Month: October 2016

Submitted by Alice Salles via TheAntiMedia.org,

Months before President George W. Bush’s speech on September 11, 2002, the New York Times reported at the time, White House officials confirmed the Bush administration had already been “[planning its Iraq strategy] long before President Bush’s vacation in Texas” in August of that same year.

The strategy was to persuade the public and Congress that the United States and its allies should confront the “threat from Saddam Hussein.”

The now infamous 9/11 anniversary speech — and the speech before the United Nations following the anniversary remarks — both stressed the importance of “[ridding] the world of terror.” But before speaking to the United Nations, Bush made the clearest case for war.

Claiming “our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions,” Bush presented his case against Iraq, claiming Hussein had only “contempt for the United Nations … [claiming] it had no biological weapons. ”

Making the case that Iraq had a clandestine “weapons program … producing tens of thousands of litres of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs and aircraft spray tanks,” Bush and his administration sold the invasion of Iraq with lies.

How the Bush Administration and the Media Sold the Iraq War

In 2003, Bush’s secretary of state, Colin Powell, laid out Bush’s rationale for war in Iraq, saying Iraq had been given several chances to “comply” with U.N. resolutions regarding the country’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.

He added that America had “proof” the Hussein regime had “evacuated” — not destroyed — its weapons, adding that the U.S. government had “satellite photos that indicate[d] that banned materials [had] recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities.” But what the media then failed to dig into was how the evidence presented by Powell had been introduced in a way that helped the administration make the case for war, even as Powell himself knew — or at least seemed to know — that there was a possibility they were putting “half a million troops in Iraq and march[ing] from one end of the country to the other [to] find nothing.”

On the day Powell delivered his speech, then-CIA operations officer Valerie Plame Wilson noticed his claims “simply did not match the intelligence which she had worked on daily for months.”

Making use of claims made by a discredited Iraqi defector code-named “Curveball,” Powell ignored the fact the CIA had deemed the source a “fabricator” and used the source’s shaky evidence to convince the media, as well as other global powers, they should all go along with the U.S. plan.

At the time, the New York Times, which had previously openly reported that the Bush administration had been planning on “selling” the Iraq war using the best marketing strategies at hand, published a number of opinion pieces reinforcing the idea that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. After reports proved Bush’s rationale for war had been debunked, the prestigious publication had to retract.

The late Michael Ratner, an attorney who served as the president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, once accused the “liberal media,” along with the government, of selling the Iraq war not by simply claiming Hussein had WMDs, but also “by claiming that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein, who led Iraq at the time, and al-Qaeda.”

By referring to al-Qaeda repeatedly during his U.N. speech, Powell spoke to people’s fears. That was a logical strategy considering the country had been healing from the 9/11 terror attacks. But the media failed to question this link, which had been established via a source who had been tortured.

Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi was a high-value CIA detainee who “provided bogus information” as he was waterboarded. As Ratner pointed out, anyone “would have said anything to stop being waterboarded.”

Then-Vice President Dick Cheney and other members of the Bush administration had pressured the CIA to find a way to connect Iraq and al-Qaeda, an effort that ultimately helped boost the case for war before the international community.

What the White House wanted finally materialized when officials tortured al-Libi.

The man who was waterboarded into providing phony info on the al-Qaeda link to Iraq later died in a Libyan prison of an apparent suicide.

Like Iraq, the Media Now Sells the Political Class’ Lies on Russia, Syria

When Bush was trying to sell the Iraq war to Congress, Hillary Clinton, then a New York senator, voted in favor of authorizing his administration to go into Iraq, basing her decision “as much on advice from her husband’s advisers as from Bush administration officials.”

While she now claims her vote was a mistake, she proved herself to be consistently pro-intervention as secretary of state under President Barack Obama and as a presidential candidate, having gone so far as to suggest that going against Russia in Syria by enacting a no-fly zone could “save lives and hasten the end of the conflict.” Privately, however, she gave a speech to Goldman Sachs in which she acknowledged establishing a no-fly zone is Syria would kill “a lot” of Syrian civilians.

