Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts

Sunday, October 11, 2015

The Real Reason for the Refugee Crisis You Won’t Hear About in the Media

By Nick Giambruno

There’s a meme going around that the refugee crisis in Europe (the largest since World War II) is part of a secret plot to subvert the West. I completely understand why the locals in any country wouldn’t be happy about waves of foreigners pouring in. Especially if they’re poor, unskilled, and not likely to assimilate.

It leads to huge problems. Infrastructure gets strained. More people are sucking at the teat of the welfare system. The unwelcome newcomers compete for bottom of the ladder jobs. Things easily turn nasty and then turn violent. But the idea that the refugee crisis in Europe is part of a hidden agenda - rather than a predictable outcome - strikes me as strange. And it’s a notion that conveniently deflects blame away from the people and factors that deserve it.

Interventions Destabilize the Middle East

The civil war in Syria has turned the country into a refugee maker. Syria’s neighbors have reached their physical limit on their ability to absorb refugees. That’s one of the reasons so many are heading to the West. Lebanon has received over 1 million Syrian refugees. That’s an enormous number for a country with a population of only 4 million - a 25% increase. Jordan and Turkey also have millions of Syrian refugees.

They’re saturated.

The number of refugees heading to the West, by contrast, is in the hundreds of thousands. So far. But it’s not just Syria that’s sending refugees. Many more come from Iraq and Afghanistan, two other countries shattered by bungled Western military interventions. Then there are the refugees from Libya. A country the media and political establishment would rather forget because it represents another disastrous military decision. Actually, it’s not just Libyan refugees. It’s refugees from all of Africa who are using Libya as a transit point to reach Europe.

Before his overthrow by NATO, Muammar Gaddafi had an agreement with Italy, which is directly to Libya’s north, across the Mediterranean Sea. Gaddafi agreed to prevent refugees heading for Europe from using Libya as a transit point. It was an arrangement that worked. So it’s no shocker that when NATO helped a coalition of ambitious rebels overthrow the Gaddafi government, the refugee floodgates opened.
When there’s war, there are refugees. It’s a predictable outcome.

It’s like kicking a bees’ nest and being surprised that bees fly out. Nobody should be surprised when that happens. And nobody should be surprised that people are fleeing war zones in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

If Western governments didn’t want a refugee crisis, they shouldn’t have been so eager to topple those governments and destabilize those countries. The refugees should camp out in the backyards of the individuals who run those governments. I also have to mention the Saudis. They were very much involved in the Libyan war. They’ve also devoted themselves to ousting the Assad government in Syria, for geopolitical and sectarian reasons.

Then there’s the war in Yemen that the Saudis have sponsored. It’s another mess the media doesn’t discuss often. But it will likely produce even more refugees. The Saudis make no secret about not welcoming refugees, even though the Kingdom is a primary instigator of the wars that are forcing people to flee their homelands. One reason is the Saudis don’t want more people leeching off their welfare system, especially amid budget crunches from lower oil prices.

This brings up another interesting point. For the first time in decades, observers are calling into question the viability of the Saudi currency peg of 3.75 riyals per US dollar. The Saudi government spends a ton of money on welfare to keep its citizens sedated. But with lower oil prices cutting deep into government revenue, there’s less money to spend on welfare. Then there’s the cost of the wars in Yemen and Syria.

There’s a serious crunch in the Saudi budget. They’ve only been able to stay afloat by draining their foreign exchange reserves. That threatens their currency peg. The next clue that there’s trouble is Saudi officials telling the media that the currency peg is fine and there’s nothing to worry about. An official government denial is almost always a sign of the opposite. It’s like the old saying…“believe nothing until it has been officially denied.”

If there were a convenient way to short the Saudi riyal, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Don’t Give the Welfare State a Pass

It’s no coincidence that the refugees are flowing to the countries with the most generous welfare benefits, especially Germany and the Scandinavian nations. If there weren’t so many freebies in these countries, there wouldn’t be so many refugees showing up to collect them.

The whole refugee crisis was easily predictable. It was the foreseeable consequence of shortsighted interventions in the Middle East and the welfare state policies of nearby Europe. Instead of facing facts, blaming it all on a scheme to subvert the West conveniently deflects any responsibility from the authors of the mess.

If the individuals who run Western governments really wanted to solve the refugee problem, they would throttle way back on welfare state policies and then stay out of the Middle East free for all. It’s really as simple as that. But don’t count on the mainstream media to figure this out. They effectively operate as an organ of the State. I bet they’ll keep prescribing more of the same bad medicine that caused this crisis to begin with.

This will help to cover the tracks of the real perpetrators, and it will obscure other real problems. I expect the media to ramp up the “blame the foreigner” sentiment, as it helps the US and EU governments distract the anger of their citizens from the sputtering economy and the shrinking of their civil liberties. From the politicians’ perspective, it’s a win win. But it’s a lose lose for citizens hoping for accountable government.

And this brings up another uncomfortable truth for Americans and Europeans. The way the political and economic winds are blowing, things could get much worse. Central banks around the globe have created the biggest financial bubble in world history. The social and political implications of this bubble bursting are even more dangerous than the financial consequences.

An economic depression and currency inflation (perhaps hyperinflation) are very much in the cards. These things rarely lead to anything but bigger government, less freedom, and shrinking prosperity. Sometimes they lead to much worse.

One day the shoe could be on the other foot. We could see American and European refugees fleeing to South America or other havens to escape the problems in their home countries. It would be an ironic twist.
Now, this outcome isn’t inevitable. But the chance it will happen isn’t zero, either, and the risk seems to grow each day.

Because of these enormous risks in the financial system, we’ve published a groundbreaking, step by step manual that sets out the three essential measures all Americans should take right now to protect themselves and their families.

These measures are easy and straightforward to implement. You just need to understand what they are and how they keep you safe. New York Times best selling author Doug Casey and his team describe how you can do it all from home. And there’s still time to get it done without extraordinary cost or effort.

Normally, this get it done manual retails for $99. But I believe it’s so important for you to act now to protect yourself and your family that I’ve arranged for anyone who is a resident of the U.S. to get a free copy.

Click here to secure your free copy now.


The article was originally published at internationalman.com.


Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Weekly Crude Oil Market Recap with Mike Seery

Our trading partner Mike Seery is giving us his weekly crude oil futures market recap.....go shorty, go shorty!

