Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on April 7, 2017

Bookmark and Share

Why ‘Peak Oil’ Or ‘Peak Gold’ Or ‘Peak Anything’ Is ‘Peak Nonsense’

General Ideas

Claims of “peak oil” and “peak this” and “peak that” have been around for a long time.

Falling for them is one of the most common errors in the entire resource market.

Betting on Substitution, Conservation, and Innovation is far more likely to pay off.

I’m sure you’re familiar with this serious problem…

The world is facing a supply shortage of crude oil, the lifeblood of the modern economy. Around the world, oil fields have reached “peak” production. Experts are in in the mainstream press, issuing grave warnings: We’re running out of oil. If we don’t find another fuel source, we’ll have a global calamity.

Your first thought of this story surely goes back to around 2006. Back then, big name experts like Matthew Simmons and T. Boone Pickens grabbed everyone’s attention with proclamations that we’d hit “Peak Oil,” and prices were set to rise dramatically, which could cripple the global economy.

Actually, the “Peak Oil” claims I’m talking about come from 1937… and then 1945… and then 1956… and then 1977.

Most people don’t realize it, but for generations, all kinds of “experts” have been claiming we’re about to run out of oil. Unless you know your oil history, you wouldn’t have known that Simmons and Pickens were whistling a very familiar tune.

You see, claims of “peak oil” and “peak this” and “peak that” have been around for a long time. Falling for them is one of the most common errors in the entire resource market. But if you brush up on your history, you’ll learn to associate terms like “peak oil” or “peak gold” with “peak nonsense.” Here’s why…

The Worst Bet in The World

You can say a lot of bad things about the human race. We pollute the environment. We fight wars over silly things. We created reality TV.

However, you can’t say we aren’t incredibly inventive and resourceful.

Human inventiveness and resourcefulness has produced manned space flight, computers, cars, artificial hearts, the telegraph, the smartphone, the microwave oven, and millions of other useful things. It is the driver of human progress.

If you take a few minutes and think about that progress, you’ll realize why betting on “peak anything” or a crisis brought on by a resource shortage is a very bad bet.

Betting on Substitution, Conservation, and Innovation is far more likely to pay off.

Frightening claims that we’re running out of resources is older than the internal combustion engine. In the late 1790s, an English cleric and scholar named Thomas Malthus claimed the world’s population was set to outgrow its ability to feed itself. The alternatives to the trend of the day were either reduced population or famine.

Mathus’ claims greatly influenced the thinking of the times. Yet today, his thinking is largely mocked. Instead of a shortage of food, we got more than we could eat.

The introduction of mechanized farm equipment, advanced seeds, and fertilizers have helped mankind create an abundance of food. In North America for example, these innovations have increased crop yields per acre by more than 400% over the past 80 years. These yields would be unbelievable to a farmer working in Malthus’s time. They would strike him as what we call science fiction.

Yet, human innovation regularly makes today’s science fiction tomorrow’s reality.

The changes in farming happened slowly over the course of centuries. But when a natural resource experiences a short-term price spike, huge changes can happen in just months and avert major problems.

This is thanks to Substitution, Conservation, and Innovation.

Substitution

You can see the power of substitution in your own life. When the price of a resource soars, we find cheaper alternatives. It’s our natural reaction to high prices.

If the price of chicken climbed 10-fold, you’d eat more fish and beef. If the price of granite climbed 10-fold, you’d probably find a different material for your countertops. If the price of copper were to rise 10-fold, builders might start using PVC pipe instead.

When the price of a resource soars, people find ways around the prohibitively high prices, just like water finds its way to the lowest elevation.

Conservation

Conservation works hand in glove with substitution. Take those price spikes in the resources I just mentioned: chicken, copper, and granite. If one of those resources was deemed vital to a country’s national interests, the government would order the conservation of it. There would be penalties for wasting the resource. There would be consumption quotas. There would be breakthroughs in using the resource more efficiently.

You see this kind of conservation already in areas with limited water resources, like California. It’s an effective tool for preventing shortages. (To be clear, I’m not saying I support government intervention in markets, I’m simply pointing out it’s a fact of life.)

Lastly, we have the most powerful tool of all…

Innovation

The story of mankind is a story of constantly finding better ways to do things. These progressions often leap over resource concerns and render them non-issues.

