THE International Monetary Fund Thread (merged)

[ClubOfRomeII]

Iran is the largest producer of natural gas after Russia.

Got any references? I found a 36 billion cubic meter number for their production, and 17-19 TCF for the US, which I think is a fair amount bigger.

Could the 36 billion just be export, and Iran itself produces alot more for its own use?

[rwwff]

Could be!! But alot of people have been betting against carrier battle groups for a long time, and I imagine the game will continue until someone finds and builds something better. But it ain't happened yet.

One other note I didn't mention on the Sunburn. The range of the aircraft launched from a carrier vastly exceeds the range of the Sunburns. If the Hezb's have Sunburns, they'd be hacked together land launched derivatives, and there is no way a US carrier is going to come within the range of such missles. [Silkworms by comparison have a larger warhead, but shorter range]

So basically, I stick with my original opinion, that I'll be interested in them when they have an actual kill of a cruiser or carrier within a US battlegroup; till then, its all hype.

If there are hits, I'd suspect it'll be against frigates or coastal patrol boats.

[ClubOfRomeII]

Let's also not forget:
1.) the reason for the European naval build up, namely enforcing peace in Lebanon.

A place where no one is actually shooting at each other is the PERFECT place for a European naval buildup.

Of course, if a shot gets fired I suppose they'll tuck tail and run and if that doesn't work, they'll surrender to the first Hezbollah operated Chris Craft they can get within hailing range.

[cube]

....
While it would be interesting to see some results from a non asymetric engagement, I don't think the Sunburn's will do the task.

Warhead is just too small. Could do some serious damage I'm sure, but there won't be any carriers sunk via sunburn.
....

Supersonic anti-ship missiles are the "next big thing" in naval warfare. It has the potential to change warfare the way the aircraft carrier did. Yes it's that significant!

So why is it that no one takes anti ship missiles that seriously?

It's simple. The military much like most human institutions are inherently reactive not proactive. The only time radical change in strategy can happen is when something significant happens. For example it took Pearl Harbor before America embraced aircraft carriers. And if you think this is limited to military strategy think again. Look at how slow the music industry is adapting to this new invention called the "internet"......they're still trying to shove $15 music CD's down our throats!

The day that an aircraft carrier gets sunk by an anti-ship missile there will be a paradigm shift in naval strategy. No longer can an aircraft carrier simply go anywhere anytime it wants with impunity. Even a Carrier battle group must be careful. Ships are $$$ and losing one looks really bad on a captain's resume.

If Saddam had sunburn missiles the USA never would of parked aircraft carriers off the coast of Iraq flying in jet fighters and bombers inland at their leisure.

[rwwff]

So why is it that no one takes anti ship missiles that seriously?

They are taken seriously, they are not treated as an "ultimate weapon" which they aren't.

The day that an aircraft carrier gets sunk by an anti-ship missile there will be a paradigm shift in naval strategy.

True enough. Let me know when it happens.

Ships are $$$ and losing one looks really bad on a captain's resume.

Losing one in battle does not look bad on your resume. Losing one by smacking it into a reef, now that looks bad. Running away from a fight because you're afraid of the enemy's capabilities when you have orders to engage will likely get you demoted, humiliated, shot, and dumped in a garbage bin; not necessarily in that order.

If Saddam had sunburn missiles the USA never would of parked aircraft carriers off the coast of Iraq flying in jet fighters and bombers inland at their leisure.

Note the permanent bases in Iraq... Gee I wonder what those are for. Kinda hard to sink a concrete airstrip on land with a <500lb warhead.

Saddam is being ridiculed on TV daily in his own country. Even if he's not convicted on any particular count, there are thousands upon thousands of counts of murder that they can bring, one after the other to keep him in court until he dies of a stroke, foaming at the mouth like the rabid dog he is.

[ClubOfRomeII]

So why is it that no one takes anti ship missiles that seriously?

Maybe because once you blanket the launchers with cluster bombs they aren't a threat to ships anymore?

[cube]

So why is it that no one takes anti ship missiles that seriously?

Maybe because once you blanket the launchers with cluster bombs they aren't a threat to ships anymore?

I have a different theory. Maybe it's because no one has hit the jack pot yet by sinking an aircraft carrier with one of these bad boys.

