@travelerxxx

...in these matters. The proving ground and risks can always be found in operations. You probably have more answers than you know.

It's been my opinion that the primary reason Obama opened the spigot was an attempt to bankrupt Russia. Of course, it didn't work. They aren't through. Trump is carrying the ball for the corporations now and doing as well as Obama, although Obama never got the recognition (or blame, as you wish) for it as Trump does.

It's funny to think back on that situation; to how far-reaching it was. President Obama, and Hillary at State, tried like the dickens to get TTIP and the TPP free trade agreements nailed down before Obama left office. They could have sewn up the world geopolitically. That was the real significance of Hillary's Presidential campaign. The one thing that really mattered was that Hillary would carry that ball across the goal line.Then, the deep state could spike the ball and celebrate a world where China and Russia were finally isolated. That explains the risks they took, up to and including their attempt to overthrow the election.

Hillary sort of gave it away when, near the end of her campaign, she abruptly announced she changed her mind and she was now against the TTIP and the TPP. It was a Hail Mary pass. Her campaign knew well in advance that she was going to lose the worker/blue collar vote. Thus, her last ditch attempt to win them back. She had every intention of betraying that promise, of course. It was a matter of National Security.

I imagine the Trump campaign was shaken by this. They knew what it meant and they understood the strategy Hillary was planning when she denounced those agreements and started campaigning against them. Trump, himself, was campaigning for and against things he had no intention of honoring. Especially in matters of foreign policy. But the TPP and the TTIP were something else. They were the key to "Making America Great Again" in a rapidly changing world, without the risk of a direct confrontation, or a war. Trump adapted.

So, how perfect was it that one of Trump's first official acts as President was to tear up, the TPP and the TTIP, which were still on the table? Doing that, in essence, was "The Art of the Deal" in action. He uses this technique again and again, and no one ever gets wise to it. First, he throws the imposing threat away — he denounces it — which causes his opponent to disarm himself in good faith. Then, he swoops in and makes the deal anyway, while insisting the threat is gone.

Case in point: From the moment Donald Trump entered office in 2017, he has been executing a model of the TTIP and the TTP everywhere the US does business — China, Mexico, Canada, Russia, Europe, NATO, Saudi Arabia, Iran. He's extra friendly, confidential, disarming, and empathetic in private conversations in private conversations he has with these world leaders (which elicits brays of "collusion" from the Democrats). But the terms of the deal (or the sanctions involved) are ultra tough. (This won't work with the Chinese, of course. They invented the technique 2,500 years ago.)

Keep those insights coming. In my opinion, the oil & gas dynamic at the operations level unlocks many secrets to the way our government operates. It defines our civilization.

#1.1

I don't know any other areas like this but there must be some. Offshore?

Yes, offshore (and I'm assuming you mean ocean drilling/production) is hit hard if there is any protracted price drop. I was offered, and accepted, early retirement because of just this.

Offshore oil work of any kind is extremely expensive.

I was part of the transportation system for the people who work on the offshore facilities. In fact, I lived and worked on offshore oil production platforms and even drilling rigs for well over a decade. My job was to maintain the helicopters used to move people and parts between the various locations.

Any time there was a drop in the price of oil, It would soon be apparent in the operation of these facilities. People were let go, maintenance was deferred, leases were not let at auction. Contract companies were always the first to be affected. Cooks? Gone. Cook your own food. Janitorial help? Gone. Clean the place up yourself. (Not exactly what you want to do after your 12-14 hour shift ends.) Scheduled well maintenance? Forget it.

When Obama opened up the offshore waters to vastly increase the tracts available for exploration and production, together with the push by his administration to advance fracking anywhere and everywhere, the oil prices crashed. They have never really recovered. Fairly recently, I read that no fracking outfit has ever made money, except to sell out to some corporation or investor group. The banks have been getting stung and are now wise to the game. Getting backing for drilling holes in the ground is not so easy now.

It's been my opinion that the primary reason Obama opened the spigot was an attempt to bankrupt Russia. Of course, it didn't work. They aren't through. Trump is carrying the ball for the corporations now and doing as well as Obama, although Obama never got the recognition (or blame, as you wish) for it as Trump does. If one drives along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf of Mexico coastlines, you will see the new Freedom Gas shipping terminals, all put up in the last ten years or less. The oil companies and banks have many hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars sitting there waiting to be used. If it takes killing a few million brown people to make them profitable, then so be it. They fully intend to do it.