Instead of using candles to light our homes, we use electricity. Instead of riding around in horse-drawn buggies, we use cars. Instead of crossing oceans on ships, we fly over them in planes.

We didn’t stop using the horse and buggy because we ran out of horses. We didn’t stop lighting rooms with candlelight because we ran out of candles. We didn’t stop using sailboats to cross the ocean because we ran out of sails. Instead, we jumped over those potential concerns by innovating.

As for a very recent example of innovation alleviating a “resource shortage,” consider the innovations made in the horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing of shale fields.

In 2005, resource shortage concerns were high in the U.S. In the early 1970s, U.S. oil production reached nearly 10 million barrels per day. After that, most of America’s “easy oil” had been tapped and production entered a long decline. In 2005, U.S. oil production hit its lowest level in more than 50 years. Meanwhile U.S. oil demand was near all-time highs.

This meant the U.S. had to import more oil from foreign sources than ever… which left it more vulnerable to oil supply disruptions than ever. Access to oil was becoming America’s Achilles heel.

It was around this desperate time that a gift from the heavens landed in Uncle Sam’s lap. Or more accurately, a gift from innovation.

In the 90s, a small group of Texas oil drillers led by a man named George Mitchell pioneered the use of shale fracking technology. The technology allowed Mitchell to drill into oil-rich rock layers, fracture them, and extract large amounts of oil and gas. The technology showed signs of success back then, but it was in its early stages.

By 2005, the technology was advanced enough to be incredibly successful. Mitchell became a billionaire and fracking technology was applied across the country to great effect. Through the application of fracking, the bear market in U.S. oil production turned on a dime.

As the chart below shows, U.S. oil production went from its low of 5 million barrels of oil per day to 9.4 million barrels per day in just seven years. It was stunning production growth… the fastest growth a major producing country had seen in years.

Most of this production growth came from new innovation. The green line in the chart above shows that production per well has increased 10 fold over that decade. You can thank massive increasing in drilling technology for this. The reasoning is simple, oil and gas companies are profit driven enterprises and will do whatever is necessary to add value to its share price.

Technological changes such as reservoir modeling, horizontal drilling, and hydraulic fracturing have completely redefined and improved oil and gas production, both in the United States and abroad.

This had profound impacts geopolitically as well. As U.S. production soared, its vulnerability to foreign sources plummeted. U.S. imports from OPEC (aka “the Middle East”) declined from 5.6 million barrels to 3.6 million barrels. This represents a 37% drop in foreign oil reliance from 2007 to 2017.

In less than a decade, the U.S. went from a superpower with a dangerous weakness to a superpower with a virtually endless supply of fuel and power… all thanks to innovation.

We are in the early innings of a major technological energy revolution. For example, just a decade ago, completing a 12 stage frac was science fiction. We are now completing over 10 times that amount, with 10 times more sand and pressure. Pin Point fracturing is the new catch phrase you will hear about in the coming months and years.

North American innovation is currently being adopted in China (4th largest oil producer in the world) and many Middle Eastern oil and gas rich producing nations. I track these developments closely.

When You Hear “Peak” Anything, Do This

The next time you hear claims of “peak this” or “peak that,” don’t fall for it. Someone is almost surely trying to sell you something you don’t want to buy. Protect your wallet and your portfolio and remember the driving force of human progress. A near-term or even long-term shortage of a resource is no reason to panic.

Again: We didn’t stop using the horse and buggy because we ran out of horses. We didn’t stop lighting rooms with candlelight because we ran out of candles. Today’s science fiction is tomorrow’s reality… and apocalyptic claims or “peak anything” are always “peak nonsense.

-Marin Katusa

seeking alpha



29 Comments on "Why ‘Peak Oil’ Or ‘Peak Gold’ Or ‘Peak Anything’ Is ‘Peak Nonsense’"

  1. Apneaman on Fri, 7th Apr 2017 10:08 pm 

    “Your first thought of this story surely goes back to around 2006.”

    Not even pretending anymore just coming right out and telling you what to/you think.

    Actually my first thought of this story was that the author, Marin Katusa, sucks AIDS infected monster black cock and swallows. That was my first thought.

