Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on June 3, 2016
Saudi’s deputy crown prince to visit US
Saudi Arabia’s powerful deputy crown prince is expected to visit Washington in mid-June for talks with top U.S. officials, possibly including President Barack Obama, amid growing friction between the longtime allies, three sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.
Mohammed bin Salman, son of Saudi Arabia’s King Salman, has been leading a drive to end the kingdom’s dependence on oil and liberalize its economy. He also serves as defense minister, and his discussions with U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter and other top U.S. officials are expected to include the conflict in Yemen, where a Saudi-led coalition last year began a military campaign against Houthi rebels who receive some Iranian support.
The civil war in Syria also is expected to be on the agenda. Riyadh is seeking to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and has provided military support to rebels fighting him.
One of the sources said the deputy crown prince will be in Washington from June 14-16 and then will travel to New York for meetings with financial firms, and possibly to Los Angeles. This person spoke on condition of anonymity because the visit has not been formally announced.
A White House official said, “We don’t have any visit to announce at this time.”
Prince Mohammed’s talks in Washington will come at a sensitive time for U.S.-Saudi relations and energy markets.
U.S.-Saudi ties have cooled under Obama. Many Gulf Arab monarchies, including Saudi Arabia, have privately said they have been disappointed by what they consider the U.S. retreat from the region under Obama, allowing Iran to expand its influence, especially after a nuclear deal was reached last year.
Saudi Arabia’s campaign in Yemen has also been a focus of concern. This week, the United Nations added the Saudi-led coalition to an annual blacklist of states and armed groups that violate children’s rights during conflict.
Separately, the Saudis have mounted a campaign to defend the kingdom’s counter-terrorism record in advance of the expected declassification this month of 28 pages from a 2002 congressional report on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Critics say those documents could implicate Saudi officials in the attacks on New York and Washington. Riyadh denies that, and has called for the documents to be made public.
In oil markets, OPEC again this week failed to adopt a clear oil-output strategy at a meeting attended by the new Saudi energy minister, Khalid al-Falih.
Prince Mohammed, whose father has delegated him unprecedented powers, has launched a plan aimed at ending the kingdom’s oil dependence by 2030. But it would require shaking up a bureaucracy that has stymied changes in the past, challenging powerful religious conservatives and building up a private sector currently reliant on state spending.
Obama and Prince Mohammed, along with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, met in the Oval Office in May 2015. Obama visited Riyadh in April when he attended a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
80 Comments on "Saudi’s deputy crown prince to visit US"
Apneaman on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 10:05 am
Boat, neo liberal capitalism has done more to tear up the family unit than any other factor. It has also destroyed community and church going. Community, family and church going were once the glue that bonded people together. Big corporations jerking people from one side of the country to the other. If you were paying attention it wasn’t any obscure atheist group who pushed and pushed for Sunday shopping – it was those who adopted the, all capitalism all the time mentality. The chamber of commerce fucks. All the cunts who talked church and family out of one side of their mouth while lobbying hard for Sunday shopping, subprime, payday loans and all the rest of it from the other. Again you don’t have a fucking clue boat. How fucking retarded can you be? Look what has happened to you country since the Regan/ neo liberal capitalism era started? Boat, why don’t you just spot your cheerleader for one damn day and step back and take a look at the mess. FF’s you live in Houston a city getting pounded and fucked like a crack whore at a gang bang and you can’t even acknowledge it or the major role that capitalism has played to bring about the new abnormal. Put some of that “cheap gas” in the tank a go riding around your Houston and make note of the pain and destruction. That is the end game of capitalism. I fucking well told you last year when you showed up that was your dumb ass city’s fate and you waved me off. What say you now hot shot boat? Capitalism destroys America. Boat N Tards cheer.
Davy on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 10:12 am
Makati Bill, this will be an anything and maybe a everything war. Missles will surely be a part of that but it is the coordination of military assets that win battles and you win wars when you mix in winning hearts and minds and having superior moral. You remind me of the crowd that thinks wars can be won from the air which has been proven dead wrong.
Stuifzand on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 10:43 am
@Makati, Military Times is not the source, they just copied it. Here is the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Allies-Honourable-Malcolm-Fraser/dp/0522867685/ref=sr_1_1
Here a video showing an interview with the old political fox Fraser about the subject:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/malcolm-fraser-warns-australia-risks-war-with-china-unless-us-military-ties-cut-back-20140425-zqz8p.html
It goes too far to say that the US is “nothing but bluff”, but China is a rising and the US a declining power and at some point China feels strong enough to make its move. And if that happens the occupation of Ps by China is likely, just like Ps were occupied by the Japanese, ejecting the Americans in 1942, meaning that ALL Americans will have to leave, preferable in advance, before they are told to leave.
