4 ms·

Nice! Cut off the weapon sales and Saudi has to just pump as much as possible Puml themselves back into irrelevancy Makes sense now

adventured 8y ago
The US just enormously upgraded the size of its reserves sitting in Texas.[1] There's probably $10 trillion worth of oil in just the greater Texas / New Mexico Permian region. How the US oil boom changes the US relationship (dependency) to the Middle East and Saudi Arabia specifically, will be one of the more interesting political dramas of the next ~20 years. It has already realistically killed OPEC, leaving the US-Russia-Saudi group as the new core of the global oil market. Forecasts are for the US to go on up to 15 to 18 million barrels per day of production. The US self-interest may rapidly pivot from propping up foreign producers to benefitting from their collapse as competitors. I'd expect the crowd that believes US foreign policy revolves around oil, to invert their story to be that the US actions are now about eliminating energy competitors (eg Iran or Venezuela). If in the coming years the US actually goes the direction of no longer guaranteeing security for eg The House of Saud, I'd expect China to step in and play that role. [1] https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2018/12/07/usgs-permian-basins-vast-reserves-could-bigger-anyone-imagined https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2018/12/07/usgs-p...
- oculusthrift 8y ago
  the saudi’s will always be propped up to to hurt iran and help israel
- loeg 8y ago
  > I'd expect the crowd that believes US foreign policy revolves around oil, to invert their story to be that the US actions are now about eliminating energy competitors (eg Iran or Venezuela). How is that an inversion? If you start from the claim that foreign policy revolves around oil and acknowledge the change from a net importer to a net exporter, that would logically affect foreign policy.
  - adventured 8y ago
    It's an inversion because the premise has overwhelmingly been, for a long time now, that the US invades for positive oil supply (in one form or another). It was nearly universally proclaimed by the anti-Iraq war crowd that the US went into Iraq for their oil. The inversion is that the US would be toppling nations in one form or another, or simply not propping them up, to intentionally cause havoc to reduce oil supply from competitors. It would be to harm the competing oil producers for the benefit of US production.

adventured 8y ago

The US just enormously upgraded the size of its reserves sitting in Texas.[1] There's probably $10 trillion worth of oil in just the greater Texas / New Mexico Permian region. How the US oil boom changes the US relationship (dependency) to the Middle East and Saudi Arabia specifically, will be one of the more interesting political dramas of the next ~20 years. It has already realistically killed OPEC, leaving the US-Russia-Saudi group as the new core of the global oil market. Forecasts are for the US to go on up to 15 to 18 million barrels per day of production. The US self-interest may rapidly pivot from propping up foreign producers to benefitting from their collapse as competitors. I'd expect the crowd that believes US foreign policy revolves around oil, to invert their story to be that the US actions are now about eliminating energy competitors (eg Iran or Venezuela). If in the coming years the US actually goes the direction of no longer guaranteeing security for eg The House of Saud, I'd expect China to step in and play that role. [1] https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2018/12/07/usgs-permian-basins-vast-reserves-could-bigger-anyone-imagined https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2018/12/07/usgs-p...

oculusthrift 8y ago
the saudi’s will always be propped up to to hurt iran and help israel
loeg 8y ago
> I'd expect the crowd that believes US foreign policy revolves around oil, to invert their story to be that the US actions are now about eliminating energy competitors (eg Iran or Venezuela). How is that an inversion? If you start from the claim that foreign policy revolves around oil and acknowledge the change from a net importer to a net exporter, that would logically affect foreign policy.
- adventured 8y ago
  It's an inversion because the premise has overwhelmingly been, for a long time now, that the US invades for positive oil supply (in one form or another). It was nearly universally proclaimed by the anti-Iraq war crowd that the US went into Iraq for their oil. The inversion is that the US would be toppling nations in one form or another, or simply not propping them up, to intentionally cause havoc to reduce oil supply from competitors. It would be to harm the competing oil producers for the benefit of US production.