Ever since the Arab Spring, the Obama administration has beat the war drums against Russia by pushing for more U.S. presence in Syria via official and unofficial means. Now, his choice for president is pushing the story that Russia — a.k.a. Syria’s partner in its war against Islamist rebels and ISIS terrorists — is illegally attempting to exert influence over the U.S. election — and the media embraces the move, publishing story after story claiming officials know the Kremlin was behind the cyber attacks against the Democratic National Committee and the election systems in Arizona and Illinois. Without evidence, however, these reports are toothless but still influential enough to make many Americans believe Russia is, indeed, a threat.

While Russia’s role in Syria isn’t as humanitarian as its officials would like us to believe, its proximity to Syria plays an important role in its own affairs, making its involvement in the conflict more logical than America’s.

Like al-Qaeda, ISIS fighters have repeatedly used U.S. intervention in the Middle East to recruit more fighters. And like what happened prior to the Iraq war, the U.S. government — and the Fourth Estate — are working tirelessly to sell the public on yet another unjustified war.

Luckily, Americans aren’t as gullible in 2016 as they were in 2003, as many now keep up with the news by seeking more independent channels.

But will the next administration bother to ask us our opinion before launching into another war?

via http://ift.tt/2ehI6EO Tyler Durden

… And the easiest way to confirm it, is to look at recent (and not so recent) home listings in Kensington and Chelsea, where we find something stunning: out of 130 pages of adverts, with 15 ads per page, nearly half of all properties, or 53 of the pages show price reductions.

Page 1

 

… through Page 53

 

And it will only get much worse: there are 23 pages worth of property that has been on the market for more than a year.

The liquidation sales are coming.

via http://ift.tt/2eCdbWG Tyler Durden

Submitted by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

GDP – The Problem

 

via http://ift.tt/2eLGOCT Tyler Durden

Submitted by Janet Tavakoli via The Gatestone Institute,

• The number one reason British "Leave" voters backed Brexit was for self-determination. — Mega-poll by Lord Ashcroft.
• Every time a social problem arises, one can randomly assign blame to a host country for not providing enough social support to newcomers. That benchmark, however, creates a shifting goalpost: how much is "enough"?
• Mayor Sadiq Khan focused only on what Britain should provide to newcomers not on what newcomers should initiate on their own to fit into a country they entered willingly.
• Mayor Khan's presentation seemed designed to pacify Westerners and enable the spread of the rule of Islam.

Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, addressed the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (CCGA) on September 15. Although his topic was "The Breakdown of Social Integration – The Challenge of Our Age," some crucial components of that challenge were notably absent from his presentation.

Even though Mayor Khan said he believes that, "London is the powerhouse" for his country and is "proud that London was the only region in England to vote to remain in the European Union" (some boroughs voted 80% "Remain"), when it came to the United Kingdom as a whole, he said that "my side" lost the referendum.

That strikes one as an odd way for the mayor of any city to talk. Isn't he the Mayor of all of London? Aren't the Londoners who voted for Brexit included on his "side"?

Brexit Voters Want Self-Determination

Mayor Khan claimed that for "Leave" voters, "immigration was the number one issue." However, Lord Ashcroft's mega-poll says otherwise. According to it, the number one issue for "Leave" (pro-Brexit) voters across Britain was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK."

In other words, the number one reason they backed Brexit was self-determination. "Leave" voters did not like European Union officials –people they did not elect — making laws that could overrule laws passed by British Parliament. Immigration and trade concerns were apparently less important.

Mayor Khan Appears to Prefer "Social Integration" to "Assimilation"

Mayor Khan also observed that Britain's "levels of social integration are not keeping pace with our changing population and growing diversity." That is hardly surprising: according to Khan, "One of three Londoners were born outside the UK," and "the number of immigrants arriving in Britain every year has doubled between 1997 and 2015."

