20 Mar 2009, ET Bureau
NEW DELHI: India’s inflation rate skidded to a record low of 0.44% in the first week of March, well on course for a widely expected move into Financial crisis negative territory, triggering hopes authorities would be forced to intervene with steps to shore up demand in the economy.
The inflation rate as measured by the wholesale price index fell from 2.43% in the preceding week, led by plunging food prices and cheaper fuels. Very soon, buyers in wholesale markets may be paying less for most items, except food, than what they paid last March.
Economists say there is a good chance prices may continue falling longer than expected unless the government moves quickly to rev up demand. They expect Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to infuse more liquidity to counter this trend, besides cutting policy rates further.
“The higher base effect along with low demand in the economy is expected to keep inflation in negative territory for five to six months. Inflation will turn negative starting from April and will remain so until the end of 2009... We expect the Reserve Bank to ease liquidity to support growth,” said economist Tushar Poddar at Goldman Sachs.
Given the inflation outlook and macro environment, Goldman Sachs expects a 150 basis point cut by June in the cash reserve ratio, the funds banks have to keep with the RBI. Analysts say further infusion of funds through increased lending by banks may keep the system flush with liquidity.
“We expect continued policy action, including unconventional measures, to stem the deceleration in growth,” Citi analyst Rohini Malkani said in a research note. But the government maintained that though prices may drop to below 2008 levels, demand continues to remain strong. “I do not see any signs of deflation as demand for certain core sectors like steel, cement and automobiles is picking up, along with rural demand,” said cabinet secretary KM Chandrasekhar, who is the government’s seniormost bureaucrat. “Only those sectors that are heavily dependent on overseas demand will take time to pick up,” he added.
When prices decline, consumers typically postpone purchases in anticipation of catching the bottom. This causes further shrinkage of demand. Even so, companies manufacturing household electronic items say they are not worried.
“We are observing a slight easing of consumer spending and with the inflation coming down, we expect a positive impact on consumer spending,” said R Zutshi, deputy managing director of Samsung India.
One reason why companies remain optimistic is that prices in the retail market continued to rise faster than before in the week ended March 7. Retail inflation, measured by various consumer price indices (CPI), is still high. CPI for industrial workers has moved to 10.45% in January, the highest in over a decade.
But even retail inflation may eventually cool, if food, especially fruits and vegetables, become substantially cheaper in the coming months. They are already less expensive compared to January. Annual food inflation index has dropped to 7.24% from a 10-year high of 11.64% in January.
Prices of manufactured products, with a 64% weight in the WPI, did not change over the week. Inflation in this category could fall further if demand for manufactured goods does not pick up. While auto, cement, steel and retail sales in February beat market expectations, sectors such as real estate, freight and port traffic continue to be a cause of concern for policymakers.
The International Monetary Fund said this week that India should rely more on monetary policy to support the economy because it has already exhausted options such as additional spending and tax sops.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Obama vows to bring 'all pillars' in place to boost economy
New York (PTI): U.S. President Barack Obama has assured Americans that he will bring "all the pillars in place" this year for speedy economic recovery of the nation and asked people to allay their fears about future.
"I don't think that people should be fearful about our future. I don't think that people should suddenly mistrust all of our financial institutions," Mr. Obama said.
However, he could not assure Americans on whether economy will begin growing again this year and urge Americans not to "stuff their money in their mattresses".
In an interview published in the New York Times on Sunday, Mr. Obama indicated that the end was not in sight when it came to the economic crisis and suggested that he expected it could take another $750 billion to address the problem of weak and failing financial institutions beyond the $700 billion already approved.
As he pressed forward with ambitious plans at home to rewrite the tax code, expand health care and curb climate change, Mr. Obama dismissed criticism from conservatives that he was driving the country toward socialism, the paper said.
After the interview, Mr. Obama called reporters from the Oval office to assert his actions have been "entirely consistent with free-market principles" and pointed out that large-scale government intervention in markets and expansion of social welfare programmes began under President Bush.
"I wish I had the luxury of just dealing with a modest recession or dealing with health care or with energy or Iraq or Afghanistan," Mr. Obama said adding that "I don't have that luxury, and I don't think the American people do, either."
The budget plan he released last month included a placeholder estimate of $250 billion for additional bank bailouts an amount that represents the projected long-term cost to taxpayers of a $750 billion infusion into the financial sector. Mr. Obama indicated that those figures were what he was likely to seek from Congress. "We have no reason to revise that estimate."
Addressing the fear and uncertainty among Americans as job losses mount and stock markets sink, Mr. Obama urged Americans to "be prudent" in their personal financial decisions, but not to hunker down so much that it would further slow the recovery.
"What I don't think people should do is suddenly stuff money in their mattresses and pull back completely from spending," he said.
Still, the paper said, he avoided guessing when the situation might begin to turn around.
"Our belief and expectation is that we will get all the pillars in place for recovery this year. How long it will take before recovery actually translates into stronger job markets and so forth is going to depend on a whole range of factors," Mr. Obama said.
He added that "part of what you're seeing now is weaknesses in Europe that are actually greater than some weaknesses here, bouncing back and having an impact on our markets." Mr. Obama's uncertain forecast about when the economy will begin to rebound contrasted with the projections embedded in the budget he recently released, the paper noted.
That plan, the paper said, rested on the assumption that the economy would shrink by 1.2 per cent this year, a projection that many economists, including some in his administration, consider overly optimistic because it implies the economy would bounce back in the second half of this year.
"I don't think that people should be fearful about our future. I don't think that people should suddenly mistrust all of our financial institutions," Mr. Obama said.
However, he could not assure Americans on whether economy will begin growing again this year and urge Americans not to "stuff their money in their mattresses".
In an interview published in the New York Times on Sunday, Mr. Obama indicated that the end was not in sight when it came to the economic crisis and suggested that he expected it could take another $750 billion to address the problem of weak and failing financial institutions beyond the $700 billion already approved.
As he pressed forward with ambitious plans at home to rewrite the tax code, expand health care and curb climate change, Mr. Obama dismissed criticism from conservatives that he was driving the country toward socialism, the paper said.
After the interview, Mr. Obama called reporters from the Oval office to assert his actions have been "entirely consistent with free-market principles" and pointed out that large-scale government intervention in markets and expansion of social welfare programmes began under President Bush.
"I wish I had the luxury of just dealing with a modest recession or dealing with health care or with energy or Iraq or Afghanistan," Mr. Obama said adding that "I don't have that luxury, and I don't think the American people do, either."
The budget plan he released last month included a placeholder estimate of $250 billion for additional bank bailouts an amount that represents the projected long-term cost to taxpayers of a $750 billion infusion into the financial sector. Mr. Obama indicated that those figures were what he was likely to seek from Congress. "We have no reason to revise that estimate."
Addressing the fear and uncertainty among Americans as job losses mount and stock markets sink, Mr. Obama urged Americans to "be prudent" in their personal financial decisions, but not to hunker down so much that it would further slow the recovery.
"What I don't think people should do is suddenly stuff money in their mattresses and pull back completely from spending," he said.
Still, the paper said, he avoided guessing when the situation might begin to turn around.
"Our belief and expectation is that we will get all the pillars in place for recovery this year. How long it will take before recovery actually translates into stronger job markets and so forth is going to depend on a whole range of factors," Mr. Obama said.
He added that "part of what you're seeing now is weaknesses in Europe that are actually greater than some weaknesses here, bouncing back and having an impact on our markets." Mr. Obama's uncertain forecast about when the economy will begin to rebound contrasted with the projections embedded in the budget he recently released, the paper noted.
