Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS) II

[Novus America]

No. We only get 3.5% of our oil from Saudi Arabia. And OPEC is a completely dysfunctional mess. It is no longer a functioning entity just a group of squabbling countries who often hate each other.

3.5% is a lot.

OPEC makes up over half of oil imports, and Saudi Arabia is about 40% of that. The Saudis account for about 12.5% of all imports.

3.5% is not that much and we could easily replace it with other sources. The world has an excess of oil. Saudia Arabia is 13% of imports but we import 27% percent.

OPEC again no longer functions.

So the threat is not loss of oil. We do not need them for oil.

The reason we keep them around is not oil. It is because what would replace them is even worse.

"We have the wolf by the ear and feel the danger of either holding or letting him loose."

Thomas Jefferson

[Imperializt Russia]

Those figures are based on 2014, just as US production from shale/fracking were picking up and well before OPEC tried to tank it.
To be honest, they're not very useful numbers and one should not make projections from them.

The viability of US production is based on profitability - what is "economically viable". Until global oil prices rose, fracking and shale projects, both in the US, Canada and Europe, were not economically viable. Then they were.
Then OPEC saw their dominance slip and tanked the oil price.

Now fracking and shale aren't economically viable because ME oil is hilariously cheap.
I haven't seen petrol prices in the UK below 100p/L for unleaded petrol in almost a decade.

3.5% of all oil is a colossal quantity of oil that cannot be easily resourced. The absolute bargain basement price of ME oil makes resourcing even more difficult. The high costs of novel extraction processes in the US and Canada make them unsuitable in this current situation.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

No.

We are already involved in one country, and have been stuck there 16 years with no end in sight (Afghanistan). Why would we want to deploy ground forces at all?

Our bomb reserve is on the verge of complete depletion since we have done nothing, but bomb them. If anything U.S special forces teams are heavily underused, and might be worth a try.

[Imperializt Russia]

No.

We are already involved in one country, and have been stuck there 16 years with no end in sight (Afghanistan). Why would we want to deploy ground forces at all?

Our bomb reserve is on the verge of complete depletion since we have done nothing, but bomb them. If anything U.S special forces teams are heavily underused, and might be worth a try.

Western special forces groups are already engaged. And doing very well, supposedly.

While there is still a presence in Afghanistan, we haven't been "engaged" there for some considerable time.

[Novus America]

Those figures are based on 2014, just as US production from shale/fracking were picking up and well before OPEC tried to tank it.
To be honest, they're not very useful numbers and one should not make projections from them.

The viability of US production is based on profitability - what is "economically viable". Until global oil prices rose, fracking and shale projects, both in the US, Canada and Europe, were not economically viable. Then they were.
Then OPEC saw their dominance slip and tanked the oil price.

Now fracking and shale aren't economically viable because ME oil is hilariously cheap.
I haven't seen petrol prices in the UK below 100p/L for unleaded petrol in almost a decade.

3.5% of all oil is a colossal quantity of oil that cannot be easily resourced. The absolute bargain basement price of ME oil makes resourcing even more difficult. The high costs of novel extraction processes in the US and Canada make them unsuitable in this current situation.

OPEC did not make a conscious, united decision to crash oil prices. They no longer have the ability to control oil prices or even make any decision. The are a non entity at this point.

We have global over production. And plenty of spare capacity. Actually a lot of fracking is still viable at these prices. Production costs are plummeting fir fracking and vary from region to region. Yes oil prices would increase but production would increase as well. Yeah they keep oil a little cheaper. But that is not why we keep them around.

[Valaran]

They no longer have the ability to control oil prices or even make any decision. The are a non entity at this point.

lol

[Imperializt Russia]

Those figures are based on 2014, just as US production from shale/fracking were picking up and well before OPEC tried to tank it.
To be honest, they're not very useful numbers and one should not make projections from them.

The viability of US production is based on profitability - what is "economically viable". Until global oil prices rose, fracking and shale projects, both in the US, Canada and Europe, were not economically viable. Then they were.
Then OPEC saw their dominance slip and tanked the oil price.