Crude oil futures in the August contract are down $1.00 at 101.93 a barrel and I am currently recommending a short position as prices have hit a 4 week low while placing your stop at the 2 week high of 106.10 risking around $4,000 from today’s price levels as the commodity markets in general have turned extremely bearish as deflation is a short term concern as prices are trading below their 20 day but still above their 100 day moving average telling you the trend is mixed as the chart structure will improve on a daily basis so I remain bearish.

Problems in Iraq have basically gone on the back burner and not talked about as much as it was a couple weeks back when prices hit new highs at 107 as prices are down over $2 for the trading week with the next major support around 101 and if that level is broken I think you could trade between 96 – 98 here in the short term. Crude oil prices have rallied from $90 in January all the way up to 107 as many of the commodity markets rallied early in 2014 but that has changed in recent weeks as many of the agricultural markets have absolutely plunged as I think that will start to pressure crude oil prices also due to the fact that the Federal Reserve is cutting back on the quantitative easing which is bearish commodities.

TREND: LOWER
CHART STRUCTURE: IMPROVING

Here is more of Mike's calls on commodities this week....Just Click Here!


Get your seat for our next free webinar "Low VIX and What It Means to Your Trading"....Just Click Here!


-->

Thursday, June 26, 2014

The Four Horsemen of the Geopolitical Apocalypse

By John Mauldin


Ian Bremmer, NYU professor and head of the geopolitical consulting powerhouse Eurasia Group, consults at the highest levels with both governments and companies because he brings to the table robust geopolitical analysis and a compelling thesis: that we are witnessing “the creative destruction of the old geopolitical order.” We live, as his last book told us, in a “G-0” world. In today’s Outside the Box, Ian spells out what that creative destruction means in terms of events on the ground today. As Ian notes, the most prominent feature of the international landscape this year has been the expansion of geopolitical conflict. That expansion is gaining momentum, he says, creating larger-scale crises and sharpening market volatility. Hold on to the reins now as Ian take us for a ride with the “Four Horsemen of the Geopolitical Apocalypse.”

We’ll follow up Ian’s piece with an excellent short analysis of the Iraq situation from a Middle East expert at a large hedge fund I correspond with. Pretty straightforward take on the situation with regard to ISIS. This quagmire has real implications for the world oil supply. (It appears that the Sunni rebel forces are now in complete control of the key Baiji Refinery, which produces a third of Iraq’s output.)

Back in Dallas, it’s a little hard to focus on geopolitical events when seemingly all the news is about ongoing domestic crises. But the outrageous IRS loss of emails doesn’t really affect our portfolios all that much. What happens in Iraq or with China does. There’s just not the emotional impact.

One domestic humanitarian crisis that is brewing just south of me is the massive influx of very young children across the U.S.-Mexican border. When this was first brought to my attention a few weeks ago, I must admit that I questioned the credibility of the source. We have had young children walking across the Texas border for decades but always in rather small numbers. The first source I read said that 40,000 had already come over this year. I just found that to be non credible, but then with a little reasonable research it not only became believable but could be a bit low – it looks as many as 90,000 children will cross the border this year.

What in the name of the Wide Wide World of Sports is going on? First of all, how do you cover up something of this magnitude until it is a true crisis? When the administration and other authorities clearly knew about it last year? (The evidence is irrefutable. They knew.)

I am the father of five adopted children. In an earlier phase of my life, I was somewhat involved with Child Protective Services here in Texas. It was an emotionally difficult and heartrending experience. (One of my children came out of that system and three from outside of the United States). I have no idea how you care for 90,000 children who don’t speak the language and have no connection to their new locale. Forget the dollar cost, which could run into the tens of billions over time. These are children, and they are on our doorstep and our watch. You simply can’t ignore them and say, “They are not supposed to be here, so it’s not our responsibility.” They are children. Someone, and that means here in the U.S., is going to have to figure out how to take care of them, even if it is only to learn why they try to come and figure out where to send them back to. And frankly, trying to to send them back is going to be a logistical and legal nightmare, not to mention psychologically traumatic to the children.

Maybe someone thought that waiting until there was a crisis to let this information slip out (and we found out about it because of photos posted anonymously of children packed together in holding cells) would create momentum for immigration reform. And they may be right. But I’m not certain it’s going to result in the type of immigration reform they were hoping to get.

I have to admit that I’ve been rather tolerant of illegal immigrants over the course of my life. There are a dozen or so key issues that I think this country should focus on, but I’ve just never gotten that worked up about illegal immigration. The simple fact is that everyone here in the US is either an immigrant or descended from immigrants. It may be, too, that I’ve hired a few undocumented workers here and there in my life. As an economist, I know that we should be trying to figure out how to get more capable immigrants here, not less. What you want are educated young people who are motivated to create and work, not children as young as four or five years old who are going to need housing, education, adult supervision, health care, and most of all a loving environment where they can grow up.

It is one thing for undocumented workers to come across the border looking for jobs or for families to come across together. It is a completely different matter when tens of thousands of preteen children come across the border without parents or supervision. They didn’t get across 1500 miles of desert without significant support and a great deal of planning. This couldn’t be happening without the awareness of authorities in Mexico and the Central American countries from which these children come, and if this is truly a surprise to Homeland Security, then there is a significant failure somewhere in the system.

And if it was not a surprise? That begs a whole different series of questions.

This is a major humanitarian crisis, and it is not in the Middle East or Africa. It is on our border, and we need to figure out what to do about it NOW!

I don’t care whether you think we need to build a 20 foot high wall across the southern border of the United States or give amnesty to anyone who wants to come in (or both), something has to be done with these children. It is a staggering problem of enormous logistical proportions, and we have a simple human responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

And on that note I will go ahead and hit the send button, and let’s focus on the critical geopolitical events happening around the globe. Iraq is a disaster. Ukraine is a crisis. What’s happening in the China Sea is troubling. It just seems to come at you from everywhere. Even on a beautiful summer day.

Your stunned by the magnitude of it all at analyst,
John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box


(From Ian Bremmer)

Dear John,
We're halfway through 2014, and the single most notable feature of the international landscape has been the expansion of geopolitical conflict. why should we care? what's the impact; what does it mean for the global economy? how should we think about geopolitics? My thoughts on the topic, looking at the four key geopolitical pieces "in play"–in Eurasia, the middle east, Asia, and the transatlantic.

