Breakfast with a Lord of War

By David Galland, Partner, Casey Research

For reasons that will become apparent as you read the following article, I was quite reluctant to write it.
Yet, in the end, I decided to do so for a couple of reasons.

The first is that it ties into Marin Katusa’s best selling new book, The Colder War, which I read cover to cover over two days and can recommend warmly and without hesitation. I know that Casey Research has been promoting the book aggressively (in my view, a bit too aggressively), but I exaggerate not at all when I tell you that the book sucked me in from the very beginning and kept me reading right to the end.

The second reason, however, is that I have a story to tell. It’s a true story and one, I believe, which needs to be told. It has to do with a breakfast I had four years ago with a Lord of War.

With that introduction, we begin.

Breakfast with a Lord of War

In late 2010, I was invited to a private breakfast meeting with an individual near the apex of the U.S. military’s strategic planning pyramid. Specifically, the individual we were to breakfast with sits at the side of the long serving head of the department in the Pentagon responsible for identifying and assessing potential threats to national security and devising long term strategies to counter those threats.

The ground rules for the discussion—that certain topics were off limits—were set right up front. Yet, as we warmed up to each other over the course of our meal, the conversation went into directions even I couldn’t have anticipated.

In an earlier mention of this meeting in a Casey Daily Dispatch, I steered clear of much of what was discussed because frankly, it made me nervous. With the passage of time and upon reflection that it was up to my breakfast companion, who spends long days cloaked in secrecy, to know what is allowed in daylight, I have decided to share the entire story.

During our discussion, there were four key revelations, each a bit scarier than the last.

Four Key Revelations

Once we had bonded a bit, the military officer, dressed in his civvies for the meeting, began opening up. As I didn’t record the discussion, the dialogue that follows can only be an approximation. That said, I assure you it is accurate in all the important aspects.

“Which country or countries most concern you?” I asked, not sure if I would get an answer. “China?”
“Well, I’m not going to say too much, but it’s not China. Our analysis tells us the country is too fractured to be a threat. Too many different ethnic and religious groups and competing political factions. So no, it’s not China. Russia, on the other hand…” He left it at that, though Russia would come up again in our conversation on several occasions.

As breakfast was served, the conversation meandered here and there before he volunteered, “There are a couple of things I can discuss that we are working on, one of which won’t surprise you, and one that will.”
“The first is precision guided weaponry.” Simply, the airplane and drone launched weaponry that is deployed so frequently today, four years after our breakfast conversation, that it now barely rates a back-page mention.

“The second,” he continued,” will surprise you. It’s nuclear armaments.”

“Really? I can’t imagine the US would ever consider using nuclear weapons again. Seriously?”

“Yes, there could be instances when using nukes might be advisable,” he answered. “For example, no one would argue that dropping atomic bombs on Japan had been a bad thing.” (I, for one, could have made that argument, but in the interest of harmony didn’t.)

“Even so, I can’t imagine a scenario that would warrant using nukes,” I persisted. “Are there any other countries doing the same sort of research?”

“Absolutely. For example, the Russians would love to drop a bomb that wiped out the people of Chechnya but left the infrastructure intact.”

“So, neutron bombs?”

“Yeah, stuff like that,” he added before turning back to his coffee.

“Okay, well,” I continued, “you at least have to admit that, unlike last century when hundreds of millions of people died directly or indirectly in world wars, pogroms, and so forth—most related to governments—the human race has evolved to the point where death on that scale is a thing of the past. Right?”

I kid you not in the slightest, but at this question the handsome, friendly countenance I had been sitting across from morphed as if literally a mask had been lifted away and was replaced with the emotionless face of a Lord of War.

“That would be a very poor assumption,” he answered coldly before the mask went back on.

I recall a number of thoughts and emotions coursing through my brain at his reply, most prevalently relief that I had moved with my family to La Estancia de Cafayate in a remote corner of Argentina. We didn’t move there to escape war, but after this conversation, I added that to my short list of reasons why the move had been a good idea.

Recapping the conversation later, my associate and I concurred that Russia was in the crosshairs and that if push came to shove, the US was fully prepared to use the new nuclear weapons being worked on.

Four Years Later

As I write, four years after that conversation, it’s worth revisiting just what has transpired.

