I just paid $1.95 for a gallon of gas...give Iran more nukes...
- Thread starter Dmarino110
- Start date
Not going to happen.
Unless OPEC suddenly becomes US-loving, the cut in domestic fracking investments means prices will eventually rise back up to $3 by 2017. But OPEC will never be able to see them rise closer to $4 again, because fracking is way too profitable for the US and Canada at that price.
Gas prices are hardly any administration's doing or fault ... short of Reagan's threats to OPEC during the Cold War, although there were other factors there too.
- OPEC stupidly let prices go to $4+, finally making domestic Fracking investments worthwhile.
- Fracking investments happened, and 5 years later, prices came down.
- The bigger side-effect of Fracking was the natural gas glut, destroying coal's market in North America.
- Another, less mentioned side-effect, is that the US is building a lot of domestic pipelines (even if international projects have been derailed by the administration)
- This is because there have been a lot of logistical issues with natural gas laden petroleum exploding using existing rail infrastructure
- Coal is much easier to transport outside the US than natural gas, so China and even the EU have been consuming more, hurting (and even hiding) their own emission increases as a result
- Gas prices dropped under $3, making Fracking more marginal, cutting investments.
- Gas prices have now dropped to $2, making Fracking unfeasible to continue, new investments are way down.
- The current supplies, with reduced demand due to China's economic downturn, will keep prices low through 2016.
- The supplies will dwindle to the point by end of 2016, the lack of new Fracking with increased demand will raise them to $3 again.
- But OPEC will never let them reach $4 again, because a new round of Fracking investments would happen.
- Whomever wins in 2016 will be disliked because gas will become $3 again by 2017
- The reduction in Fracking will also cause natural gas prices to rise, causing overall energy prices to rise
- CO2 emissions will increase, as nearly all of the 8% drop over the last 5-7 years is due to natural gas being used instead of coal
- Coal prices will be competitive with natural gas again, domestically, resulting in increased use
- China and the EU will complain the US is purposely rising coal prices to their detriment, even though it's all supply-demand based
Good for our wallets short term. Probably not so good long term..Oil in the mid 60's and gas around 2.60 to 2.85 is probably best in long term. At 60 per barrel they can do fracking and other things to extract new oil finds. Below that price well start shutting down as does new drilling.
It is Saudi Arabia not Iran..
The Saudi's are being told to lower production, and have not. They are trying to hurt the other OPEC countries particularly Iran and ISIL.
We are currently watching an Economic War.
I think Someone I know is correct, Russia will be the key, and will the USA uphold its NATO Alliance to fight Russia?
Under Obama, we both agree, we think Europe is ripe for invasion.
The Saudi's are being told to lower production, and have not. They are trying to hurt the other OPEC countries particularly Iran and ISIL.
We are currently watching an Economic War.
I think Someone I know is correct, Russia will be the key, and will the USA uphold its NATO Alliance to fight Russia?
Under Obama, we both agree, we think Europe is ripe for invasion.
Indeed. It will last another 15-20 years. Then ...
Indeed. The Medvedev Doctrine post-Georgian War of 2008 foretold the Ukranian aggression, and it doesn't stop there.
- https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/medvedev_doctrine_and_american_strategy
It explains why the Russians continue to feed Syria all the weapons they'll buy, and have built the ultimate air defense up in Iran. Even Israel doesn't shy from admitting they won't be able to take out Iranian facilities if and when it comes to such. A limited, tactical nuclear exchange is a plausible future in 2030+, if Iran makes good on its threats or, more likely, Israel and US finally tire of "appeasement" that has also failed with North Korea.
Wars will start to spring up, with the US undergoing a continued military reduction due to debt. Korea, China-Taiwan-Japan, etc... will happen. India and Pakistan will definitely explode. And that's when the US will be overwhelmed, so the Russians will strike.
It's only when US soldiers start getting killed by Russian forces that we will finally, and directly, challenge them, even if only symbolically on the battlefield. Which is why the Russians expend inordinate amounts of money on undermining pro-US attitudes, most notably those in the Czech Republic.
The irony will be if and when WWIII comes around, the Czechs will, once again, be the key. They will be the only advanced nation that will be able to stand up to the Russians. And unlike Munich, and more like the Velvet Revolution, you don't work against them, you work with them.
Already happening. With the refugees, many of whom are not from Syria, and the fighters mixed in.