Geopolitics

 

I've written for several years about the root causes of the geopolitical instability the world is presently experiencing. a new, g-zero world where the united states is less interested in providing global leadership and nobody else is willing or able to step into that role. that primary leadership vacuum is set against a context of competing foreign policy priorities from increasingly powerful emerging markets (with very different political and economic systems) and a Germany-led Europe; challenges to the international system from a revisionist Russia in decline; and difficulties in coordination from a proliferation of relevant state and non state actors even when interests are aligned. all of this has stirred tensions in the aftermath of the financial crisis: instability across the middle east after a stillborn Arab spring; a three-year Syrian civil war; a failed Russia "reset"; rising conflict between china and japan; fraying American alliances with countries like Brazil, Germany, and Saudi Arabia.

And yet geopolitical concerns haven't particularly changed our views on global markets. each conflict has been small and self contained (or the spillover wasn't perceived to matter much). Geopolitics has been troubling on the margins but not worth more than a fret.

That's about to change. though perceived as discrete events, the rise of these geopolitical tensions are all directly linked to the creative destruction of the old geopolitical order. it's a process that's gaining momentum, creating in turn larger-scale crises and broader market volatility. we've now reached the point where near to mid-term outcomes of several geopolitical conflicts could become major drivers of the global economy. that's true of Russia/Ukraine, Iraq, the east and south china seas and U.S./Europe. in each, the status quo is unsustainable (though for very different reasons). and so, as it were, the four horsemen of the geopolitical apocalypse.

Russia/Ukraine

 

The prospect of losing Ukraine was the last straw for a Russian government that has been steadily losing geopolitical influence since the collapse of the soviet union over two decades ago. Moscow sees NATO enlargement, expanded European economic integration, energy diversification and the energy revolution as direct security threats that need to be countered. Ukraine is also an opportunity for the Kremlin...for president Putin to invigorate a flagging support base at home.

Putin intends to raise the economic and military pressure on Kiev until, at a minimum, southeast Ukraine is effectively under Russian control. the Ukrainian government's latest effort in response, a unilateral week long cease fire in the southeast, was greeted with lukewarm rhetoric by Putin and rejected by Russian separatists in the region, who escalated their attacks against the Ukrainian military. meanwhile, thousands of Russian troops recently pulled back from the Ukrainian border have now been redeployed there, bolstered by Putin ordering 65,000 Russian troops on combat alert in the region.

The choices for Kiev are thankless. if they press further, violence intensifies and Russian support expands, either routing the Ukrainian military, or taking serious losses and requiring direct "formal" intervention of Russian troops. if they back off, they lose the southeast, which is critical for their internal legitimacy from the Ukrainian population at large. all the while the Ukrainian economy teeters with much of their industrial base off line, compounded by Russian disruptions on customs, trade, and gas supply.

The growing conflict will lead to further deterioration of Russia's relationship with the united states and Europe: gas flow disruptions, expansion of defense spending and NATO coordination with Poland and the Baltic states, turbulence around Moldova and Georgia given their European association agreements this week...and "level 3" sectoral sanctions against Russia. that in turn means a serious economic downturn in Russia itself...and knock-on economic implications for Europe, which has far greater exposure to Russia than the united states does.

For the last several years, the major market concern for Europe was economic: the potential for collapse of the euro zone. that's no longer a worry. the primary risk to Europe is now clearly geopolitical, that expanded Russia/Ukraine conflict hurts Europe, in worst case pushing the continent back into recession.

Iraq

 

Like so much of the world's colonial legacy, many of the middle east's borders only "worked" because of the combination of secular authoritarian rule and international military and economic support. that was certainly true of Iraq–most recently under decades of control by the Baath party, beginning in 1963. Saddam Hussein's ouster forty years later by the united states and Great Britain, combined with the dismantling of nearly all of the military and political architecture that supported him (in dramatic contrast to, say, the ouster of Egypt's hosni Mubarak) undermined Iraq's territorial integrity. since then, Iraqi governance could still nominally function given significant American military presence and military and economic aid. once that was removed, there was little left to keep iraq functioning as a country.

Sectarianism is the primary form of allegiance in iraq today, both limiting the reach of prime minister nouri al maliki's majority shia government and creating closer ties between iraq's sunni, shia and kurdish populations and their brethren outside Iraq's borders. extremism within iraq has also grown dramatically as a consequence, particularly among the now disenfranchised sunni population--made worse by their heavy losses in the war against bashar assad across the largely undefended border with syria. the tipping point came with the broad attacks by the islamic state of iraq and syria (isis) over the past fortnight, speeding up a decade-long expansion of sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing between iraq's Sunni and shia. the comparatively wealthy and politically stable Kurds have done their best to steer clear of the troubles, seizing a long sought opportunity for de facto independence.

The American response has been cautious. domestic support for military engagement in Iraq diminished greatly as the war in Iraq continued and the economic and human costs mounted. obama repeatedly promised an end to the occupation and considered full withdrawal a major achievement of his administration. there's little domestic upside for taking responsibility in the crisis. obama's position has accordingly been that any direct military involvement requires a change in governance from the Iraqis--initially sounding like a unity government and increasingly evolving into the replacement of prime minister maliki. the pressure on maliki has gained momentum with shia grand ayatollah ali al-sistani calling on the iraqi prime minister to broaden the government to include more kurds and sunnis.

But Maliki, having successfully fought constitutional crises and assassination attempts, to say nothing of decisively winning a democratic election, is unlikely to go. isis poses a threat to the unity of the iraqi state, but not to maliki's rule of iraq's majority shia population, which if anything now stands stronger than it did before the fighting. and maliki's key international sponsor, iran, has little interest in forcing maliki into compromise as long as there's no threat to baghdad: they see themselves in far better strategic standing with a maliki-led iraqi government where they exert overwhelming influence, than over a broader government where they're one of many competing international forces. further, even if maliki were prepared to truly share power with iraq's kurds and sunni (something made more likely by the informal "influence" of 300 us military advisors now arriving in baghdad), he's unlikely to see much enthusiasm responding to that offer. the kurds are better off sticking to nominal (and a clearer road to eventual formal) independence; and sunni leaders that publicly find common cause with maliki would better hope all their family members aren't anywhere isis can find them.
absent american (or anyone else's) significant military engagement, the iraqi government is unlikely to be able to remove isis from leadership and, accordingly, reassert control over the sunni and kurdish areas of the country. that will lead to a significant increase in extremist violence emanating from the islamic world, a trend that's already deteriorated significantly in recent years (and since obama administration officials announced that cyberattacks were the biggest national security threat to the united states--a claim president obama overturned during his west point speech last month). since 2010, the number of known jihadist fighters has more than doubled; attacks by Al Qaeda affiliates have tripled.