Mayor Khan also said that he advocates "building bridges rather than walls" — a remark that was heard by many as a gratuitous sideswipe at the U.S. presidential candidate, Donald Trump, who is against illegal immigration and for vigorous vetting of legal immigrants. Mayor Khan later added: "Nobody mentioned Donald Trump here, which is very good." But of course he just had.

Mayor Khan added that he would like more "asylum seekers" and "refugees," and advocated "social integration." "I don't mean assimilation," he stressed; "I mean social integration." He loosely defines social integration as "a level playing field" with a clear set of values and laws, but he left the difference between social integration and assimilation — perhaps intentionally — unclear. Doesn't Britain already have clear values and laws?

What Mayor Khan seemed to be saying by advocating "social integration" rather than "assimilation" is that he not eager for Muslims to become more like the British ("assimilation") but that he would be comfortable with the British adapting to the Muslim way of life. The presence of more Muslims might accelerate this process of the British having to adapt to the way of life of a Muslim majority ("social integration"). What that would be followed by is anyone's guess. The historical pattern has been to invite the non-Muslims to convert, and those who do not are relegated to the status of second-class citizens or dhimmis, who willingly live under different laws for those of a lower status, who pay a yearly tax (jizya) to subsidize Muslims, and who accept being dominated rather than face up the threats of violence that would come from not accepting it.

The Mayor never explained why assimilation — along the lines of the common culture melting pot of the United States — would not provide a level playing field and an even more harmonious society.

Every time a social problem arises, one can randomly assign blame to a host country for not providing enough social support to newcomers. That benchmark, however, creates a shifting goalpost: how much is "enough"? This lack of clarity leaves the door open for perpetual unrest. No matter how much support a welcoming society provides for newcomers, it can always be accused of not doing "enough." Khan focused only on what Britain should provide to newcomers, not on what newcomers should initiate on their own to fit into a country they entered willingly.

In a recent speech, London Mayor Sadiq Khan focused only on what Britain should provide to newcomers not on what newcomers should initiate on their own to fit into a country they entered willingly.

Mayor Says Muslim, Mufti Says Apostate

In the same speech, Mayor Khan claimed that being a Muslim is compatible with Western culture. That would only be true if "Muslim" meant one who ordered Islam à la carte. Islam means submission, and Muslims seem to disagree on how much submission is "enough." Also, at present, for non-Muslims in the West, zero submission to Islam is their right. Fundamentalist Muslim leaders such as Mufti Muhammed Aslam Naqshbandi Bandhalevi disagree with Mayor Khan's views that Muslims can accept laws in the West and still be called Muslim. Islam has never gone through a reinterpretation of its laws, or Reformation.

What many people may not realize is that the "Caliph" of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has a PhD in Islam from the University of Baghdad, and that every single thing he does, even those that horrify us in the West, has a totally legitimate precedent in the official Islam of the Koran and the Hadith, the two texts, considered of equal importance, on which Islam is based.

Contrary to what our leaders in the West have been telling us — that the murders and other atrocities we have been witnessing have "nothing to do with Islam" — they are, unfortunately, not only permitted in Islam but commended. This is what we have been seeing in Israel the past century, long before there was a dispute over territory. The fundamental dispute is over a people who have since the rise of Mohammad in the seventh century, refused to submit to Islam and who are therefore regarded as infidels.

Mayor Khan himself has encountered this problem. He mentioned that there was a fatwa against him, but he did not mention who issued it; one wonders why.

What occurred was that Mufti Muhammed Aslam Naqshbandi Bandhalevi, head imam of a mosque in Bradford, issued the fatwa declaring Khan an "apostate," one who has renounced Islam, because Khan supported same-sex marriage.

Quite simply, traditional Islam seems incompatible with Western values.