@travelerxxx to help his buddies the clintons and Buffett.
Buffetts trains are highly profitable shipping fracked
oil.

#1.1

I don't know any other areas like this but there must be some. Offshore?

Yes, offshore (and I'm assuming you mean ocean drilling/production) is hit hard if there is any protracted price drop. I was offered, and accepted, early retirement because of just this.

Offshore oil work of any kind is extremely expensive.

I was part of the transportation system for the people who work on the offshore facilities. In fact, I lived and worked on offshore oil production platforms and even drilling rigs for well over a decade. My job was to maintain the helicopters used to move people and parts between the various locations.

Any time there was a drop in the price of oil, It would soon be apparent in the operation of these facilities. People were let go, maintenance was deferred, leases were not let at auction. Contract companies were always the first to be affected. Cooks? Gone. Cook your own food. Janitorial help? Gone. Clean the place up yourself. (Not exactly what you want to do after your 12-14 hour shift ends.) Scheduled well maintenance? Forget it.

When Obama opened up the offshore waters to vastly increase the tracts available for exploration and production, together with the push by his administration to advance fracking anywhere and everywhere, the oil prices crashed. They have never really recovered. Fairly recently, I read that no fracking outfit has ever made money, except to sell out to some corporation or investor group. The banks have been getting stung and are now wise to the game. Getting backing for drilling holes in the ground is not so easy now.

It's been my opinion that the primary reason Obama opened the spigot was an attempt to bankrupt Russia. Of course, it didn't work. They aren't through. Trump is carrying the ball for the corporations now and doing as well as Obama, although Obama never got the recognition (or blame, as you wish) for it as Trump does. If one drives along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf of Mexico coastlines, you will see the new Freedom Gas shipping terminals, all put up in the last ten years or less. The oil companies and banks have many hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars sitting there waiting to be used. If it takes killing a few million brown people to make them profitable, then so be it. They fully intend to do it.

@leveymg

The American people do not own the natural resources of their nation, nor do they benefit from having a national oil company — so, windfall profits that come from a price dip are unlikely to end up in their pockets.

#1.2 Wars and supply "shortages" are really a win-win for the domestic retailers, and lose-lose for producers other than the Saudis who employ the US to knock its competitors out of the world market.

@Alligator Ed @Alligator Ed

Remember the ships that Iran allegedly attacked? With precision holes in non-critical areas above the waterline so as to cause as little damage as possible and avoid sinking. Somebody's itching for war, and I don't think it's Iran.

#2.1 #2.1 Yes the Houthis, with or without Iran's direct help, likely bombed the two refinery sites in KSA. But think about this: the perfectly positioned, neat little holes in liquified gas tanks were easily reparable in less than two days. The tanks did not explode the way conventional missiles would provoke. Yes, the pinpoint precision could be just to send a message to MBS that his country is susceptible of receiving more such damage, if a cease fire/armistice/peace accord does not occur. But why such limited damage? Why so little time the fields were totally out of operation?

I have no answers. Anyone?

@tle for jumping in with that cite while I was busy elsewhere. David Does video is indeed where I learned of this.

And it looks like we all missed her interview w/Cooper Anderson on CNN following her dynamic 2d debate appearance, where she gave a clear indication she was in favor of the awful public option approach. She just seems not to understand how allowing the private insurance industry to continue largely as now would ultimately undermine the Medicare program. I could have been listening to Michael Bennett or most Republicans who are more interested in preserving the private health insurance companies.

Even Kamala Harris ferchrissakes offers a more robust plan. Tulsi seems more aligned with Generic Dim Amy Klobuchar's Eliza Doolittle approach.

#3.1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR0GKjOfswc

Basically, she has repeated her comment that private insurance should remain available for those who want it. She clearly doesn't understand how that affects Medicare For All.

@JCWeb previously claimed to back Medicare for All in its various congressional versions, then went soft as they hit the campaign trail. What matters is what the candidates say now.

Tulsi clearly is in the Public Option category -- let the private insurance cos continue to reap profits while undermining real Medicare.

#3.2 I assume the website you went to was her campaign website (Tulsi 2020.com) but, as I understand it, there's much more detail on https://www.tulsigabbard.org, which may be more geared towards communicating with her constituents. If you click on Medicare for All, it does mention the fact she's an original co-sponsor of HR 1384, the Medicare for All legislation introduced in the current session of Congress. Plus, there's a lot more detail on some 40+ issues. Not sure why this page isn't linked to the campaign website, perhaps because the other website is used to collect money and there's some FEC rules involved, I dunno ...