The combination of challenging economic conditions, sectarian leadership, and the communications revolution empowering individuals through narrowing political and ideological demographic lenses all make this much more likely to expand. that's a greater threat to stability in the poorer middle eastern markets, but also will morph back into a growing terrorist threat against western assets in the region and more broadly. that creates, in turn, demand for increased security spending and bigger concerns about fat tail terrorism in the developed world, particularly in southern and western europe (where large numbers of unintegrated and unemployed islamic populations will pose more of a direct threat).

The broader risk is that sunni/shia conflict metastasizes into a single broader war. isis declares an islamic state across sunni iraq and syria, becoming ground zero for terrorist funding and recruitment from across the region. the saudi government condemns the absence of international engagement in either conflict and directly opposes an increasingly heavy and public iranian hand in iraqi and syrian rule. the united states completes a comprehensive nuclear deal with iran and declares victory (but doesn't work meaningfully with teheran on iraq), steering clear of the growing divide between the middle east's two major powers. the gulf cooperation council starts to fragment as members see opportunity in economic engagements with Iran. Iranian "advisers" in Iraq morph into armed forces; Saudi Arabia publicly opposes isis, but Saudi money and weapons get into their hands and an abundance of informal links pop up. militarization grows between an emboldened Iran and a more isolated, defensive Saudi Arabia. that's when the geopolitical premium around energy prices becomes serious.

East/South China Sea

 

Ukraine and Iraq are the two major active geopolitical conflicts. but there are two more geopolitical points of tension involving major economies that are becoming significant.

In Asia, it's the consequences of (and reactions to) an increasingly powerful and assertive china. the growth of china's influence remains the world's most important geopolitical story by a long margin. but, at least to date, china's growth is mostly an opportunity for the rest of the world. for the middle east, it's the principal new source of energy demand as the united states becomes more energy independent. for Africa, it's the best opportunity to build out long-needed infrastructure across the continent. for Europe and even the united states, it's a critical source of credit propping up currency, and a core producer of inexpensive goods. that's not to argue that there aren't significant caveats in each of these stories (or that those caveats aren't growing--they are), but rather that overall, china has been primarily perceived as an opportunity rather than a threat for all of these actors, and so it remains today.

for asia, a rising china has been seen more clearly as a double-edged sword. the greater comparative importance of the chinese economy has translated into more political influence (formal and informal) for beijing, at the expense of other governments in the region. meanwhile, china's dramatic military buildup has fundamentally changed the balance of power in asia; it's had negligible interest elsewhere.
china's military assertiveness has also grown in its backyard. in other regions, china continues to promote itself as a poor country that needs to focus on its own development and stability. in east and southeast asia china has core interests that it defends, and it is increasingly willing to challenge the status quo as its influence becomes asymmetrically greater.

that's been most clear with vietnam, where china first sent one oil rig to drill in contested waters directly off vietnam's shore--accompanied by several hundred chinese fishing vessels. they announced last week that they are repositioning four more. unsurprisingly, the vietnamese response has been sharp--anti-chinese demonstrations, violence, increased naval presence in the region, and coordination with the philippines.
none of that creates significant political risk on its own: vietnam isn't an ally of the united states and so engenders less support and response from washington than the philippines or japan...which is precisely why beijing has decided that's the best place to start changing the regional security balance.

but tokyo feels differently. the japanese government understands that a rising china is longer term a much more existential threat to its own security position in asia, and it isn't prepared to wait to raise concern until its position weakens further. so prime minister shinzo abe has declared his security support for vietnam. for america's part, obama has jettisoned the official "pivot" to asia. but the administration continues to believe that america's core national security interests, now and in the future, are in asia; and if china significantly escalates tensions in the east and south china seas, the united states is not likely to sit as idly by as they have on syria or ukraine.

the good news here is that--unlike with the countries driving the tensions in eurasia and the middle east--china has solid political stability and isn't looking for international trouble. but the realities of chinese growth, coupled with strong leadership from japan and (over time) india, along with the persistence of a strong american footprint are contributing to a much more troublesome geopolitical environment in the region.
the principle danger to the markets is what happens if the chinese government no longer holds that perspective. president xi jinping's commitment to transformational economic reform has been strong over the first year of his rule, and he has gotten surprisingly little pushback from the country's entrenched elites. but the uncertainty around china's near- to medium-term trajectory is radically greater than that of any of the world's other major economies. should significant instability emerge in china, very plausible indeed, china's willingness to take on a far more assertive (and risk-acceptant) security strategy in the region, promoting nationalism in the way putin has built his support base of late, would become far more likely. and then, the east and south china seas move to the top of our list.

U.S.-Europe

 

finally, the transatlantic relationship. advanced industrial economies with consolidated institutions and political stability, there's none of the geopolitical conflict presently visible in the middle east, eurasia, or asia.

geopolitical tensions have long been absent from the transatlantic relationship, the great success of the nato alliance. for all the occasional disagreement in europe on us military and security policy both during the cold war and since (the war in iraq, israel/palestine, counterterrorism and the like), european states never considered the need for broader security ties as a counterbalance for nato membership.

but the changing nature of geopolitics is creating a rift between the united states and europe.
american global hegemony had security and economic components, and it was collective security that had been the core element holding together the transatlantic alliance. that's no longer the case--a consequence of changing priorities for the americans and europeans, and an evolving world order (russia/ukraine a major blip, but notwithstanding). the transatlantic relationship is much less closely aligned on economics.