"What," asked the biologist Richard Dawkins "is the penalty for apostasy?"

Mohamad Mukadam, Chairman of the Association of Muslim Schools, replied: "If it is an Islamic country, the sharia is very clear. Apostasy is dealt with the death penalty."

When a mufti in Britain issues a fatwa, it is from the same Islam as that practiced in Muslim countries. In 2004, film director Theo van Gogh and Dutch Member of Parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali made a movie critical of Islam. Mr. van Gogh was later murdered, shot and stabbed in Amsterdam. Amsterdam is in the Netherlands, not a Muslim country. Somali-born former-Muslim Hirsi Ali, now a naturalized U.S. citizen in the United States, still lives in the shadow of a death fatwa.

How many "asylum seekers" and "refugees" practice fundamentalist Islam and believe that sharia law should supersede laws passed by British Parliament?

Mayor Khan touts a fatwa as if it validates his liberal credentials, but he is far too coy about enumerating the dangers of flinging open one's borders to people who issue fatwas, much less to their followers who may fulfill them. Mayor Khan says being a Muslim is compatible with Western culture, but either he does not know Islam, a probability that is questionable, or he is misleading the British.

Khan also never once mentioned the social crisis of the rape of children in British cities, widely publicized in the British press. It is so shocking, with so many disturbing implications, that the Mayor's omission again seems to mislead Westerners about what immigration problems can occur.

Political Correctness Has Been Enabling Child Sex Abuse Gangs in Britain

The title of Khan's presentation was "The Breakdown of Social Integration – The Challenge of Our Age." However, isn't the epidemic rape of thousands of white children in Rotherham and other communities in England, and the official policy of ignoring the crisis for over a decade, the very definition of "breakdown of social integration"?

Officials were so unwilling to "rock the multicultural boat," that children were exploited, raped, and brutalized for more than a decade.

For several years, Sue Reid, a reporter for the Daily Mail, tried to expose these crimes. She was falsely accused of being a "liar and a racist."

In 2014, Home Secretary Theresa May blamed "institutionalized political correctness" for police and council agencies' failure in their duty to protect at least 1,400 chiefly white Rotherham children from chiefly Muslim Pakistani-heritage rape gangs from 1997-2013.

Similar crimes have occurred in other parts of the United Kingdom: Rochdale, Derby, Oxford, Bristol, Peterborough, and Keighley. In August, a fresh crisis was exposed in Telford, now dubbed the "child sex abuse capital."

Taken as a whole, Mayor Khan's presentation seemed to ignore unpleasant facts which suggest that there is more incompatibility of values than he is willing to admit — in the interest of pushing an immigration agenda favored by his "side."

Mayor Khan's presentation seemed designed to pacify Westerners and enable the spread of the rule of Islam.

via http://ift.tt/2dRFoor Tyler Durden

In our previous article The Secret Truth about Russia Exposed, we elaborated on how Russia is a convenient enemy for politicians and specifically the Democratic party, to create an enemy that really, well – doesn’t exist to distract and confuse voters.  But like with any ‘enemy’ if you bomb a village, you may have some pissed off villagers.  As we explain in our best selling book Splitting Pennies – the world doesn’t work the way you see on TV – in fact, it works more closely as seen on Zero Hedge.  Although Russia simply is just a country in the wrong place at the wrong time (which, throughout Russian history, seems to be a theme for them) – there really is a reason the Elite hate Russia.  It’s not because they’re Xenophobic, although there’s that too – it’s because of several key factors that make Russia a unique power in the world, compared to similar countries.

1. Russia is an independent country.  It’s not possible to manipulate Russia via external remote control, like it is most countries.  The Elite don’t like that!  Russia kicked out Soros “Open Society”:

Russia has banned a pro-democracy charity founded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros, saying the organization posed a threat to both state security and the Russian constitution. In a statement released Monday morning, Russia’s General Prosecutor’s Office said two branches of Soros’ charity network — the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and the Open Society Institute (OSI) — would be placed on a “stop list” of foreign non-governmental organizations whose activities have been deemed “undesirable” by the Russian state. 