First, as mentioned, the use of precision-guided weaponry has now firmly entered the vernacular of US warmaking. Point of fact: there are now more pilots being trained to fly drones than airplanes. And the technology has reached the point where there is literally no corner on earth where a strategic hit couldn’t be made. Even more concerning, the political and legal framework that previously caused hesitation before striking against citizens of other countries (outside of an active war zone) has largely been erased. Today Pakistan, tomorrow the world?

Second, instead of winding back the US nuclear program—a firm plank in President Obama’s campaign platform—the Nobel Prize winner and his team have indeed been ramping up and modernizing the US nuclear arsenal. The following is an excerpt from a September 21, 2014 article in the New York Times, titled “U.S. Ramping Up Major Renewal in Nuclear Arms”…,,

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A sprawling new plant here in a former soybean field makes the mechanical guts of America’s atomic warheads. Bigger than the Pentagon, full of futuristic gear and thousands of workers, the plant, dedicated last month, modernizes the aging weapons that the United States can fire from missiles, bombers and submarines.

It is part of a nationwide wave of atomic revitalization that includes plans for a new generation of weapon carriers. A recent federal study put the collective price tag, over the next three decades, at up to a trillion dollars.

Third, the events unfolding in Ukraine, where the US was caught red handed engineering the regime change that destabilized the country and forced Russia to act, show a clear intent to set the world against Putin’s Russia and in time, neutralize Russia as a strategic threat.

So the only revelation from my breakfast four years ago remaining to be confirmed is for the next big war to envelope the world. Per the events in Ukraine, the foundations of that war have likely already been set. Before I get to that, however, a quick but relevant detour is required.

The Nature of Complex Systems

Last week the semiannual Owner’s & Guests event took place here at La Estancia de Cafayate. As part of the weeklong gathering, a conference was held featuring residents speaking on topics they are experts on.
Among those residents is a nuclear-energy engineer who spoke on the fragility of the US power grid, the most complex energy transmission system in the world.
He went into great detail about the “defense-in-depth” controls, backups, and overrides built into the system to ensure the grid won’t—in fact, can’t—fail. Yet periodically, it still does.

How? First and foremost, the engineer explained, there is a fundamental principle that holds that the more complex a system is, the more likely it is to fail. As a consequence, despite thousands of very bright people armed with massive budgets and a clear mandate to keep the transmission lines humming, there is essentially nothing they can do to actually prevent some unforeseen, and unforeseeable, event from taking the whole complex system down.

Case in point: in 2003 one of the largest power outages in history occurred. 508 large power generators were knocked out, leaving 55 million people in North America without power for upward of 24 hours. The cause? A software defect in an alarm system in an Ohio control center.

I mention this in the context of this article because, as complex as the U.S. power grid is, it is nothing compared to the complexities involved with long-term military strategic planning. This complexity is the result of many factors, including:

• The challenges of identifying potential adversaries and threats many years, even a decade or more, into the future.

• New and evolving technologies. It is a truism that the military is always fighting the last war: by the time the military machine spins up to build and deploy a new technology, it is often already obsolete.

• The entrenched bureaucracies, headed by mere mortals with strong biases. Today’s friend is tomorrow’s enemy and vice versa.

• The unsteady influences of a political class always quick to react with policy shifts to the latest dire news or purported outrage.

• The media, a constant source of hysteria making headlines masquerading as news. And let’s not overlook the media’s role as active agents of the entrenched bureaucratic interests. In one now largely forgotten case, Operation Mockingbird, the CIA actually infiltrated the major US media outlets, specifically to influence public opinion.
  
  All you need to do to understand the bureaucratic agenda is to take a casual glance at the “news” about current events such as those transpiring in the Ukraine.

• And, most important, human nature. We humans are the ultimate complex system, prone to a literally infinite number of strong opinions, exaggerated fears, mental illnesses, passions, vices, self-destructive tendencies, and stupidity on a biblical scale.

The point is that the average person assumes the powers-that-be actually know what they are doing and would never lead us into disaster, but quoting my breakfast companion, that would be a very poor assumption.

Simply, while mass war on the level of the wholesale slaughter commonplace in the last century is unimaginable to most in the modern context, it is never more than the equivalent of a faulty alarm system away from occurring.

Those history buffs among you will confirm that up until about a week before World War I began, virtually no one in the public, the press, the political class, or even the military had any idea the shooting was about to start. And 99.9% of the people then living had no idea the war was about to begin until after the first shot was fired.