it's not the conventional wisdom. most observers say that, after bush, american policy looks more european these days--less militarist, more multilateralist. but actually, us foreign policy isn't becoming more like europe, it's becoming more like china. it's less focused on the military, except on issues of core security concern (in which case the united states acts with little need to consult allies), while american economic policy tends to be unilateralist in supporting preferred american geopolitical outcomes--which is seen most directly in us sanctions behavior (over $15bn in fines now levied against more than 20 international banks--mostly european) and nsa surveillance policy (with no willingness of the us to cooperate in a germany requested "no spying" mutual agreement)

transatlantic economic dissonance is also in evidence in a number of more fundamental ways: america's "growth uber alles" approach to a downturn in the economy, compared to germany's fixation on fiscal accountability. europe's greater alignment between governments and corporations on industrial policy, as opposed to a more decentralized, private-sector led (and occasionally captured) american policy environment. a more economy-driven opportunistic european approach to china, russia and other developing markets; the us government looking focused more on us-led/"universalist" principles on industrial espionage, intellectual property, etc.

as the g-zero persists, we will see the united states looking to enforce more unilateral economic standards that the europeans resent and resist; while the europeans look to other countries more strategically as counterbalances to american economic hegemony (the german-china relationship is critical in this regard, but that's also true of europe's willingness to support american economic policies in russia and the middle east). all of this means a much less cooperative trans-atlantic relationship--less "universalism" (from the american perspective) and less "multilateralism" (from the european perspective). more zero-sumness in the transatlantic relationship is a big change in the geopolitical environment; a precursor to true multipolarity, but in the interim a more fragmented and much less efficient global marketplace.

* * *

so that's where i see geopolitics emerging as a key factor for the global markets--much more than at any time since the end of the cold war. there's some good news and bad news here.

the good news is none of these geopolitical risks are likely to have the sort of market implications that the macro economic risks did after the financial crisis. there are lots of reasons for that. a low interest rate environment and solid growth from the us and china--plus the eurozone out of recession--along with pent up demand for investment is leading to significant optimism that won't be easily cowed by geopolitics. the supply/demand energy story is largely bearish, so near-term geopolitical risks from the middle east won't create sustained high prices. and markets don't know how to price geopolitical risk well; they're not covered as clearly analytically, so investors don't pay as much attention (until/unless they have to).

the bad news...that very lack of pressure from the markets means political leaders won't feel as much need to address these crises even as they expand, particularly in the united states. this is another reason the world's geopolitical crises will persist beyond a level that a similar economic crisis would hit before serious measures start to be taken to mitigate them. these geopolitical factors are going to grow. now's the time to start paying attention to them.

* * *
every once in a while, it's good to take a step back and look at the big picture. hope you found that worthwhile. i'll surely get back in the weeds next monday.

meanwhile, it's looking like a decidedly lovely week in new york.
very best,
Ian

From intel sources:

Dislodging ISIS Will Be a Difficult Task

 

The ISIS advance toward Baghdad may be temporarily held off as the government rallies its remaining security forces and Shia militias organize for the upcoming Battle for Baghdad. There is a rather clear reason why the ISIS leader has renamed himself Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, meaning the Caliph of Baghdad . ISIS will at a minimum be able to take control of some Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad shortly and wreak havoc on the city with IEDs, ambushes, single suicide attacks, and suicide assaults that target civilians, the government, security forces, senior members of government, and foreign installations and embassies. Additionally, the brutal sectarian slaughter of Sunni and Shia alike that punctuated the violence in Baghdad from 2005 to 2007 is likely to return as Shia militias and ISIS fighters begin to assert control of neighborhoods and roam the streets.

Even if Iraqi forces are able to keep ISIS from fully taking Baghdad and areas south, it is unlikely the beleaguered military and police forces will be able to retake the areas under ISIS control in the north and west without significant external support, as well as the support of the Kurds.

ISIS and its allies are in a position today that closely resembles the position prior to the US surge back in early 2007. More than 130,000 US troops, partnered with the Sunni Awakening formations and Iraqi security forces numbering in the hundreds of thousands, were required to clear Anbar, Salahaddin, Diyala, Ninewa, Baghdad, and the "triangle of death." The concurrent operations took more than a year, and were supported by the US Air Force, US Army aviation brigades, and US special operations raids that targeted the jihadists’ command and control, training camps, and bases, as well as its IED and suicide bomb factories.

Today, the Iraqis have no US forces on the ground to support them, US air power is absent, the Awakening is scattered and disjointed, and the Iraqi military has been humiliated badly while surrendering or retreating in disarray during the lightning fast jihadists' campaign from Mosul to the outskirts of Baghdad. This campaign, by the way, has been remarkably and significantly faster than the U.S. armored campaign advance to Baghdad in 2003 . The US government has indicated that it will not deploy US soldiers in Iraq, either on the ground or at airbases to conduct air operations.  Meanwhile, significant amounts of US made advanced armaments, vehicles, ammunition, and diverse military equipment have fallen into ISIS jihadists’ hands .

ISIS is advancing boldly in the looming security vacuum left by the collapse of the Iraqi security forces and the West's refusal to recommit forces to stabilize Iraq. This has rendered the country vulnerable to further incursions by al Qaeda-linked jihadists as well as intervention by interested neighbors such as Iran. Overt Iranian intervention in Iraq would likely lead any Sunnis still loyal to the government to side with ISIS and its allies, and would ensure that Iraq would slide even closer to a full-blown civil war and de facto partition, and risk a wider war throughout the Middle East.

Like Outside the Box?
 
Sign up today and get each new issue delivered free to your inbox.


It's your opportunity to get the news John Mauldin thinks matters most to your finances.





Get our "Beginner's Guide to Trading Options"....Just Click Here!


Sunday, June 3, 2012

Chevron Phillips Chemical Signs Letter to Study Iraq Plant

Get our Free Trading Videos, Lessons and eBook today!

Iraq and Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., a joint venture of Chevron Corp. (CVX) and ConocoPhillips (COP), signed a letter of intent to evaluate the feasibility of developing a petrochemical plant in the country, officials said.

The company would examine building a new facility and upgrading an existing Iraq owned petrochemicals factory in southern Basra province, Hanaa al-Husseini, a spokeswoman for the Industry and Minerals Ministry, said today in Baghdad.

Melanie Samuelson, a spokeswoman for Chevron Philips, said in an e-mailed statement that the company, with headquarters in The Woodlands, Texas, wants to assess “the feasibility of developing an integrated petrochemical complex.” Both Chevron Phillips and the ministry declined to give additional details, including cost estimates or dates for the project.

Read the entire Bloomberg article.