Now fracking and shale aren't economically viable because ME oil is hilariously cheap.
I haven't seen petrol prices in the UK below 100p/L for unleaded petrol in almost a decade.

3.5% of all oil is a colossal quantity of oil that cannot be easily resourced. The absolute bargain basement price of ME oil makes resourcing even more difficult. The high costs of novel extraction processes in the US and Canada make them unsuitable in this current situation.

OPEC did not make a conscious, united decision to crash oil prices.

This is correct, I'm using it as an incorrect shorthand. OPEC, the organisation, is going mental over it. The most prominent OPEC producers are tanking the oil price and throwing everyone else under the bus for it. Iran, Venezuela, the unstable petrodollar economies are being ruined for it, as they always are.

Nothing else was correct.

[Sanctissima]

Those figures are based on 2014, just as US production from shale/fracking were picking up and well before OPEC tried to tank it.
To be honest, they're not very useful numbers and one should not make projections from them.

The viability of US production is based on profitability - what is "economically viable". Until global oil prices rose, fracking and shale projects, both in the US, Canada and Europe, were not economically viable. Then they were.
Then OPEC saw their dominance slip and tanked the oil price.

Now fracking and shale aren't economically viable because ME oil is hilariously cheap.
I haven't seen petrol prices in the UK below 100p/L for unleaded petrol in almost a decade.

3.5% of all oil is a colossal quantity of oil that cannot be easily resourced. The absolute bargain basement price of ME oil makes resourcing even more difficult. The high costs of novel extraction processes in the US and Canada make them unsuitable in this current situation.

For now.

Saudi Arabia in particular is shooting itself in its foot. They're already burning through their financial reserves like an inferno, and can't keep selling at such a huge loss forever. When their treasury is empty and they can no longer offer their citizens the current massive social benefits, shit will quickly hit the fan and they will suffer the consequences for their idiocy.

Novus is right though, the main reason the US maintains such close relations with the Sauds is not because of their oil. It's because they're a strategic interest.

[Sanctissima]

OPEC did not make a conscious, united decision to crash oil prices.

This is correct, I'm using it as an incorrect shorthand. OPEC, the organisation, is going mental over it. The most prominent OPEC producers are tanking the oil price and throwing everyone else under the bus for it. Iran, Venezuela, the unstable petrodollar economies are being ruined for it, as they always are.

Nothing else was correct.

Eh, Iran not so much. Sure, they're being screwed over, but they've gotten used to that over the years. Due to poor relations with the US and a history of having to deal with sanctions, the Iranian economy is a lot more versatile than its counterparts in the Arabian Peninsula. Its economy is suffering, but it's far from being ruined by the current situation. The country's simply gotten used to being screwed over economically, and has adapted to pull through such situations.

[Rio Cana]

Yeah oil production rose, so elements of OPEC tanked the market price to trash shale projects in the US.

US too had a hand in decreasing the oil prices. Why do you think Venezuela blames its eocnomic problems on the US?

Its the 21century and Venezuela still has not diversified there economy. Oil is there Cash cow so the majority of Venezuelan politicians for decades were too busy milking the cow to care about diversifying the economy.

See this spoiler for more comment

Yes, this song kind of fits with the above comment. Its in Spanish and originally was a poem written in the early 20 century in the Dominican Republic but which even today holds true for most nations and there politicians - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSm_vISM37Y

[Novus America]

OPEC did not make a conscious, united decision to crash oil prices.

This is correct, I'm using it as an incorrect shorthand. OPEC, the organisation, is going mental over it. The most prominent OPEC producers are tanking the oil price and throwing everyone else under the bus for it. Iran, Venezuela, the unstable petrodollar economies are being ruined for it, as they always are.

Nothing else was correct.

How was the rest incorrect? Global over production is a fact. Spare capacity is too. So are declining production costs from shale. Plus the regional variability of costs.

Because we have more oil globally then we need and the ability to ramp up production abroad and domestically we do not need Saudi Arabia for oil, though they help keep prices a bit lower. But we have plenty of alternatives.

In fact oil could be much lower, but instability in Iraq, Libya and Venezuela have kept them underproducing.

The world has too much oil production, not too little.