That plan, the paper said, rested on the assumption that the economy would shrink by 1.2 per cent this year, a projection that many economists, including some in his administration, consider overly optimistic because it implies the economy would bounce back in the second half of this year.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Chavez protests EU with oil threat -Oil Game plan -4
(CNN) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened not to sell oil to European Union countries that follow new rules on immigration, but oil analysts said the threat was largely symbolic since no European country buys oil from Venezuela.
Instead, Venezuela sends what crude it does export to Europe to its own refineries there.
"Our oil shouldn't go to those countries" that voted for the EU's new policy, approved on Wednesday of detaining and deporting illegal immigrants, Chavez said in a televised address from Caracas.
The legislation lays out re-entry bans and maximum 18-month detention periods but also includes legal safeguards.
The directive "will encourage the voluntary return of illegal immigrants but otherwise lay down minimum standards for their treatment," according to the EU in a news release.
Parliament adopted the measure by a vote of 369 to 197, with 106 abstentions.
Britain and Ireland have not adopted the policy
Instead, Venezuela sends what crude it does export to Europe to its own refineries there.
"Our oil shouldn't go to those countries" that voted for the EU's new policy, approved on Wednesday of detaining and deporting illegal immigrants, Chavez said in a televised address from Caracas.
The legislation lays out re-entry bans and maximum 18-month detention periods but also includes legal safeguards.
The directive "will encourage the voluntary return of illegal immigrants but otherwise lay down minimum standards for their treatment," according to the EU in a news release.
Parliament adopted the measure by a vote of 369 to 197, with 106 abstentions.
Britain and Ireland have not adopted the policy
Chavez makes US oil export threat -The Oil Game Plan --3
Chavez's speech talked about the need to defeat imperialism
Oil exports to the US could stop amid growing tensions between the two countries, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said.
He described recent US government actions as "aggressive" in a speech at a youth festival in Caracas.
As a result, Venezuelan oil "instead of going to the United States, could go elsewhere," he said.
Venezuela exports about 1.3 million barrels a day to the US and is the world's fifth largest oil producer.
Tensions between the two countries have escalated since President Chavez accused the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of spying on his government.
Washington denies the charge and has accused Caracas of failing to co-operate in the fight against drug-trafficking.
On Friday the Venezuelan government withdrew diplomatic immunity from DEA agents working in the country in response to a US decision to revoke the visas of six Venezuelan officials based in Washington.
Venezuela is an important transport route for cocaine from neighbouring Colombia, which produces 80% of the world's supply.
Oil exports to the US could stop amid growing tensions between the two countries, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said.
He described recent US government actions as "aggressive" in a speech at a youth festival in Caracas.
As a result, Venezuelan oil "instead of going to the United States, could go elsewhere," he said.
Venezuela exports about 1.3 million barrels a day to the US and is the world's fifth largest oil producer.
Tensions between the two countries have escalated since President Chavez accused the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of spying on his government.
Washington denies the charge and has accused Caracas of failing to co-operate in the fight against drug-trafficking.
On Friday the Venezuelan government withdrew diplomatic immunity from DEA agents working in the country in response to a US decision to revoke the visas of six Venezuelan officials based in Washington.
Venezuela is an important transport route for cocaine from neighbouring Colombia, which produces 80% of the world's supply.
Gulf oil earnings to touch record $562 bn in 2008 -The end Beneficiary of Game plan-2
Gulf oil earnings to touch record $562 bn in 2008
Aug 21st, 2008
Dubai, Aug 21 Oil producing nations in the Gulf will earn a record $562 billion by the end of this year, as oil prices are expected to remain above $100 a barrel, according to a new report.
The London-based Centre for Global Energy Studies (CGES), in its monthly oil report for August, has said the combined oil export earnings of the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries will soar to their highest level of $562 billion this year even as they pumped at their highest level, the Emirates Business 24-7 newspaper reported.
Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) comprise the GCC.
‘The UAE’s income will swell to an all-time high of $97 billion while that of Saudi Arabia will surge to $307 billion and that of Qatar and Kuwait will peak at $89 billion and $32 billion respectively,’ the newspaper, which received a copy of the report ahead of its publication, said.
The income, it added, is nearly $234 billion above their 2007 revenues of $328 billion and more than four times their earnings of $137 billion in 2003.
In 1998, the GCC’s combined revenues plummetted to one of their lowest levels of around $56 billion after oil prices collapsed below $10 a barrel and averaged $12 through the year.
‘The revenue forecasts for the Gulf states and other Opec (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) members are based on an average Opec basket price of around $110.8 this year compared with nearly $69 in 2007,’ said Leo Drollas, deputy manager of CGES, said in the report.
Giving a breakdown, he said Saudi Arabia’s earnings this year would be nearly 75 percent higher than in 2007 while those of the UAE would surge 67 percent.
Kuwait’s income would surge by around 71 percent and Qatar’s by 68 percent. The revenues of Oman and Bahrain - which are not Oec members - would be rise 70 percent and 33 percent, respectively.
According to the report, Opec’s total income would jump by around 53 percent to a record $1.014 trillion this year from $598 billion in 2007.
Drollas said the forecast was based on a $110.8 oil price and average crude production by the 13-nation Opec of around 32.6 million barrels per day (bpd) compared to 30.7 million bpd in 2007.
Though the figures did not include revenue projections for Oman and Bahrain, the Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) said the earnings of those two GCC members are also expected to climb to a record $29 billion and $8 billion respectively.
Iran will be the third-largest earner in 2008 after Saudi Arabia and the UAE, with a projected income of $92 billion, the CGES report said.
Among other Opec countries, Angola’s earnings are estimated at $76 billion, Iraq’s at $71 billion, Venezuela’s at $73 billion, Nigeria’s at $66 billion, Libya’s at $60 billion, Algeria’s at $47 billion and Ecuador’s at $76 billion.
Indonesia, however, would suffer from a deficit of $8 billion because of its surging oil imports compared with around $5 billion in 2007.
According to the report, the four GCC Opec members - UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar - would account for nearly 52 percent of the group’s total income in 2008 compared to 51 percent in 2007.
Aug 21st, 2008
Dubai, Aug 21 Oil producing nations in the Gulf will earn a record $562 billion by the end of this year, as oil prices are expected to remain above $100 a barrel, according to a new report.
The London-based Centre for Global Energy Studies (CGES), in its monthly oil report for August, has said the combined oil export earnings of the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries will soar to their highest level of $562 billion this year even as they pumped at their highest level, the Emirates Business 24-7 newspaper reported.
Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) comprise the GCC.
‘The UAE’s income will swell to an all-time high of $97 billion while that of Saudi Arabia will surge to $307 billion and that of Qatar and Kuwait will peak at $89 billion and $32 billion respectively,’ the newspaper, which received a copy of the report ahead of its publication, said.
The income, it added, is nearly $234 billion above their 2007 revenues of $328 billion and more than four times their earnings of $137 billion in 2003.
In 1998, the GCC’s combined revenues plummetted to one of their lowest levels of around $56 billion after oil prices collapsed below $10 a barrel and averaged $12 through the year.
‘The revenue forecasts for the Gulf states and other Opec (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) members are based on an average Opec basket price of around $110.8 this year compared with nearly $69 in 2007,’ said Leo Drollas, deputy manager of CGES, said in the report.
Giving a breakdown, he said Saudi Arabia’s earnings this year would be nearly 75 percent higher than in 2007 while those of the UAE would surge 67 percent.
Kuwait’s income would surge by around 71 percent and Qatar’s by 68 percent. The revenues of Oman and Bahrain - which are not Oec members - would be rise 70 percent and 33 percent, respectively.
According to the report, Opec’s total income would jump by around 53 percent to a record $1.014 trillion this year from $598 billion in 2007.