It is all wonderful to prepare for the future with solar panels and a veggie garden and what not, but rule #1 in preppy land is: stay within your own ethnic group.
You may be king now with your pension dollars, but once the Chinese make their make move, things might look radically different and you could end up totally without protection, just like these Americans, nota bene in their own country:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rux-g-xmvUs
Boat on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 10:49 am
ape,
I worked swing shift for 23 years. You don’t need weekends or holidays. Suck it up and take it like a man. Our forefathers had it much tougher with Sundays off. Quit the blame game.
Davy on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 11:53 am
“Trump Says U.S. Allies Should Pay in Full for American Defense”
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-05/trump-says-u-s-allies-should-pay-in-full-for-american-defense
“The billionaire’s demands to renegotiate alliances threaten to up-end decades of U.S. military and diplomatic strategy. While the U.S. spends billions of dollars basing troops and equipment overseas, that has historically been part of a trade-off that lets the nation project power abroad.”
GregT on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 12:01 pm
You don’t?!
I’m still not so sure Stui. The deep state doesn’t control through militarism, it controls through finance and division.
Stuifzand on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 12:06 pm
Not going to happen. Europeans will begin to pay for their own military force rather than for somebody else’s.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-europe-defence-idUKKCN0YP110
“Germany, France to revive EU defence but no plans for EU army”
The EU has more GDP than the US and accordingly should significantly increase its defense spending.
GregT on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 12:14 pm
“One idea under discussion is a European investment fund for defence, which would allow EU governments who pay into it to also borrow so as to ensure funds are always available for joint defence programmes.”
“The fund, which could start on a small scale in 2017, could be backed by the European Investment Bank to finance projects.”
My point, exactly.
GregT on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 12:24 pm
And Stui,
Stick around, your perspective is/was always appreciated.
Boat on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 2:10 pm
Davy,
“The billionaire’s demands to renegotiate alliances threaten to up-end decades of U.S. military and diplomatic strategy. While the U.S. spends billions of dollars basing troops and equipment overseas, that has historically been part of a trade-off that lets the nation project power abroad.”
I don’t agree with Trump much but on this I do agree. The US does not have to project power. Just have it. Technology should reduce bases needed not expand them. Any war should be in cooperation with our allies splitting the costs. No troops in S Korea, Japan and Europe are needed. This should not in any way change our commitment to protect or respond to any allie in need.
JuanP on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 2:13 pm
Stui, I don’t see the Chinese invading the Ps, though it could happen. The world is overpopulated as is China, and channeling some of those millions of unemployed young men with no future into useless wars is a way to deal with the problem that is likely to become increasingly common. China has nothing to win by invading the Ps, but if the goal was reducing the young male population as fast as possible then It could make sense to China. Millions of unemployed young men need to be dealt with. I fear there will be many unnecessary wars in our future.
GregT on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 2:16 pm
“The US does not have to project power.”
Not at all. There’s plenty of resources still available in the homeland, to secure a more third world type of lifestyle. No need to keep looting from others.
Stuifzand on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 3:04 pm
“Stick around, your perspective is/was always appreciated.”
Thanks, but formulating a sometimes political incorrect post and submitting it is one thing, seeing it ending up on your screen quit another. So can’t guarantee anything. Hopefully Herr Drumpf has meanwhile created somewhat more room for verbal maneuvering, ‘edgy’ or otherwise.
GregT on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 3:30 pm
Trump isn’t a shoe-in quite yet Stui.
Clinton opens up double-digit lead over Trump nationwide: Reuters/Ipsos poll
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN0YP2EX
I still suspect that Trump is nothing more than a distraction, liken to the McCaine/Palin fiasco. They’ve got far too much riding on Hillary.
Boat on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 3:32 pm
gregiet,
We agree on something. Amazing.
GregT on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 3:55 pm
What would that be Boat? That Trump isn’t a shoe-in? Or that his campaign is a carefully planned media distraction to assure the installation of Hillary?
Stuifzand on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 4:09 pm
“Trump isn’t a shoe-in quite yet Stui.”
It is absolute not certain that he will win. But for the first time in history Trump with his rallies made European-America admit to itself that they hate to see their republic turning into a third world country. The desire for a separate home land will grow and eventually a wave of Donbass-style secession’s will begin. A Trump presidency would merely mean postponing the inevitable. Perhaps it is better that he doesn’t win. When Clinton wins with a clear majority, European-American will understand that there is no hope for the old America ever to return and that the Dems will win indefinitely.
With that realization the US political system will have arrived at its final conclusion… and the Euros will leave the building.
Davy on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 4:14 pm
China does not have the sea, air, and logistical reach to invade the P’s or any other southeast Asian countries. There is no benefit to China to invade any of these countries. Anyone preaching Chinese militarism in this scenario is in a fantasy world and does not understand military power projection.
China has been preparing to invade Taiwan but that is a risky operation. They have been preparing for that type of operation for years. They have not done it for a variety of reasons but the most important is the risk of failure.
We are now in the type world where such invasions are not practical nor logical. The days of big invasions like the US did in Iraq are history. Today we will see skirmishes and proxi wars. People here preaching this nonsense are demonstraiting a 20th century mentality.
GregT on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 4:16 pm
No matter who wins the oval office. There’s a shit storm brewing, and it isn’t going to be pretty.
Boat on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 5:17 pm
Well of course a shit storm brewing if the ramifications of short’s predictions come true. 2 1/2 years till the end of oil and the world as we know it. Only 3 of the regular posters routinely reject this opinion. War by country and climate problems will be of little consequence as roving bands of cannibals look for meals. Lol
GregT on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 5:25 pm
“Only 3 of the regular posters routinely reject this opinion.”
A calculation Boat, not just an opinion. May be right, may be wrong. Only time will tell. You’re setting yourself up for a very unpromising future however, if Short turns out to be correct, even if his calculations are off by several years.
Not an overly intelligent stance.
Stuifzand on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 6:27 pm
“China does not have the sea, air, and logistical reach to invade the P’s or any other southeast Asian countries. There is no benefit to China to invade any of these countries. Anyone preaching Chinese militarism in this scenario is in a fantasy world and does not understand military power projection.”
You tell Australia’s most senior politicians Malcolm Fraser that he is living in a fantasy world.
Nobody says that China has the aim to invade the Ps. It could happen though as a consequence of a clash in the South China Sea combined with the presence of US basis in the Ps.
The US had removed all its troops from the Ps but now has the intention of returning and build no less than 5 bases. This is clearly in response to the Chinese activities in the South China Sea and the construction of artificial islands with the aim to expand territorial waters.
The US has said this week that China should stop buildings these islands and new ones are not going to be tolerated.
The Spratly islands are located in an area of intense shipping and the presence of oil & gas is suspected.
Malcolm Fraser is justified in being worried about the potential for conflict in the region.
Map:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/bild-1095886-831038.html
makati1 on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 6:40 pm
JuanP, I agree that China has extra young men to waste, but they are moving them into commercial ventures around the world by the hundreds of thousands. How many have come to the Us in the last decade? (Approximately one-quarter of all Chinese emigrants settle in the United States, with other popular destinations including Canada (896,000), South Korea (657,000), Japan (655,000), Australia (547,000), and Singapore (457,000), according to mid-2013 estimates by the United Nations Population Division.*) Africa? The ME? South America? Just building the new Silk Road will take millions.
China is cutting back it’s land army as they are smart enough to know that the next war will not be fought WW2 style. If you destroy the infrastructure of a country with missiles, you put it out of business. Only a small force would be necessary for occupation, if you wanted to actually control the country. The Ps is 7,000+ islands and ~105 million people. As I said before, there is nothing here that they want or need. I’m not worried.
Now Taiwan is a different kettle of fish. That is still part of China, no matter how ‘independent’ it seems. Taiwan is a political and social goal, not a resource goal.
China will not start a war, but they will end it. Ditto for Russia. The Us is an old tiger, losing its teeth and power, as Americans are soon going to find out. A ‘has been’ empire that can no longer look in the mirror.
I like Greg’s comment: ““The US does not have to project power.”
Not at all. There’s plenty of resources still available in the homeland, to secure a more third world type of lifestyle. No need to keep looting from others.”
But they will, until they cannot. Coming soon, I think.
*http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/chinese-immigrants-united-states/
You might want to take a look at the above immigration article, not quite up to date but 2013 is recent and the numbers have only increased, from what I read.
BTW: 1/3 of the Philippine population has Chinese ancestry and about 3% have pure Chinese ancestry. “Binondo’s Chinatown located in Manila, Philippines is the oldest Chinatown in the world, established in 1594.” China already ‘occupies’ the country. LOL
makati1 on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 7:26 pm
Stuifzand, “The US has said this week that China should stop buildings these islands and new ones are not going to be tolerated.”
And just who is the US to dictate what some country 8,000 miles from the US can and cannot do? Such arrogance is going to bring ruin to America, I think.
There are no ‘proven’ resources in the contested areas except fish. But every article about the South China Sea spouts this same US propaganda bullshit. Like the WMDs that Saddam was supposed to have had, this bullshit is to justify the US military in a place they do not belong. Nothing else and certainly not trade routes that China needs as much, if not more than, the other countries in the area.
Davy on Sun, 5th Jun 2016 8:19 pm
“You tell Australia’s most senior politicians Malcolm Fraser that he is living in a fantasy world.”
Show me a competent politician today and then we can talk.
I never said China has the aims to invade either. My point is they don’t have the capabilities to invade except for small islands. This is a big point. There is no way China can manage to invade, conquer, and occupy an entire country that is separated by ocean. Now, if you are talking a neighboring country with adjoining land that is a different story. Yet, even this scenario is a difficult one for China. I would like to see China invade Vietnam and conquer that country.
GregT on Mon, 6th Jun 2016 1:57 am
“There is no way China can manage to invade, conquer, and occupy an entire country that is separated by ocean. ”
Hmmm, could it be that their strategy of paying other nations for stuff, as opposed to murdering them, and bombing their countries back into the stone age, might actually work?
Strange concept that.
makati1 on Mon, 6th Jun 2016 4:19 am
GregT, such concepts are definitely foreign to any American mind.
I wonder … if China decided to dump their trillions in US treasuries as being the cheapest, easiest, and quickest way, short of nukes, to take out the Empire, what could America do? Nothing.
But Americans claim that it would destroy the Chinese economy too. Hmmm. Maybe that would be acceptable rather than a hot war that would destroy China? Maybe they would just switch to gold a payment system? After all, they are preparing to do that anyway, along with Russia, India and others. The US has no gold.
I have learned to never say “Never”. Or: “It couldn’t happen!” I have seen too many strange things in my 72 years.
Davy on Mon, 6th Jun 2016 6:23 am
“Hmmm, could it be that their strategy of paying other nations for stuff, as opposed to murdering them, and bombing their countries back into the stone age, might actually work? Strange concept that.”
You can be sure the anti-Americans will default the conversation to their anti-American agenda. That is intellectual laziness and points to indoctrination. The issue being discussed is Chinese expansionism and the capabilities of China to do that. I see no evidence that China’s move into the South China Sea is about buying things. China is showing every indication of expansionist policies and you anti-Americans that want to talk China up are talking them up to turn the conversation anti-American. Stay on topic and answer the question. “Strange concept that”
Davy on Mon, 6th Jun 2016 6:34 am
More evidence that China’s economy is falling off a cliff and by extension globalism.
‘Goldman Finds That China’s Debt Is Far Greater Than Anyone Thought”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-05/goldman-finds-chinas-debt-far-greater-anyone-thought
“Goldman finds something stunning: true credit creation in China was vastly greater than even the comprehensive Total Social Financing series. To wit: “a substantial amount of money was created last year, evidencing a very large supply of credit, to the tune of RMB 25tn (36% of 2015 GDP). This is about RMB 6tn (or 9pp of GDP) higher than implied by TSF data (even after adjusting for municipal bond swaps). Divergence from TSF has been particularly notable since Q2 last year after a major dovish shift in policy stance.”
“In other words, not only was China lying about everything else, it was also fabricating its broadest credit creation aggregate, with the underlying “new credit” number turning out to be far greater than anyone had expected (or believed). And for someone as traditionally conservative and Goldman to warn that “that the trend of China’s leverage has probably deteriorated “, that “that the economy’s dependence on credit has deepened significantly and that it likely needs sizeable flow of credit on a persistent basis to maintain a stable level of growth” and that “such a scale of deterioration certainly increases our concerns about China’s underlying credit problems and sustainability risk”, must mean that China’s economy is about to fall off a cliff.”
shortonoil on Mon, 6th Jun 2016 7:04 am
“Well of course a shit storm brewing if the ramifications of short’s predictions come true. 2 1/2 years till the end of oil and the world as we know it.”
Since Boat is obviously unable to understand a simple graph, we will repost it here, and explain for the umpteen time what it signifies.
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_022.htm
If one notices; the graph does not terminate at the X axis; the reason is because that will be the point where the average lifting cost is reached, and that is an uncertain number. After the average lifting cost is reached the industry will just continue to produce until its reserves have been completely extracted. No new reserves will be developed after that point. The Etp Model indicates that the oil age will have ended by 2030 when the average barrel has reached the “dead state”. The point where the total energy to produce petroleum, and its products becomes equal to its energy content.
2 1/2 years must be the product of an overly active imagination. Probably of some child?