Back to the Present

It is a rare moment in one’s life when the bureaucratic curtain falls away long enough to reveal something approximating The Truth. In my opinion, that’s what I observed over breakfast four years ago. That, right or wrong, the proactive military strategy of the US had been turned toward Russia.
Knowing that and no more, one can only guess what actual measures have been planned and set into motion to defang the Russian bear.

Based on the evidence, however, the events in Ukraine appear to be a bold chess move on the bigger board… and to be fair, a pretty damn effective move at that. The problem for the US and its allies is that on the other side of the table is one Vladimir Putin, self made man, black belt judo master, and former KGB spy master.

And that’s just scratching the surface of this complicated and determined individual. One thing is for sure: if you had to pick your adversary in a global geopolitical contest, you’d probably pick him dead last.
Which brings me to a quick mention of The Colder War, Marin’s book, which was released yesterday.
I mentioned earlier that the book had sucked me in and kept me in pretty much straight through until I finished. One reason is that while you can tell Marin has a great deal of respect for Putin’s capabilities and strategic thinking, he doesn’t shy away from revealing the judo master’s dark side. As you will read (and find quoting to your friends, as I have), it is a very dark side.

But the story is so much bigger than that, and Marin does a very good job of explaining the increasingly hostile competition between the US and Russia and the seismic economic consequences that will affect us all as the “Colder War” heats up.

Before signing off for now, I want to add that it is not Marin’s contention that the Colder War will devolve into an actual shooting war. In my view, however, due to the complexities discussed above, you can’t dismiss a military confrontation, even one involving nukes. Every complex system ultimately fails, and the more the US pushes in on Putin’s Russia, the more likely such a failure is to occur.

I recommend Marin’s book, The Colder War; here is the link.

We’ll leave the lights on down here in Cafayate.

Casey Research partner David Galland lives in La Estancia de Cafayate (www.LaEst.com).

The article Breakfast with a Lord of War was originally published at casey research.com.

Watch our new video "How you can Profit with ETFs from the Unexpected Move in the Dollar"....Just Click Here!

The Looming Uranium Crisis: Strategic Implications for the Colder War

By Marin Katusa, Chief Energy Investment Strategist

In the wake of one singular event—the disaster at Fukushima in March 2011, the effects of which are still being felt today across the planet—nuclear power has seemingly fallen into utter disrepute, at least in the popular mind. But this is largely an illusion.

It’s true that Japan took all 52 of its nuclear plants offline after Fukushima and sold much of its uranium inventory. South Korea followed with shutdowns of its own. Germany permanently mothballed eight of its 17 reactors and pledged to close the rest by the end of 2022. Austria and Spain have enacted laws to cease construction on new nuclear power stations. Switzerland is phasing them out. A majority of the other European nations is also opposed.

All of this has resulted in a large decrease in demand for uranium, a glut of the fuel on the market, and a per-pound price that fell as low as $28.50 in mid-2014, down nearly 80% from its peak of $135 in 2007.

Currently, it’s languishing around $39 per pound, still below the cost of production for many miners—about 80% need prices above $40 to make any return on investment, and even at that level, no new mines will be built. It’s easy to hear a death knell for nuclear energy on the breeze. And that may well be the case for Europe (except for France). But Europe is hardly the world.

South Korean plants are back online. Japan is planning to restart its reactor fleet (despite a great deal of citizen protest) beginning in 2015. Russia is heavily invested, with nine plants under construction and 14 others planned. China, faced with unhealthy levels of air pollution in many of its cities due to coal power generation, is going all in on nuclear. 26 reactors are under construction, and the government has declared a goal of quadrupling present capacity—either in operation or being built—by 2020. India has 20 plants and is adding seven more. And in the rest of the developing nations, nuclear power is exploding.

Worldwide, no fewer than 71 new plants are under construction in more than a dozen countries, with another 163 planned and 329 proposed. Many countries without nuclear power soon will build their first reactors, including Turkey, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and several of the Gulf emirates.