New Video: Detailed Commodities Analysis From Chris Vermeulen

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Rigzone: Iraq Energy Panel Approves Gas Deal

A top Iraqi government energy committee has approved a deal with Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA) to capture and exploit gas from its giant southern oil fields, the country's oil minister said Sunday.

The Iraqi oil ministry struck a deal in July with Shell and Japan's Mitsubishi Corp. (8058.TO, MSBHY) to develop gas production in southern Iraq. To become valid the deal needs approval from the Baghdad government.

"It was agreed upon by the energy committee and was sent to the cabinet for approval," Abdul Kareem Luaiby told Dow Jones Newswires on the sidelines of an Iraqi energy meeting in Amman, Jordan. The committee is chaired by the deputy prime minister for energy affairs, Hussein al-Shahristani, and its members include the ministers of oil, electricity and finance.

Luaiby declined to say when exactly the cabinet would approve the deal. The agreement must first be examined by the cabinet's legal and specialized offices, he said......Read the entire article.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

OPEC Expected to Keep Oil Production Quota Unchanged

OPEC will probably keep its production quota unchanged when it meets on Dec. 11 in Ecuador, ministers from Angola, Venezuela and Libya said. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries considers oil at $80 to $85 a barrel a “comfortable price,” Angola’s Minister of Petroleum Jose Maria Botelho de Vasconcelos said yesterday. Crude traded around $86 a barrel in New York today. Venezuela’s energy minister Rafael Ramirez, who said he prefers a price level of $100 a barrel, told reporters in Doha today that the group will likely maintain its existing output target.

“The current environment is of some stability,” Angola’s Vasconcelos said in an interview. “The sentiment among members is for maintaining the production level.” Libya’s top oil official, Shokri Ghanem, said yesterday in Doha that the organization will seek stricter compliance with the current production target. OPEC, which produces about 40 percent of the world’s oil, hasn’t changed its formal limit since December 2008, when it announced record supply cuts and a quota of 24.845 million barrels a day.

The group’s adherence to that level has faltered as recovering demand and rising prices encourage members to exceed their individual allocations. Compliance among the 11 nations bound by quotas slipped to 51 percent in October, according to data from the group published on Nov. 11. Qatari Energy Minister Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah said today he won’t attend the Dec. 11 gathering in Quito, Ecuador.

Angola’s Vasconcelos said he expects the country’s oil production to increase to 1.9 million barrels a day next year, close to its maximum capacity. Angola pumped an average of 1.73 million barrels a day in November, according to a Bloomberg survey of producers and analysts on Nov. 30. OPEC’s 12 members are Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. Iraq is exempt from the quota system.

Posted courtesy of Bloomberg News

Bloomberg reporter Grant Smith can be reached at gsmith52@bloomberg.net

Share

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Musings: Iran Gaining Control of Iraq Without Firing A Shot?

In early July we wrote an article entitled “Middle East: Oil Industry’s And World’s Next Black Swan?” At that time all eyes in the oil industry and among American citizens were focused on the developments with BP’s Gulf of Mexico Macondo well, which was then spewing oil and creating one of the world’s worst environmental disasters. We suggested that maybe people should be scanning the horizon for the next industry Black Swan.

We went on to offer our best guess on what that Black Swan might be, the Middle East. We said that many people wouldn’t consider the Middle East to be a Black Swan, an unknowable and thus unanticipated event, but rather just an ignored developing trend. In that article we said: “A number of recent data points have emerged that suggest the Middle East may become a focal point of political and possibly military action before the end of the year, or maybe even earlier.”

We suggested that maybe people should be scanning the horizon for the next industry Black Swan
In July, the focus of Middle East developments was on when Iran might be able to complete building a nuclear weapon. That timetable is dependent upon the country’s ability to produce enriched uranium, which is being done in one or maybe more nuclear facilities. The buzz at that time among military and intelligence sources was that Israel was preparing an air strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities as it had done a number of years earlier.

Supporting that view was Congressional testimony from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Central Intelligence Agency head Leon Panetta that Iran would be completing development of a nuclear weapon in one to two years time at the outside. Also revealed in Defense Secretary Gates’ testimony was that the U.S. had overhauled its NATO missile defense plans based on intelligence that Iran could fire “scores or hundreds” of missiles against Europe in salvoes rather than one or two at a time. Sec. Gates did not mention Israel in his testimony but clearly that nation is considerably closer to Iran than most of Europe......Read the entire article > Iran Gaining Control of Iraq Without Firing A Shot?



Share

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Iraq Raises Crude Oil Reserve Estimates

Iraq raised its estimate of crude oil reserve, by +24%, to 143.1B barrels, making it the third largest reserve in the world, after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. More impressively, its oil reserve has surpassed that of Iran. The news is important to future oil supply. Indeed, Iraq signed several contracts with multinational oil companies to raise output and 2 rounds of auctions were completed last year. The government also announced plans to hold its first auction of contracts to develop natural gas on October 20. What we should be worrying about is that the security situation, political environment and legal framework in Iraq may make exploration difficult.


Courtesy Oil N' Gold


Share

Friday, April 23, 2010

Crude Oil Reverses Losses as Equities Closed Higher


Crude oil initially slumped as global stock market tumbled amid revision of Greece's debt deficits. Together with disappointing inventory report released Wednesday, the front month WTI contract plummeted to as low as 81.73. However, buying interests emerged at that level as price reversed and ended the day flat at 83.7. Strong rebound in equities and attack of Iraqi oil pipeline also supported oil.

After the EU released a report revising up 2009's Greek fiscal deficit to 13.6% of GDP from the 12.7% of GDP estimated previously, the Greek Financial Ministry reassured the market that will endeavor to shrink the deficit by 4%. With the upward revision and potential further revision, the country is unlikely to reduce the deficit to 8.7% of GDP as previously estimated.

Worse still, Moody's announced to cut its rating on Greek debt to A3 from A2. Moreover, Greek officials said that the country has prepared to ask the EU for a bridge loan. In US trading session, the market was further pressured by President Barrack Obama's call for new financial reform as well as the Senate's approval of derivative legislation requiring US lenders to spin off their swaps trading desks.

Despite the negative news, stocks managed to crawled back and DJIA and S&P 500 ended the day gaining +0.1% and +0.2%, respectively. Encouraging corporate earnings, mildly bigger than expected decline in initial jobless claims and stronger existing home sales data restored sentiment.

