[shortonoil]

Breaking: Maduro breaks relations with US. Orders all US Consular/diplomatic personnel out of country within 72 hours.

This should be interesting? What is Maduro going to do with 500 Gb of axle grease without diluent to process it. Venezuelan oil production is soon going to zero. Doomers 1, cornies 0.

[Cog]

And when his oil production goes to zero, the price of oil will rise and make shale oil development and production more profitable. Its called supply/demand shorty.

But when a friendly government gets installed in Venezuela, the majors will go back down there and help them produce that heavy oil. For a price of course. The wheels of production will go on regardless of doomers.

[shortonoil]

And when his oil production goes to zero, the price of oil will rise and make shale oil development and production more profitable. Its called supply/demand shorty.

Venezuelan oil has been priced in for two weeks. The price jumped $2. Your supply/demand needs some Viagra. Venezuela isn't worth crap to the oil industry. At $100 it looked like Chevas was going to give free food to Congress. At $50 it looks like Maduro. You do believe in magic, don't you?

“It is also worth noting that with the continued growth in U.S. shale production, an increasing percentage of the new wells drilled are being consumed to offset the steep decline from the existing production base,” Kibsgaard told shareholders and analysts on Schlumberger’s earnings call.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01- ... h-us-shale

Which is exactly what this says; "It says that the industry is about 1000 rigs short of breaking even this year". Now calculate how much it is going to go down this year because of a serious decline in drilling.

December 2018,
US shale production 8.03 mb/d.
Legacy decline 17.8% per year (89% first 60 months)
Yearly decline 8.03 mb/d * 0.178 = 1.43 mb/d
New production per operating rig 679 barrels per day*1
Rigs required to compensate for decline = 1.43 mb/d/ 679 = 2106 rigs
There are now less than 900 rigs running in the shale patch

Shale can not overcome its 1.43 mb/d legacy decline with less than 2,106 rigs. The age of Shale is over, and the remainder of the oil age is following close behind!

1) https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/
2) http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_sndw_dcus_nus_w.htm
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/

[Subjectivist]

After a long period of stasis, the situation in Venezuela is moving towards its denouement. The next few months will be dangerous for the country and, despite the market’s apparent indifference to what is happening, could produce even more volatility in international oil prices.

The recognition by the US, Canada, the UK and others of Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s legitimate leader marks the beginning of the end for the 20-year rule of the Bolivarian revolutionary movement under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro. So far the oil market has shrugged off the issue, with the Brent crude oil price barely moving over the last week. The market has become so accustomed to Venezuela’s problems that further internal turmoil in the country has come to seem irrelevant. That complacency may be misplaced.

With food shortages and soaring inflation, Venezuela needs a change of government, but the transfer of power to Mr Guaidó will not come easily. President Maduro retains the support of army leaders. The longstanding popular hostility to the US will no doubt be whipped up. And American sanctions on Venezuelan exports are unlikely to have any serious effect. Oil is easily traded and there is no shortage of buyers ready to purchase whatever Venezuela can produce — provided the discounts are deep enough. Mr Guaidó and his colleagues in the National Assembly have the legitimacy that comes with having been elected, but they may not have the forces required to secure power. It is hard to imagine the US or anyone else sending in troops, and even harder to see foreign intervention of any sort succeeding in a country still soaked in nationalism.

A combination of events around the world, mostly driven by politics rather than by any fundamental shortage of resources, could then produce a period of price instability.

https://www.ft.com/content/a00bbb66-20c ... e4dbd3580d

[KaiserJeep]

The truly mind-boggling part of this current economic tragedy: With perfect disregard for the lessons that have been demonstrated by my estimation over four dozen times, silly fools are ready to disregard the evidence. Firstly, Marxism is certainly among the most flawed economic systems ever attempted, and probably the absolute worst alternative. Venezuela is only the most recent casualty, Cuba failed in the recent past as have several other South and Central American countries. Marxism makes the Robin Hood promise to take from the rich and give to the poor, which is a Siren song many hear, to their eventual ruin.