Drollas said the forecast was based on a $110.8 oil price and average crude production by the 13-nation Opec of around 32.6 million barrels per day (bpd) compared to 30.7 million bpd in 2007.
Though the figures did not include revenue projections for Oman and Bahrain, the Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) said the earnings of those two GCC members are also expected to climb to a record $29 billion and $8 billion respectively.
Iran will be the third-largest earner in 2008 after Saudi Arabia and the UAE, with a projected income of $92 billion, the CGES report said.
Among other Opec countries, Angola’s earnings are estimated at $76 billion, Iraq’s at $71 billion, Venezuela’s at $73 billion, Nigeria’s at $66 billion, Libya’s at $60 billion, Algeria’s at $47 billion and Ecuador’s at $76 billion.
Indonesia, however, would suffer from a deficit of $8 billion because of its surging oil imports compared with around $5 billion in 2007.
According to the report, the four GCC Opec members - UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar - would account for nearly 52 percent of the group’s total income in 2008 compared to 51 percent in 2007.
Iran says oil may hit $100/barrel on geopolitics -Game plan -1
Reuters Friday, 4 August 2006
Iran's Deputy Oil Minister Mohammad Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian said on Friday global crude oil prices could touch $100 a barrel on geopolitical tension and soaring winter demand.
"There is still a possibility of crude reaching $100 a barrel due to geopolitical problems worldwide and peaking of winter demand," the minister, in the Indian capital for two days of talks on a proposed $7 billion gas pipeline, said.
He did not see the possibility of Iran withdrawing crude supplies from global markets in the event of U.S. military action against Tehran over its controversial nuclear program.
Concerns over Iran persisted as its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, insisted on the country's right to produce nuclear fuel, despite a United Nations resolution demanding that Tehran suspend its nuclear activities by Aug. 31
or face the threat of sanctions.
In the Middle East, the situation remains tense as hostilities between Israel and Hizbollah raged on despite efforts by the international community to agree on a ceasefire. Traders fear the conflict could spread to Middle East
oil producers.
Israeli warplanes pounded buildings in Beirut, which it said housed Hizbollah offices as both sides threatened to escalate the war. Hizbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah threatened to hit Tel Aviv if Israel struck at central Beirut.
An Iranian official warned oil prices could hit $200 if international sanctions were imposed on his country in its nuclear dispute with the West, though analysts shrugged off the remark as saber-rattling.
Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest crude exporter, believes oil should not be used as a weapon even if the conflict between Israel and Hizbollah escalates, its foreign minister said this week.
Adding to worries over supplies, an Iraqi pipeline carrying crude from the country's northern oilfields to Turkey's Ceyhan port was bombed on Monday, pushing back the planned restart of exports along the route.
Iran's Deputy Oil Minister Mohammad Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian said on Friday global crude oil prices could touch $100 a barrel on geopolitical tension and soaring winter demand.
"There is still a possibility of crude reaching $100 a barrel due to geopolitical problems worldwide and peaking of winter demand," the minister, in the Indian capital for two days of talks on a proposed $7 billion gas pipeline, said.
He did not see the possibility of Iran withdrawing crude supplies from global markets in the event of U.S. military action against Tehran over its controversial nuclear program.
Concerns over Iran persisted as its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, insisted on the country's right to produce nuclear fuel, despite a United Nations resolution demanding that Tehran suspend its nuclear activities by Aug. 31
or face the threat of sanctions.
In the Middle East, the situation remains tense as hostilities between Israel and Hizbollah raged on despite efforts by the international community to agree on a ceasefire. Traders fear the conflict could spread to Middle East
oil producers.
Israeli warplanes pounded buildings in Beirut, which it said housed Hizbollah offices as both sides threatened to escalate the war. Hizbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah threatened to hit Tel Aviv if Israel struck at central Beirut.
An Iranian official warned oil prices could hit $200 if international sanctions were imposed on his country in its nuclear dispute with the West, though analysts shrugged off the remark as saber-rattling.
Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest crude exporter, believes oil should not be used as a weapon even if the conflict between Israel and Hizbollah escalates, its foreign minister said this week.
Adding to worries over supplies, an Iraqi pipeline carrying crude from the country's northern oilfields to Turkey's Ceyhan port was bombed on Monday, pushing back the planned restart of exports along the route.
The Oil Play - Iran Russia-Veninsula -Black hands behind the Gloom
Turkey and Iran Potential Conflicts Mean Crude Oil on Course to Hit $100 per barrel
Tension in the Middle East has always been a favorite tactic for the “Axis of Oil” – Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, to keep the price of crude oil pegged at artificially high levels. Talk of war in the world's most unstable region can inflate a hefty “war premium” into each barrel of OPEC and Russian oil. In the Middle East, wars seem to break-out every few years, and lulls in the fighting are often just a timeout, in order to re-supply and prepare for the next round of combat.
Earlier this week, crude oil jumped $5.50 to as high as $89 /barrel in New York, and is commanding a “war premium” of roughly $10 /barrel. The price of West Texas Sweet is $10 /bl higher since Sept 12th, when the OPEC cartel agreed to boost its daily oil output by 500,000 to help meet winter demand. But the token increase in OPEC output has done little to hold down surging premiums for Mid-East oil.
Instead, with the Americans looking for a way out of the Iraqi quagmire, Arab oil kingdoms worry that if the US falters and Iraq degenerates into a failed state, it could spread instability and terror through the region. The ingredients are there for civil war on three levels, Arabs against Kurds, Shi'ites against Sunnis and everyone against the US, all battling for control of Iraq's 220 billion barrels of oil.
An accurate reading of the global supply and demand picture is certainly a big help in predicting global oil prices. But if one wants to point the “finger of blame” at the biggest culprit behind the historic rise in crude oil prices, it's no other than Federal Reserve chief Ben “B-52” Bernanke, whose decision to bail-out Wall Street brokers and banks this past summer, by slashing short-term interest rates, set in motion another US dollar devaluation, and sent global oil prices and gold sharply higher.
The Fed is the guardian of the world's top reserve currency, and has a responsibility to defend the purchasing power of the greenback, and keep global inflation in check. But when push comes to shove, Mr Bernanke has always voted to speed up the printing presses, to inflate the US economy out of a tough bind. Today, the US M3 money supply is 14.7% higher than a year ago, it's fastest in history, and up from 8% when Bernanke got his hands on the printing presses in March 2006.
Bernanke's money printing binges are supported by his cohorts at the Fed. On October 9th, St Louis Fed chief William Poole said, “I do not see any implication for inflation, at least with the magnitude of the US$ depreciation that we've seen so far. I did not see any evidence of a raft of dollar price increases for foreign goods. For manufactured goods, I think the pass through is very, very small,” he said.
On Sept 287th, Federal Reserve Governor Frederic Mishkin was trying to brainwash his audience at a globalization conference held in Washington DC. “Inflation has come down in the old-fashioned way. Tighter monetary policy and a commitment to price stability by central banks throughout the world have led to lower inflation and an anchoring of inflation expectations,” Mishkin declared. On Sept 11th, Mishkin said, “Gold was not a particularly useful indicator of inflation."
When answering an audience question about inflation after a speech before the New York Economic Club on Oct 15th, “B-52” Ben did admit, “One cannot deny that when the dollar depreciates there is some inflationary impact.” However, to alleviate any fears that the Fed might combat inflation with higher interest rates, Bernanke added, that “expectations for slower growth may moderate price increases." Yet history might judge Mr Bernanke harshly, for guiding the US economy into the "Stagflation" trap.
Whenever the stock market has a bad day, reporters from the mainstream media try to find plausible explanation, for why the market turned south. This week, the surge in crude oil prices above $85 per barrel was widely blamed for the market's sudden tremors. Yet since the first quarter of 2003, the Dow Jones Industrials and crude oil have thrived together in peaceful harmony, both climbing in unison to all-time highs. So why blame the stock market's downturn on an “oil shock” this week?
