PDA

View Full Version : On Russia's Federal Customs Service $22.5B suit against the Bank of New York



EJ
05-19-07, 12:19 PM
http://www.itulip.com/images/putinswar.jpgRussia Sues Bank of New York for $22.5 Billion (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aiVrh6bgUcwk&refer=home)May 17, 2007 (Hannah Gardner and Maria Levitov)

May 17 (Bloomberg) -- Russia's Federal Customs Service is seeking $22.5 billion in damages from the Bank of New York Co., the world's second-largest custodian of investor assets, for alleged money laundering in the 1990s.

The bank "committed violations of Russian law that resulted in damages of $22.5 billion to the state'' between 1996 and 1999, Maxim Smal, a lawyer for the service, said by phone after filing the lawsuit in the Moscow Arbitration Court today. Andrei Stukov, head of the Customs Service's legal department, confirmed the amount of damages sought via a spokeswoman.

Smal said the suit is "almost entirely based'' on a U.S. investigation that ended in 2005 with the bank agreeing to pay $38 million to settle two criminal probes and admitting it failed to report $7 billion in suspicious Russian transactions. The U.S. probe ``uncovered very serious violations,'' Smal said, declining to elaborate, saying more details will be revealed at a news conference in Moscow tomorrow.

Founded in 1784, eight years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Bank of New York sold its branches in October and two months later agreed to merge with Mellon Financial Corp. to create the world's largest custody bank. It has a market value of $31 billion and is the depositary for more than 1,250 U.S. and global depositary receipt programs, including Russia's VTB Group, the state-run bank that raised $8 billion last week.

A Russian friend of iTulip comments:

"This is a Post Scriptum to Putin's 'friendship' with Dubya. In the KGB man's mind, just like he owns Russia, so Bush owns America - so, for Putin, ordering his servants to attack the BoNY means attacking Bush's personal interests. So, yes - it's the war. A veeeeeeeeeeery cold one."Condoleezza Rice's visit with Putin, as with Rice's visits with just about anyone, ends with no deal. (As Jim Rogers pointed out to us, "Hasn't anyone noticed that Rice never closes a deal, ever?)
Summit Between the EU and Russia Likely Won't Ease Tensions Much (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117945798395207200.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
May 18, 2007 (MICHAEL CONNOLLY - Wall Street Journal)

When U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held talks in Moscow last week with Russian officials to try to cool tensions ahead of a meeting of presidents next month, both sides refused to budge on significant disputes, from the placement of a U.S. missile-defense shield in Europe to proposals at the United Nations to make the Serbian province of Kosovo independent.

That pattern is likely to be repeated at the European Union-Russia summit, which began Thursday night outside Samara, 560 miles southeast of Moscow, with an informal dinner hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin. With disputes mounting and the summit's showpiece agreements shelved, some EU nations argued earlier this week for canceling the meeting altogether. We don't know anyone who believes that the timing of the Russian suit against the BoNY and Rice's visit with Putin are coincidental. Putin is making it very clear that Russia will not be pushed around by the US, just as he's made it clear that "there will be no Orange Revolution in Russia."
EU Voices Concern Over Russian Opposition Arrests (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/138333.html)
May 18, 2007 (Buzzle.com)

The Kremlin today sent a signal of open defiance to the west as several opposition figures were arrested and western journalists detained as they attempted to fly to a summit between Russia and the EU.

Police held Garry Kasparov - the former world chess champion and a vocal critic of Vladimir Putin's regime - as he tried to board a flight from Moscow to the southern city of Samara.

Mr Kasparov was due to lead a demonstration by the Other Russia, a coalition of anti-Kremlin groups. They were protesting on the margins of the summit, hosted by Mr Putin and attended by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and other EU leaders.

Ms Merkel immediately voiced concerns that the Russian authorities were blatantly attempting to restrict freedom of speech. Russia is on the top of our Hot Spot watch list of potential sources of political and economic disruption in 2008.

AMaltsev
05-20-07, 01:04 AM
Russia is on the top of our Hot Spot watch list of potential sources of political and economic disruption in 2008.


In less than a year we'll know who will be the next Russian president - so, yeah, 2008 in Russia is going to be a year of turmoil.

However, I would not agree with those who claim the Russia is looking forward to a new Arm Race or a Cold War. Well, just look onto Washington's military spendings - they are greater than of the rest of the world combined - and ask yourself, who is looking forward to what!

As I wrote to Mr. Jeffrey R. Nyquist in responce to his (IMO) somewhat paranoid article at financialsense (http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2007/0511.html):

"[...]This is really funny. In the history of mankind only the USA nuked
cities, USSR/Russia did not. So if you look for the nuclear threat,
look no further than Washington, DC: American government has proved it
doesn't hesitate to use WMD.
For information on the "New Arms Race" I'd suggest you to read an
article of F. William Engdahl, "V. Putin & the Geopolitics of the New
Cold War".
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2007/0218.html
And ask yourself a question: who is so meticulously looking for
enemies and for the excuse to launch another Arm Race, Russia or the
US? Does Russia encircle the US, does Russia install elements of its
anti-missile defense in Canada and Mexica? Or maybe the United States
are encircling Russia, installing (or trying to install) its bases and
AMD elements in East-European countries (Czech Republic, Poland), in
Asia (Kirghizia, Afganistan), on Korean Peninsula?

It's great that commodities are becoming more and more expensive and
valuable. Maybe it'll help to rebuild our Army, since it is currently
(after 17 years of a crisis non-stop) extremely fragile. It's a pity,
though, that these very commodities are still being exported in
exchange for fiat currencies, which (together with commodities
themselves) will be long gone by the next century. So I see nothing,
absolutely nothing, wrong with attempts to get something MORE for our
resources, for example, INFLUENCE.
Of course, the West wants the stuff, and it wants to get it from a
country that "behaves", that "listens", and that does exactly as it is
being told. After all, the West got used to it in 1990s! Were you
Russian, you would definitely be glad that the "free lunch" is now
almost over. Being Westerner, you are infinitely angry. I tell you,
this is a typical "double standard" approach, inability to see (and
reluctance to share) other people's point of view.
Ah, yeah - I don't have a TV and I don't watch it, so it's impossible
to blame "Putin's propaganda" for my humble opinion."

Let's see how things are going to develop. Not a single week passes by without news of another deterioration of relationships of Russia with other countries (especially European). Last week we learned of the multibillion charge against BoNY - another nail in the coffin of our former friendship with the West. I guess, it's time for us Russians to turn to the East...

BlackVoid
05-20-07, 04:39 AM
It is the US strategy to prevent a powerful alliance in Eurasia. Such an alliance would undermine the hegemony of the US. But that hegemony is soon history anyway.
Europeans are more and more reluctant to be dragged around by America. They are under pressure not to get friendly with Russia. With the US power weakening, I hope the tension between the EU and Russia will diminish.
Still, some countries have friendly relations with Russia: Hungary, Germany (think baltic pipeline).

Turning east for Russia is not easy, there is little energy infrastructure in the East. It may not be worthwhile to build it. Also the bigger threat for Russia in the long run is China and not Europe. Putin realizes this and thats why he suggested the EU-Russia strategic treaty, but while America is strong this cannot be made.

jk
05-20-07, 09:13 AM
Europeans are more and more reluctant to be dragged around by America. They are under pressure not to get friendly with Russia. With the US power weakening, I hope the tension between the EU and Russia will diminish.
Still, some countries have friendly relations with Russia: Hungary, Germany (think baltic pipeline).


dependence on russia for its energy needs, combined with russia's demonstrated willingness to turn the energy spigot on and off for political purposes, has made the eu very wary. the eu is now desperate to diversify its energy sources, but lacks enough alternatives. russia sees the eu as both a market for its product and a potential source for technology. there will be a long and complicated dance between the eu and russia.