However the Brits certainly do take anti-ship missiles very seriously. They lost 2 ships courtesy of Exocet missiles in the Falklands War. Rumor has it that the word "Exocet" is now an english word meaning "a devastating attack".

[ClubOfRomeII]

So why is it that no one takes anti ship missiles that seriously?

Maybe because once you blanket the launchers with cluster bombs they aren't a threat to ships anymore?

I have a different theory. Maybe it's because no one has hit the jack pot yet by sinking an aircraft carrier with one of these bad boys.

However the Brits certainly do take anti-ship missiles very seriously. They lost 2 ships courtesy of Exocet missiles in the Falklands War. Rumor has it that the word "Exocet" is now an english word meaning "a devastating attack".

The problem with the Falklands war is it wasn't fought in the modern, "only americans really do it well" style. The entire point of a blue water navy, versus the English itsy bitsy carrier type capabilities, is that every airfield in Argentina would have vanished under runway cratering munitions before a carrier gets within 1000 miles. Any ship capable of spitting a shell half a mile would have been sunk before it fired its boilers, and all known launching pads for surface to surface missiles of sufficient range to get from the mainland to the islands would have been carpet bombed on general principles. And then a nice fleet of Aegis missile cruisers would just sit there, outbound of the islands, waiting for a biplane to lift off, let alone anything capable of launching a decent anti ship missile. Throw in some attack subs just in case, and its game over without much in the way of working up a sweat.

The Brits were operating at the outer end of their capabilities and it showed in the damage they took. Never would have happened against Americans to whom taking over entire countries with substantial ground and air forces and the size of texas isn't a big deal, let alone small islands defended by Argentina of all people.

[rwwff]

However the Brits certainly do take anti-ship missiles very seriously. They lost 2 ships courtesy of Exocet missiles in the Falklands War. Rumor has it that the word "Exocet" is now an english word meaning "a devastating attack".

They lost two ships as a result of fire, not from the explosive of the weapon. No US carrier would ever be in that situation.

Interesting note from wiki:

On May 17, 1987, the pilot of an Iraqi Mirage F-1 mistook the US Navy Perry class frigate USS Stark for an Iranian tanker and fired two Exocets at the warship. Both hit, but only one exploded. The Stark was heavily damaged but saved by the crew and sent back for repairs.

2 Exocet hits on an itsy bitsy frigate, not sunk. Warheads on the silkworm and sunburn are a bit larger; but nowhere near enough to sink a carrier. Its all about fire suppression and damage control; and the US is unmatched in that capability.

But, like I said, the Navy does take anti-ship missles very seriously, and as a result, your fantasy situation of getting a big cluster of sunburn hits on a US carrier, followed by inadequate damage control and fire supression is very unlikely.

Certainly, it is no where near adequate to deter the use of Naval forces in a fight against Iran.

[airstrip1]

They lost two ships as a result of fire, not from the explosive of the weapon. No US carrier would ever be in that situation.

It depends when and where your ship is hit. If you get unlucky an entire carrier fleet can be decimated in five minutes as the Japanese found out to their cost at the Battle of Midway.

[thecelt]

with all this talk about america entering a recession or even a depression in 2007 the imf 2007 oil price forecast of $75.50 is pretty optimistic . demand destruction resulting from a us recession could reduce consumption of oil by 10% plus equating to over 2.5 million barrels a day in lost demand . thats the equivalent to a new supply source the equivalent to norway. if that occurs prices would be doing well to stay about $60 a barrell.

[ClubOfRomeII]

They lost two ships as a result of fire, not from the explosive of the weapon. No US carrier would ever be in that situation.

It depends when and where your ship is hit. If you get unlucky an entire carrier fleet can be decimated in five minutes as the Japanese found out to their cost at the Battle of Midway.

Good thing we don't fight wars with WWII technology anymore.

[ClubOfRomeII]

with all this talk about america entering a recession or even a depression in 2007 the imf 2007 oil price forecast of $75.50 is pretty optimistic . demand destruction resulting from a us recession could reduce consumption of oil by 10% plus equating to over 2.5 million barrels a day in lost demand . thats the equivalent to a new supply source the equivalent to norway. if that occurs prices would be doing well to stay about $60 a barrell.

You force SA to cut back production by 2.5 MBO/D and they are going to start getting cranky. You put a 5 MBO/D dent in worldwide demand with a decent recession in more than the US and the price will go down and might even collapse depending on how cheesed the Saudi's get at being the swing producer of last resort. Again.

[rwwff]

might even collapse depending on how cheesed the Saudi's get at being the swing producer of last resort. Again.

I never really thought of that part of; but that must really wrankle; especially after this run up and high demand cycle, I can just hear the thoughts echoing in my head, "Dang dude, yall just brow beat us into building out all this capacity, spending all this money on hardware and expertise, and now that demand and supply are playing more nicely you want us to pull back again? I mean really, my sons wanted me to buy them some of those F14's you guys were retiring, and instead I spent it on production junk, at your request even, and now you're not buying the oil?"

That definately must reek.

[shortonoil]

ClubOfRomeII said:

You force SA to cut back production by 2.5 MBO/D and they are going to start getting cranky. You put a 5 MBO/D dent in worldwide demand with a decent recession in more than the US and the price will go down and might even collapse depending on how cheesed the Saudi's get at being the swing producer of last resort. Again.

Not going to happen. Ghawar is declining by 8% per year. If Yibal and similar fields are any indication, we can expect a much more significant decline in the near future. SA’s swing days are over, now it’s just a matter of how long they can keep the troglodytes in the dark!

[ClubOfRomeII]

ClubOfRomeII said:

You force SA to cut back production by 2.5 MBO/D and they are going to start getting cranky. You put a 5 MBO/D dent in worldwide demand with a decent recession in more than the US and the price will go down and might even collapse depending on how cheesed the Saudi's get at being the swing producer of last resort. Again.

Not going to happen. Ghawar is declining by 8% per year.

Where do you get your figures for an 8% decline, considering over the 90's it didn't decline AT ALL?

[shortonoil]

ClubOfRomeII said:

Ghawar in 2003 was making more oil than it did in 1991. Where do you get your figures for an 8% decline, considering over these 12 years it didn't decline AT ALL?

Since SA doesn’t publish its production figures for Ghawar, this is interesting information. Just exactly who came up with these numbers?

"There is only a small probability that Saudi Arabia will ever deliver the quantities of petroleum that are assigned to it in all the major forecasts of world oil production and consumption," Simmons writes in Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy. "Saudi Arabian production," he adds, italicizing his claims to drive home his point, "is at or very near its peak sustainable volume ... and it is likely to go into decline in the very foreseeable future."

According to several exit Armoco engineers, that decline is presently 8%. With Ghawar’s very high porosity, and reportedly thinning oil seam, when Ghawar goes it will crash very rapidly.

[ClubOfRomeII]

ClubOfRomeII said:

Where do you get your figures for an 8% decline, considering over the 90's it didn't decline AT ALL?

Since SA doesn’t publish its production figures for Ghawar, this is interesting information. Just exactly who came up with these numbers?

"There is only a small probability that Saudi Arabia will ever deliver the quantities of petroleum that are assigned to it in all the major forecasts of world oil production and consumption," Simmons writes in Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy. "Saudi Arabian production," he adds, italicizing his claims to drive home his point, "is at or very near its peak sustainable volume ... and it is likely to go into decline in the very foreseeable future."

According to several exit Armoco engineers, that decline is presently 8%. With Ghawar’s very high porosity, and reportedly thinning oil seam, when Ghawar goes it will crash very rapidly.

I know nothing about Ghawar "crashing rapidly", but I do know something about its past production. And Simmons can't read an SPE paper to save his life, so counting on an expert opinion from an analyst who admits he doesn't know anything about petroleum engineering is silly.

I would trust Aramco engineers...but I do not trust a laymans ability to translate what they say. I saw your 8% comment and went and checked. Do you know if your decline is a real recent effect only?

[wisconsin_cur]

IMF Chief warns dollar may suffer 'abrupt fall'

The head of the International Monetary Fund, Rodrigo Rato, warned Monday there are risks of an "abrupt fall" in the dollar, linked to a loss of confidence in dollar assets.