[Imperializt Russia]

Please, Americans pay a third at the pumps what Europeans do, you'd balk if you lost cheap oil.

[Novus America]

Please, Americans pay a third at the pumps what Europeans do, you'd balk if you lost cheap oil.

Yeah we pay less. So what? Means we can afford an increase. Sure a lot of people here bitch when it goes up. But we did ok with prices over twice as high a year ago. Which made us used to it. Now anything below 3 dollars a gallon seems super cheap.

Yeah cheaper oil is nice for many (and bad for others) but that is not the main reason we prop up the Saudi Regime.

[The Lone Alliance]

No we must deploy...
THE GAY BOMB...
on them.

Or the atomic Bong. Just cover the entire occupied area in pot smoke.

[The balkens]

No we must deploy...
THE GAY BOMB...
on them.

Or the atomic Bong. Just cover the entire occupied area in pot smoke.

"Mass celebrations in what used to be ISIS territory as many militants have gone from psycho religious assholes to pot smoking hippies in a matter of minutes and then disappeared in a flash of light. In unrelated news, the USAF has completed dual testing of the "Castle Bong" weapon and a bomb that is described as "Nixon's hard on."

[Chestaan]

International brigades, like in the Spanish Civil War, could help slightly. But I don't think US boots on the ground will help in the long run.

[Novus America]

International brigades, like in the Spanish Civil War, could help slightly. But I don't think US boots on the ground will help in the long run.

The international brigades got their asses kicked. Even if you could find enough people to fight, which you will not, some untrained wannabe militia is not going to help much.

[The Lone Alliance]

International brigades, like in the Spanish Civil War, could help slightly. But I don't think US boots on the ground will help in the long run.

The international brigades got their asses kicked. Even if you could find enough people to fight, which you will not, some untrained wannabe militia is not going to help much.

There already are international brigades in Syria anyway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... _Battalion

[Novus America]

The international brigades got their asses kicked. Even if you could find enough people to fight, which you will not, some untrained wannabe militia is not going to help much.

There already are international brigades in Syria anyway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... _Battalion

There are small numbers of foreing volunteers, nothing like the scale of the Spanish Civil War, nor are they a decisive factor.

[Imperializt Russia]

International brigades, like in the Spanish Civil War, could help slightly. But I don't think US boots on the ground will help in the long run.

The international brigades got their asses kicked. Even if you could find enough people to fight, which you will not, some untrained wannabe militia is not going to help much.

It's basically what IS, al-Nusra, the FSA and the Iraqi shia militias are.

[Sanctissima]

There already are international brigades in Syria anyway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... _Battalion

There are small numbers of foreing volunteers, nothing like the scale of the Spanish Civil War, nor are they a decisive factor.

It's also worth noting that the vast majority of them are Kurds from Turkey, so they aren't exactly all that "international".

[Washington Resistance Army]

The international brigades got their asses kicked. Even if you could find enough people to fight, which you will not, some untrained wannabe militia is not going to help much.

It's basically what IS, al-Nusra, the FSA and the Iraqi shia militias are.

Yeah but the Shia militias are armed with superior Best Korean weaponry and can't lose

[Novus America]

The international brigades got their asses kicked. Even if you could find enough people to fight, which you will not, some untrained wannabe militia is not going to help much.

It's basically what IS, al-Nusra, the FSA and the Iraqi shia militias are.

Sure, though they have better training and equipment. Point is a handful of anti ISIS foreign volunteers are not going to make a real difference.

[Charellia]

No. That would be a temporary solution. Inevitably the American people would demand their soldiers be brought home, leaving a power vacuum to be immediately filled by the next terrorist threat. The only way to ensure lasting stability is for local forces to pacify the region themselves.

[Chestaan]

International brigades, like in the Spanish Civil War, could help slightly. But I don't think US boots on the ground will help in the long run.

The international brigades got their asses kicked. Even if you could find enough people to fight, which you will not, some untrained wannabe militia is not going to help much.

True, they won't be effective as hardened fully trained soldiers, but if the US and other nations could provide training to those who wished to volunteer then they could help somewhat. Afterall, I don't think ISIS have proper training.