officer, told investors.



Advertisement




Baker Hughes management called the layoffs a difficult decision and said other cost-cutting measures have been rolled out across the company, too.

Nearly 50,000 energy jobs have been lost in the past three months on top of 100,000 employees laid off since oil prices started to tumble last fall, according to Graves & Co., a Houston energy consultancy. Initial rounds of layoffs this year tended to be blue-collar jobs, such as roughnecks on drilling sites, fracking crews and workers at industrial-equipment manufacturers.

Now the job cuts are starting to extend to engineers and scientists.

ConocoPhillips, one of the world's largest oil-and-gas exploration companies, has already cut nearly 1,500 jobs so far this year, according to Graves. But the Houston-based company is planning more layoffs for this fall that could number into the thousands, according to people familiar with the matter.

"We are currently reviewing and adjusting our workforce levels in light of an extended period of low prices," said  Daren Beaudo, a spokesman for the company. "We've informed our workforce that reductions should be expected. It would be premature to speculate or estimate at this time."

Many oil-exploration companies hesitate to lay off geoscientists and other highly skilled workers, said Dennis Cassidy, the Dallas-based managing director of oil and gas at Alix Partners, a global consulting firm. That reluctance stems from the oil crash of the mid-1980s, when so many educated workers were let go that it created a talent gap the industry struggled to fill for 20 years.

"The last thing a company wants to do is dismantle the dream team they took a decade to put together," Mr. Cassidy said.

U.S. energy producers proved surprisingly resilient in the first half of the year amid languishing crude prices, aided by a flood of investment from Wall Street that was counting on an industry rebound. Hedging programs, which lock in a guaranteed minimum price for oil, also helped protect sellers against the price drop.

But many are likely to run into trouble as the year progresses if prices don't rebound, Mr. Cassidy said. "Everybody was hopeful, but it feels like the hangover is dragging on."

The problem is partly of the companies' own making. Even as they slashed their budgets and drilled fewer wells, they coaxed more fuel out of the ground than ever before. American oil production finally appears to be flattening out after climbing sharply for five years, but U.S. Energy Department now pegs it at 9.7 million barrels a day, the highest since 1971.

Of course low energy prices are a boon to consumers—from American drivers to international airlines—who have been buying more cheap gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. But their purchases have hardly been enough to sop up the global glut of oil. And if a sanctions-ending nuclear deal with Iran goes into effect, the OPEC nation could put as much as a million barrels a day into the already saturated market sometime in the next year.

Oil-hedging programs that protected many companies from falling prices will begin expiring this fall, leaving them exposed to the low price of crude. Those with lots of debt and poor liquidity could be forced into bankruptcy; others with valuable pipelines or oil-and-gas fields might have to start selling off assets to raise cash, according to Simmons & Co. International, an energy investment bank.

U.S. producers have typically hedged 50% of their projected annual oil output, but most are heading into 2016 with hedges that cover just 15% of the oil they expect to pump.

Terry Marshall, an analyst at Moody's Investors Service, said hedges panned out for companies as oil prices plunged from $100 a barrel to $50, but going forward many producers need higher crude prices to turn a profit.

"Hedging for 2016 isn't a panacea for these companies," he said. "Without an improvement in price, they run out of time."

Energy producers have been able to forestall many effects of oil's downturn in part because investors still wanted to put money into the industry, because many banks were forecasting that oil prices would rebound in the second half of 2015. During the first half of the year, 57 energy companies issued $21 billion in new equity, and 58 more issued $73 billion in new debt, according to Moody's.

That now looks unlikely and easy access to capital is ending, said Lloyd Byrne, an energy analyst at Nomura Group, a financial services company. Recent offerings haven't been well received, debt is no longer low-cost and share prices are languishing.

In the past two weeks several smaller companies have filed for bankruptcy protection, including Sabine Oil & Gas Corp. and Milagro Oil & Gas Inc., both based in Houston.

In another sign of stress,  Chesapeake Energy Corp.  said last week it would eliminate its annual shareholder dividend. The U.S. shale driller said the move will save it $240 million in payouts that it can plow back into capital spending to help it survive 2016.

Morgan Stanley warned recently that the current downturn could be even worse than the one that crippled the industry in 1980s. If Saudi Arabia and Iraq keep running full tilt and Libya and Iran get their oil production back on track, crude prices could languish below $60 for the next three years, said Martijn Rats, an analyst.

"On current trajectory, this downturn could become worse than 1986," he said.

muppet

US oil companies own the Republicans. If they get The White House back you might be right.

But if not.........
MWWSI 2017

Kursk

They own them all. One side is just better at hiding it.

Kursk

http://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-increasingly-backing-oil-and-gas-industry-1407790617

Quote

Democrats Increasingly Backing Oil and Gas Industry

When House Republicans took up a measure to speed the government's reviews of applications to export natural gas, a move long sought by energy companies, the unexpected happened: The bill won "yes" votes from 47 Democrats.

The bill's sponsor, Rep.  Cory Gardner (R., Colo.), anticipated some Democratic backing, but not that much. Rep.  Steve Israel of New York, who leads the Democrats' House campaign arm, was a yes, as was House Minority Whip  Steny Hoyer of Maryland. Both voted in 2012 to restrict oil and gas exports.

The energy boom is shaping a new kind of Democrat in national politics, lawmakers who are giving greater support to the oil and gas industry even at the risk of alienating environmental groups, a core of the party's base. The trend comes as oil-and-gas production moves beyond America's traditionally energy-rich states, a development that also is increasing U.S. geopolitical influence abroad.