I wouldn't argue such. The US stopped developing strategic, offensive weapons decades ago, and has retired many developed in the last 40+ years. This includes solutions developed in the '80s and even a few in the '90s.
All while the Russians have been fielding new stuff, especially over the past decade. Right now our primary advantages are sensory and command'n control, not so much platforms themselves. Although on the seas we still dominate, but that is not much of an advantage for Europe.
In fact, our austerity measures in Europe have actually and greatly weakened our defensive capabilities, leading to a gross imbalance. In fact, most of NATO is quite pissed at us behind-the-scenes. Especially compared to what our Middle East allies have.
Ask and ye shall receive.
BS is wrong. First, we did not stop developing offensive missiles. We've been putting guided missiles through target sets the size of a car from over 30 KM away pretty much since the start of Afghanistan/Iraq. We were strategically hitting Saddam's targets inside Baghdad with Tomahawk missiles launched from submarines sitting off the coast of Kuwait. If that isn't impressive offensive capability then I don't know what is.
Russia has definitely improved their military capabilities recently; new tanks, new armor, new missile technology, new fighter aircraft. But still, they're nowhere near the capability that NATO has collectively; Russia is essentially trying to catch up and make up a 15 year deficit. Probably the best thing Russia has done recently is develop arctic warfare capability, which will be crucial as they fight the rest of the arctic countries in the coming years for claims to oil sites.
As for "austerity measures in Europe", I have no idea what that means. The US led a 900 mile exercise through eastern Europe with an entire Styrker brigade as a show of force and commitment, we just moved F22's to Europe for the first time ever, we've beefed up our presence in Poland, etc. We're as committed to NATO as we can possibly be.
It's about time that THEY get off their asses and spend on defense the way they should be. The only country that currently spends the 2% of GDP (a NATO requirement) is Germany and Poland. SOme NATO countries are spending a wopping .5% of GDP on defense. If they're worried about Russia then I'd say it's past due that Europe gets out of the post-war honeymoon and recommits to properly defending their territory.
That said, Russia is not dumb enough to engage NATO head on. They will pick their fights like they are now and expand in Ukraine, Georgia, expand into EurAsia, and lay claim to parts of the arctic that are disputed. I guess the ultimate gamble would be taking action against a country like Lithuania who is a new NATO country. Would NATO really send people to fight and die over Lithuania? Surely they would for France or UK, but maybe Putin wants to find out just how committed NATO is to these eastern bloc countries.
BS is wrong. First, we did not stop developing offensive missiles. We've been putting guided missiles through target sets the size of a car from over 30 KM away pretty much since the start of Afghanistan/Iraq. We were strategically hitting Saddam's targets inside Baghdad with Tomahawk missiles launched from submarines sitting off the coast of Kuwait. If that isn't impressive offensive capability then I don't know what is.
Russia has definitely improved their military capabilities recently; new tanks, new armor, new missile technology, new fighter aircraft. But still, they're nowhere near the capability that NATO has collectively; Russia is essentially trying to catch up and make up a 15 year deficit. Probably the best thing Russia has done recently is develop arctic warfare capability, which will be crucial as they fight the rest of the arctic countries in the coming years for claims to oil sites.
As for "austerity measures in Europe", I have no idea what that means. The US led a 900 mile exercise through eastern Europe with an entire Styrker brigade as a show of force and commitment, we just moved F22's to Europe for the first time ever, we've beefed up our presence in Poland, etc. We're as committed to NATO as we can possibly be.
It's about time that THEY get off their asses and spend on defense the way they should be. The only country that currently spends the 2% of GDP (a NATO requirement) is Germany and Poland. SOme NATO countries are spending a wopping .5% of GDP on defense. If they're worried about Russia then I'd say it's past due that Europe gets out of the post-war honeymoon and recommits to properly defending their territory.
That said, Russia is not dumb enough to engage NATO head on. They will pick their fights like they are now and expand in Ukraine, Georgia, expand into EurAsia, and lay claim to parts of the arctic that are disputed. I guess the ultimate gamble would be taking action against a country like Lithuania who is a new NATO country. Would NATO really send people to fight and die over Lithuania? Surely they would for France or UK, but maybe Putin wants to find out just how committed NATO is to these eastern bloc countries.
Yes.
Tho they have an official policy of not admitting to have them, and not denying they have them.
Similar threads