2. Russia is not easy to cripple via clandestine means, whether it be CIA, MI6, or outright military conflict.  Some other BRICs however, that’s not the case.  Say what you will about Russia’s military – it’s on par and in many cases, advanced, compared to the US military.  And that’s not AN opinion, that’s in the opinion of top US military commanders:

Late in September, we brought you “US Readies Battle Plans For Baltic War With Russia” in which we described a series of thought experiments undertaken by The Pentagon in an effort to determine what the likely outcome would be should something go horribly “wrong” on the way to landing the US in a shooting war with Russia in the Balkans. 

The results of those thought experiments were not encouraging. As a reminder, here’s how Foreign Policy summed up the exercises:

3. Russian culture, and language, is too complex for the average “Elite” who pretends to be internationally well versed because they had a few semesters of French.  For example, when the diplomat Clinton was Secretary of State, she presented a reset button translating the opposite meaning… ooops.

“I would like to present you with a little gift that represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying and that is: ‘We want to reset our relationship, and so we will do it together.’ …

“We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?” she asked Lavrov, laughing. “You got it wrong,” said Lavrov, as both diplomats laughed.

“It should be “perezagruzka” [the Russian word for reset],” said Lavrov.”This says ‘peregruzka,’ which means ‘overcharged.’”

Yes, it’s almost a certainty that if Clinton by some horrible fate is President there will be Nuclear war.  Wars have been started over much more subtle mistakes.  One would think, that Clinton would have had an advisor CHECK THIS before presenting it in a public ceremony, in front of reporters?  How much more blatantly unprofessional can one be?  If politicians worked in the private sector, they wouldn’t last a day!  How do these people advance so far in politics?  

4. Plain and simple, the Elite do not control Russia.  While there are backchannels of Russian oligarchs that work directly with Western Rothschild interests, for example, they simply don’t have the same level of control as they do European countries, like Germany for instance.  Or another good example is China, there’s this fanatical talk that China can dump US Treasuries blah blah blah the fact is that China is completely dependent on USA and US Dollars, and will be for the rest of our lives.  Maybe in 1000 years in the Dong Dynasty still to come they will rule the world but it’s not going to happen anytime soon.  

Russia is one of the most highly misunderstood cultures in the West.  Which is strange, because Russia is more like America than any European country:

• Both Russia and America share huge landmasses with large undeveloped territory
• Both Russia and America are predominantly white christian majorities (although in last decades, America tries to be more of a melting pot whereas Russia favors ethnic cleansing)
• Both Russia and America fought against Hitler and the Nazis during World War 2, the defining event of the last 60 years

There have been numerous interesting situations where Russia helped America and America helped Russia on a number of levels, to learn more about it checkout the following books:

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution.  Armand Hammer: The Untold Story

Most interestingly, during the Nixon administration Kissinger was prodding Nixon to partner with Russia that would, in Kissinger’s view would create an unstoppable alliance, that no one could compete with such a superpower axis.  But, it didn’t happen, as there were ‘neo-cons’ who were against it, mostly Polish Catholics who have some deep genetic fear of any culture using the Cyrillic alphabet.  Nixon instead chose China (what a mistake!) and created Forex.  But the point being that, through a small slip of fate, “China” may have been in this alternative Kissinger reality the ‘Great Evil Enemy’ hacking our elections, as we drive across the Alaskan-Siberian highway without any speed limit, oil would be ten cents a gallon, and we wouldn’t need to war with the Middle East.

To learn more about how the world really works, checkout Splitting Pennies the book, or checkout Fortress Capital Trading Academy.

via http://ift.tt/2dNsxst globalintelhub

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

Here Are The Presstitutes Who Control American’s Minds:

 

 

Several top journalists and TV news anchors RSVPed “yes” to attend a private, off-the-record gathering at the New York home of Joel Benenson, the chief campaign strategist for Hillary Clinton, two days before she announced her candidacy in 2015, according to emails Wikileaks has published from John Podesta’s purported accounts.