  2. rockman on Fri, 7th Apr 2017 10:24 pm 

    “By 2005, the technology was advanced enough to be incredibly successful”. And the bullsh*t gets repeated one more time. Some of the technology that kicked off the shale was available 10 years earlier. In fact, some decades earlier. The same drill rigs, the same drill bits, the same drilling fluids, the same horizontal drilling systems, the same frac trucks, the same production casing, the frac sand, etc. And I don’t equipment of a similar design but the actual hardware used initially existed for many years. Of course additional (but identical equipment) was built to supply the increased demand. And there was some tweaking down, such as developing slick water fracs which eventually proved to not be as effective in some sections of the shales trends as the systems that had been used for many years.

    Someone wants to challenge those FACTS go ahead and give it a shot. But understand I’ve used ever piece of this identical technology for more then 20 years. And some 35 years ago…such as frac’ng a shale in 1978 with more sand then used for many current wells. And by used I don’t mean I had someone on the rig running operations: the Rockman stood on the drill floor, sat in the directional drilling unit and had his ears blasted by the turbines on frac trucks.

    I tend to be polite in such debates. But no more. I’ll prove either the ignorance or the attempted deceit of anyone who says otherwise.

    The reason the shale plays, which were proven to hold producible oil more the 60 years ago, didn’t boom in the 90’s when ALL THE TECH EXISTED was because oil prices were not high enough. As they were post 2005.

    Also don’t try the “But they are drilling and frac’ng longer laterals now” angle. So 10,000′ long frac’d horizontal wells today? Maersk was drilling and frac’ng 25,000’+ hz wells 10 years ago in the Persian Gulf. And more then 20 years ago the Rockman (in the Austin Chalk carbonate shale) drilled “dual lateral” hz wells: from one vertical hole drilled a 5,000′ lateral in one direction and then drilled a second 5,000′ lateral in the opposite direction. As were hundreds of similar wells were drilled by other operators. Search “Giddings Oil Field” if interested in more details.

  3. Boat on Fri, 7th Apr 2017 10:48 pm 

    Rock,

    You hate the term new tech but have yet to explain why wells from the Permian to Canada are producing several times the barrels they were just 3-4 years for an average. The Permain for example averaged less than 100 bpd but 3 years later are now up to 660. This information is in the Eia drilling and productivity report updated every month. They also track DUCT’s which at one time you didn’t believe. Got an update on that development? The fracking boom didn’t happen without high prices but tech advanced so fast they are now rebounding at $50 and started that rebound at $43 or so. Barrels avg per well is the proof. That isn’t yesterday’s tech and strategy or the productivity of fracked wells would have happened decades ago.

  4. Sissyfuss on Fri, 7th Apr 2017 11:31 pm 

    With this article,I think I just experienced peak cornucopia.

  5. Cloggie on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 5:15 am 

    Major Climate Change Doom Set-back:

    California declares five year drought over after record rain fall:

    http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/duerre-in-kalifornien-nach-fuenf-jahren-offiziell-fuer-beendet-erklaert-a-1142481.html

  6. rockman on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 7:04 am 

    Boat – “You hate the term new tech but have yet to explain why wells from the Permian to Canada are producing several times the barrels they were just 3-4 years for an average.” The Rockman doesn’t hate any term. He just has no respect for those using terms with no explanation of exactly what those terms mean. The term for that action is “bullsh*t spin”…a term the Rockman truly loves to use. LOL.

    I’ve explained it many times before in great detail. I guess you were absent from school that day. LOL. First, stop using just the f*cking term “new technology”. LOL. Describe to everyone here exactly what that “new technology” is. Of course, you can’t because it doesn’t exist. But give it try…we could use a good laugh.

    Why better wells lately even though THEY ARE USING THE IDENTICAL EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES used several years ago? So again the butt simple and very obvious reasons…if one really understands the f*cking technology. LOL. A) Natural selection: with lower oil prices many less productive wells won’t deliver an acceptable profit. So they aren’t drilled as readily proved by the rig count now 50% lower the during the height of the boom. Those rigs NOT DRILLING are not poking those less productive wells. The half of the rigs drilling are poking those more productive wells. IOW wells that produce more oil. And since two IDENTICAL wells drilled today and several years ago consumed IDENTICAL amounts of energy and the new well will recover more oil also proves the EROEI of the new wells has INCREASED.

    Another reason newer wells are more productive is that they have longer laterals and more frac stages. And while this is more expensive then following the previous profile it’s being done for the same reason as few wells being drilled: the remaining prospects are low quality and must have more formation exposed and frac’d in the wells in order to create an acceptable ROR.