   ENLARGE   
   
.
"It's a huge business opportunity for the country," said Rep.  John Delaney (D., Md.), who was among 17 first-term lawmakers who voted yes on Mr. Gardner's bill. It passed the House and now awaits action in the Senate.

Mr. Delaney, whose district extends from the Washington-area suburbs to the West Virginia border, opposes a moratorium Maryland has placed on fracking. "I think that has really hurt the western part of my district."

"When four or five states were responsible for the vast majority of oil and gas production, it was easy to say this is a Republican issue, because most of those states happened to be Republican states," said  Kevin Book, managing director at the Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners. "But now that oil and gas production is spreading through unconventional technologies, there's many more states."

It is a theme playing out ahead of November's midterm elections, with some Democrats trying to balance environmental groups' concerns about climate change and an industry they see as carrying economic benefits.

This tension recently flared in Colorado, where Democrats have been at odds over measures restricting fracking, a process that has unlocked vast supplies of oil and natural gas from rocks deep underground.



   ENLARGE   
   
.
In response to concerns about potential groundwater pollution and drilling close to homes, Rep.  Jared Polis, a liberal Democrat, had been pushing for a ballot initiative to limit fracking. His move drew opposition from Gov.  John Hickenlooper and Sen.  Mark Udall, Democrats in tight re-election races in Colorado. Party leaders feared the measures would allow the GOP to cast Democrats as anti-industry. Mr. Polis retreated last week after the governor agreed to set up a commission to address the issue.

Some Republicans are skeptical of the Democratic Party's growing support and note many Democrats want more regulations. At the same time, GOP leaders say the phenomenon has moved beyond rhetoric. Rep.  Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.), the new House Majority Leader, said in a recent interview he has noticed Democrats being more supportive of the energy boom, "because they see their economy grow by it."



.
Mike McKenna, president of conservative lobbying firm MWR Strategies, which has close ties to GOP congressional leadership, said "it's a genuine shift and an important one." Among the drivers, he said, is the local tax revenue that comes from related economic growth.

Since March 2008, oil production has increased 58% and natural-gas output has risen 21%, making the U.S. the world's largest producer of both fuels, according to federal and international agency statistics. Jobs directly related to oil and gas production have nearly doubled in the past 10 years to 697,600, government data shows.

Support is strongest in states that reap the most from new production and the development export terminals for liquefied natural gas in places like Maryland and Oregon. Fracking is poised to start or already has in swing states including Ohio, North Carolina and Nevada.

Energy trade groups have taken notice. The American Petroleum Institute, the industry's main lobby group, hired  Louis Finkel, a former Democratic congressional adviser, as its No. 2 executive in May. America's Natural Gas Alliance hired  Marty Durbin, a former Democratic aide and nephew to Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), as its chief executive in March 2013.



  Sen. Bob Casey (D, Pa.)  ENLARGE   
Sen. Bob Casey (D, Pa.)   Bloomberg News 
.
Democrats in new oil and gas states, including Sens.  Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and  Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, are bullish on the boom, while supporting regulations that they portray as robust but not onerous, to safeguard water supplies and reduce air pollution.

In Pennsylvania, where natural-gas production has increased 17-fold since 2008, Mr. Casey has become more vocal recently about the economic benefits. A few years ago, he was pushing for legislation to require disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking. That is no longer a top focus. In congressional testimony this year, he talked up the importance of fracking to his state's manufacturing sector.

The environmental influence in the Democratic Party remains strong. One of the party's newest big-money donors is  Tom Steyer, a former hedge-fund manager who is committing millions to support lawmakers who want to take action on climate change.

Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, a group that helped rally opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, say Democrats are talking more about the need to address climate change but that the talk isn't translating into action.

"I think many of them are either bought off by fossil-fuel donations or don't understand the science and so imagine they can have it all ways," Mr. McKibben said. Environmentalists are organizing what they are billing as the biggest climate-change march in history, scheduled for Sept. 21 in New York.

Sen.  Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.), who has given more than 70 floor speeches urging action on climate change since April 2012, said he wants stricter regulations on methane, a greenhouse gas that can be emitted during the production and transmission of natural gas. But even he praises the boom's economic benefits. "I'm willing to defer cracking down on natural gas, because the economic benefits to the nation have been so great," he said in an interview.

In Colorado, where oil production has more than doubled since 2008, Mr. Udall has raised nearly $250,000 this election season from oil and gas companies. He also boasts a 97% lifetime voting record from the League of Conservation Voters. "Energy jobs are an important part of our economic growth in Colorado in the last six years," said Mr. Udall, who is also pushing alongside his challenger, Mr. Gardner, to expand natural-gas exports.

Kelly Giddens, campaign manager for the Citizens for a Healthy Fort Collins, a Colorado-based environmental group, doesn't like Mr. Udall's push for natural-gas exports but also doesn't want a Republican to take his seat. As for voting for Mr. Udall this November, she said, "It's going to be a giant hold-your-nose-and-vote thing. But I will."

muppet

Quote from: Kursk on October 30, 2015, 08:53:14 PM
They own them all. One side is just better at hiding it.

If that were true, oil would still be over $100 a barrel.
MWWSI 2017

Kursk

Oh, for sure, Obama is in the way. I am not denying that. The oil companies cant instantaneously get their way. However, even though they  cant get their own way all of the time, ultimately, they will prevail. The key point is that the US will not defeat Russia by means of an economic war.  Also, when the price inevitably rises then Russia will be in a stronger position. As a supplier of Energy they would then be in a position to exact some revenge on those that went against them i.e. Europe. Eventually the US will be left alone as people will not be prepared to suffer to maintain US hegemony. Like I said, Russia is a much more natural ally for Europe in these troubling times which is why I don't understand this slavish adherence to the American cause.