GRG55
05-20-07, 10:31 AM
However, I would not agree with those who claim the Russia is looking forward to a new Arm Race or a Cold War.


Although history never repeats exactly, perhaps we should not be too surprised that the Russian Government's reaction to the US missile proposal is not unlike the initial US reaction during the infamous 1962 Cuban missile crisis. History also teaches that commodity-income dependent economies rarely do well over time, and perhaps Russia is just skillfully playing a poor hand?

FRED
05-20-07, 10:55 AM
As I wrote to Mr. Jeffrey R. Nyquist in responce to his (IMO) somewhat paranoid article at financialsense (http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2007/0511.html):



Lots of good stuff over at Financialsense, but we find ourselves donning our tin foil hats before entering.



However, I would not agree with those who claim the Russia is looking forward to a new Arm Race or a Cold War.

There's a reason why we run videos on the US military industrial complex on the site, such as the one we're running now.

A partnership between China and Russia is natural: China needs military technology and natural resources.

jk
05-20-07, 11:14 AM
A partnership between China and Russia is natural: China needs military technology and natural resources.
a working and wary partnership. russia fears irredentist chinese in its eastern lands.

FRED
05-20-07, 11:33 AM
a working and wary partnership. russia fears irredentist chinese in its eastern lands.

Of course. All is relative... China isn't installing missile systems around Russia. The situation is similar to China and Japan in that China and Japan have not exactly been the best of pals over the centuries, but China's alliance is with Japan is getting stronger today while Japan's alliance with the US gets weaker.

bill
05-20-07, 12:47 PM
but China's alliance is with Japan is getting stronger today while Japan's alliance with the US gets weaker.

I agree
Japan emerging as article 9 gets revised http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/05/14/japan_takes_step_towards_revising_constitution/. The Japanese will be a major supplier of resources to China . The Japanese have been setting up shop in China for the last few years and will continue to utilize China ’s vast labor pools for many years to come. China really couldn’t give a shit who supplies the resources as long as it’s a reliable source. Their main concentration has been on factories, exports and internal infrastructure to support the same. China does not want to go to the “Resource Theater” and waste time and money wrestling resources creating all kinds of political problems for them selves. China wants to supply the world with a secure reliable inexpensive factory labor production base, they want to make money and keep a low profile (Chinese way). The Japanese will carry the big stick in the “Resource Theater” supplying China ’s (JV inside China Japanese,Chinese) resources.
The next move by the Japanese will be to unwind the yen carry trade giving them the opportunity to enter the “Resource Theater” at a discounted cost bases. The window of opportunity for the Japanese to acquisition resources should be over the next 2-3 years
<!-- toctype = X-unknown --><!-- toctype = text --><!-- text --><SCRIPT>var callCount = 0;function rmvScroll( msg ){ if ( ++callCount > 10 ) { msg.style.visibility = "visible"; } if ( callCount < 50 && ! imgsDone( msg ) ) { setTimeout( function() { rmvScroll( msg ); }, 200 ); return; } var delta = msg.offsetHeight - msg.clientHeight; var newWidth = 0; var newHeight = 0; delta = ( isNaN( delta )? 1 : delta + 1 ); if ( msg.scrollHeight > msg.clientHeight ) { newHeight = msg.scrollHeight + delta; } delta = msg.offsetWidth - msg.clientWidth; delta = ( isNaN( delta )? 1 : delta + 1 ); if ( msg.scrollWidth > msg.clientWidth ) { newWidth = msg.scrollWidth + delta; } msg.style.overflow = "visible"; msg.style.visibility = "visible"; if ( newWidth > 0 || newHeight > 0 ) { var ssxyzzy = document.getElementById( "ssxyzzy" ); var cssAttribs = ['#message {']; if ( newWidth > 0 ) cssAttribs.push( 'width:' + newWidth + 'px;' ); if ( newHeight > 0 ) cssAttribs.push( ' height:' + newHeight + 'px;' ); cssAttribs.push( '}' ); try { ssxyzzy.sheet.deleteRule( 0 ); ssxyzzy.sheet.insertRule( cssAttribs.join(""), 0 ); } catch( e ){} }}function imgsDone( msg ) // for Firefox, we need to scan for images that haven't set their width yet{ var imgList = msg.getElementsByTagName( "IMG" ); var len = ((imgList == null)? 0 : imgList.length); for ( var i = 0; i < len; ++i ) { var theImg = imgList[i]; if ( ! theImg.complete && "undefined" != typeof theImg.naturalWidth && theImg.naturalWidth == 0 ) { return false; } } return true;}var msg = document.getElementById( "message" );if ( oBw.agt.match( /gecko/ ) == "gecko" ) { if ( msg && "undefined" != typeof msg ) { rmvScroll( msg ); }} else { msg.style.visibility = "visible"; }</SCRIPT><!-- END TOC -->

GRG55
05-20-07, 02:19 PM
I agree
Japan emerging as article 9 gets revised http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/05/14/japan_takes_step_towards_revising_constitution/. The Japanese will be a major supplier of resources to China . The Japanese have been setting up shop in China for the last few years and will continue to utilize China ’s vast labor pools for many years to come. China really couldn’t give a shit who supplies the resources as long as it’s a reliable source. Their main concentration has been on factories, exports and internal infrastructure to support the same. China does not want to go to the “Resource Theater” and waste time and money wrestling resources creating all kinds of political problems for them selves. China wants to supply the world with a secure reliable inexpensive factory labor production base, they want to make money and keep a low profile (Chinese way). The Japanese will carry the big stick in the “Resource Theater” supplying China ’s (JV inside China Japanese,Chinese) resources.
The next move by the Japanese will be to unwind the yen carry trade giving them the opportunity to enter the “Resource Theater” at a discounted cost bases. The window of opportunity for the Japanese to acquisition resources should be over the next 2-3 years
<!-- toctype = X-unknown --><!-- toctype = text --><!-- text --><SCRIPT>var callCount = 0;function rmvScroll( msg ){ if ( ++callCount > 10 ) { msg.style.visibility = "visible"; } if ( callCount < 50 && ! imgsDone( msg ) ) { setTimeout( function() { rmvScroll( msg ); }, 200 ); return; } var delta = msg.offsetHeight - msg.clientHeight; var newWidth = 0; var newHeight = 0; delta = ( isNaN( delta )? 1 : delta + 1 ); if ( msg.scrollHeight > msg.clientHeight ) { newHeight = msg.scrollHeight + delta; } delta = msg.offsetWidth - msg.clientWidth; delta = ( isNaN( delta )? 1 : delta + 1 ); if ( msg.scrollWidth > msg.clientWidth ) { newWidth = msg.scrollWidth + delta; } msg.style.overflow = "visible"; msg.style.visibility = "visible"; if ( newWidth > 0 || newHeight > 0 ) { var ssxyzzy = document.getElementById( "ssxyzzy" ); var cssAttribs = ['#message {']; if ( newWidth > 0 ) cssAttribs.push( 'width:' + newWidth + 'px;' ); if ( newHeight > 0 ) cssAttribs.push( ' height:' + newHeight + 'px;' ); cssAttribs.push( '}' ); try { ssxyzzy.sheet.deleteRule( 0 ); ssxyzzy.sheet.insertRule( cssAttribs.join(""), 0 ); } catch( e ){} }}function imgsDone( msg ) // for Firefox, we need to scan for images that haven't set their width yet{ var imgList = msg.getElementsByTagName( "IMG" ); var len = ((imgList == null)? 0 : imgList.length); for ( var i = 0; i < len; ++i ) { var theImg = imgList[i]; if ( ! theImg.complete && "undefined" != typeof theImg.naturalWidth && theImg.naturalWidth == 0 ) { return false; } } return true;}var msg = document.getElementById( "message" );if ( oBw.agt.match( /gecko/ ) == "gecko" ) { if ( msg && "undefined" != typeof msg ) { rmvScroll( msg ); }} else { msg.style.visibility = "visible"; }</SCRIPT><!-- END TOC -->
Bill: If I understand you correctly you think the Chinese do not have an interest to scour the globe for their resource needs, and would prefer teh Japanese do it for them? You need to spend a little time in the places I've been living/working the past few years. In Kazakhstan they were in early and control much of the choice assets now. In the Arabian Gulf they have been muscling aside the Japanese who have been losing some of their long standing JV assets (e.g. Kuwait, Saudi neutral zone). It's quite clear that sub-Saharan Africa is going to be developed by the Chinese, not the nationals who for the most part just want to be paid handsomely so they can buy a nicer flat in Mayfair. I have first-hand experience dealing with the Chinese presence in all three of these locations. THey aren't going home any time soon.