    I don’t mean to insult the majority of our happy little family here. But almost none of you have every designed, drilled, frac’d and produced a well. IOW y’all have no experience doing what the Rockman and a scant few others here have done for decades and actually know what the f*ck we are talking about. LOL. All the rest of you can do is repeat what you read. And have no way of knowing what’s bullsh*t and what’s credible.

    So the challenge one more time: describe SPECIFICALLY that “new technology”. And be prepared to have it scrutinized by someone who has used all oil patch technology for more the 41 years.

  7. Boat on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 8:25 am 

    Rock,

    . Longer laterals, more stages, more sand and water. So what kept the industry from doing that decades ago if all the equipment is the same.
    So far drilling productivity per well hasent dropped off even though additional crews have been added for months. Since the low in July almost 700,000 bpd has been added to US production. If tech is the same then why the great results from all the new drilling rigs.
    PS. I do read about drilling just for fun and have never called myself an expert. The information about new tech is a term your peers use themselves. Google new fracking tech and you will see all the explainations of new bits, new perforation explosives, new sonic tech, resivior stratagy, even anyolytics for cheaper equipment movement, Your industry is moving to the digital age where more information is changing many areas of drilling, fracking and logistics and how there approached.

  8. eugene on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 9:10 am 

    Boat likes to argue so he calls an improvement “new technology”. A Ford Model A had brakes operated by mechanics, a 1950 Ford had brakes operated by hydraulics and later Fords had power brakes. I guess one could argue that each advancement was a “new” brake but another could say it’s an improvement. All I know is at the time we didn’t call each improvement “new”. We called it better or some such term. But I’m sure there were “Boats” back then who argued for new. The real issue for me is increased production doesn’t mean “more oil” in the ground just that we’re pumping what’s there faster. As far as terms, one man’s glass is half full, another sees half empty. Same glass, different perspective. Since I’m a “improvement” man, I agree with Rockman. Course that doesn’t mean a damn thing either but so it goes.

  9. Jef on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 9:27 am 

    Substitution, Conservation, and Innovation brings us less available energy for a lot more money.

    But not to worry we can still all get rich off it.

  10. Davy on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 9:38 am 

    Right Jeff, and the techno optimist like to ignore the economics of reality if a delicate finite planet or give us fake projections and hopium that improvements will be made at lower cost. You know the exceptionalism of more with less. Instead we are going to have less with a trend of less as more and more virulent problems multiply. But hey, between us scouts and the campfire, the sheeples need to be calmed or they will stampede. So shhhhhoooo. Mum is the word.

  11. onlooker on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 9:54 am 

    You’re going to innovate or overcome with technology limits on a finite planet unless you can create basic elements out of thin air and maintain the exquisite balance and maintenance/regulatory mechanisms that Nature provides or you are God

  12. Jef on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 10:05 am 

    Clogged – The aquifers have subsided over vast areas of Cali, never to fill again. The subsidence is so bad, 2 feet or more, that it is even affecting the aqueducts that are supposed to transport water from north to south. But don’t let that get in the way of your blind optimism/ denialism.

    “Satellite images show San Joaquin Valley sinking fast
    Recent rains won’t refill aquifers”

    http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/San-Joaquin-Valley-is-sinking-fast-rains-won-t-10989670.php

  13. Cloggie on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 10:36 am 

    @Jef – no optimism/denialism here regarding depletion of aquifers. But that’s a topic unrelated to climate change.

  14. GregT on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 2:03 pm 

    “Major Climate Change Doom Set-back”

    How do you figure Cloggie? Climatic instability and extreme weather events are exactly what are to be expected from Climate Change. Besides, over 10 million people in California are still experiencing moderate to extreme drought conditions, and summer hasn’t even begun yet.

    http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA

  15. GregT on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 2:11 pm 

    Oops, my bad. Moderate to ‘severe’ drought conditions.

  16. Jerry McManus on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 2:21 pm 

    There is certainly a lot to be said for human ingenuity and adaptability.

    And then there are the universal laws of thermodynamics.

    If I had to bet between the two? I’ll take thermodynamics for the win. No question.

    Every. Single. Time.

  17. Apneaman on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 4:58 pm 

    Hair clog, California did not get their water recharge for free. See the new AGW jacked hydrological cycle likes to carpet “Rain Bomb” the humans and their 20th century infrastructure when it returns that moisture back to the surface.