At what point, would sharply higher oil prices begin to rattle the global stock market? (This topic will be covered in an audio broadcast on October 17th, for paid subscribers to Global Money Trends). And how would Ben “B-52” Bernanke, react in a “Twilight Zone” episode in which crude oil jumps to $100 per barrel? Nobody knows for sure, but on October 21, 2004, Mr Bernanke responded to such as question, “I would argue that the Fed's response to the inflationary effects of an increase in oil prices should depend to some extent on the economy's starting point.”
“If inflation has recently been on the low side of the desirable range, and the available evidence suggests that inflation expectations are likewise low and firmly anchored, then less urgency is required in responding to the inflation threat posed by higher oil prices. In this case, monetary policy need not tighten and could conceivably ease in the wake of an oil-price shock,” Bernanke said. So don't be surprised if “B-52” Ben argues that a weak US economy and doctored inflation statistics, justify a further easing in Fed policy, pouring more gasoline on the flames of inflation, in the event of a surge in crude oil prices to $100 per barrel.
Turkish Saber Rattling lifts Crude Oil
Earlier this week, Turkish PM Recep Erdogan asked his parliament to approve plans for an invasion into northern Iraq to attack Kurdish militants, defying a US demand for restraint. Turkey built up its military forces on Iraq's border, a move meant to pressure Baghdad to rein in the rebels of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, who are launching raids into southeast Turkey from hideouts in Iraq. Turkey must also deal with its own rebellious Kurdish minority, which makes up 20% of its population.
But Ankara also has its eyes on a bigger prize, the oil fields of Kirkuk that contain 40% of Iraq's proven oil reserves. Ankara still holds its claim to Kirkuk, which was taken from Turkey as a result of the 1923 Lausanne Treaty. Turkish nationalists still regard it as historically part of Turkey. Ankara also asserts guardianship over the Turkmen ethnic minority in northern Iraq.
Ankara fears that Baghdad will allow the Kurds to make Kirkuk part of their autonomous zone. For Ankara, this would be excessive Kurdish autonomy, its red line in Iraq, and it might resort to military intervention to prevent the emergence of an oil-rich Kurdish political entity on its southern border.
Erdogan said his country will not be deterred by the diplomatic consequences if it decides to stage a cross-border offensive against Kurdish rebels. “If such an option is chosen, whatever its price, it will be paid. There could be pros and cons of such a decision, but what is important is our country's interests.” With regards to whether or not a Turkish invasion of Iraq could destroy the relationship with the US Erdogan said, “Let it snap from wherever it gets thin.”
Republicans call for Military Strike against Iran,
A possible Turkish invasion into northern Iraq is only a small sideshow compared to the heated rhetoric that's building up on the Republican campaign trail. On October 16th, Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani and John McCain said they would use military force against Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons. Giuliani said Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism that is seeking nuclear weapons, and needs to understand how the US would respond.
“Anybody who wants to be president of the United States would say a prayer at the beginning that you would never have to use American military power. But as president, you can't hesitate to do that, if it's in the best interest of the US. You have to stand up to dictators and tyrants and terrorists. Weakness invites attack. Strength keeps you safe,” Guilianni declared.
On Iran specifically, he said, “We've seen what Iran will do with ordinary weapons. If I'm president, I guarantee you we will never find out what they would do with nuclear weapons because they're not going to get them.” McCain agreed, “At the end of the day, we cannot allow the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons.”
On July 4th, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he would use military force against Iran if attempts to isolate and pressure its current regime fail. “I'm not going to shrink away from Iranian President Ahmadinejad,” Romney said. “Ahmadinejad is a dangerous man and a threat to US interests.” On Oct 16th, Romney added, “It's time to take Ahmadinejad at his genocidal word.”
On June 12th, the UN atomic agency said Iran could have 8,000 centrifuges enriching uranium by December, a significant rise in nuclear capability likely to fuel fears that Tehran seeks nuclear weapons. “The concern is that they will have a sensitive number of centrifuges without having resolved the question marks surrounding the history of Iran's program. It becomes a greater proliferation concern,” IAEA chief Mohamed El-Baradei told political leaders in private conversations.
Then on October 15th, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates called Iran “an ambitious and fanatical theocracy. With a government of that nature, only a united front of nations will be able to exert enough pressure to make Iran abandon its nuclear aspirations. Our allies must work together on robust, far-reaching and strongly enforced economic sanctions. We must exert pressure in the diplomatic and political arenas as well,” he said. “And, as President Bush has said, with this regime we must also keep all options on the table,” he said, in a veiled reference to possible military action.
Gates said Iran seems increasingly willing to act contrary to its own interests. “We should have no illusions about the nature of this regime or its leaders - about their designs for their nuclear program, their willingness to live up to their rhetoric, their intentions for Iraq, or their ambitions in the Gulf region.” Among the US objectives in the Middle East, Gates listed an “Iran that does not build nuclear weapons or holds Israel hostage with the threat of attack.
Gates will meet with Israel's new defense minister, Ehud Barak, in Washington on October 16th, to discuss the joint anti-missile Arrow-2 project, designed to intercept missiles that could deployed by Iran and Syria. Israel's satellite, the Ofek-7, flies over Iran, Iraq, and Syria once every 90 minutes.
Last month, Barak, Israel's most decorated soldier and legendary former commander of the Sayeret Matkal, directed an attack on a secret military compound near Dayr az-Zawr in northern Syria, inhabited by North Korean nuclear technicians. Today, the site lies in ruins after it was pounded by Israeli F15I's, reminiscent of the attack on Iraq's Osirak in 1980. The UK's Sunday Times said preparations for the attack began in May, when Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, presented PM Olmert with evidence that Syria was seeking to buy a nuclear device from North Korea. Dagan feared such a device could later be mounted on North-Korean-made Scud-C missiles. Sergei Kirpichenko, the Russian ambassador to Syria, warned President Bashar al-Assad last month that Israel was planning an attack, but suggested the target was the Golan Heights.
Equally important, the Pantsyr-S1E missiles, purchased by Syria from Russia, failed to down the Israeli jets that penetrated northern Syrian airspace from the Mediterranean. The “absolute jamming immunity” which the Russian manufactures promised for the Pantsyr missiles were immobilized by the superior electronic capabilities of the Israeli jets. Such valuable information on Russian missile consignments to Syria or Iran is vital to any US calculation of whether to attack Iran over its nuclear program. Iran is especially concerned over the failure of the Russian-made radar systems, and is slated to purchase more radar equipment in a future deal worth $750 million, the American weekly Aviation Week reported on October 4th.
Battle for the Strait of Hormuz,
On June 12th, Admiral Ali Shamkhani, a former Iranian defense minister, told the US Defense News weekly, in the event of an American attack on Iran's nuclear installations, “Ballistic missiles would be fired in masses against targets in Persian Gulf states and Israel. The objective would be to overwhelm US missile defense systems with hundreds of missiles fired simultaneously at specific targets.” He said Iran anticipates that US forces will strike without warning against its military's command-and-control network, and will order ballistic and cruise-missile battery crews to launch the plan within an hour after a US attack begins. In retaliation, “Iran will open a freeway for 40,000 suicide bombers from Afghanistan all the way to Lebanon, to strike in almost every country in the Middle East.
Most importantly, is the potential shutdown of oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategically important stretch of water between the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf. On average around 17-million barrels of oil is shipped thru the Straits of Hormuz each day, roughly 20% of the world's daily oil production.