Specifically to the oil market, damage of an oil pipeline from Iraq to Turkey disrupted supply which will take around 3 days to resume.

Gold fell, halting a 2 day rally, as the euro tumbled to a new 11 month low against the dollar. However, the recovery after sliding to as low as 1132 signaled yellow metal's underlying strength. In fact, while the market has only focused on Greece's deficit issue, such problem has also rooted in other countries including the US, Japan and the UK. If worries intensify and spread to these countries, we believe gold should benefit.

ONG Focus - Insights

Get Started Trading Now....With 10 FREE Trading Lessons

Share

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Iraq Seals Deal with Russia's Lukoil-led Group


A consortium grouping Russia's private oil giant Lukoil and Norway's Statoil ASA on Sunday signed a final deal to develop one of Iraq's biggest oil fields, capping an auction process key to the OPEC nation's plans to boost output and generate sorely needed reconstruction revenues. The deal on West Qurna Phase 2 field in southern Iraq is the last of the 10 fields that Iraq awarded last year during two international licensing rounds as it looked to revamp an oil sector battered by years of sanctions, neglect and, most recently, postwar violence and political bickering.

The signing Sunday also offers some much needed political capital for Iraqi officials as they head into elections in March determined to show that they are actively turning the country around following the turmoil and instability that has defined Iraqis' daily lives since the 2003 U.S. led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein. "These contracts will bring in cash to Iraq, and move ahead plans to develop the infrastructure," said Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani, adding that these deals afforded Iraqis the chance to "look toward a bright future."

Although it sits atop the world's third largest proven reserves of conventional crude, Iraq currently only produces about 2.5 million barrels per day, a level still far below its pre-2003 war output. Officials say international companies like Lukoi and Statoil, which together won West Qurna Phase 2 in the December licensing round, are key to raising that output to over 12 million barrels per day in about six years.

Such production, viewed by analysts as unrealistic in that timeframe, would rival Saudi Arabia's. The kingdom, seen as the de facto leader of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, currently produces over 8 million barrels per day, but has an overall output capacity in excess of 12 million barrels per day.

For the 15 international firms that won development rights in the various fields, the 20 year contracts were their first chance at access to Iraq since Saddam expelled foreign firms and nationalized the sector in the 1970s. Despite the tempting spoils, the auction results were mixed, with only 10 deals struck out of the 21 oil and gas fields offered during the two licensing rounds.....Read the entire article.

Get Started Trading Now…..With 10 FREE Trading Lessons

Share

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Iraq, Iran Agree to Solve Dispute over Border Oil Field


Iraqi and Iranian officials will meet next week to try to solve their border issues, including the dispute over a southern Iraqi oil well which Iranian forces occupied last month, foreign ministers of the two neighboring countries said Thursday. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki made the announcement after meeting his Iraqi counterpart, Hoshyar Zebari, in Baghdad. "Everything will be solved," Mottaki told a joint news conference. "Joint technical committees will start meetings in a week from now, and the borders between the two brotherly countries will be marked," he added.

"We have agreed to normalize the situation on the two countries' borders and bring it back to where it was standing before," Zebari said. The issue of the oil well and all other issues can be solved bilaterally between the two countries, he added. Iraqi officials said last month that Iranian forces occupied Well No. 4 on the al-Fakkah field, in Missan Province in southern Iraq, which straddles the two countries' frontier. The field has estimated reserves of 1.55 million barrels and is part of a cluster of fields Iraq unsuccessfully put up for auction last June.

Iraqi officials said Iranian forces have since withdrawn 50 meters away from the well but they still control the area and are preventing Iraqi oil workers from reaching the well.....Read the entire article.


Crude Oil Trader News Reader Subscription Link


Share

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Growing Power of Iraqi Kurdistan Could Backfire on Tehran


Iran's strategy to break Iraq into three component territories, and to dominate those territories in order to reduce regional opposition and to gain unfettered access to Syria and the Mediterranean as a result of the Western invasion of Iraq in 2004, has had profound success. The country is now, at best, a federation, with elements of a slide toward confederacy or even the breaking away of some territory. Iran dominates, and will increasingly dominate, the Shi'a controlled central heartland and the Government of Iraq, particularly when US and Coalition forces depart. Iraq's northern, and predominantly Kurdish, region is now virtually an independent state. It is certainly an autonomous state.

And yet the solution which Tehran sought, the break-up of Iraq, may hold more problems for it than a unified Iraq, as the modern Iraqi state was created under British tutelage in 1922. Indeed, the Kurds, who had been financially swayed by both Baghdad and Tehran for decades, may feel sufficient strength that the foundations of a sovereign state can be laid. That sovereign state would, as the Iraqi Kurds have made clear — have aspirations on territory inside Iran, in Syria, and, significantly, Turkey (and possibly Azerbaijan and Armenia). In that respect, the Turkish-Iranian-Syrian rapprochement could not have come at a more propitious time. This reality, too, fuels the momentum in Ankara toward phasing out its strategic relationship with Israel. A Turkey-Armenia-Iran arrangement would help curtail Kurdish dreams of unity (even though the Kurdish tribes have historically been anything but trusting of each other, in many respects). And, fueling Ankara's concerns has been the heavy Israeli commercial involvement in the.....Read the entire article.


FREE Trade School Video “The Fibonacci Tool Fully Explained”



Share

Friday, December 18, 2009

Iraq Accuses Iran of Violating Border, Demands Withdrawal From Territory


Iraq’s National Security Council said today that Iran violated their shared border and Iraq’s “territorial integrity” and called on the Islamic republic to withdraw its forces from the region. Iraq summoned the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad and has begun “diplomatic steps” to resolve the situation, Iraqi government spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh said in a statement after a meeting of the security council.

Iranian forces entered Iraq at dawn yesterday and occupied an oil well in the East Maysan oil field, Zafer Nazmi, a border guard general, said earlier today. The Iranian forces positioned tanks around the well in the al-Fakah region, 450 kilometers (280 miles) south of Baghdad. The two neighbors have disputed the border of southeast Iraq for decades.

“The council stressed that the incursion is a violation of Iraq’s border and territorial integrity and called on Iran to withdraw from well 4 and lower the Iranian flag from the well tower immediately,” according to the statement. Crude oil for January delivery rose 71 cents, or 1 percent, to settle at $73.36 a barrel today on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It rose as much as 2.8 percent in intraday trading on news of the incursion.....Read the entire article.