 

I just heard an NPR presstitute declare that Texas, a traditional sure thing for Republicans was up for grabs in the presidential election. Little wonder if this report on Zero Hedge is correct. Apparently, the voting machines are already at work stealing the election for Killary.

*  *  *

From my long experience in journalism, I know the American public is not very sharp. Nevertheless, it is difficult for me to believe that Americans, whose jobs, careers, and the same for their children and grandchildren, have been sold out by the elites who Hillary represents would actually vote for her. It makes no sense. If this were the case, how did Trump get the Republican nomination despite the vicious presstitute campaign against him?

It seems obvious that the majority of Americans who have been suffering terribly at the hands of the One Percent who own Hillary lock, stock, and barrel, will not vote for the people who have ruined their lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren.

Furthermore, if Trump’s election is as impossible as the presstitutes tell us – Hillary’s win is 93% certain according to the latest presstitute pronouncement – the vicious 24/7 attacks on Trump would be pointless. Wouldn’t they? Why the constant, frenetic, vicious attacks on a person who has no chance?

There are reports that a company associated with Hillary backer George Soros is supplying the voting machines to 16 states, including states that determine election outcomes. I do not know that these reports are correct. However, I do know for a fact that the oligarchic interests that rule America are opposed to Trump being elected President for the simple reason that they are unsure that they would be able to control him.

It is hard to believe that dispossessed Americans will vote for Hillary, the representative of those who have dispossessed them, when Trump says he will re-empower the dispossessed. Hillary has denigrated ordinary Americans who, she says, she is so removed from by her wealth that she doesn’t even know who they are. Clearly, Hillary, paid $675,000 by Goldman Sachs for three 20-minute speeches, is not a representative of the people. She represents the One Percent whose policies have flushed the prospects of ordinary Americans down the toilet.

What is really disturbing is the pretense by the presstitute scum that Trump’s lewd admiration for female charms is deemed more important than the prospect of nuclear war. At no time during the presidential primaries or during the current presidential campaign has it been mentioned that Russia is being assaulted daily by propaganda, threatened by military buildups, and being convinced that the United States and its European vassals are planning an attack.

A threatened Russia, made insecure by inexplicable hostility and Western propaganda, is a danger manufactured by the neoconservative supporters of Hillary Clinton.

If the American people are really so unbelievably stupid that they think lewd remarks about women are more important than avoiding nuclear war, the American people are too stupid to exist. They will deserve the mushroom clouds that will wipe them and everyone else off the face of the earth.

Donald Trump is the only candidate in the primaries and the general election who has said that he sees no point in conflict with Russia when Putin has shown nothing but desire to work things out to mutual advantage.

In contrast, Hillary has declared the thrice-elected president of Russia to be “the new Hitler” and has threatened Russia with military action. Hillary talks openly about regime change in Russia.

Surely, in a free media at least one person in the print and TV media would raise this most important of all points. But where have you seen it?

Only in my columns and a few others in the alternative media.

In other words, we are about to have an election in which the important issue has played no role. And yet allegedly we are the exceptional, indispensable people, a people’s democracy protected by a free press.

In truth, this mythical description of America is merely a cloak for the rule of the Oligarchs. And the Oligarchs are risking life on earth for their continual supremacy.

via http://ift.tt/2dR9o45 Tyler Durden

As warned here one month ago after the farcical OPEC meeting in Algiers, the cartel’s latest jawboning ploy to keep prices artificially higher – if only for one more month – is fast falling apart. Just a few hours ago, Bloomberg reporter Daniel Kruger penned the following assessment of the situation:

Production-Cut Talk Is as Good as It Gets for Oil. Some OPEC members are talking about cutting production again, and so prices are rising. Saudi Arabia and other producers both in and out of the cartel have done a good job fostering the storyline that there are terms under which parties can agree to pump less crude. Continuing signs of concord among producer nations have boosted oil prices to an average of $50 a barrel this month in New York. Yet several obstacles make it difficult for countries to commit to signing on to a deal. One obstacle is that sacrifices are needed for the agreements to succeed. Another is that those sacrifices aren’t shared equally.