The closing of the Straits for the passage of tankers will create a severe shortage that would send shock waves to the energy markets already beset by tight supplies and a limited spare capacity. It is anybody's guess as to how high the price of crude oil could go if Iranian threats were materialized. A surge above $100 per barrel could trigger a world economic recession of untold consequences.
Yet Tehran, with all of its threats and alleged ability to destroy anything that sails or floats in the Straits of Hormuz, might opt for a less risky retaliation, since the cessation of its crude oil exports and gasoline imports could bring down the Islamic regime. With unemployment rates as high as 20% any disruption in the levels of food and gasoline subsidies, from the drying up of oil revenues, could trigger a serious riot in the volatile Iranian street against the Mullahs in Tehran.
France hints at Military action against Iran,
One is not accustomed to hearing threats of war from the enlightened French government, but since Nicolas Sarkozy became the president of France and moved into the Elysee, France has changed course and is almost reflecting the same policies as the neo-cons of the United States. In his speech to the UN General Assembly on Sept 25th, Sarkozy said, “There will be no peace in the world if the international community falters in the face of nuclear arms proliferation.”
“If we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we would incur an unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world.” And in a broader warning against the dangers of appeasement, the new French leader said, “Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war.” Sarkozy said that if the UN Security Council was unable to agree on further financial sanctions, the European Union should take its own measures to raise pressure on Iran.
In light of the Iranian nuclear crisis, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner shocked the world on Sept 16th, “We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst, sir, is war,” he said in an interview on LCI television and RTL radio. Iran's state-run news agency IRNA angrily attacked the French government on Sept 18th, “The new occupants of the Elysee want to copy the White House,” it declared
Mr. Sarkozy went to Moscow on October 10th, urging tougher economic pressure on Tehran, but Russian kingpin Vladimir Putin quickly deflated the idea. “We don't have information showing that Iran is striving to produce nuclear weapons. That's why we're proceeding on the basis that Iran does not have such plans,” Putin said. The Kremlin is a member of the “Axis of Oil” and a staunch ally of Tehran, and is unlikely to agree to tougher economic sanctions on Iran.
In a visit to Tehran on October 16th, Putin declined to say when Russia will start delivering fuel to Iran's nuclear power plant in Bushehr. “At the moment Russia and Iran are discussing the issue of changing the contract. In general there is a common understanding of the problem. As soon as this is solved, supplies of nuclear fuel will start. Russia declares that it is committed to carrying out the contract,” Putin said
Oct 16th, Putin said Russia would not accept military action against Iran and he invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Moscow for talks. In comments aimed at the United States, Putin said, “We should not even think of using force in this region. We need to agree that using the territory of one Caspian Sea state in the event of aggression against another is impossible," he declared.
The Caspian nations of Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan backed Putin's call, saying “under no circumstances will we allow the use of our territories by third countries to launch aggression or other military action against any of the member states.” According to the UK Telegraph's Sept 16th edition, Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, anticipating that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons program are doomed to fail.
But the next day, US president Bush upped the ante, at a White House news conference, warning the world must do more to isolate the Islamic Republic. "We've got a leader in who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," Bush said. "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I'm looking forward to getting President Putin's read-out from the meeting, (in Iran). The thing I'm interested in is whether or not he continues to harbor the same concerns that I do. I look forward to having Vladimir Putin clarify his comments," Bush said
Senior American defense and intelligence officials told the Telegraph that Mr Bush's inner circle has decided not to leave office with Iran capable of developing a nuclear weapon. Yet should the Bush team decide to take military action against Iran's nuclear program, Venezuela's mercurial leader Hugo Chavez, has vowed to retaliate, by cutting-off two million bpd of oil exports to the US.
Chavez pushed two US oil giants, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil out of his country in June, as part of his socialist revolution, “This is the unity of the Persian Gulf and the Caribbean Sea,” he declared on a July 2nd visit to Tehran. Before heading to Iran, Chavez met Russian kingpin Vladimir Putin and called for a global revolution against Washington. He has also discussed possible purchases of submarines, surface to air missiles, and other weapons from Russia, arguing that these are needed to defend his oil-rich country against the United States. Last year, Russia sold 24 aircraft and 53 helicopters to Venezuela, worth $3 billion.
Tension in the Middle East boosts the Kremlin's Coffers
“A series of crises in oil supply is likely over the coming decades,” predicted Russian Industry and Energy Minister Victor Khristenko nearly two years ago, on October 24, 2005. “The first, related to the peak and decline of non-OPEC production, is practically upon us and underpins the currently high oil prices. The imminent inability of non-OPEC production to meet incremental demand and its decline after 2010 precipitates the second crisis as OPEC's diminishing spare capacity becomes less and less able to accommodate short-term fluctuations,” he said.
“The third crisis, due to OPEC's incremental supply being unable to meet incremental demand, follows in the first half of the next decade. This assumes that OPEC's reserves are as published. These crises will have global economic and geopolitical significance. The oil price will be high and volatile, and demand growth will have to be curtailed,” Mr Khristenko warned two years ago.
But alas, there are no central banks in the world that are willing to slow down their economies, to reduce the demand for crude oil. Just the opposite has transpired, with central banks in Australia, Brazil, China, the Euro zone, India, and the United States expanding their money supplies at double digit rates, and all aiming for maximum growth, through a game of competitive currency devaluations. The Bernanke Fed is the chief culprit behind the devaluation game.
Moscow is a big winner from tension in the Middle East, and a war between the US and Iran would only increase its clout on the world stage. Russia's foreign currency reserves have grown nearly 20-fold from four years ago to a record $415 billion, the third largest stash in the world, behind Japan and China. How Moscow decides to invest some of its stash in its new sovereign wealth fund, can have a big impact on global commodity and stock markets.
In keeping with world market trends, the Russian Finance Ministry lifted the tax of Russian oil exports by $26 to $250 per ton, which will bring even more money into the Kremlin's coffers. Russia's oil production has stagnated since growing 9% in 2004 and a record 11% in 2003, with growth of merely 2.7% last year, due to the higher tax burden, which is stifling investment in oil exploration and production.
Yesterday, the price of Russia's benchmark Urals crude oil rose to $81.25 per barrel, up from $25 per barrel just four years ago, helping to lift Russian exports to a record high of $31 billion in August. From January to August, Russia exported 160 million tons of oil, up 5% from a year ago. In cash terms, oil exports rose by 5.3% during the first eight months of this year to $69.7 billion. Exports to non-CIS countries amounted to 148 million tons worth $65.4 billion.
It's no wonder that Putin wants to stymie any UN initiative that can halt Iran's nuclear drive by non-military means. The current balance of tension and terror in the Middle East is bloating Kremlin's treasure chest. But if Mr Khristenko's outlook for peak oil after 2010 is correct, the Kremlin will see its clout and wealth multiply exponentially in the years ahead, with or without a war in the Middle East.
China deepens Ties with Tehran
Beijing is trying to strengthen its ties with Iran, its major supplier of crude oil and natural gas, required for its development and modernization. China imports 50% of its oil demand, and wants to reinforce its relations with Iran and reach the energy resources of the Caspian Sea to lessen its dependence on maritime oil imports from the Arab oil kingdoms of the Persian Gulf, securing an uninterrupted flow of oil.
Iranian crude oil-and gas reserves are largely untapped because of the threat of US sanctions on companies doing business with the Mullahs, leaving a large part of its petroleum fields unexplored. Since Tehran does not have adequate technology to increase its refined-oil production. China can assist Iran modernize its petroleum industry with technology, capital, engineering services and nuclear technology.
Beijing sees Tehran as a geopolitical ally to combat US influence in the Middle East, and wants to avoid United Nations sanctions against Iran. China buys 15% of its oil demand from Iran, and pays for its imports in Euros. Chinese crude oil imports hits a record high of 14.8 million tons in July, and in the first half of this year rose 11.2% from the same year-ago period to 81.54 million tons.