    Here is one price tag (so far) for that wet California winter.

    Repair costs for the troubled Oroville Dam will run ‘much higher’ than $200 million, official says

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-oroville-repair-spillway-release-20170317-story.html

    BTW, that article is in a barbarian language none of us read or grunt in, nor care to learn. You need to share links in the proper/only language – none of that primitive Euro babble.

  18. Cloggie on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 5:52 pm 

    Repair costs for the troubled Oroville Dam will run ‘much higher’ than $200 million, official says

    Friedman blames the deplorable state of North American infrastructure on “climate change”, where the reality is that you folks can’t be bothered to maintain their crumbling stuff, as all money needs to go to kosher “defense”, aimed at conquering the entire world, or something. And even that will fail majestically. Yesterday $100 million was wasted on causing very limited damage on a Syrian airport in a pathetic attempt to prop up ISIS,the same folks that ravaged Stockholm yesterday. The planes are already flying sorties again against the “glorious rebels”, who clumsily staged this fake Sarin attack.

    I understand your depression and nihilism so well, Friedman, your world is crumbling and your bunch is sinking in the shit. Your century is over for good and I can’t stop grinning.

    BTW, that article is in a barbarian language none of us read or grunt in, nor care to learn.

    Turning intellectual laziness and inability to concentrate longer than 2 minutes on a single topic into a virtue, eh?

    But that’s OK, let’s use your simpleton English euro babble as the doormat where the entire world wipes its dirty feet on and keep the continental European languages for the real culture bearers. Mazzeltov!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5VP-IV0Z5E

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s637-5A9Gro

    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9089/americas-tomahawk-missile-attack-on-syrias-shayrat-air-base-was-a-sham

    Unless you count old concrete as a weapon system or enemy, last night’s strikes did no substantial damage to Assad’s war fighting capability. A few hardened aircraft shelters were damaged, along with a handful of old tactical aircraft—their prior serviceability unknown—an some smaller buildings and miscellaneous material was harmed. The strike did not even take out the base’s runway or taxiways temporarily, meaning more missions can be flown from Shayrat in the near term. Even the base’s air defenses were left intact.

  19. GregT on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 7:29 pm 

    So much for US-Russian relations eh Cloggie, although that should have been made rather crystal clear already at the last couple of UNSC meetings.

    So the big questions now are; How long before the entire region goes hot? Or does the US simply pack up it’s bags and go home?

  20. onlooker on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 7:33 pm 

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-russian-air-force-russia-war-tass-snap-check-sergey-shoigu-a7566761.html?amp
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-us-air-strikes-syria-russia-within-inch-military-clash-war-dmitry-medvedev-prime-minister-a7672791.html
    Putin orders Russian air force to prepare for ‘time of war’
    Russia says US air strikes in Syria came ‘within an inch’ of military clash with their forces

  21. onlooker on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 7:34 pm 

    Seems to me somebody is going to have to blink

  22. GregT on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 7:45 pm 

    Seems to me that Trump already did blink, with both eyes. From your link onlooker:

    Mr Medvedev’s statement in full:

    “That’s it. The last remaining election fog has lifted. Instead of an overworked statement about a joint fight against the biggest enemy, Isis (the Islamic State), the Trump administration proved that it will fiercely fight the legitimate Syrian government, in a tough contradiction with international law and without UN approval, in violation of its own procedures stipulating that the Congress must first be notified of any military operation unrelated to aggression against the US. On the verge of a military clash with Russia.”

    “Nobody is overestimating the value of pre-election promises but there must be limits of decency.”

    “Beyond that is absolute mistrust. Which is really sad for our now completely ruined relations. And which is good news for terrorists.”

    “One more thing. This military action is a clear indication of the US President’s extreme dependency on the opinion of the Washington establishment, the one that the new president strongly criticised in his inauguration speech.”

    “Soon after his victory, I noted that everything would depend on how soon Trump’s election promises would be broken by the existing power machine. It took only two and a half months.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-us-air-strikes-syria-russia-within-inch-military-clash-war-dmitry-medvedev-prime-minister-a7672791.html

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

  23. Sissyfuss on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 10:19 pm 

    Cloggedurethra, the slowing of the jet stream due to exacerbated heating of the Arctic which destroys the normal temperature gradients needed to maintain a linear position of said JS causes Rosby waves to meander resulting in dipoles to form causing extreme weather conditions of both drought and intense rain events. In other words we are destroying normal seasonality and a stable climate. But hey, how about Trump’s energy plan. That guy is something.