For years, China, with its stunning GDP growth rate, has been seen as the leading destination for natural resources. “Produce what China needs” has been every supplier’s ongoing mantra. Yet, as many Americans fail to realize, it’s their own home that is the biggest uranium consumer. Despite having not opened a new plant since 1977 (though six additional units are scheduled to open by 2020), the US is the world’s #1 producer of nuclear energy, accounting for more than 30% of the global total. France is a distant second at 12%; China, playing catchup, sits at only 6% right now. The 65 American nuclear plants, housing just over 100 reactors, generate 20% of total US electricity.

Yet uranium is the one fuel for which there is very little domestic supply.

As you can see, the US has to import over 90% of what it uses. That’s a huge shortfall—and it’s persisted for many years. How has the country made it up?

In a word: Russia.

America’s former Cold War archenemy—and antagonist in the unfolding sequel, the Colder War—has in fact been keeping the US nuclear fires burning, through conduits like the Megatons to Megawatts Program.
When the USSR collapsed, Russia inherited over two million pounds of HEU—highly enriched uranium (the 90% U-235 needed to fashion a bomb)—and vast, underused facilities for handling and fabricating the material. Starting in 1993, it cut a deal with the US dubbed the Megatons to Megawatts Program. Over the 20 years that followed, 1.1 million pounds of Russian weapon-grade uranium, equivalent to about 20,000 nuclear warheads, was downblended to U₃O₈ and sold to the United States as fuel.

That source was very important in helping to fill the US supply gap for those two decades. It represented, on average, over 20 million pounds of annual uranium supply, or half of what the country consumed. I’m sure it would have come as a shock to most Americans if they’d realized that one in ten of their homes was being powered by former Soviet missiles.

Megatons to Megawatts expired in November 2013, but US dependence on Russia did not. Russia is easily able to maintain its sizeable export presence, due largely to present economics.

Because of all the uranium swamping the market since Fukushima, separative work units (SWUs) are trading at very low prices. SWUs measure the amount of separation work necessary to enrich uranium—in other words, how much work must be done to raise the product’s concentration of U-235 to the 3-5% that most reactors require for fission?

The tails that are left behind when U-235 is separated out to make warheads still contain some amount of the isotope, usually around 0.2% to 0.3%. When the price of SWUs gets low enough, it’s a condition known as “underfeeding,” meaning it’s worth the effort to go back and extract leftover U-235 from the tails. That’s done through the process of re-enrichment, the reverse of the procedure that creates HEU. It’s kind of like getting fresh gold from old ore that had already yielded the easy stuff.

After the Soviet Union broke up, Russia had a lot of enrichment capacity it no longer needed for its military program. And major uranium companies like Areva and Urenco had sent trainloads of enrichment tails to Russia in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Great stockpiles were built up, and they’ll be put to use until the pendulum swings the other way and we get “overfeeding,” where the price of SWUs makes re-enrichment too costly to continue. We will go from under- to overfeeding in the near future. Rising demand from the Japanese restart and new plants coming online ensures that it will happen, and probably within the next 24 months. The market is already anticipating it, with the per-pound price of uranium up more than 35% in the past few months. It’s going to double to $75… at the least.

Meanwhile, though, the ability to profitably produce fuel-grade uranium from tails confers on Russia a number of significant advantages. Among them:

• It permits the country to exploit a previously worthless resource.

• The more tails it can use as feedstock, the fewer it has to dispose of.

• Most important, it means Russia can conserve much of its mineral supply for a future when higher prices will dramatically increase its leverage. That includes in-ground ore, of which it has a lot, and probably uranium picked up on the cheap when Japan did its massive post-Fukushima fuel dump (though it has never been officially confirmed who the buyers of Japan’s uranium supply were, I have some very connected sources who tell me it was the Russians who snapped most of it up).

This is one part of Vladimir Putin’s plan to dominate the world energy markets. In my book, The Colder War, I call it the “Putinization” of uranium.  And he has nicely positioned his country to pull it off.
In January 2014, Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russian energy giant Rosatom, was bursting with enthusiasm when he predicted that Russia’s recent annual production rate of 6.5 million pounds of uranium would triple in 2015.

Rosatom puts Russia’s uranium reserves in the ground at 1.2 billion pounds of yellowcake, which would be the second largest in the world; the company is quite capable of mining 40 million pounds per year by 2020. Add in Russia’s foreign projects in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Mongolia, and annual production in 2020 jumps to more than 63 million pounds. Include all of Russia’s sphere of influence, and annual production easily could amount to more than 140 million pounds six years from now.