China's biggest oil producer, PetroChina, PTR.N, 0857.hk, would like to develop Iran's oil and natural gas fields. PTR.N's market value has soared to $460 billion, the second highest in the world, behind Exxon Mobil's $518 billion value. PetroChina is expected to announce big oil and natural gas discoveries in the northern Liaohe and Dagang areas, PTR.N Chairman Jiang Jiemin said on October 15th. The offshore finds will add to reserves from the Jidong Nanpu field, China's largest oil find in 50-years.
OPEC can't Stop Oil Spike
OPEC says there is no fundamental justification for a price run-up that has lifted oil from below $70 in mid-August. “OPEC cannot do much now,” said Libya's hawkish oil chief Shokri Ghanem on October 16th. “OPEC did all that it can. It is not because of a lack of crude oil. There is all the uncertainty in Iraq and the Gulf area,” he said. Indonesia's oil chief Maizar Rahman added, “The market fundamentals are in balance. There is too much speculative money coming into the market.”
“OPEC is carefully watching developments in the oil market and has observed with concern the recent escalation in oil prices. The rising oil prices which we are currently witnessing are, however, largely being driven by market speculators. Persistent refinery bottlenecks and seasonal maintenance work, ongoing geopolitical problems in the Middle East and fluctuations in the US dollar, also continue to play a role in pushing oil prices higher. Additional political tensions, seen during recent days, are also pressurizing oil prices upwards,” the cartel said on October 16th.
OPEC is reluctant to boost oil output beyond the scheduled 500,000 bpd increase in November, realizing that the Federal Reserve and other central banks are simply printing large amounts of monopoly money to pay for higher crude oil imports. To compensate for the fiat currency devaluations, OPEC seeks a higher oil price, and is expected to keep a tight rein on oil supply.
At some point, it would become necessary for the Bernanke Fed to reverse course, and start slowing down the money printing machine, if it wants to prevent an out-break of hyper-inflation. Yet one has to wonder if Mr Bernanke has the political license to tighten the money supply, when US Treasury chief Henry Paulson wants to keep the US stock market artificially high to offset weaker US home prices.
Tension in the Middle East has always been a favorite tactic for the “Axis of Oil” – Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, to keep the price of crude oil pegged at artificially high levels. Talk of war in the world's most unstable region can inflate a hefty “war premium” into each barrel of OPEC and Russian oil. In the Middle East, wars seem to break-out every few years, and lulls in the fighting are often just a timeout, in order to re-supply and prepare for the next round of combat.
Earlier this week, crude oil jumped $5.50 to as high as $89 /barrel in New York, and is commanding a “war premium” of roughly $10 /barrel. The price of West Texas Sweet is $10 /bl higher since Sept 12th, when the OPEC cartel agreed to boost its daily oil output by 500,000 to help meet winter demand. But the token increase in OPEC output has done little to hold down surging premiums for Mid-East oil.
Instead, with the Americans looking for a way out of the Iraqi quagmire, Arab oil kingdoms worry that if the US falters and Iraq degenerates into a failed state, it could spread instability and terror through the region. The ingredients are there for civil war on three levels, Arabs against Kurds, Shi'ites against Sunnis and everyone against the US, all battling for control of Iraq's 220 billion barrels of oil.
An accurate reading of the global supply and demand picture is certainly a big help in predicting global oil prices. But if one wants to point the “finger of blame” at the biggest culprit behind the historic rise in crude oil prices, it's no other than Federal Reserve chief Ben “B-52” Bernanke, whose decision to bail-out Wall Street brokers and banks this past summer, by slashing short-term interest rates, set in motion another US dollar devaluation, and sent global oil prices and gold sharply higher.
The Fed is the guardian of the world's top reserve currency, and has a responsibility to defend the purchasing power of the greenback, and keep global inflation in check. But when push comes to shove, Mr Bernanke has always voted to speed up the printing presses, to inflate the US economy out of a tough bind. Today, the US M3 money supply is 14.7% higher than a year ago, it's fastest in history, and up from 8% when Bernanke got his hands on the printing presses in March 2006.
Bernanke's money printing binges are supported by his cohorts at the Fed. On October 9th, St Louis Fed chief William Poole said, “I do not see any implication for inflation, at least with the magnitude of the US$ depreciation that we've seen so far. I did not see any evidence of a raft of dollar price increases for foreign goods. For manufactured goods, I think the pass through is very, very small,” he said.
On Sept 287th, Federal Reserve Governor Frederic Mishkin was trying to brainwash his audience at a globalization conference held in Washington DC. “Inflation has come down in the old-fashioned way. Tighter monetary policy and a commitment to price stability by central banks throughout the world have led to lower inflation and an anchoring of inflation expectations,” Mishkin declared. On Sept 11th, Mishkin said, “Gold was not a particularly useful indicator of inflation."
When answering an audience question about inflation after a speech before the New York Economic Club on Oct 15th, “B-52” Ben did admit, “One cannot deny that when the dollar depreciates there is some inflationary impact.” However, to alleviate any fears that the Fed might combat inflation with higher interest rates, Bernanke added, that “expectations for slower growth may moderate price increases." Yet history might judge Mr Bernanke harshly, for guiding the US economy into the "Stagflation" trap.
Whenever the stock market has a bad day, reporters from the mainstream media try to find plausible explanation, for why the market turned south. This week, the surge in crude oil prices above $85 per barrel was widely blamed for the market's sudden tremors. Yet since the first quarter of 2003, the Dow Jones Industrials and crude oil have thrived together in peaceful harmony, both climbing in unison to all-time highs. So why blame the stock market's downturn on an “oil shock” this week?
At what point, would sharply higher oil prices begin to rattle the global stock market? (This topic will be covered in an audio broadcast on October 17th, for paid subscribers to Global Money Trends). And how would Ben “B-52” Bernanke, react in a “Twilight Zone” episode in which crude oil jumps to $100 per barrel? Nobody knows for sure, but on October 21, 2004, Mr Bernanke responded to such as question, “I would argue that the Fed's response to the inflationary effects of an increase in oil prices should depend to some extent on the economy's starting point.”
“If inflation has recently been on the low side of the desirable range, and the available evidence suggests that inflation expectations are likewise low and firmly anchored, then less urgency is required in responding to the inflation threat posed by higher oil prices. In this case, monetary policy need not tighten and could conceivably ease in the wake of an oil-price shock,” Bernanke said. So don't be surprised if “B-52” Ben argues that a weak US economy and doctored inflation statistics, justify a further easing in Fed policy, pouring more gasoline on the flames of inflation, in the event of a surge in crude oil prices to $100 per barrel.
Turkish Saber Rattling lifts Crude Oil
Earlier this week, Turkish PM Recep Erdogan asked his parliament to approve plans for an invasion into northern Iraq to attack Kurdish militants, defying a US demand for restraint. Turkey built up its military forces on Iraq's border, a move meant to pressure Baghdad to rein in the rebels of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, who are launching raids into southeast Turkey from hideouts in Iraq. Turkey must also deal with its own rebellious Kurdish minority, which makes up 20% of its population.
But Ankara also has its eyes on a bigger prize, the oil fields of Kirkuk that contain 40% of Iraq's proven oil reserves. Ankara still holds its claim to Kirkuk, which was taken from Turkey as a result of the 1923 Lausanne Treaty. Turkish nationalists still regard it as historically part of Turkey. Ankara also asserts guardianship over the Turkmen ethnic minority in northern Iraq.
Ankara fears that Baghdad will allow the Kurds to make Kirkuk part of their autonomous zone. For Ankara, this would be excessive Kurdish autonomy, its red line in Iraq, and it might resort to military intervention to prevent the emergence of an oil-rich Kurdish political entity on its southern border.