"There are risks that an abrupt fall in the dollar could either be triggered by, or itself trigger, a loss of confidence in dollar assets," Rato told the IMF board of governors.

He also appeared to suggest that Europe could take steps to temper the strong appreciation of the euro.

"There is a risk that exchange rate appreciation in countries with flexible exchange rates -- including the euro area -- could hurt their growth prospects, and that in these circumstances protectionist pressures could worsen," he said on the final day of the annual meetings of the IMF and the World Bank.

The outgoing IMF managing director spoke as the European single currency hit a new high of 1.4347 dollars and global equity markets tumbled amid growing fears a US housing-related credit crunch could pitch the world's biggest economy into recession.

Fed Official: Bank will protect economy

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Federal Reserve will do whatever is necessary to prevent damage to the economy from the credit crunch that has gripped Wall Street, a Fed official said Monday, warning it will take time for financial markets to fully recover from the strains.

Fed Governor Randall Kroszner's remarks came as fears about the credit crunch and a painful housing slump have gripped investors in recent months, causing stocks to nosedrive. Wall Street took another sharp plunge—366 points—on Friday. The Dow Jones industrials were down again in trading Monday, though not as sharply as Friday.

"The Federal Reserve will continue to monitor developments in financial markets and act as needed to support the effective functioning of these markets and to foster sustainable economic growth and price stability," Kroszner said in a speech here to the Institute of International Bankers.

It is the same pledge that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and other central bank colleagues have been making in the past months. That is, to keep the economy growing and inflation under control.

Some economists believe the Fed will lower an important interest rate at the end of a two-day meeting next Wednesday, to help bolster economic activity. But others, citing the economy's resiliency and worries about an inflation flareup, think the Fed will leave rates alone. Oil prices, which had surged to record highs in recent weeks, have eased a bit but are still hovering above $86 a barrel.

[Petrodollar]

...here's how Bernacke intends to "protect" the US economy...can you say I-N-F-L-A-T-I-ON? Good, now let try an old yet new word: STAGFLATION....


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1193932 ... lenews_wsj

Fed Injects $41 Billion in Liquidity
By EMILY BARRETT
November 1, 2007 11:55 a.m.

NEW YORK -- The Federal Reserve pumped a total $41 billion to the U.S. financial system in three separate operations Thursday, amounting to the largest injection of funds since the liquidity crisis took hold this summer.

The size of the injection may come as a surprise, coming just a day after the central bank delivered its second consecutive rate cut. Wednesday's 25 basis point cut -- which brings the target rate to 4.5% -- follows a half percentage-point drop in September, which was intended in part to help ease stubbornly high lending rates in the interbank market.

The New York Federal Reserve's Web site announced a one-day repurchase of $12 billion, alongside a $21 billion seven-day, and a $8 billion 14-day operation. The total exceeds the $38 billion injection back in August that marked the largest contribution to the market in a single day since the World Trade Center attacks in 2001.

"This morning's combined RP package of $41 billion is significantly larger than we had expected based on our tentative reserve projections," said Lou Crandall, chief economist with Wrightson ICAP.

It slightly undershoots the $42.5 billion in funds maturing Thursday. But the size of the operation suggests that the Fed isn't yet prepared to allow its additional liquidity to drain from a financial system still in recovery mode.

...and it doesn't appear that the struggling ARM holders et a will see much relief...

The effects of the summer's credit crunch are still keenly felt in the short-term debt markets, in spite of a gradual easing in interbank lending rates. At 4.60% currently, the Fed funds rate, the benchmark rate for interbank lending, continues to trades above the new target of 4.5%.

The three-month London interbank offered rate -- a key pricing benchmark for debt issuers -- was fixed at 4.8775% for the day, only a fraction below Wednesday's 4.89%.

This rate customarily trades only a few basis points above the Fed's target rate. But that gap widened to as much as 50 basis points last month, as investors insisted on bond premiums in line with what they considered to be a much riskier market environment.

Libor may still take some time to ease back in line with the new, lower target of 4.5%, said Mary-Beth Fisher, analyst at UBS Financial Services. "I'm going to be patient and say we need a few more days to let (the cut) filter through" to the interbank market, she said.

...we shall see, but I suspect that a de-coupling of sorts began in August due to percieved risk...