This even stretches to the USA, it is the one underlying principal that all Democrats chant: Tax the rich, give us more handouts!

[onlooker]

It is quaint that defenders of Capitalism continue to praise it , even as it is plainly clear from history and in modern times that its fundamental nature is about enriching a few at the expense of the many. The problem is that us in the rich countries cannot easily identify this pattern, given that the Owners of Capital deemed in necessary and desirable to create a thriving middle class in a few countries to buy all those consumer goods made possible by the Industrial Revolution and the widespread exploitation of FF.  Yet, it is undeniable that we live in a highly unequal and unjust world where a extermely tiny amount of people control as much wealth as billions of people, where people are denied access to the most basic of needs like food simply because they lack money.  It is a recurrent pattern everywhere and at virtually all times that people have been exploited as workers and as cannon fodder ie soldiers to further the aims of Imperial nations who followed the dictates of Capitalism and sought more and more material affluence and power.  That is because at its core Capitalism unleashes our worst instincts of competions, aggressiveness, greed and power lust. 

So, in modern times, the usury Debt based Globalized Economy has sought to exploit to the maximum both the Earth and its people for the sake of profit.  As for Venezuela, their only crime was to have the misfortune of being in the Western Hemisphere under the oppressive oversight and interference of the US.  Interference being for the sake of what rich countries have been doing all along the history timeline, exploiting the poorer ones.  But, South and Central America have also the misfortune of having a parasitic ruling structure inherited from Spain's dominion there.  So, this more white ruling class themselves exploit their own people. As they did in Venezuela. So along comes Chavez and wishes to change things in the only way possible via Govt. fiat.  Installing Socialism is about allowing a more playing field for the poorer classes so they are not in perpetual wage and debt servitude. But of course the rich countries do not allow this to continue.  So they impose  cartel like economic sanctions, close the spigot to lending and strangle the Venezuelan Economy. Low oil prices did not help either nor the fact that the oil they have is very technically and economically difficult and expensive to produce. Also, covertly internal impetus is given to stir up the forces of revolt to further undermine the regime by Western covert assets.   I concede that in terms of increasing economic throughput and vitality nothing beats Capitalism.  But as stated in very unequal and unjust ways .  Oh nice to be back. Sorry Cog, this post by Kaiser was just too much to resist.  

[KaiserJeep]

Note that I never said word one about Capitalism, all I did was criticize that most defective of systems, Marxism.

In defense of Capitalism, all I can say is the faintest praise: It's the worst system, except for all the others.

As for the curious notion that many people have that equality and justice are the motive and end objectives of ANY economic system, that's the silliest idea I ever heard. Certainly every society of animals I know of is highly unjust, "might makes right" about describes it. The species where something like Marxism actually works are colony insects: termites, ants, and bees.

Nor are there ANY managed economies in the human world, especially where Capitalism is used. Chaos theory rules, everybody does what benefits them, with the extremely rare exceptions of selfless people such as Mother Teresa. There is no mysterious "they" in the USA to "strangle the Veneuelan Economy". In fact a bunch of Marxists destroyed a country that was at least functional before they came along and ruined it with their "Robin Hood promises" of wealth and prosperity for all.

Just as the Democrats would do in the USA if we allowed it. Listen to the candidates if you think different.

[rockdoc123]

So along comes Chavez and wishes to change things in the only way possible via Govt. fiat. Installing Socialism is about allowing a more playing field for the poorer classes so they are not in perpetual wage and debt servitude. But of course the rich countries do not allow this to continue. So they impose cartel like economic sanctions, close the spigot to lending and strangle the Venezuelan Economy. Low oil prices did not help either nor the fact that the oil they have is very technically and economically difficult and expensive to produce.