Erdogan said his country will not be deterred by the diplomatic consequences if it decides to stage a cross-border offensive against Kurdish rebels. “If such an option is chosen, whatever its price, it will be paid. There could be pros and cons of such a decision, but what is important is our country's interests.” With regards to whether or not a Turkish invasion of Iraq could destroy the relationship with the US Erdogan said, “Let it snap from wherever it gets thin.”
Republicans call for Military Strike against Iran,
A possible Turkish invasion into northern Iraq is only a small sideshow compared to the heated rhetoric that's building up on the Republican campaign trail. On October 16th, Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani and John McCain said they would use military force against Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons. Giuliani said Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism that is seeking nuclear weapons, and needs to understand how the US would respond.
“Anybody who wants to be president of the United States would say a prayer at the beginning that you would never have to use American military power. But as president, you can't hesitate to do that, if it's in the best interest of the US. You have to stand up to dictators and tyrants and terrorists. Weakness invites attack. Strength keeps you safe,” Guilianni declared.
On Iran specifically, he said, “We've seen what Iran will do with ordinary weapons. If I'm president, I guarantee you we will never find out what they would do with nuclear weapons because they're not going to get them.” McCain agreed, “At the end of the day, we cannot allow the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons.”
On July 4th, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he would use military force against Iran if attempts to isolate and pressure its current regime fail. “I'm not going to shrink away from Iranian President Ahmadinejad,” Romney said. “Ahmadinejad is a dangerous man and a threat to US interests.” On Oct 16th, Romney added, “It's time to take Ahmadinejad at his genocidal word.”
On June 12th, the UN atomic agency said Iran could have 8,000 centrifuges enriching uranium by December, a significant rise in nuclear capability likely to fuel fears that Tehran seeks nuclear weapons. “The concern is that they will have a sensitive number of centrifuges without having resolved the question marks surrounding the history of Iran's program. It becomes a greater proliferation concern,” IAEA chief Mohamed El-Baradei told political leaders in private conversations.
Then on October 15th, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates called Iran “an ambitious and fanatical theocracy. With a government of that nature, only a united front of nations will be able to exert enough pressure to make Iran abandon its nuclear aspirations. Our allies must work together on robust, far-reaching and strongly enforced economic sanctions. We must exert pressure in the diplomatic and political arenas as well,” he said. “And, as President Bush has said, with this regime we must also keep all options on the table,” he said, in a veiled reference to possible military action.
Gates said Iran seems increasingly willing to act contrary to its own interests. “We should have no illusions about the nature of this regime or its leaders - about their designs for their nuclear program, their willingness to live up to their rhetoric, their intentions for Iraq, or their ambitions in the Gulf region.” Among the US objectives in the Middle East, Gates listed an “Iran that does not build nuclear weapons or holds Israel hostage with the threat of attack.
Gates will meet with Israel's new defense minister, Ehud Barak, in Washington on October 16th, to discuss the joint anti-missile Arrow-2 project, designed to intercept missiles that could deployed by Iran and Syria. Israel's satellite, the Ofek-7, flies over Iran, Iraq, and Syria once every 90 minutes.
Last month, Barak, Israel's most decorated soldier and legendary former commander of the Sayeret Matkal, directed an attack on a secret military compound near Dayr az-Zawr in northern Syria, inhabited by North Korean nuclear technicians. Today, the site lies in ruins after it was pounded by Israeli F15I's, reminiscent of the attack on Iraq's Osirak in 1980. The UK's Sunday Times said preparations for the attack began in May, when Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, presented PM Olmert with evidence that Syria was seeking to buy a nuclear device from North Korea. Dagan feared such a device could later be mounted on North-Korean-made Scud-C missiles. Sergei Kirpichenko, the Russian ambassador to Syria, warned President Bashar al-Assad last month that Israel was planning an attack, but suggested the target was the Golan Heights.
Equally important, the Pantsyr-S1E missiles, purchased by Syria from Russia, failed to down the Israeli jets that penetrated northern Syrian airspace from the Mediterranean. The “absolute jamming immunity” which the Russian manufactures promised for the Pantsyr missiles were immobilized by the superior electronic capabilities of the Israeli jets. Such valuable information on Russian missile consignments to Syria or Iran is vital to any US calculation of whether to attack Iran over its nuclear program. Iran is especially concerned over the failure of the Russian-made radar systems, and is slated to purchase more radar equipment in a future deal worth $750 million, the American weekly Aviation Week reported on October 4th.
Battle for the Strait of Hormuz,
On June 12th, Admiral Ali Shamkhani, a former Iranian defense minister, told the US Defense News weekly, in the event of an American attack on Iran's nuclear installations, “Ballistic missiles would be fired in masses against targets in Persian Gulf states and Israel. The objective would be to overwhelm US missile defense systems with hundreds of missiles fired simultaneously at specific targets.” He said Iran anticipates that US forces will strike without warning against its military's command-and-control network, and will order ballistic and cruise-missile battery crews to launch the plan within an hour after a US attack begins. In retaliation, “Iran will open a freeway for 40,000 suicide bombers from Afghanistan all the way to Lebanon, to strike in almost every country in the Middle East.
Most importantly, is the potential shutdown of oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategically important stretch of water between the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf. On average around 17-million barrels of oil is shipped thru the Straits of Hormuz each day, roughly 20% of the world's daily oil production.
The closing of the Straits for the passage of tankers will create a severe shortage that would send shock waves to the energy markets already beset by tight supplies and a limited spare capacity. It is anybody's guess as to how high the price of crude oil could go if Iranian threats were materialized. A surge above $100 per barrel could trigger a world economic recession of untold consequences.
Yet Tehran, with all of its threats and alleged ability to destroy anything that sails or floats in the Straits of Hormuz, might opt for a less risky retaliation, since the cessation of its crude oil exports and gasoline imports could bring down the Islamic regime. With unemployment rates as high as 20% any disruption in the levels of food and gasoline subsidies, from the drying up of oil revenues, could trigger a serious riot in the volatile Iranian street against the Mullahs in Tehran.
France hints at Military action against Iran,
One is not accustomed to hearing threats of war from the enlightened French government, but since Nicolas Sarkozy became the president of France and moved into the Elysee, France has changed course and is almost reflecting the same policies as the neo-cons of the United States. In his speech to the UN General Assembly on Sept 25th, Sarkozy said, “There will be no peace in the world if the international community falters in the face of nuclear arms proliferation.”
“If we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we would incur an unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world.” And in a broader warning against the dangers of appeasement, the new French leader said, “Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war.” Sarkozy said that if the UN Security Council was unable to agree on further financial sanctions, the European Union should take its own measures to raise pressure on Iran.
In light of the Iranian nuclear crisis, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner shocked the world on Sept 16th, “We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst, sir, is war,” he said in an interview on LCI television and RTL radio. Iran's state-run news agency IRNA angrily attacked the French government on Sept 18th, “The new occupants of the Elysee want to copy the White House,” it declared
Mr. Sarkozy went to Moscow on October 10th, urging tougher economic pressure on Tehran, but Russian kingpin Vladimir Putin quickly deflated the idea. “We don't have information showing that Iran is striving to produce nuclear weapons. That's why we're proceeding on the basis that Iran does not have such plans,” Putin said. The Kremlin is a member of the “Axis of Oil” and a staunch ally of Tehran, and is unlikely to agree to tougher economic sanctions on Iran.