bill
05-20-07, 02:57 PM
Bill: If I understand you correctly you think the Chinese do not have an interest to scour the globe for their resource needs, and would prefer teh Japanese do it for them? You need to spend a little time in the places I've been living/working the past few years. In Kazakhstan they were in early and control much of the choice assets now. In the Arabian Gulf they have been muscling aside the Japanese who have been losing some of their long standing JV assets (e.g. Kuwait, Saudi neutral zone). It's quite clear that sub-Saharan Africa is going to be developed by the Chinese, not the nationals who for the most part just want to be paid handsomely so they can buy a nicer flat in Mayfair. I have first-hand experience dealing with the Chinese presence in all three of these locations. THey aren't going home any time soon.



I said a “reliable source” I don’t think the Nations and regions you refer to are a political stable source for resource development as per their track records reflect.
<O:p</O:p
I do believe the Chinese have been scouring the globe with little success as I pointed out in my post here.http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9625#post9625

GRG55
05-20-07, 03:30 PM
The trophy resource assets are mostly developed and in the hands of others. That means the Chinese have to bid for the companies that hold them, as others have recently (e.g. Inco, Falconbridge, Alcan). You mentioned their desire to keep a low profile; is this perhaps the reason they have not been more aggressive in this respect (especially after the Unocal affair)? Preferring instead to go after undeveloped resources most of which reside in "difficult" jurisdictions? Or maybe they are just waiting to take over BHP and Rio so they can merge them...

bill
05-20-07, 08:12 PM
The trophy resource assets are mostly developed and in the hands of others. That means the Chinese have to bid for the companies that hold them, as others have recently (e.g. Inco, Falconbridge, Alcan). You mentioned their desire to keep a low profile; is this perhaps the reason they have not been more aggressive in this respect (especially after the Unocal affair)? Preferring instead to go after undeveloped resources most of which reside in "difficult" jurisdictions? Or maybe they are just waiting to take over BHP and Rio so they can merge them...


It is as I predicted the Chinese will invest in the PE Firms.
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10152#poststop


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070520/bs_nm/china_blackstone_dc_3;_ylt=AqxiGXNF8MMGsAtWsiz1kog E1vAI

China's new state investment firm on Sunday said it plans to make a $3 billion investment in the Blackstone Group, one of the most prominent and powerful U.S. private equity firms.

c1ue
05-20-07, 08:30 PM
Russia's Customs service is just following the money. Not all of the loot from the Yeltsin era was in the form of natural resources companies; a lot of actual cash was taken out as well.

This action is of the same vein as the Yukos sanction.

Those of you who are interested in Russia - Wharton has a pretty respectable overview at:

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/special_section.cfm?specialID=66

While the flavor and information in the articles above are very good -especially for an American publication, there are a couple of important points missing which I see echoed in the sentiments above:

1) Russia/Russians are very anti-Chinese both now and historically

While there are some short term geopolitical benefits to Russia and China working together, on the other hand both countries share a long and long disputed border. Russia's eastern provinces are also a significant portion of Asia's land mass including significant natural resources.

Russia in recent history has leaned towards Europe for acculturation, but Russia is also an Asian power.

Russia is more commodity oriented and China more labor oriented. China was using Russia for years as a dumping ground for goods failing standards for export into the US. As a result, the percentage of Russia's exports which are made in/routed through China is actually the lowest in any industrialized nation up until last year. In the 2000-2005 time frame, it was around 5% to 10% of total imports into Russia - so far in 2007 the amount has jumped to nearly 25% (vs. 35% in the US).

It is not clear how much of this is a tradeoff vs. increased Russian energy exports to China - the Russians on the street are very much against Chinese goods.

2) Russia is more of an Arctic circle country than a 30-60 latitude country.

Just think of Canada. The power centers of Russia are on the same latitude as Prince Rupert, whereas the majority of Canadian cities are near the US/Canada border or roughly the same latitude as Western Europe.

This affects lifestyle, thinking patterns, agriculture, etc.

Christoph von Gamm
05-21-07, 07:41 AM
Norway is the world's third largest exporter of crude oil, quite next to Central and Western Europe (less than 400 km to Germany, for example). Lybia can provide energy, same as Nigeria and even the Middle East. Where is the problem for Europe? The problem is to get the energy to the US. From a geoperspective Europe has quite a good choice.

BlackVoid
05-21-07, 07:42 AM
Russia needs Europe. Europe needs Russia. The USA has to prevent this alliance - this has been the Anglo- American strategy for a long time.

Russia is a great market and investment opportunity for western Europe. Cheap labor for the EU much closer than China. Resources closer than the Middle-East. Having an economy largely based on natural resources might have been a weak position in the past but this is changing fast. Most natural resources are in an accelerating depletion stage (oil, copper, platinum, nickel, etc...).
Europe might complain about dependency on Russia for energy but there is not much they can do about it. There are no Russian pipelines going east to China (as of now). The planned pipeline was recently delayed for LACK of oil (Peak Oil anyone?).
China-Russia alliance is a forced alliance for Russia.

These are interesting times, things may change quickly. Financial bubble all over the world, oil depleting, wars cannot be won. This is a new era.

BlackVoid
05-21-07, 07:47 AM
Norway is the world's third largest exporter of crude oil, quite next to Central and Western Europe (less than 400 km to Germany, for example). Lybia can provide energy, same as Nigeria and even the Middle East. Where is the problem for Europe? The problem is to get the energy to the US. From a geoperspective Europe has quite a good choice.

Norway oil production is dropping fast. UK oil production is dropping fast. There is speculation that even Saudi oil production is dropping - in fact it is dropping at an alarming pace, but they are telling us that it is all voluntary.
The majority of oil producing countries have their production falling.
At the same time, Chinese oil imports have grown 30% last year, making China the 2nd largest importer. OECD crude stocks are at a record low. US gasoline prices are at a record high. We are one event (a new war, pipeline bombing, hurricane) away from a major oil-price shock.

Look at these charts:
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2550

jk
05-21-07, 09:17 AM
Norway is the world's third largest exporter of crude oil, quite next to Central and Western Europe (less than 400 km to Germany, for example). Lybia can provide energy, same as Nigeria and even the Middle East. Where is the problem for Europe? The problem is to get the energy to the US. From a geoperspective Europe has quite a good choice.
europe is heavily dependent on russian gas for winter heating. there aren't enough lng facilities to provide alternatives.

Tet
05-21-07, 09:48 AM
Russia needs Europe. Europe needs Russia. The USA has to prevent this alliance - this has been the Anglo- American strategy for a long time.

Russia is a great market and investment opportunity for western Europe. Cheap labor for the EU much closer than China. Resources closer than the Middle-East. Having an economy largely based on natural resources might have been a weak position in the past but this is changing fast. Most natural resources are in an accelerating depletion stage (oil, copper, platinum, nickel, etc...).
Europe might complain about dependency on Russia for energy but there is not much they can do about it. There are no Russian pipelines going east to China (as of now). The planned pipeline was recently delayed for LACK of oil (Peak Oil anyone?).
China-Russia alliance is a forced alliance for Russia.

These are interesting times, things may change quickly. Financial bubble all over the world, oil depleting, wars cannot be won. This is a new era.
You seem to have this backwards, the Anglo Empire has always tried to prevent Russia uniting with Asia not uniting with Europe. Russian pipeline to China is ahead of schedule not behind, Russian export of crude to China is 30% more than last year. Korea just had there first cross border train transit in 50-years and South Korea will start exporting goods to Europe via the Siberian Railroad later this year, plus South Korea will start importing Russian oil via the Siberian railroad about the same time. Russia is swimming in oil, Peak Oil has been proven to be nothing but a scam.

GRG55
05-21-07, 11:06 AM
Recently Alfa Bank (apparently Russia's largest bank) issued a research report from their London office concluding that, under the current fiscal regime, new capex investment in Russian oil is negative IRR. That may better explain the flat production in Russia recently. Increasing domestic consumption will reduce aggregate exports unless this situation changes.

Andreuccio
05-21-07, 03:57 PM
Peak Oil has been proven to be nothing but a scam.

By whom? Do you have one or more links for further reading? Thanks.

Tet
05-21-07, 04:59 PM
By whom? Do you have one or more links for further reading? Thanks.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/peakoilindex.shtml

Lot's of links here, it's been several years since I've looked for any so I can't say if these are any good. I just look at the upstream oil investment and notice there's still a lot of relatively cheap oil off of Mexico's coast and no investment being made to grab it. Oil is going rapidly off line due to man made events, Iraq, US handling of Katrina/Rita, Nigeria, recent OPEC production decisions, Venezuela union oil strike, Sudan civil war, all have suffered from manmade production cuts. Other countries that are producing less quantity, are still making more revenue, Britain, Norway, Mexico, Kuwait, Suadi's. Now if someone told me I could make more by working less I'd sign up for that. This is literally millions of barrels per day of manmade production cuts, well over a million just from Iraq alone.

BlackVoid
05-22-07, 05:08 AM
Peak Oil proven a scam??? By whom? Oil is a finite natural resource, even the CERA report (that denies Peak Oil) shows a peak in oil production. The only thing that is questiones is the timing.
Look at this chart.
http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=8444

The timing and consequences can be argued, the theory itself is proven.

BlackVoid
05-22-07, 05:17 AM
"This is a big story. It's an attempt by the Illuminati, working through their number one propaganda production factory, .... to create the illusion that the world is rapidly running out of oil."

Very convincing. Peak Oil is only a conspiracy by the Illuminati. :p

True, there are "above ground factors", but what does that change?
Take a look at Mexico oil production, North Sea production, US production. If there is so much cheap oil out there, why is the price so high? Why is production stagnating?
http://www.theoildrum.com/ - this site has complex scientific analysis on the subject.

Tet
05-22-07, 09:56 AM
"This is a big story. It's an attempt by the Illuminati, working through their number one propaganda production factory, .... to create the illusion that the world is rapidly running out of oil."

Very convincing. Peak Oil is only a conspiracy by the Illuminati. :p

True, there are "above ground factors", but what does that change?
Take a look at Mexico oil production, North Sea production, US production. If there is so much cheap oil out there, why is the price so high? Why is production stagnating?
http://www.theoildrum.com/ - this site has complex scientific analysis on the subject.
LMAO The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion. 85-million barrels per day, everyday is what the world needs, not a drop more, not a drop less, thank g_d we've knocked Iraq's oil production back 35-years or we'd have a few million extra barrels floating around. How do you explain Iraq's production?

Good thing you figured this all out for yourself and bought the Peak Oil Bag early, heaven knows oil and Exxon stock will never be selling for $30 again, not in a million years. Bagholders like yourself are a very odd lot indeed.

Andreuccio
05-22-07, 12:15 PM
I confess to not having time to read all the links and info on that site, but the basic arguement seems to be that where OPEC was unable to maintain production quotas more or less in the open, a larger group consisting of all the OPEC countries, Britian, Norway, Mexico, Russia, all the major oil companies, The US government, Wall Street, and, uh, the Illuminati, are all involved in a secret conspiracy that has so far been highly successful in capping oil production and maintaining high prices. Is that about right?

I understand, and agree with, your point that it's in each of their interests to limit production, since then they can effectively get paid more for doing less. But it seems unlikely that a conspiracy with this many members would succeed.

To me, though, both as an investor and as a consumer, the net effect is the same. Whether there's an actual shortage, or an artificial one created by all these players, prices are rising, so I need to take that into account when making my decisions.

GRG55
05-22-07, 01:02 PM
I just look at the upstream oil investment and notice there's still a lot of relatively cheap oil off of Mexico's coast and no investment being made to grab it... Oil is going rapidly off line due to man made events. This is literally millions of barrels per day of manmade production cuts, well over a million just from Iraq alone.

The increasingly shrill "peak oil" debate seems to be dominated by two extreme views - "it's a scam" vs "we're all doomed". Proponents of both positions advance a few plausible sounding arguments, but the "organized-grand-global-conspiracy-to-impair-oil-supply" overtone in many of these links isn't one of them.

Manmade production cuts are nothing new. Long before OPEC the Texas Railroad Commission allocated quotas. Throughout its short history oil has always been a politically charged and politically priced commodity. The fact that there may (may!) still be some "relatively cheap oil" based on actual finding and development costs is largely irrelevant - oil has always gone through extended periods where it is priced well above, and at other times, well below the marginal F&D cost of adding the next barrel. The manmade political factors that influence oil prices may change with the seasons but for more than 100 years they've been a constant in modifying the "real cost". Today's admittedly lengthy list of "manmade" factors is no more artificial in terms of its influence on price and supply than in the past. Get used to it, and pray that the industry responds the same way it always has during past price cycle highs - by creating a glut.

Tet
05-22-07, 02:57 PM
The increasingly shrill "peak oil" debate seems to be dominated by two extreme views - "it's a scam" vs "we're all doomed". Proponents of both positions advance a few plausible sounding arguments, but the "organized-grand-global-conspiracy-to-impair-oil-supply" overtone in many of these links isn't one of them.

Manmade production cuts are nothing new. Long before OPEC the Texas Railroad Commission allocated quotas. Throughout its short history oil has always been a politically charged and politically priced commodity. The fact that there may (may!) still be some "relatively cheap oil" based on actual finding and development costs is largely irrelevant - oil has always gone through extended periods where it is priced well above, and at other times, well below the marginal F&D cost of adding the next barrel. The manmade political factors that influence oil prices may change with the seasons but for more than 100 years they've been a constant in modifying the "real cost". Today's admittedly lengthy list of "manmade" factors is no more artificial in terms of its influence on price and supply than in the past. Get used to it, and pray that the industry responds the same way it always has during past price cycle highs - by creating a glut.
LMAO, you explain a war against an innocent country spending hundreds of billions of the nations treasury and sacrificing the blood of our young as what then? A million and a half barrels per day of production gone from Iraq, I'm supposed to ignore this? 3 million barrels per day selling in Euros before now selling in d0llars is not just a production cut, it's pricing control. Yes lets ignore the 400-pound gorilla in the room and talk about something else. Peak Oil is a manmade scam get used to it, to much at stake for it not to be.