Can you learn to trade crude oil in just 90 seconds?


Share

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Iraq to Auction Rights to Develop 10 Crude Oil Areas

Iraq said it will auction rights to develop 10 crude oil areas and withdrew the Siba natural gas field from the country’s second bidding round this year, as the Persian Gulf state seeks foreign investors to increase energy production. Potential bidders can receive information on the fields during a one day roadshow in Istanbul on Aug. 25, Abdul Mahdy Al-Ameedi, deputy director general at the Petroleum Contracts and Licensing Directorate, said by telephone today. Iraq, owner of the world’s third largest oil reserves, aims to boost oil output to 6 million barrels a day by 2015 from about 2.4 million barrels now.....Complete Story

Get your favorite symbols' Free Trend Analysis TODAY!

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Iraqi Parliament Declares it Can Halt Oil Contracts

Iraq's parliament has the authority to block a contentious oil deal with BP and China's CNPC, despite the oil ministry's insistence lawmakers can do nothing to derail the agreement, a top lawmaker said. "The government believes that such a subject is included in its authorities, according to existing law, but if parliament finds these contracts or this (bidding) round ... are not beneficial, parliament can prevent the government," parliament speaker Ayad al-Samarai said in an interview on Sunday.....Complete Story

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Oil Companies Reject Iraq's Contract Terms

Iraq awarded a BP led consortium the right to develop the giant Rumaila oil field but failed to strike deals for seven oil and gas fields as companies balked at the country's contract terms. The outcome raised questions about how quickly Iraq could rehabilitate its oil sector, which has suffered from years of war and neglect. The country relies on oil sales for more than 90% of government revenue. Iraqi officials hailed the sole award for the Rumaila.....Complete Story

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

BP, CNPC Win Iraqi Rumaila Oil Field Development Deal

BP and China National Petroleum Corp. have won a contract for the development of Iraq's Rumaila oil field, the first of eight giant Iraqi oil and gas development projects for which Iraq began receiving bids Tuesday, Iraqi officials said. Selected foreign companies including international oil majors and Japanese companies are making bids. Iraq is offering contracts to foreign companies for the first time in around 40 years since its energy.....Complete Story

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Iraq Warily Moving Ahead on Contracts With Oil Companies

On Monday, when Iraq puts development rights to some of its largest oil fields up for auction to foreign companies, the bidding will be a watershed moment, representing the first chance for petroleum giants like ExxonMobil to tap into the resources of a country they were kicked out of almost 40 years ago. Yet, there are widespread doubts about whether Iraq is ready for a sudden infusion of capital from international oil corporations.....Complete Story

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Natural Gas Falls, More Rigs For Baker Hughes, Sinopec In Iraq


"Natural Gas Falls as U.S. Inventories Build in Mild Weather"
Natural gas futures fell for a fifth day in New York as a government report tomorrow may show that weak demand, prompted by mild weather and the recession, is pushing U.S. stockpiles toward a record high. Gas inventories probably increased 101 billion cubic feet last week, based on the median of 15 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg. The five year average increase for the week is 84 billion cubic feet. Storage levels rose to 2.557 trillion cubic feet.....Complete Story

"Is Rig Count About to Rebound? Scenarios for The Future"
Last week Baker Hughes reported that their rig count for active rigs in the United States increased by 23 rigs to 899 active rigs. While this count increased from the prior week, compared to a year ago, the rig count is down by over 1,000 rigs marking one of the worst downturns in the industry history. Our favorite chart shows the rig count for 2000-2009 compared to the rig count of 1973-1983. The similarities are stunning, but even more.....Complete Story

"Sinopec Buys Addax, Gains Reserves in Africa, Iraq’s Kurdistan"
China Petrochemical Corp. will gain reserves in Iraq’s Kurdistan and West Africa upon completing its C$8.3 billion ($7.2 billion) bid for Addax Petroleum Corp. The Chinese company, known as Sinopec Group, is the country’s second-biggest oil producer. It agreed to pay C$52.80 a share in cash for Addax, the Geneva-based company said in a statement yesterday. That’s 47 percent more than Addax’s closing price in Toronto on June 5.....Complete Story


Sunday, May 17, 2009

Gas prices Rise, Iraqi Gas Headed For Europe


"U.S. Gasoline Price Rises to $2.3010 a Gallon, Lundberg Says"
The average price of regular gasoline at U.S. filling stations rose to $2.3010 a gallon as refiners cut production and inventories fell to the lowest since December. Regular gasoline climbed 24.61 cents in the three weeks ended May 15, according to a survey of 5,000 filling stations nationwide by Trilby Lundberg, an independent gasoline analyst. That’s an average 8.2 cents more a week, the biggest increase on that basis in a year. “Between our two survey dates this year, crude oil prices increased nearly $5 a barrel,” Lundberg said today in an interview. Gasoline consumption.....Complete Story

"US Geological Survey Spies 'Promising' Hydrate Reserve in GOM"
A research team led by the U.S. Geological Survey in search of producible hydrate to add to the nation's energy portfolio has identified "the most promising" gas hydrate deposits yet in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a report by Reuters. Researched for years as a potential new energy source, gas hydrate is a combination of nearly pure methane and water frozen by low temperatures and high pressures in permafrost or beneath the sea, the report noted. Prolific throughout the world, gas hydrate has not been commercially viable since most finds have been too shallow to tap for production.....Complete Story

"OMV, Mol Buy 20% of Iraqi Gas Producer to Supply Fuel to Europe"
OMV AG, central Europe’s biggest oil company, and Hungary’s Mol Nyrt. bought a combined 20 percent of an Iraqi natural-gas producer in a cash-and-stake deal, as part of a plan to supply gas to Europe through the Nabucco pipeline. OMV will pay $350 million for a 10 percent stake in Pearl Petroleum, which holds the United Arab Emirates’ Dana Gas PJSC and Crescent Petroleum’s upstream interests in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, the companies said in a statement today. Mol will own 10 percent of Pearl in exchange for Dana and Crescent each becoming 3 percent shareholders in the Hungarian refiner.....Complete Story


Today’s Stock Market Club Trading Triangles


==================================================================================
Stock & ETF Trading Signals