 

Having successfully raised $18 billion in the bond market, Saudi Arabia is better positioned to withstand the loss of some revenue. Iraq, OPEC’s second-biggest producer, was the latest to plead for an exemption from a cut, citing its fight against Islamic State as a cause of hardship. Ultimately, no one wants to pump less because the upside is so limited. Saudi Arabia’s 2014 decision to double down on production in a drive for market share succeeded in making it more difficult for higher-cost producers to thrive as they once had. But having committed to that goal, they also locked themselves into a fight to keep what they’d won.

 

And while ConocoPhillips’ announcement this week that it plans to cut spending on major projects demonstrates the partial success of the Saudi plan to drive out rivals, it also shows producers see  diminishing chances for crude to climb much above $60, said Wells Fargo Fund Management’s James Kochan. The big reason, of course, is latent U.S. supply. Baker Hughes data shows the most rigs at work in the Permian Basin since January. Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Bob Brackett suggests the per-acre price of drilling lease land will rise to $100,000 from about $60,000 now.  

 

The one agreement players seem to have reached is that oil isn’t able to go much higher.

That oil’s upside is capped at this point is clear; in fact as both Goldman and Citi have warned, unless OPEC can come to a definitive and auditable agreement – no just another verbal can kicking – in which the member states, by which we mean almost entirely Saudi Arabia as most of the marginal producers are exempt or want to be, immediately curtail production, oil will promptly crash to $40 or below.

But an even more amusing twist is that a plunge in oil prices may be just what US shale producers are waiting for. The reason for that is that while OPEC has been busy desperately jawboning oil higher, US producers have been thinking of the inevitable next step, oil’s upcoming reacquaintance with gravity. As a result, as the EIA reports, the amount of WTI short positions held be producers and merchants is just shy of a decade high.

According to a recent EIA report, short positions in West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil futures contracts held by producers or merchants totaled more than 540,000 contracts as of October 11, 2016, the most since 2007, according to data from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Banks have tightened lending standards for some energy companies as crude oil prices declined throughout 2014 and 2015, and some banks require producers to hedge against future price risk as a condition for lending.

Short positions of WTI futures increased at a faster pace than futures contracts of Brent (an international crude oil benchmark) since summer 2016, suggesting U.S. producers are able to drill for oil profitably in the $50 per barrel range. In the Crude Oil Markets Review section of the October Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) discusses an increase in U.S. onshore producers’ capital expenditures that is contributing to rising drilling activity, which EIA projects will lead to an increase in U.S. onshore production by the second quarter of 2017.

* * *

Which closes the circle of irony: almost exactly two years ago, Saudi Arabia set off a sequence of events with which it hoped to crush US shale producers and its high cost OPEC competitors. It succeeded partially and briefly, however now the remaining US shale companies are more efficient, restructured, have less debt, a far lower all-in cost of production; and – best of all – they will all make a killing the next time oil plunges, as it will once OPEC’s hollow gambit is exposed.

Meanwhile, the last shred of OPEC credibility will be crushed, the truly high cost oil exporters within OPEC will suffer sovereign defaults and social unrest, as will Saudi Arabia. The good news for Riyadh is that at least it got a $17.5 billion in fresh cash from a bunch of idiots who will never get repaid. We are curious just how long that cash will last the country which burned through $98 billion just last year, before the threat of social unrest and financial system collapse returns? Two months? Three?

via http://ift.tt/2eM6Jgn Tyler Durden