Moe_Gamble
05-22-07, 02:59 PM
http://lobg2.blogspot.com/2007/04/henry-groppe-got-oil.html

I'm sure we all agree that the current gasoline spikes are due to man-made supply constraints. But the technical data on peak oil is strong. It has been presented ad infinitum by Matt Simmons, the oildrum.com, and the rest (typical crusaders, engaged in an admirable but hopeless fight--they should read Dmitri Orlov for their own sanity). I have been unable to find any counter-arguments that actually address the technical issues. The counter-arguments are based either on faith, primarily faith in technology, or the theories of kooks (oil as a renewable resource). By the way, any site that links to that stuff should automatically be considered suspect.

Henry Groppe (respected for accurate oil price predictions for many decades) believes in peak oil. Back in 2005 he was predicting the price of oil would stay at $55 - $65 for about a decade. He said then that he believed we'd hit peak around 2006, but that prices would be contained by relatively easy conservation measures in the developing world. (He said that the easy conservation measures had already been taken in the U.S.)

Now he is no longer predicting that prices will stay at $55 - $65, because the easy conservation measures have already been taken and worldwide demand continues to rise. He now says that he doesn't know what price will be sufficient to lower demand.

I find it hard to believe the total-collapse scenarios, at least for the near term, but as Orlov points out, it would have been hard to believe in 1985 what was coming to the Soviet Union.

I find it easy to believe that it will play a role in the coming crisis.

Moe_Gamble
05-22-07, 04:34 PM
No, peak oil is real, and so is pricing control. They are not mutually exclusive.

Great article on Darfur and the China/U.S. cold war, by the way.

Contemptuous
05-23-07, 01:25 AM
This is my very first post on I-Tulip - made with considerable trepidation and respect for those within this community - as I've read many very high caliber contributors here for the past year. My reply is to Tet - I believe you'll have to abide, in a very stark way, with having been demonstrably wrong on the topic of the peak and rapid decline of world oil production. The evidence will emerge quite clearly within the next five very short years. Let events unfolding be our guide, and the arbiter of who has a grasp of the gravity and stark reality of this issue in advance.

GRG55
05-23-07, 06:33 AM
...Peak Oil is a manmade scam get used to it, to much at stake for it not to be.

Hmmm... In addition to Cheney and W. let's see who else benefits and must be supporting the Peak Oil scam and consequent high petroleum prices:

General Electric (sells nuclear, wind and solar products);
Florida Power and Light (large wind power utility in USA);
Duke Energy and Entergy (two big nuclear utilities);
Peabody Coal (large coal producer in the USA & Australia);
Cameco (world's largest uranium producer);
Areva (French nuclear plant engineers and fuel processors);
Archer Daniel Midland (big ethanol producer);
XTO Energy (independent natural gas producer);
TransOcean (offshore oil drilling services company);
Nabors Drilling (onshore oil drilling services company);
Iowa corn farmers (fuel trumps food and feed);
Mosaic (large nitrogen fertilizer maker, needed for corn yields);
John Deere (nothing runs like Deere's stock price);
Toyota (maker of the Prius - car of the stars);
Shimano (Japanese maker of bicycle components);
Bajaj (Indian scooter manufacturer);
US Congress (never ending fortress America farm subsidies);
US Senate (more excuses for hearings at which to grandstand);
Boone Pickens (energy hedge fund manager);
Bill Gates (large Pacific Ethanol shareholder);
Warren Buffett (owns railroads that haul ethanol and coal);
Vladimir Putin ("Yes, I would be honored to head up Gazprom");
Nigeria's MEND (who would fight if the stuff isn't worth anything?);
Al Gore (famous film narrator -"The world really is listening to me!");
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ("The world is listening to me too, Al!");
Halliburton (intuitively obvious);
General Dynamics (even more intuitively obvious)...Yep, sure looks like a man-made, global-conspiracy scam to me too. I'm convinced...

Tet
05-23-07, 09:32 AM
Hmmm... In addition to Cheney and W. let's see who else benefits and must be supporting the Peak Oil scam and consequent high petroleum prices:

General Electric (sells nuclear, wind and solar products);
Florida Power and Light (large wind power utility in USA);
Duke Energy and Entergy (two big nuclear utilities);
Peabody Coal (large coal producer in the USA & Australia);
Cameco (world's largest uranium producer);
Areva (French nuclear plant engineers and fuel processors);
Archer Daniel Midland (big ethanol producer);
XTO Energy (independent natural gas producer);
TransOcean (offshore oil drilling services company);
Nabors Drilling (onshore oil drilling services company);
Iowa corn farmers (fuel trumps food and feed);
Mosaic (large nitrogen fertilizer maker, needed for corn yields);
John Deere (nothing runs like Deere's stock price);
Toyota (maker of the Prius - car of the stars);
Shimano (Japanese maker of bicycle components);
Bajaj (Indian scooter manufacturer);
US Congress (never ending fortress America farm subsidies);
US Senate (more excuses for hearings at which to grandstand);
Boone Pickens (energy hedge fund manager);
Bill Gates (large Pacific Ethanol shareholder);
Warren Buffett (owns railroads that haul ethanol and coal);
Vladimir Putin ("Yes, I would be honored to head up Gazprom");
Nigeria's MEND (who would fight if the stuff isn't worth anything?);
Al Gore (famous film narrator -"The world really is listening to me!");
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ("The world is listening to me too, Al!");
Halliburton (intuitively obvious);
General Dynamics (even more intuitively obvious)...Yep, sure looks like a man-made, global-conspiracy scam to me too. I'm convinced...
You're kidding aren't you? How many Nuclear Power Plants were in the pipeline before the Iraq War? A handful at most, Iran had plans for three and that's about it. How many Nuclear Power Plants are in the pipeline today? China has fifty, Russia has twenty five, Iran has twenty and there's another twenty or so from the rest of the world. Is nuclear power a energy alternative or a currency alternative? Do you pay for nuclear energy with d0llars? Does the power plant itself cost d0llars?

Is the demand for natural gas and LNG higher with crude selling at $70 or with crude selling at $20? GAZPOM just became the largest company in the world, I can't imagine that Russia is complaining about this. Why is Germany & Russia building a $10 billion gas pipeline under the Baltic when they've got a perfectly good pipeline flowing through Polakistan? What currency do you suppose Polakistan charges Germany for Russia's Natural Gas? What is New Europe? What were these multi-colored revolutions all about? Democracy? LMAO

I realize you Peaksters like to explain what's going on in the world with the view that the world is once again running out of crude, meanwhile the world is at war with the Imperial Coin and trying it's best to do away with the D0llar Hegemon. Meanwhile Russia somehow is producing more oil not less, something I'm sure Matthew Simmons is currently tying to figure out how to explain Russia's rise in hydro-carbon production to his Peakster following. He was certainly hyping Russia's falling production as proof to his claim. Russian production up almost 4 million barrels per day in the last six years, not bad, you'd think a country that knew they were running out of crude would be saving the remaining drops for themselves.

BlackVoid
05-23-07, 10:14 AM
Yeah, Putin is conspiring with Cheney to fix the oil price. Haha.
Russia is still below peak production of the 80s.

And what is with Iraq? They could produce more, it is true, but what difference does it make to the theory? Iraq could delay the peak a few years at most - but in the light of current events this is unlikely.

UK - they are deliberately cutting back on production to kill their exports? Norway and Mexico doing the same? USA has declining since 1970, but it is just a conspiracy to ruin America by running up the national debt? LOL.

Russia is increasing production but due to increasing domestic production exports have actually have shrunk last year.

If big oil is behind this and Peak Oil is a bunk, then why do the oil companies DENY IT? Why does the main-stream media ignore it? Why is the Peak Oil movement is a grassroots movement of volunteers and retired geologists? Big oil could do better than that I am sure.

Germany and Russia are building the pipeline under the baltic, because there are new gas fields in the Barrents sea and they want to avoid going through problematic countries (Poland, Estonia). Of course, they will like their new role as energy suppliers/distributors of Europe.