No other country has a uranium mining plan nearly this ambitious. By 2020, Russia itself could be producing a third of all yellowcake. With just its close ally Kazakhstan chipping in another 25%, Russia would have effective control of more than half of world supply.

That’s clout. But it doesn’t end there.
Globally, there are a fair number of facilities for fabricating fuel rods. Not so with conversion plants (uranium oxide to uranium hexafluoride) or enrichment plants (isolating the U-235). And the world leader in conversion and enrichment is…. yes, Russia.

All told, Russia has one-third of all uranium conversion capacity. The United States is in second place with 18%. And Russia’s share is projected to rise, assuming Rosatom proceeds with a new conversion plant planned for 2015. Similarly, Russia owns 40% of the world’s enrichment capacity. Planned expansion of the existing facilities will push that share close to 50%.

That’s Putin’s goal—to corner the conversion and enrichment markets—because it wraps Russian hands around the chokepoints in the whole yellowcake to electricity progression. It’s a smart strategy, too—control those, and you control the availability and pricing of a product for which demand will be rising for decades.

And that control will tighten, because the barrier to entry for either function is very high. Building new conversion or enrichment facilities is too costly for most countries, and it is especially difficult in the West due to the influence of environmentalists.

It’s worth reiterating. Russia is on track to control 58% of global yellowcake production; currently responsible for a third of yellowcake-to-uranium-hexafluoride conversion; and soon to hold half of all global enrichment capacity.

There’s a word for this: stranglehold.

That is what Putin and Russia will have on the supply chain for nuclear fuel in a world where new atomic power plants are being constructed at warp speed, which will force the price of uranium ever higher. It will give Russia enormous global influence and great leverage in all future dealings with the US America can mine some uranium domestically and buy some more from its Canadian ally. But even taken together, those sources put only a small patch on the supply gap.

The US government would do well to make peace with Putin, if it can, because the domestic nuclear power industry—and by extension the economic health of the country—is at the mercy of Russia, indefinitely.
To get the full story, click here to order your copy of my new book, The Colder War.

Inside, you’ll discover more on how Putin has cornered the market on Uranium, and how he’s making a big play to control the world's oil and natural gas markets. You’ll also glimpse his endgame and how it will personally affect millions of investors and the lives of nearly every American.

The article The Looming Uranium Crisis: Strategic Implications for the Colder War was originally published at casey research

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

EIA: By 2040 world energy consumption will rise by 56%

From Robin Dupre at Rigzone.com......

World energy consumption will rise 56 percent in the next three decades, driven by growth in the developing world, noted The Energy Information Administration (EIA) in its International Energy Outlook 2013 report Thursday. China and India’s rising prosperity is a major factor in the outlook for global energy demand, noted EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski in a press conference call.

“These two countries combined account for half the world’s total increase in energy use through 2040. This will have a profound effect on the development of world energy markets.” Energy demand will increase to 820 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2040, up from 524 quadrillion Btus. By 2040, China’s energy use will double the United States’, according to EIA estimates.

One quadrillion Btu is equal to 172 million barrels of crude oil.

Additionally, renewable energy and nuclear power are the fastest growing source of energy consumption with each increasing by 2.5 percent per year. But fossil fuels, including oil, natural gas and coal will continue to supply almost 80 percent of the world’s energy through 2040, noted Sieminski.

Natural gas is the fastest growing fossil fuel in EIA’s outlook, and will continue to dominate the landscape, increasing by 1.7 percent per year. Swelling supplies of tight gas, shale gas and coalbed methane support growth in projected worldwide gas use with non OECD Europe/Eurasia, Middle East and the United States accounting for the largest increases in natural gas production.

The explosion in supply from unconventional sources will underpin growth of natural gas demand, while high oil prices will encourage countries to focus on liquid fuels “when feasible”, the report stated.

The EIA’s July short term energy outlook projected benchmark Brent crude to average $105 a barrel in 2013 and $100 in 2014.The report projects that prices will increase long term with the world oil price reaching $106 a barrel in 2020 and $163 in 2040 in the Reference case.

With more than 10 years of journalism experience, Robin Dupre specializes in the offshore sector of the oil and gas industry. Email Robin at rdupre@rigzone.com.

Get our FREE Trading Webinars Today!

America’s Addiction to Foreign Uranium

America’s Addiction to Foreign Uranium

Posted courtesy of our trading partners at Casey Research.........