you need to understand the history of pre and post Chavez Venezuela before you go spouting off Socialist fantasy nonsense.
The problems in Venezuela were all created by Chavez, not the US or any other country. Prior to Chavez taking power the Venezuela gov't had opened up access to oil and gas exploration and development to foreign companies through a couple of bid rounds in the nineties. Those bid rounds were highly successful, foreign companies spent their money to redevelop fields, increase production such that Venezuela benefited from profit sharing and did not have to take on any capital exposure or risk. When Chavez took power he wanted to ensure his control and did so by offering up over the top social programs to Indios and other poor nationals, all funded with revenues from oil and gas. He then kicked out all of the foreign companies, thinking that Venezuela would now see more of the profits. The problem was that oil and gas developments require extensive continuing development, especially in the case of the heavy oil fields. Chavez wanted that money for his social programs so there was no reinvestment in oil fields and PDVSA which at one time was one of the best trained national oil companies basically languished and became a shell of it's former self. Chavez continued to fund his social programs at the expense of reinvestment in oil and gas and it wasn't long before the those fields declined rapidly (as one would expect with no reinvestment happening). When the oil price dropped in 2014 the issues were compounded inasmuch as there was now much less money for social programs and none available for oil and gas reinvestment. Chavez' need to placate the poor (his voting base) also meant that spending on infrastructure such as bridges and roads declined significantly. With lower oil prices and oil fields that were now falling apart there was less and less money for social programs. Basically the countries economy was feeding on itself to try and stay alive. When Maduro took power his intent was to continue with Chavez policies which is what got them where they are now.

[KaiserJeep]

Yep, Marxist claptrap from fools. Had Chavez not nationalized the oil fields, there would still be a viable economy in Venezuela and a growing Middle Class.

Now with a record of Venezuela nationalizing foriegn investments, nobody will risk their money again, ever. Doubtful that they can even produce enough fuel to feed themselves going forward.

[onlooker]

I did mention about the difficult to extract Oil. But that in no way makes any of your points. Rather it support mine, that Socialism did not bring down the Venezuelan Economy. Venezueala was like all South and Central American countries very unequal. Even more so as "But the thing that surprised me is Venezuela, which has overtaken Ecuador, Paraguay and Costa Rica to become the most equal (or since this is Latin America, the least unequal) country in the region. And this in a massively oil dependent country, when natural resource dependence typically leads to high levels of inequality, because it generates few jobs, and revenues tend to go to the well connected few. Anyone (pro or anti) got any convincing explanations?" In case you are forgetting the wealth of the US has been built on the creation of a large middle class something conspicuously absent in the other Western Hemisphere countries other than Canada.

So, I include 4 links one of which highlights an average Expat Venezuelan detailing that conditions before Chavez were not exactly paradise. The other two on how economic warfare and sanctions have had alot to do with the downfall of Venezuelan economy along with as you eloquently stated Rockdoc, the misfortune of being unable to exploit their own oil resource. And the final link, is where I obtained the included quote.
https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/venezuela-l ... ess-story/
 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/reporters-notebook/moving-to-venezuela/hugo-chavez-support
 https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/11/venezuela-target-of-economic-warfare/
 https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-led-economic-war-not-socialism-tearing-venezuela-apart/218335/

[Cog]

Welcome back onlooker. I hope you found your vacation satisfying. Are we ready to make a new wager since you paid off our last one?

[onlooker]

Welcome back onlooker. I hope you found your vacation satisfying. Are we ready to make a new wager since you paid off our last one?

oh hold your horses, I am more a cautious person than a risk taker

[Cog]

Welcome back onlooker. I hope you found your vacation satisfying. Are we ready to make a new wager since you paid off our last one?

oh hold your horses, I am more a cautious person than a risk taker

Have a couple of shots of liquor. Its how I decide to wager on things.

[KaiserJeep]

Some people are simply unable to see any villians other than the USA/Capitalism and concieve of any economic success other than Marxism.

This is really remarkable, since Marxism has an unblemished record of repeated failures, over four dozen failures, and various forms of Capitalism represent the only existing economic success stories. Likewise, the USA was a major trading partner when Venezuela actually had petroleum to sell on the oil markets. Now that Venezuela has joined the long list of the victims of Marxism, you would ignore the lessons of History and blame the USA for something that simply makes no sense, because we have no motive for any of your bogus claims. We have a thriving trade with all Central and South American countries that are actually functioning, and such trade benefits both parties.

Wake up. You were very young when you learned those silly, supposed "facts". Time you questioned those things that obviously make no sense.

[onlooker]

I never once said that Marxism was a paragon of economic efficiency and success. I am actually in agreement that Capitalism affords the greatest economic vitality. But, my point which you have not refuted because you cannot is that the economic success that Capitalism induces, only always goes to a small minority. In current times a small minority of countries. Last I checked few countries had openely and complete Marxist type command economies. So why is it that so many countries are mired in poverty and economic paralysis? Not to sound harsh but seems Kaiser that even as you ask me to reconsider my views, I ask you to reconsider your understanding of the realities lived in the poor countries where you yourself admit people live in squalor and want. And to also research economic history as relates rich countries exploitation of poor ones especially after WWII and covert and nasty activities sponsored by the US. Start with the School of the Americas and for a good book read "The Case Against the Global Economy"

[KaiserJeep]

One. More. Time. Equality, equitable outcomes, fairness, equal distributions of wealth, these all bear NO PART WHATSOEVER in any system of economics, but most certainly not in any Marxist regime. It's the difference between what they say and what they do, always. Eventually, an adult figures out that the reality of what happens trumps words in a book, periodical, or web page.

I know what happened in South and Central America. I lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis and Iran-Contra and the other conniptions. I also know that the Soviet Union intervened first in those countries, and that the USA subsequently cloaked it's response in "fighting Communism".

I personally wish that none of this had ever happened, and that the USA had continued to render economic aid and to develope trading partners in the Americas under the Monroe Doctrine. But even before THAT, the Europeans had victimized and exploited the Americas. It was never the case that as these native peoples acquired some aspects of Western culture, they were not exploited in the 17th and 18th and 19th centuries. There's no going back, most of them even speak Spanish, Portuguese, and English rather than their native languages.

The USA remains the most successful survivor of European colonialism, followed by Canada and Mexico. I'm in favor of ANYTHING that extends North American style success to Central and South America. But Marxism is the least likely candidate.

[onlooker]

Venezuela orders civilians to back military on food distribution

https://www.businessinsider.com/afp-ven ... on-2016-11

[onlooker]

While Guaidó seemed to have materialized out of nowhere, he was, in fact, the product of more than a decade of assiduous grooming by the US government’s elite regime change factories. Alongside a cadre of right-wing student activists, Guaidó was cultivated to undermine Venezuela’s socialist-oriented government, destabilize the country, and one day seize power. Though he has been a minor figure in Venezuelan politics, he had spent years quietly demonstrated his worthiness in Washington’s halls of power.

“Juan Guaidó is a character that has been created for this circumstance,” Marco Teruggi, an Argentinian sociologist and leading chronicler of Venezuelan politics, told the Grayzone. “It’s the logic of a laboratory – Guaidó is like a mixture of several elements that create a character who, in all honesty, oscillates between laughable and worrying.”

Diego Sequera, a Venezuelan journalist and writer for the investigative outlet,Mision Verdad, agreed: “Guaidó is more popular outside Venezuela than inside, especially in the elite Ivy League and Washington circles,” Sequera remarked to the Grayzone, “He’s a known character there, is predictably right-wing, and is considered loyal to the program.”

While Guaidó is today sold as the face of democratic restoration, he spent his career in the most violent faction of Venezuela’s most radical opposition party, positioning himself at the forefront of one destabilization campaign after another. His party has been widely discredited inside Venezuela, and is held partly responsible for fragmenting a badly weakened opposition.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/fe ... bcVSD--WgU

[KaiserJeep]

Oh, I get it. You read it on the Internet, so it must be true.

[Ibon]

I'm in favor of ANYTHING that extends North American style success to Central and South America. But Marxism is the least likely candidate.

KJ, you tend to lump Central and South America as a singular entity and make broad sweeping statements about the status of the region as if it was homogeneous. Nothing could be further from the truth and this glaring misconception weakens the points you are making.