Well, nothing makes me more sure of Peak Oil than the weak arguments of its debunkers.

But since you believe in abiotic oil, any argument is pointless.

Tet
05-23-07, 11:47 AM
Yeah, Putin is conspiring with Cheney to fix the oil price. Haha.
Russia is still below peak production of the 80s.
Bullshit. There was no Russia production figures for the 80's were there? Peaksters really should learn some geography and political sphere's of the world. Production figures in the 80's would be the Soviet Union wouldn't they? Includiung Central Asia back then. You certainly don't give a shit about lying your asses off. Russian production, as in actual Russian production are considerably higher than it was in the 80's.


And what is with Iraq? They could produce more, it is true, but what difference does it make to the theory? Iraq could delay the peak a few years at most - but in the light of current events this is unlikely.
LMAO, what difference does 1 or 2 million barrels per day make? You're kidding right? Are these barrels selling in Euros or through London and Wall Street in d0llars?



UK - they are deliberately cutting back on production to kill their exports? Norway and Mexico doing the same? USA has declining since 1970, but it is just a conspiracy to ruin America by running up the national debt? LOL.
Is Queen Liz making more or less money from the North Sea? I realize it's a simple question and yet somehow a very hard one for Peaksters to wrap their little brains around but is she making more or less money? Does King V out of Norway put more cash in his pocket at the end of every day pumping less oil than when he was pumping more oil? Does Queen Beatrix make more money or less money when she shuts down Royal Dutch Shells Nigerian output? Do you need to see BP and RDS stock charts for the last five years, does that help or do you have as much trouble reading stock charts as you do reading production figures?


Russia is increasing production but due to increasing domestic production exports have actually have shrunk last year.
Wrong Production just to China alone is growing well over 30%.


If big oil is behind this and Peak Oil is a bunk, then why do the oil companies DENY IT? Why does the main-stream media ignore it? Why is the Peak Oil movement is a grassroots movement of volunteers and retired geologists? Big oil could do better than that I am sure.
If Big Oil told people the sky was blue people would think it wasn't.


Germany and Russia are building the pipeline under the baltic, because there are new gas fields in the Barrents sea and they want to avoid going through problematic countries (Poland, Estonia). Of course, they will like their new role as energy suppliers/distributors of Europe.
What currency do you suppose the pipeline under the Baltic will sell Natural gas in? You obviously don't get it, but Peaksters some how never do.


Well, nothing makes me more sure of Peak Oil than the weak arguments of its debunkers.
Right.


But since you believe in abiotic oil, any argument is pointless.
Certainly oil's formation from Dino goo explained with cartoons is a much better theory. LMAO

Contemptuous
05-24-07, 12:14 AM
Tet - with all due and sincere respect to you, for your many excellent posts - which I've been following with interest for the past year as you seek out less than obvious truths - at which real and posted oil price will you consent to jettison the conspiracy theories regarding "vapid claiims of oil scarcity" and embrace an oil scarcity "plausibility"? $120 per barrel? $150 per barrel? $200 per barrel? - When these numbers become painfully apparent (shockingly soon), theories regarding "vested interests artificially cajoling the price of oil ever upwards may become increasingly strained.

Tet
05-24-07, 12:52 AM
Tet - with all due and sincere respect to you, for your many excellent posts - which I've been following with interest for the past year as you seek out less than obvious truths - at which real and posted oil price will you consent to jettison the conspiracy theories regarding "vapid claiims of oil scarcity" and embrace an oil scarcity "plausibility"? $120 per barrel? $150 per barrel? $200 per barrel?
An interesting question, I was just looking for some long term oil charts today and all I found was three year charts. Blow-off tops are a hard number to come up with so the price would need to be sustained for several months before I'd say maybe we're running out of oil. I would think one of the three numbers you posted would do it. I was a Peakster back in 2000 all the way until about 2003, so there's hope for you as well you know. :) Made a lot of money in a Putnam Global Resource Fund thanks to being a Peakster, probably should have held on to it longer than I did as well. It does amaze me how long some of these things last before gravity eventually takes over and gravity always takes over. Sometimes the Wall Street scams involves lots and lots of chairs and sometimes only a few.


- When these numbers become painfully apparent (shockingly soon), theories regarding "vested interests artificially cajoling the price of oil ever upwards may become increasingly strained.
Regardless of oil peaking or not peaking it is going to be a very interesting couple of years we have coming up. The real question to be asking is did the D0llar Peak back and 2001 or does Uncle Buck return from the dead? For myself I think Uncle Buck makes another comeback. Thanks for the kind words.

GRG55
05-24-07, 06:35 AM
...I was a Peakster back in 2000 all the way until about 2003...It does amaze me how long some of these things last before gravity eventually takes over and gravity always takes over. Sometimes the Wall Street scams involves lots and lots of chairs and sometimes only a few...Regardless of oil peaking or not peaking it is going to be a very interesting couple of years we have coming up...

Tet: You accused me of being a "Peakster" - presumably because I tried to offer up some counter arguments to your views? Actually I struggle to emulate truly successful investors, who I notice tend to be fiercely agnostic as they industriously root around uncovering and verifying facts and objectively trying to piece together complex interrelationships. I cannot point to a better example of this than Eric Janszen. Recognizing that Eric and his team are not obligated to devote their time to keeping iTulip live, the opportunity to contribute and learn from all of you in this community is, for me, a highly valued privilege.

As a former Peakster you will be able to appreciate both sides of this debate better than most. Be assured I am "fiercely agnostic" about Peak Oil and would offer up to the community as food for thought:

There is no shortage of global oil resource or potential reserves from all sources. Generally the lowest quality sources contain the most resources. (source: IEA, CERA, Wood MacKenzie, US Geological Survey, Canadian Geological Survey);
Annual increases in global oil consumption in each of the past 5 years are measurably higher than any 5 yr m.a. of the previous 26 years, despite much lower nominal prices during most of that time (data source: IEA, BP Review, calcs my own);
From the peak in the early 1980's global petroleum exploration and development activity utterly collapsed for about 20 years (source: Baker Hughes drilling and service rig reports);
The global petroleum industry is currently short of trained and experienced people (source: Schlumberger and Baker Hughes Q1 2007 conference calls, personal discussions with industry insiders);
Currently human, materials and financial resources are biased to executing a large number of global "super-projects" bringing on new production sources, at the expense of maintaining existing production sources (source: Schlumberger and Baker Hughes Q1 conference calls, personal discussions);
Demand and consumption are not the same thing. We can't burn "virtual barrels" - global consumption won't ever exceed global supply from production + inventory changes (no matter what the IEA long-term demand forecasts imply).
Unlike base metals and steel, new production of petroleum does not compete with "recycled scrap" sources, no matter what the price - ergo price behaviour and response (short and long-term) to same may be different for oil compared to, say, copper.
Elsewhere on the iTulip site Eric Janszen articulates far better than I ever could the difficulties of liquid transportation fuel substitution. Those postings (and everything else on the iTulip site) should be required reading (sorry for preaching to the iChoir).
Whether due to deliberate manipulation, security issues, natural declines, lack of experienced human resources, corrupt management, incompetent politicians or a myriad of other reasons, current demand (not consumption!) appears to be exceeding current ability to increase supply.
The market is doing what it always does - rationing using short-term price movements.
Politicians of all stripes, everywhere, are doing what they always do - modifying and manipulating the markets to their advantage or benefit.
If one defines a commodity price "bubble" as a 2-sigma upward deviation from the 50 year moving average (admittedly a highly subjective reference), oil is in a bubble.
History is not on the side of the Peakers - every previous supply related price increase resulted in a glut and price reversion to, or below, the long term m.a. No exceptions.
It may be different this time - dangerous words always - however a growing number of industry participants that I know scattered all over the world, in firms large and small, are telling me remarkably similar stories about the "production treadmill" their firms are on. In the past few years many have been unable to materially increase net output no matter how much they increase their investment budgets and drilling. Worse still, an increasing number that work for publicly traded firms tell me their firms are buying back stock so they can show production-per-share increases to keep equity markets happy. To me this implies growing opportunity limitations. This also implies the sector is about to experience another M&A cycle - and this one may exceed the one that ushered in the creation of the "super-majors". Perversely, this M&A cycle may result in the break-up of some larger players.
If it is different this time, we won't know with absolute certainty until we look back on it. As others have posted on this site, only time will tell. Here is where agnostic objectivity starts to break down - I believe that neither side of this debate can, today, definitively prove that global petroleum production is or isn't at, or near, a peak. There are simply too many data uncertainties, and too many other unpredictable factors that govern the outcome. I appreciate there are many others on both sides of this debate, armed with many good facts and statistics, that feel quite certain of the outcome. I respect and listen to their views, but also choose for now to respectfully disagree with them.For those in the community, like me, who risk some of their hard earned capital investing in the petroleum sector I hope the above may be of some value as we navigate through the next few years. ;)