What most Americans don't realize is that dependence on foreign oil isn't the main obstacle to US energy autonomy. If you think America's energy supply issues begin and end with the Middle East, think again. One of the most critical sources of foreign energy is due to dry up this year, and the results could mean spiking electricity prices across the country.


In 2011, the US used 4,128 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity. Nuclear power provided 790.2 billion kWh, or 19% of the total electrical output in the US. Few people know that one in five US households is powered by nuclear energy, and that the price of that nuclear power has been artificially stabilized. Unfortunately for us, the vast majority of the fuel used for powering our homes must be imported.
In the chart below, you see where most of our uranium comes from:

The overwhelming majority of that Russian uranium comes from a 20-year-old agreement called "Megatons to Megawatts" that allows weapons-grade, highly enriched uranium (HEU) to be converted to reactor-grade, low enriched uranium (LEU).

By December 2012, "Megatons to Megawatts" had produced 13,603 metric tons of LEU for US consumption and provided the fuel for nearly half of the US electricity generated from nuclear power.
In December 2013, that agreement expires, and Russia will be free to put its uranium out on the open market and demand higher prices. With 17 nuclear reactors in China and 20 in India – not to mention Japan, France, Germany, and others all vying for nuclear fuel – competitive bids are poised to drive prices higher, and early investors stand to make spectacular gains.

If this information is news to you, you are not alone. While the mainstream media focus on the US's "Middle Eastern energy dependence," the real story remains unnoticed. That's why Casey Research invited the field's top experts – including former US Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham and Chairman Emeritus of the UK Atomic Energy Authority Lady Barbara Judge – for a frank discussion of what we think is America's greatest energy challenge.

Join us on Tuesday, May 21 at 2 p.m. EDT for the premiere of The Myth of American Energy Independence: Is Nuclear the Ultimate Contrarian Investment? to learn how the end of "Megatons to "Megawatts" will affect the US energy sector and how you can position yourself for outsized profits. Attendance is free – click here to register.



The Bible for Commodity Traders....Get our free eBook now!

Oil Traders Keeping an Eye on Iran

Are you ready for this weeks move?

CNBC's Sharon Epperson on oil price action in the day ahead, with an outlook on EU sanctions against Iran and tomorrow's meeting with Western countries about its nuclear program.



Get our Free Trading Videos, Lessons and eBook today!

Crude Oil Closes Near 2012 Low on Tuesday

This should create some controversy, when is the best time of day to profit?

Crude oil prices dropped near their lows for the year following warnings of a “severe recession” in Europe and an apparent easing of tensions over Iran’s nuclear program.

Benchmark U.S. crude on Tuesday lost 91 cents to end the day at $91.66 per barrel in New York while Brent crude fell by 40 cents to end at $108.41 per barrel in London. Both contracts hit a low for 2012 on Friday at $91.48 and $107.14, respectively.

Oil has declined almost every day this month as elections in Greece and France threatened existing plans to fix the eurozone economy A top economist for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warned Tuesday that the eurozone could fall into recession this year if leaders fail to stimulate the economy. .

If that happens, it would stunt growth in world oil demand at a time when supplies are expanding.

Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Libya are producing and exporting more oil this year. And analysts say Iran’s oil exports could keep flowing if it lets international inspectors into its nuclear facilities as part of a new deal announced Tuesday.

Western leaders fear Iran is building a nuclear weapon. They’ve been trying to cut off Iran’s oil exports this year to pressure the country to allow in nuclear inspectors. Many nations already have stopped buying Iranian crude and Europe is expected to embargo all oil imports from Iran in July.

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, but it so far has barred independent inspectors. If it allows them in, Europe may reward Iran by canceling the embargo, said Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research.

“If they don’t end it, it could be significantly delayed,” Lynch said.

Fears of a protracted standoff with Iran had helped push benchmark crude near $110 per barrel in February. Prices have since fallen below levels of early November, when the United Nations first warned of a potential nuclear threat from Iran.

Uninterrupted Iranian exports could boost world oil supplies to an average of 89.15 million barrels per day, according to the latest projections from the Energy Information Administration. That would be more than enough to meet world demand.

At the pump, U.S. gasoline prices fell nearly a penny to $3.68 per gallon, according to auto club AAA, Wright Express and Oil Price Information Service. A gallon of regular unleaded has dropped by 25.6 cents since peaking this year in early April.

In other futures trading, natural gas added 9.8 cents, up 4 percent, to finish at $2.707 per 1,000 cubic feet. Natural gas prices have jumped by 42 percent since hitting a 10 year low on April 19 as supplies declined. Weather forecasters also predicted a toasty Memorial Day weekend across much of the country, which implies that people will crank up their air conditioners and power plants will burn more natural gas for electricity.

Heating oil and wholesale gasoline were both flat, ending the day at $2.8614 and $2.937 per gallon, respectively.

20 Survival Skills for the Trader

EIA: Natural Gas and Renewable Shares of Electricity Generation to Grow

Over the next 25 years, natural gas and renewable fuels gain a larger share of the United States generating mix of electricity, according to the Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO2012) early release reference case. Coal remains the dominant source of electricity, but its share drops from 45% in 2010 to 39% in 2035.

These results are from the AEO2012 Reference case, which assumes no changes in current laws and regulations. The full report will include additional cases measuring the impacts of alternative policies and different paths for prices and technologies on the electric power sector.

• Annual generation from natural gas increases by 39% from 2010 to 2035. Eighty-five gigawatts of new gas capacity is added through 2035, as stable capital costs and low fuel prices make it the most attractive source of new capacity.
• Renewable energy generation grows 33% from 2010 to 2035. Non-hydro renewables account for a majority of this growth, with wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal generation all significantly larger at the end of the projection horizon.
• Coal's share of the electricity generation mix drops from 45% to 39% between 2010 and 2035. Thirty-three gigawatts of coal capacity are retired and only 14 gigawatts of new coal capacity already under construction are completed. A few factors disadvantage the relative economics of coal-fired capacity: projected low natural gas prices, the continued rise of new coal-fired plants' construction costs, and concerns over potential greenhouse gas emissions policies.
• Annual generation from nuclear power plants grows by 11% from 2010 to 2035, but its share of the generation mix declines. A total of 10 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity are projected through 2035, as well as an increase of 7 gigawatts achieved from uprates to existing nuclear units. About 6 gigawatts of existing nuclear capacity are retired, primarily in the last few years of the projection.

Do you really understand the Fibonacci code?If not check out "The Fibonacci Tool Fully Explained"

OilPrice: China to Aid Saudi Arabia in Nuclear

Ever since the end of World War Two, the U.S. has come to regard Saudi Arabia as almost its exclusive oil producing enclave.

In February 1945, after the Yalta Conference with Soviet General Secretary Iosif Stalin and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, on his way home U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and King Ibn Saud met aboard the New Orleans class heavy cruiser U.S.S. Quincy in the Suez Canal’s Great Bitter Lake. During the meeting, instigated by Roosevelt, he and Ibn Saud concluded a secret agreement in which the U.S. would provide Saudi Arabia military security, including military assistance, training and a military base at Dhahran in Saudi Arabia, in exchange for secure access to supplies of oil.

Sixty seven years later, my, how things have changed, as China is now muscling into the Kingdom of the Two Holy Places.

On 15 January Visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Saudi Arabian King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz agreed to make concerted efforts to enhance bilateral relations. The spectacle of OPEC’s leading petro-state and East Asia’s superpower economy making common cause has surely caused the burning of the midnight oil inside the Beltway.

While Wen said that China is willing to strengthen coordination with Saudi Arabia on all major issues by expanding cooperation in trade, investment, infrastructure, high-tech, finance, security and law enforcement, what must have surely caught the eye of Washington’s mandarins was him adding that China intends to develop a cooperative partnership with Saudi Arabia in the energy sector.

And why not? Saudi Arabia is the largest supplier of oil to China and bilateral trade between the two countries soared to $58.5 billion in the period January-November 2011.

And the fruits of such bilateral proximity were on the table even before Wen made his fulsome remarks, as the state-owned Saudi Press Agency reported on 14 January that Saudi state oil giant Aramco has signed an agreement with state owned giant China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation Ltd. (Sinopec) to build an oil refinery, named Yasref, in the Red Sea city of Yanbu, which will become operational in 2014, processing 400,000 barrels per day.

What is really going to catch Washington’s and the foreign investment community’s attention is how the agreement is structured, Saudi Aramco will hold a 62.5 percent stake with Sinopec holding the remainder.

In one of 2012’s greatest understatements, Aramco president and CEO Khalid al-Falih said that the contract "represents a strategic partnership in the refining industry between one of the main energy producers in Saudi Arabia and one of the world's most important consumers."
Continuing his victory lap around the western shores of the Persian Gulf, Wen will also visit Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, two other stalwart U.S. allies.
And the eastern side of the Gulf?

Commenting on Iran, China’s third largest source of oil imports, on 11 January Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said at a press briefing that China will maintain its trade ties with Iran despite efforts by U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to convince Beijing to join a proposed embargo of Iranian oil exports.

But perhaps the most intriguing element of the Riyadh-Beijing lovefest was the announcement that on 15 January Saudi Arabia signed an agreement with China for cooperation in the development and use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, an event of significant importance that both Abdullah and Wen attended.

No comment is really needed here, except to note that many of the questions asked about Iran’s civilian nuclear power program, such as why does a leading "petro state" need nuclear energy, are unlikely to be asked about this particular venture, underling that once again, reality in the Middle East is whatever your perceptions tell you in advance it is.

Posted courtesy of John C.K. Daly at Oilprice.com


Get our gold trend analyst for the 1st Quarter of 2012

OPEC Quietly Raising Output Overshadowed By Chinese Macroeconomic Data

Positive Chinese macroeconomic data gave the crude oil and commodity bulls the advantage in the European session overnight even as traders digest news that OPEC has quietly been increasing production. OPEC seems to keep finding ways to make themselves irrelevant as OPEC's own report revealed that compliance level for the "OPEC 11" dropped to 54.0% in December 2010. Looks like OPEC as quietly been raising production while sending their cheerleaders out to the press to call for higher oil prices for some of their ailing economies as they themselves fight to contain food prices in some of their own countries.

And this may not make the nightly news but I am sure the visit to the White House by Chinese President Hu Jintao will have the leaders focusing on world food prices as China has made a priority out of bringing new energy sources online at all cost. And Washington will be playing catch up again, but there is hope for the new "Clintonized" Obama agenda as the attitude towards business coming from the administration is changing quickly. Does this mean we have some new permits being approved for Nuclear power plants right around the corner? We won't be holding our breaths for that but we can still dream.

Oil futures are up this morning as far out as February 2012 but well below the the critical 92.58 level. Is it all aboard the bull bus this morning? Here's your pivot, resistance and support numbers for Wednesdays trading.......

Crude oil was higher overnight and remains poised to extend last week's rally. Stochastics and the RSI remain neutral to bullish signaling that sideways to higher prices are possible near term. If February extends last week's rally, this year's high crossing at 92.58 is the next upside target. Closes below the reaction low crossing at 87.25 would confirm that a short term top has been posted. First resistance is this year's high crossing at 92.58. Second resistance is weekly resistance crossing at 93.87. First support is the reaction low crossing at 87.25. Second support is the reaction low crossing at 84.09. Crude oil pivot point for Wednesday morning is 92.21.

Natural gas was slightly higher overnight as it consolidates above the 20 day moving average crossing at 4.385. Stochastics and the RSI are bearish signaling that sideways to lower prices are possible near term. Closes below the 20 day moving average crossing at 4.385 are needed to confirm that a short term top has been posted. If February renews the rally off December's low, the 50% retracement level of the June-October decline crossing at 4.876 is the next upside target. First resistance is this month's high crossing at 4.707. Second resistance is the 50% retracement level of the June-October decline crossing at 4.876. First support is the 20 day moving average crossing at 4.385. Second support is December's low crossing at 3.985. Natural gas pivot point for Wednesday morning is 4.450

Gold was higher due to short covering overnight as it consolidates some of last week's rally. Stochastics and the RSI are bearish signaling that sideways to lower prices are possible. If February extends last week's decline, the reaction low crossing at 1331.10 is the next downside target. Closes above the 20 day moving average crossing at 1386.70 are needed to confirm that a short term low has been posted. First resistance is the 20 day moving average crossing at 1386.70. Second resistance is this month's high crossing at 1424.40. First support is the reaction low crossing at 1352.70. Second support is the reaction low crossing at 1331.10. Gold pivot point for Wednesday morning is 1367.00.


Market Trends Trading Made Easy - Learn How

Share