In a visit to Tehran on October 16th, Putin declined to say when Russia will start delivering fuel to Iran's nuclear power plant in Bushehr. “At the moment Russia and Iran are discussing the issue of changing the contract. In general there is a common understanding of the problem. As soon as this is solved, supplies of nuclear fuel will start. Russia declares that it is committed to carrying out the contract,” Putin said
Oct 16th, Putin said Russia would not accept military action against Iran and he invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Moscow for talks. In comments aimed at the United States, Putin said, “We should not even think of using force in this region. We need to agree that using the territory of one Caspian Sea state in the event of aggression against another is impossible," he declared.
The Caspian nations of Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan backed Putin's call, saying “under no circumstances will we allow the use of our territories by third countries to launch aggression or other military action against any of the member states.” According to the UK Telegraph's Sept 16th edition, Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, anticipating that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons program are doomed to fail.
But the next day, US president Bush upped the ante, at a White House news conference, warning the world must do more to isolate the Islamic Republic. "We've got a leader in who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," Bush said. "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I'm looking forward to getting President Putin's read-out from the meeting, (in Iran). The thing I'm interested in is whether or not he continues to harbor the same concerns that I do. I look forward to having Vladimir Putin clarify his comments," Bush said
Senior American defense and intelligence officials told the Telegraph that Mr Bush's inner circle has decided not to leave office with Iran capable of developing a nuclear weapon. Yet should the Bush team decide to take military action against Iran's nuclear program, Venezuela's mercurial leader Hugo Chavez, has vowed to retaliate, by cutting-off two million bpd of oil exports to the US.
Chavez pushed two US oil giants, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil out of his country in June, as part of his socialist revolution, “This is the unity of the Persian Gulf and the Caribbean Sea,” he declared on a July 2nd visit to Tehran. Before heading to Iran, Chavez met Russian kingpin Vladimir Putin and called for a global revolution against Washington. He has also discussed possible purchases of submarines, surface to air missiles, and other weapons from Russia, arguing that these are needed to defend his oil-rich country against the United States. Last year, Russia sold 24 aircraft and 53 helicopters to Venezuela, worth $3 billion.
Tension in the Middle East boosts the Kremlin's Coffers
“A series of crises in oil supply is likely over the coming decades,” predicted Russian Industry and Energy Minister Victor Khristenko nearly two years ago, on October 24, 2005. “The first, related to the peak and decline of non-OPEC production, is practically upon us and underpins the currently high oil prices. The imminent inability of non-OPEC production to meet incremental demand and its decline after 2010 precipitates the second crisis as OPEC's diminishing spare capacity becomes less and less able to accommodate short-term fluctuations,” he said.
“The third crisis, due to OPEC's incremental supply being unable to meet incremental demand, follows in the first half of the next decade. This assumes that OPEC's reserves are as published. These crises will have global economic and geopolitical significance. The oil price will be high and volatile, and demand growth will have to be curtailed,” Mr Khristenko warned two years ago.
But alas, there are no central banks in the world that are willing to slow down their economies, to reduce the demand for crude oil. Just the opposite has transpired, with central banks in Australia, Brazil, China, the Euro zone, India, and the United States expanding their money supplies at double digit rates, and all aiming for maximum growth, through a game of competitive currency devaluations. The Bernanke Fed is the chief culprit behind the devaluation game.
Moscow is a big winner from tension in the Middle East, and a war between the US and Iran would only increase its clout on the world stage. Russia's foreign currency reserves have grown nearly 20-fold from four years ago to a record $415 billion, the third largest stash in the world, behind Japan and China. How Moscow decides to invest some of its stash in its new sovereign wealth fund, can have a big impact on global commodity and stock markets.
In keeping with world market trends, the Russian Finance Ministry lifted the tax of Russian oil exports by $26 to $250 per ton, which will bring even more money into the Kremlin's coffers. Russia's oil production has stagnated since growing 9% in 2004 and a record 11% in 2003, with growth of merely 2.7% last year, due to the higher tax burden, which is stifling investment in oil exploration and production.
Yesterday, the price of Russia's benchmark Urals crude oil rose to $81.25 per barrel, up from $25 per barrel just four years ago, helping to lift Russian exports to a record high of $31 billion in August. From January to August, Russia exported 160 million tons of oil, up 5% from a year ago. In cash terms, oil exports rose by 5.3% during the first eight months of this year to $69.7 billion. Exports to non-CIS countries amounted to 148 million tons worth $65.4 billion.
It's no wonder that Putin wants to stymie any UN initiative that can halt Iran's nuclear drive by non-military means. The current balance of tension and terror in the Middle East is bloating Kremlin's treasure chest. But if Mr Khristenko's outlook for peak oil after 2010 is correct, the Kremlin will see its clout and wealth multiply exponentially in the years ahead, with or without a war in the Middle East.
China deepens Ties with Tehran
Beijing is trying to strengthen its ties with Iran, its major supplier of crude oil and natural gas, required for its development and modernization. China imports 50% of its oil demand, and wants to reinforce its relations with Iran and reach the energy resources of the Caspian Sea to lessen its dependence on maritime oil imports from the Arab oil kingdoms of the Persian Gulf, securing an uninterrupted flow of oil.
Iranian crude oil-and gas reserves are largely untapped because of the threat of US sanctions on companies doing business with the Mullahs, leaving a large part of its petroleum fields unexplored. Since Tehran does not have adequate technology to increase its refined-oil production. China can assist Iran modernize its petroleum industry with technology, capital, engineering services and nuclear technology.
Beijing sees Tehran as a geopolitical ally to combat US influence in the Middle East, and wants to avoid United Nations sanctions against Iran. China buys 15% of its oil demand from Iran, and pays for its imports in Euros. Chinese crude oil imports hits a record high of 14.8 million tons in July, and in the first half of this year rose 11.2% from the same year-ago period to 81.54 million tons.
China's biggest oil producer, PetroChina, PTR.N, 0857.hk, would like to develop Iran's oil and natural gas fields. PTR.N's market value has soared to $460 billion, the second highest in the world, behind Exxon Mobil's $518 billion value. PetroChina is expected to announce big oil and natural gas discoveries in the northern Liaohe and Dagang areas, PTR.N Chairman Jiang Jiemin said on October 15th. The offshore finds will add to reserves from the Jidong Nanpu field, China's largest oil find in 50-years.
OPEC can't Stop Oil Spike
OPEC says there is no fundamental justification for a price run-up that has lifted oil from below $70 in mid-August. “OPEC cannot do much now,” said Libya's hawkish oil chief Shokri Ghanem on October 16th. “OPEC did all that it can. It is not because of a lack of crude oil. There is all the uncertainty in Iraq and the Gulf area,” he said. Indonesia's oil chief Maizar Rahman added, “The market fundamentals are in balance. There is too much speculative money coming into the market.”
“OPEC is carefully watching developments in the oil market and has observed with concern the recent escalation in oil prices. The rising oil prices which we are currently witnessing are, however, largely being driven by market speculators. Persistent refinery bottlenecks and seasonal maintenance work, ongoing geopolitical problems in the Middle East and fluctuations in the US dollar, also continue to play a role in pushing oil prices higher. Additional political tensions, seen during recent days, are also pressurizing oil prices upwards,” the cartel said on October 16th.
OPEC is reluctant to boost oil output beyond the scheduled 500,000 bpd increase in November, realizing that the Federal Reserve and other central banks are simply printing large amounts of monopoly money to pay for higher crude oil imports. To compensate for the fiat currency devaluations, OPEC seeks a higher oil price, and is expected to keep a tight rein on oil supply.
At some point, it would become necessary for the Bernanke Fed to reverse course, and start slowing down the money printing machine, if it wants to prevent an out-break of hyper-inflation. Yet one has to wonder if Mr Bernanke has the political license to tighten the money supply, when US Treasury chief Henry Paulson wants to keep the US stock market artificially high to offset weaker US home prices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)