jk
05-24-07, 09:46 AM
grg55, thank you for your posts.

Tet
05-24-07, 11:35 PM
Tet: You accused me of being a "Peakster" - For those in the community, like me, who risk some of their hard earned capital investing in the petroleum sector I hope the above may be of some value as we navigate through the next few years. ;)
My appologies, your reply is right up there with one of the best posts I've ever read at this forum.

For those in the community, like me, who risk some of their hard earned capital investing in the petroleum sector I hope the above may be of some value as we navigate through the next few years.
You spent a lot of time on your post, this requires me to do the same. You've got my head spinning, but unfortunately I'm getting ready to head out of town. Tuesday or Wednesday I'll get back to this on this thread. Your reply rates about a three to four hour reply on my end and I don't have the time at the moment. After reading your post zero sum games is where my repy was headed this morning, I had about a paragraph before the day got the best of me.

Knowing when to exit the bubble is a work in progress for me, I'd be interested in reading about your thoughts on that. Getting in on the bubble is where I'm at right now and it would appear like there is one in the making. You're still in the bubble I bailed out on, good for you, knowing what cards you're holding is the only way to walk away from the casino with their money. I think maybe I'm understanding your question regarding when a doubting nanny like myself would consider being wrong regarding Peak Oil. Off the cuff, I'd say your midrange number, I'm still looking for a longterm chart in order to let you know what the chart would say. Only you know how much you've made, so I'm not sure when you want to pull the trigger. I would think soon, winter's over and Russia's oil is going to start hitting the market. But as you asked, tops are a hell of a lot harder to call than bottoms. Good luck.

Contemptuous
05-25-07, 11:39 PM
Hats off to GRG55 for a "reality check"summary. I would however submit that what will appear to be the feared "blowoff top" in this energy bull market may only be a wild, gut-wrenching 2-3-4- year correction. Ten years out further - we'll be in a whole new world - Industrialized nations will be confronting energy issues which they have not yet previously experienced, not only in living memory, but in that of generations.

For investors, this 200 year paradigm change may be too big to ride out, given that it's thrashing coils could cut both ways deeper than we have means to confront - but in terms of history, the world may have turned a 300 year chapter at the end of a breathtakingly short span of time.

I submit the entire sequence plays out within the next twenty years. Add another five years for a prudent margin of error. The serious distress should appear far sooner.

You'd think it's outliers would be squarely in the news, but they are nowhere to be seen yet.

akrowne
05-27-07, 09:14 PM
Russia is swimming in oil, Peak Oil has been proven to be nothing but a scam.

LOL! Have you checked the output of any country besides Russia?

The failure of the Soviets to optimally extract Russia's natural resources, including oil, has simply turned into a late blessing.

bill
07-12-07, 12:51 PM
Bill: If I understand you correctly you think the Chinese do not have an interest to scour the globe for their resource needs, and would prefer teh Japanese do it for them? You need to spend a little time in the places I've been living/working the past few years. In Kazakhstan they were in early and control much of the choice assets now. In the Arabian Gulf they have been muscling aside the Japanese who have been losing some of their long standing JV assets (e.g. Kuwait, Saudi neutral zone). It's quite clear that sub-Saharan Africa is going to be developed by the Chinese, not the nationals who for the most part just want to be paid handsomely so they can buy a nicer flat in Mayfair. I have first-hand experience dealing with the Chinese presence in all three of these locations. THey aren't going home any time soon.


Look's like Japan secures uranium with Westinghouse deal.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/09/business/AS-FIN-Japan-Toshiba-Westinghouse.php


Japan's Toshiba talking with Kazakh state company about Westinghouse shares<!-- /kicker & headline --><!-- subhead --><!-- /subhead --><!-- byline -->
http://img.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif
The Associated Press
Published: July 9, 2007
http://img.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif

<!-- /byline --><!-- body text --><SCRIPT language=JavaScript type=text/javascript> document.writeln('<div id="bodyText" style="font-size: ' + currentTextSize + 'px; line-height: ' + currentLineHeight + 'px;">'); </SCRIPT><!-- article tools - narrow (used with span photos) -->http://img.iht.com/images/articletools/at_narrow_top.gif
http://img.iht.com/images/articletools/dots_at_narrow.gif

<!-- 88x31 button --><!-- No ad for business_88x31_article --><!-- /88x31 button -->

http://img.iht.com/images/articletools/at_narrow_bot.gif

<!-- /article tools - narrow (used with span photos) --><!-- copy -->TOKYO: Japanese electronics maker Toshiba Corp. said it is discussing the possibility of selling a stake in its U.S. unit, nuclear reactor manufacturer Westinghouse Electric Co., to a Kazakh state-owned resource company.
Toshiba and the Kazakh company Kazatomprom are discussing details of a possible transaction, a Toshiba spokesman said Monday, but he declined to provide further details.
Toshiba said in a press release over the weekend it aims to form a partnership with Kazatomprom to secure uranium supplies. Kazakhstan has the world's second-largest uranium reserves after Australia.
The Tokyo-based company expects uranium supply conditions to become tight as demand for nuclear plants rises in China and the U.S. to meet growing energy needs and to cut carbon emissions from fossil fuels.
Toshiba holds a 77 percent stake in Monroeville, Pennsylvania-based Westinghouse, which it bought from the U.K.'s British Nuclear Fuels PLC last year for US$4.2 billion (€3.1 billion).
<!-- sidebar --><!-- today in links -->The Shaw Group Inc. of the U.S. owns 20 percent of Westinghouse and Japanese heavy machinery maker IHI Corp. owns 3 percent.

The Nikkei reported over the weekend that Toshiba agreed to see a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse to Kazatomprom for around 60 billion yen (US$487 million; €358 million).
<!-- pagination --><!-- /pagination --><!-- ISI_LISTEN_STOP --><!-- /copy --><!-- bottom banner ad --><!-- No ad for business_banner_article --><!-- /bottom banner ad -->
<!-- /body text -->

metalman
07-14-07, 12:46 PM
Russia suspends arms control pact

Russia says that the CFE treaty has become "meaningless"

Russian President Vladimir Putin has suspended the application of a key Cold War arms control treaty.

Mr Putin signed a decree citing "exceptional circumstances" affecting security as the reason for the move.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6898690.stm

bill
07-14-07, 01:25 PM
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/14/europe/EU-GEN-NATO-Arms-Control-Treaty.php



Top Russian officials including Sergei Ivanov, a first deputy prime minister and former defense minister, have repeatedly complained that although Russia's defense budget was cut drastically after the Cold War, the United States and its NATO allies have maintained a high rate of military spending. This contradicted the spirit and intent of arms controls treaties, officials said.
They also pointed out that Russia's military budget is now 25 times smaller than that of the nations making up NATO, amounting to only 2.8 percent of the country's gross national product.
<!-- pagination --><!-- /pagination --><!-- ISI_LISTEN_STOP --><!-- /copy --><!-- bottom banner ad --><!-- No ad for europe_banner_article --><!-- /bottom banner ad --><!-- /body text -->

Look’s like Russia</ST1:p will use some of the oil wealth it has accumulated in past few years and is headed for a arms build up.

Tet
07-15-07, 12:05 PM
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/14/europe/EU-GEN-NATO-Arms-Control-Treaty.php

Look’s like Russia</ST1:p will use some of the oil wealth it has accumulated in past few years and is headed for a arms build up.

Looks like the world is getting divided up to me, first the Putin/Bush Sr. meeting at the Bush home in Maine and now we have the murderer Kissinger having a meeting at Putin's home in Moscow.

Kissinger-led U.S. group attends closed debate at Putin home

NOVO-OGARYOVO (Moscow Region), July 13 (RIA Novosti) - A group of Russian and U.S. dignitaries gathered Friday at the presidential residence near Moscow behind closed doors in a bid to repair shattered ties.

The panel called "Russia-USA: A Look Into the Future," led by former U.S. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, declined to comment on the first Moscow session, but said it was a successful beginning to a series of high-level meetings.

"We discussed many issues. Our goal was not to get media coverage, score public relations points, or press home any propaganda messages. We came here to solve problems," Primakov said.

"We agreed to hold the next meeting in mid-December in Washington, D.C.," where the panelists will meet with President George W. Bush, he added.

Kissinger thanked Putin for his hospitality and praised the Russian leader for his realistic and open approach.

"We appreciate the time that President Putin gave us and the frank manner in which he explained his point of view," he said.

When asked whether U.S. unilateral interventionism was on the agenda, Kissinger said that "nuclear proliferation" and "nuclear threats," rather than U.S. policies, are the biggest danger to world peace.

"I do not think that U.S. (http://www.iraq-war.ru/U.S.) expansion is a problem of the period. The problem of the period is how to avoid nuclear conflict and in this case we believe that Russia and America should have common objectives."

Addressing the panel's first meeting, Putin thanked its participants for their quick response to the idea to set up such a high-level group, first aired during his April meeting with Kissinger and Primakov, and urged them to keep the debate as close to the ground as possible.

"Your findings (http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/Your%20findings) should not be brought to our foreign ministries to gather dust there. They should be treated as something of practical use," he said.

He stressed that the idea was to set up a broad panel that would be open-minded when discussing issues.

"We cannot afford having a Russia-U.S. relationship that depends on the current political situation inside both our countries. We cannot allow our relationship to serve such narrow issues, as, for example, election campaigns in Russia or the U.S.," Putin said.

Apart from Kissinger, the U.S. team includes former Secretary of State George Schultz; former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin; former Special Representative for Arms Control, Nonproliferation and Disarmament Ambassador Thomas Graham, Jr.; former Senator Sam Nunn; and Chevron Chairman and Chief Executive Officer David O'Reilly.

Apart from Primakov, the Russian team includes Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov; former Ambassador to the U.S. Yuly Vorontsov; Deputy Board Chairman of UES Russia Leonid Drachevsky; UC Rusal Deputy Chief Executive Officer Alexander Livshits, and former Soviet Armed Forces Chief of Staff Mikhail Moiseyev.

http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/134810

Who knows, maybe they're creating a new Bretton Woods arrangement that would bring parity to some regional currencies. The world would be a better place if that's what the discussion was about. With Kissinger, Rubin and Schultz involved I won't be holding my breath on there being a positive outcome for the world with this meeting. Russian's have been countering US/UK military build-ups on the cheap so far and have been countering them very effectively. Missile Shields, multi-colored revolutions and the invasion of old Soviet Allies. The military build-up to keep an eye on is India, China and South America all of whom are buying Russian up-grades for their military.

bill
09-07-07, 11:25 AM
I said a “reliable source” I don’t think the Nations and regions you refer to are a political stable source for resource development as per their track records reflect.
<O:p</O:p
I do believe the Chinese have been scouring the globe with little success as I pointed out in my post here.http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9625#post9625

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=a53eHLmelsNk


Sept. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Australia, the world's second-biggest uranium exporter, will allow companies including BHP Billiton Ltd. to sell the nuclear fuel to Russia, a day after signing a deal to supply natural gas to China.

``Perhaps it is that the Russians really do not believe in the possibility of long-term stability in Kazakhstan.''

Japan's FTA should be complete with Australia soon.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070905/3/37fm5.html



Japan, Australia to sign nuclear power pact - report

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan is set to sign a deal with Australia to secure stable uranium supplies for civilian nuclear energy use, Kyodo news agency said, as Tokyo scrambles for resources amid competition from markets such as China.

The deal, to be agreed on when Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe meets his Australian counterpart John Howard at a weekend Asia-Pacific leaders' meeting in Sydney, will confirm that peaceful use of nuclear energy would benefit both countries. Australia is also believed to be seeking Japan's cooperation in building and operating nuclear power plants in the future, Kyodo added in a report on Tuesday.


Resource Theater in action:http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10041#post10041

Slimprofits
04-06-08, 01:12 PM
Renewed Fears Send BoNY Stock Falling - Bloomberg (http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2008/04/04/041.html)


Bank of New York Mellon, the largest custodian of financial assets, fell 4.8 percent Wednesday on concerns that the government will succeed with its $22.5 billion money-laundering suit against the company.

The Federal Customs Service sued the New York-based bank May 17 in Moscow Arbitration Court, accusing it of helping illegally transfer $7 billion out of the country in the 1990s. In a March 27 report, Richard Bove, who covers the company for New York-based Punk Ziegel, said U.S. and European Union courts might enforce any ruling made in Russia.

Lawyers representing Russia issued a statement Monday after the close of U.S. trading, citing Bove's report as evidence that there is a "consensus building among analysts and legal experts" that the suit will stand up in courts outside the country.

The lawyers said they were confident that "Russia will be able to obtain court orders seizing billions of dollars of the bank's worldwide assets" to satisfy the suit's claim of $22.5 billion in damages to the state, including unpaid customs duties.

[..]

Jonathan Schiller, a Washington-based lawyer with Boies, Schiller & Flexner who represents the bank, called the Russian claim "completely invalid."

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SCRIPT type=text/javascript><!--google_ad_client = "pub-8208945973928909";google_ad_width = 300;google_ad_height = 250;google_ad_format = "300x250_as";google_ad_type = "text_image";google_ad_channel ="";google_color_border = "336699";google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";google_color_link = "0000FF";google_color_url = "008000";google_color_text = "000000";//--></SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT></TD><TD width=5></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
"A judgment against Bank of New York in this case would not be enforceable under the centuries-old Revenue Rule, which prevents enforcement in the United States (and many other countries) of a judgment for damages based on alleged unpaid taxes under foreign tax laws, as well as for other reasons," Schiller said in an e-mail.

The Punk Ziegel website is unfortunately offline. Google cache from April 3rd (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:1l0oPya0DGoJ:www.pzk.com/+Punk+Ziegel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)

metalman
04-06-08, 01:43 PM
"A judgment against Bank of New York in this case would not be enforceable under the centuries-old Revenue Rule, which prevents enforcement in the United States (and many other countries) of a judgment for damages based on alleged unpaid taxes under foreign tax laws, as well as for other reasons," Schiller said in an e-mail."

what's this, a get out of jail free card?