  24. Apneaman on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 11:11 pm 

    No one has to be trying to start a war. They can’t be started by fuck ups, human or computer, and it’s almost happened by accident on more than one occasion. Humans under pressure are prone to fucking up.

    The Okinawa missiles of October

    “John Bordne, a resident of Blakeslee, Penn., had to keep a personal history to himself for more than five decades. Only recently has the US Air Force given him permission to tell the tale, which, if borne out as true, would constitute a terrifying addition to the lengthy and already frightening list of mistakes and malfunctions that have nearly plunged the world into nuclear war.”

    http://thebulletin.org/okinawa-missiles-october8826

    The Man Who Saved the World

    “The Man Who Saved the World is a 2014 feature-length Danish documentary film by film maker Peter Anthony about Stanislav Petrov, a former lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces and his role in preventing the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident from leading to nuclear holocaust.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Saved_the_World

    This PBS documentary explores the dramatic and little-known events that unfolded inside a nuclear-armed Russian submarine during the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. While both U.S. and Russian politicians sought a solution to the stand-off, Vasili Arkhipov, an officer aboard the submarine, refused to fire a nuclear torpedo, thus averting disaster. The program combines tense drama with eyewitness accounts and expert testimony about a critical event during the Cold War.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr_WkfOMx4c

    Doesn’t help when the US has fucking retards in the white house like Steve Bannon who believe in pseudo scientific/historical bullshit like the 4th turning.

  25. makati1 on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 11:45 pm 

    Hmmm. History may not repeat, Ap. but it rhymes.

  26. Cloggie on Sun, 9th Apr 2017 2:17 am 

    So much for US-Russian relations eh Cloggie, although that should have been made rather crystal clear already at the last couple of UNSC meetings.

    Yep, it seems that shadow president Kushner took over control from Trump, after he managed to dump Bannon first. The old order seems to have been restored. The old war horse Trump was tired of everybody being against him and he caved in. But he is still president, perhaps he can somewhat recover and survive a little longer and prevent an all out war. But as I have always said, Trump is a transitional figure, a Gorbachev, initiating the end of the US empire.

    Doesn’t help when the US has fucking retards in the white house like Steve Bannon who believe in pseudo scientific/historical bullshit like the 4th turning.

    “Fourth Turning” for Bannon meant the overthrow of the old establishment. But a kosher neo-Bolshevik like you doesn’t want to see the neo-Bolshevik US establishment/deep state to be overthrown. You want them to return to power with a vengeance after Trump.

  27. joe on Sun, 9th Apr 2017 2:27 am 

    For once Cloggie is right, but not how he thinks. This is a copy of his muslim ban, poorly planned and executed without considering the fallout, this has Trump written all over it. Its popular though, cause the Saudi backed left and its media loves to hear stories of Shia blood letting. Trump loves Regan, Trump thinks hes copying the ‘crazy bastard’ theory. Nobody is scared now though. China just condemmed the US bombing. So forget any help with North Korea. Lets see him tell China hes gonna bomb their proxy, see how far he gets.

  28. Davy on Sun, 9th Apr 2017 3:25 am 

    “Soon after his victory, I noted that everything would depend on how soon Trump’s election promises would be broken by the existing power machine. It took only two and a half months.”

    This was a great compromise where both sides gave in. The establishment was broke by Trump but Trump was also coopted. This is the nature of great compromise they are big sell outs. We are not hearing the Russia gate howling as much lately and the Spook gate is likewise quiet. Ugly dirty laundry was almost hung out and I imagine both sides may have settled on a peace plan. This was probably undertaken to end an internal civil war. It was done through back channels and subtle messages. These are two very hostile groups that may have found common ground.

    The big question is for how long? How long can an uneasy peace between hostile sides manage to avoid open conflict? External conflict is a great way to unify so I imagine we have more conflict ahead instead of less. The big question is what appearance will this new political face take on? What kind of pseudo Trumpism/neocon/neoliberal mess will result? They are all so contradictory in nature it is unlikely to survive long.

  29. newfie on Sun, 9th Apr 2017 5:01 pm 

    The author has convinced me that Peak Stupidity will probably never be reached.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *