
Oil's Collapse Is a Geopolitical Reset in Disguise - jseliger
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-29/covid-19-oil-collapse-is-geopolitical-reset-in-disguise
======
xiaolingxiao
I found this part really interesting: "For dozens of oil producers, the plunge
in oil prices is devastating. No major oil producer can balance its budget at
prices below $40; according to the International Monetary Fund, with the
exception of Qatar, every country in the Middle East requires at least $60,
with Algeria at $157 and Iran at a whopping $390. The average Brent price of
oil over the past month has been a hair above $20."

It's fascinating the cost of extracting oil is so high in Iran in particular,
a country that is under constant sanction by the US. I wonder how much of the
cost is due to the sanctions and disturbance in trade (ie Iran cannot import
key technologies), and how much of it is because Iran's oil deposits is just
"harder" to drill.

~~~
rckoepke
Iran's oil is not expensive to extract. These aren't marginal break-even
prices on each barrel of oil...rather they're how much their current oil
production would have to be sold for in order to balance their national
budget, which includes defense and healthcare and whatnot.

79% of Iran's exports are unrefined crude oil:
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Islamic_Republic_of_...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Exports_Treemap_2017.svg)
(edited to 2017)

Countries typically "go bankrupt" in a practical sense (with very noticeable
real-world effects on the local citizens) when their foreign reserves run out.

~~~
fyfy18
Why can't they just take loans like most Western countries do to balance their
budget? The UK has been running at a deficit (£55 billion in the last budget)
since 2002.

Based on my back of the napkin math, the UK would need to export it's oil
(yes, the UK is a net exporter of oil) at $350/barrel to cover that.

~~~
rckoepke
> Based on my back of the napkin math, the UK would need to export it's oil
> (yes, the UK is a net exporter of oil) at $350/barrel to cover that.

In a vacuum this isn't really a good-faith argument. It can be used to
illustrate limited concepts, as another user did in this thread, but it's not
really a valid point in general for anything. That's because the question of
"what price of oil does [country] need?" only makes sense for countries where
the supermajority of their GDP is based on resource extraction.

UK to Iran is not a great comparison because only 4.5% of UK's exports are
crude oil.
[https://oec.world/en/profile/country/gbr/](https://oec.world/en/profile/country/gbr/)

Second, trade only makes up 30% of the UK's GDP, meaning it can and does
better leverage its domestic production to meet domestic needs.

Lastly, the UK has not been nearly as dependent on exports to balance foreign
reserves as Iran is. Due to its uncommon status as a global financial hub, I
think it has other ways to ensure it can continue to finance trade.

------
8bitsrule
I found the word 'climate' appears once in the article. Which is more times
than it appears in the comments so far.

So, perhaps, not that much of a reset in terms of keeping fossil fuels in the
ground. And it's such a fine time to address that question.

------
voz_
Additional detail: The author was one of the architects for major pieces of
the Iraq war, including the surge.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan_O%27Sullivan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan_O%27Sullivan)

~~~
Iv
To me the most relevant part was this:

> She was an assistant to Paul Bremer in the Coalition Provisional Authority.
> She was Senior Director for Iraq at the United States National Security
> Council.

Around that time, Bremer decided to bar former ba'ath officer from either
serving the new military or getting pension. That decision almost single-
handedly created the backbone of the terrorist networks that would become
ISIS.

People from that admin should be shunned from any published analysis but
failing that, I am happy that forums like this allows us to augment their
biographies.

On the other hand, I have yet to see a Bloomberg article not about finance
that was not misinformed. Those about tech especially are pretty bad, and
every time I dug a bit around their geopolitical analysis, I was pretty
underwhelmed.

~~~
jeffdavis
"People from that admin should be shunned from any published analysis"

Interestingly, it was GWB that also put a lot of effort into pandemic
preparedness. See: [https://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/pandemi...](https://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/pandemic-influenza.html)

History is kind of a weird place.

~~~
dantheman
GWB is war monger and torturer.

Sure he may have done some things that are good, but he made many horrible
decisions.

~~~
divbzero
Among the good things, George W. Bush contributed more to the fight against
HIV/AIDS than any other president. [1]

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Emergency_Plan_f...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief)

~~~
boomboomsubban
I can't find the full funding breakdown, but I'd guess Obama contributed more.
Purely as he had 8 years to Bush's 5 though.

~~~
majewsky
George W. Bush held office for 8 years. You may be thinking of his father,
George H. W. Bush.

~~~
boomboomsubban
Bush started that program in 2003.

------
twomoretime
People are really optimistic in the industry. I am active in petroleum circles
and many are convinced that this is another temporary downturn and we'll
always need oil.

All I see is public sentiment turning against fossil fuels and an inevitable
death for 90% of the industry as we move away from petroleum. We only use
something like >20% of raw petroleum for plastic and medicine and such. And
the price curve is not linear, so the oil necessary to satisfy the first 20%
of today's demand is probably priced some absurdly low number, my gut says
less than $20.

It feels like our entire geopolitical system is crumbling. A vulnerable state
had been brewing for a long time. Coronavirus was the trigger. Perhaps the
american hegemony was not sustainable, or recently became such. For those
unaware, petroleum really does factor into a lot of worldbuilding that we do
in the middle east. Major shifts in oil markets typically mean major shifts in
geopolitics.

Interesting times ahead.

~~~
jariel
5 billion people on planet earth living in poor countries do not care about
the negative effects of oil. They are making quite a lot more money and want
to buy cars.

If the last 30 years was about the rise of China, the rest of the century is
going to be about the rise of 'the rest of the world'.

Pre 2000 it was as if these places didn't exist - they had no money. Just
people in huts.

But now they want Hondas and iPhones and there are a lot of them.

The US was 1/3 of the world economy, but less than 10% of it's population. Not
it's like 22% of world economy.

This is the 'macro macro' thing that will be the biggest driver of everything.

~~~
twomoretime
The entire global economy is grinding to a halt and we may be sitting on top
of a global depression for years to come.

Those 5 billion are going to have to wait. Also, it may be harsh but if
history is any indication, these people are unlikely to gain access to oil
themselves - which means they're dependent on probably their neighbors
(developing countries probably are sensitive to shipping/deliver charges)
which means that their demand is subject to international sanctions if, say,
G20 decides to wean the globe from petroleum. So if the west decides no more
fossil fuels, these people will likely stay in huts until they stumble upon
reserves in their country (unlikely) or find another civilization-sustaining
energy source.

You think oil dependence will last forever? Also with the rise of the
internet, you don't think people in developing countries are likely to give
preference to renewables if the price is within reach? Everything's getting
cheaper.

~~~
jariel
No, they will get the oil, and low prices will only expedite that.

Nobody, not the entire EU/West and certainly not anyone else is going to say
to poor Africa and Asia: 'you can't use Oil', moreover, nobody is going to
send troops to Nigeria to stop exports, or embargo Indonesia and Pakistan or
wherever from receiving oil.

It's like telling 5 billion people they can't use tapped water or water wells
that they have to 'figure something out'.

It's a non-starter.

The only shift will be economic - either Oil is too expensive - or - in some
situations, solar might be cheaper. Which it will be, but for the most part,
there is no end in sight to oil.

If there is a magic leap in solar and battery tech, and China pumps out super
cheap electric cars that can be re-fueled cheaper than gas and there's enough
sunlight, that would work. But that's not in the cards.

~~~
demosito666
> It's a non-starter.

If half a year ago someone would tell me that the entire world will be shut
down because of some kind of a flu, I wouldn't even consider this: it's a non-
starter. And yet here we are.

I can easily imagine a mind shift amongst current world powers that will be
strong enough to reduce fossils usage to half of existing levels. And since
they have all means to enforce this on developing world, I wouldn't dismiss
this possibility.

~~~
jariel
A 'Deus Ex-Machina' argument is not an argument.

Yes, we could invent some magical technology tomorrow that solved all of our
energy problems, but lacking divine intervention - there is no foreseeable
path in which the Oil stays in the ground.

Telling the 3rd world they must stay poor because 'we already used up all the
Co2 emissions' is not going to work. Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iran, etc. etc.
will sell Oil to willing buyers.

~~~
demosito666
> Telling the 3rd world they must stay poor because 'we already used up all
> the Co2 emissions' is not going to work.

Why not? To sell oil you need massive and fragile infrastructure in place:
pipelines, storage tanks, terminals, etc. This infra can be easily controlled.
As soon as world powers decide that the damage done to the planet outweighs
economic effects of cheap energy, they can easily impose global limit on oil
trade. Which can be enforced by both economic and military means.

------
ggm
The shift from coal catapulted.. it took years. First, technology had to shift
to oil as a commodity beyond oil bunkers for battleships. Second, the nation
states had to get out from ruinously bad national oil deals which also led to
the Pahlavi regime, hatred of the British in Iran, the CIA and other bodies.
This was not a catapult. It was a long slow dangerous and corrupt slide.

~~~
pas
This sounds very important, but somehow very scarcely known. Could you point
to some sources about this?

~~~
dredmorbius
Despite being very much an apologist for and champion of the oil industry,
Daniel Yergin's _The Prize_ is outstanding.

Vaclav Smil's _Energy and Civilization_ and books on energy transitions gives
a mostly energy-physics and technological bacground on the coal-oil transition
(and ag-coal previously). Manfred Weissenbacher's _Sources of Power_ adds in
some of the political dimension.

------
msla
There's a current idea that the USSR collapsed due to oil shock:

[https://thetyee.ca/News/2013/03/13/Soviet-Union-
Oil/](https://thetyee.ca/News/2013/03/13/Soviet-Union-Oil/)

The actual scientists say it's more complicated. As you should expect:

[https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/03/29/formation-and-
evolu...](https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/03/29/formation-and-evolution-of-
soviet-union-s-oil-and-gas-dependence-pub-68443)

------
spicyramen
Mexico is planning to build a new refinery, while oil is key it is also
important to mention which countries have the technology to process this extra
oil into products. Mexico depends on US technology to do this for their gas.
Once they built the new refinery this no longer going to happen. Something
important to consider for our balance sheet and American workers

~~~
pas
One refinery won't change the world overnight.

There are already multiple refineries in Mexico: [https://argus-public-assets-
us.s3.amazonaws.com/2018/07/17/2...](https://argus-public-assets-
us.s3.amazonaws.com/2018/07/17/20180717wheremexico%E2%80%99spresident-
electwantstobuildrefineries17072018054506.jpg)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#Mexico](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#Mexico)

------
alextheparrot
What happened to Iran between 2018 and 2019?

The author links to data [1], which states that Iran needs $319 / barrel oil
to balance its budget. Between 2018 and 2019, this number jumped from $67 (In
line with the rest of the region) to $244.

I feel like this statistic was trotted out and means something different from
what I'd casually read it as.

Iranian exports fell significantly between 2018 and 2019 [2], it seems because
of the fallout of the Iran nuclear deal and resumed sanctions [3]. There was a
69% decrease (1800 units to 570 units), which, means the calculated number
would be ~3x higher, or about $211 a barrel. Which means the "statistic"
doesn't really tell us what we think - that Iran can only profitably produce
oil at >$200 a barrel - but that US sanctions have crippled Iran's ability to
use oil as a primary source of national income.

To be fair, I'd love to see the author do the math on US oil. Actually, I'll
take a stab at it. If the US tried to balance its physical budget (Let's say
$984B in 2019 [3]) based entirely on increasing the price of current US oil
exports (770,000 barrels a day [4]), how much would the price of oil need to
rise?

770,000 barrels a day * 365 = 280M barrels of oil

$984B/280M barrels of oil = $3,514

The US would need to make an additional $3514 per barrel of oil to balance its
physical budget, which is an increase from $63 a barrel to $3,577 a barrel.

Can you imagine a journalist writing this as a supporting figure? "US, implied
to be a failing state as it is the largest number here, requires $10,000 a
barrel oil to balance budget". Yes, that statement is a bit biased, but I'm
willing to defend that this is how the US media most often interfaces with
Iran.

One critique I would expect is along the lines of "Iran is more dependent on
oil for its economy". Iran's GDP is 23% oil [6], whereas the US is around 8%
[7]. I think the story still stands out as a bit insane, even if we adjust for
"Expected contribution by GDP %", which would still put us well-north of
$1,000 a barrel oil.

I don't mean to state that this is my fully-formed opinion, yet, but I think
it is worth discussing these either (A) misleading (B) uninterpretable without
far greater work "data facts" actually add little value to the story, and
instead (seem to) further a narrative. This is in opposition of the
traditional scientific approach, where we state our expectation and validate
or invalidate that conclusion, with the author being expected to prove instead
of just say something with "QED" implicitly attached. This critique, now,
seeks to be a more general one: Data-driven media seems be misunderstood as a
narrative where the data is in the driver's seat -- in reality it has let
anyone ride shotgun as long as they get along with the driver.

[1]
[https://data.imf.org/regular.aspx?key=60214246](https://data.imf.org/regular.aspx?key=60214246)

[2]
[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IRNNXGOCMBD](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IRNNXGOCMBD)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget)

[4]
[https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42735](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42735)

[5] [https://countryeconomy.com/raw-
materials/brent?dr=2019-11](https://countryeconomy.com/raw-
materials/brent?dr=2019-11)

[6]
[https://tradingeconomics.com/iran/gdp](https://tradingeconomics.com/iran/gdp)

[7] [https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/taxes/oil-and-
nat...](https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/taxes/oil-and-natural-gas-
contribution-to-us-economy-fact-sheet)

Edit: Formatting

~~~
rckoepke
There are definitely some ideas worth talking about here. But at the end of
the day, Iran will be facing a foreign-reserve crisis in three years if it
can't find ways to balance the national budget. It probably has 3 years at
current rates to improve the situation before it faces difficulty importing
goods essential to its economy and welfare.

~~~
alextheparrot
That's true in a global context, and I think warrants a discussion. I expect,
however, in this article that the discussion would be accompanied with the
obvious related fact: this statistic is mostly caused by US geopolitical
policy by decreasing the number of barrels which can be exported.

A US writer supports the header "Prepare for more fragile, or even failed,
states and the risks that can accompany them.", with these facts. I find it
quite disingenuous, I'd be happy to discuss that if we disagree.

The language makes people (Some of them even in this thread) think that there
is something intrinsic to Iran as a state, rather than just US geopolitical
policy causing chaos for banana republics and oil adversaries of the US.
Overall, the fact isn't linked at all to oil's current collapse (Which is the
article's context), as Iran is still in a horrible spot even if the price
doesn't collapse.

------
aantix
Time to buy oil stock.

Tesla is the only real electric hope, and they have many many years before
they supplant combustion based vehicles.

~~~
core-questions
Pretty much. As soon as we all get moving again, the demand is going to ramp
back up to previous levels; higher in some cases as industries work harder to
fill backlogs. It's not like all the oil-consuming things have disappeared in
two months.

~~~
glenvdb
I think the ramp will be much longer and gradual than people expect though.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
News I've read in the UK over the last week includes BA laying off a quarter
of its staff and stopping flights from Gatwick, Rolls Royce laying off 3,500
staff, Airbus contemplating layoffs. These people put their money where their
mouth is and they don't see a quick recovery.

------
mFixman
There's a thing I don't understand and could use some explanation.

Didn't this same thing happen at a lower level in 2014, when Saudi Arabia
pumped a lot of oil to international markets to bankrupts American shale oil
producers? And didn't the price go back up after some time when the Saudi
government couldn't afford breaking up OPEC?

Why can't the same thing happen now? The price and supply of world oil is
almost completely controlled by Saudi Aramco, and there's nothing preventing
them from increasing the price in the future.

~~~
Macha
1\. It takes time to adjust to demand changes and they're hoping covid19
restrictions ease in a reasonable time frame and demand goes at least
partially back. 2\. Russia started flooding the market prior to this to
disrupt the saudis and US oil producers. Cutting production would need their
collaboration or they've ceded market share and influence to Russia.

~~~
mFixman
Like that very article says, Russia needs a much higher oil price than most
countries in the Middle East to keep a positive balance.

Demand will come back after the pandemic is over, and the Russian government
can't flood the market for very long.

~~~
afjl
They can flood the market for as long as they have foreign reserves. Over the
last several years, Russia has steadily reduced its budget's dependence on oil
revenues, and bolstered foreign reserves/gold. They probably do have enough
foreign reserves/gold to outpump the Saudis and drive the price so low that
the Saudis start burning through their own reserves.

And I believe Putin has a stronger grip over his own people than MBS, so in a
race to the bottom I think Russia could definitely come out "on top".

I really dislike the article's mention of "balanced budget" oil prices, it
distracts from more salient arguments when presented alone. For proper
analysis, the author should have provided more numerical data, like
foreign/gold reserves, budget comparisons (historically, and across
countries), etc.

>> Demand will come back after the pandemic is over.

Man, I go back and forth with myself/other people over this all the time. I
think there's a significant risk that energy consumption will be lower in the
temporary short- and mid-term futures, and slight risk that energy consumption
will also be lower in long-term future.

Take a look at US consumption:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Pr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Primary_energy_consumption)
[https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_7.pdf](https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_7.pdf)
We still haven't reached 07/08 levels of energy consumption, of which 67% is
nat gas/oil. I also read a while back that US households have steadily
decreased their individual usage of energy post-2008, despite economic gains.
I forget where, I think it was in an article about nuclear power plants.

With that said, I think global outlook (for oil consumption) over the next 5
years is not good for developing economies. Their economies will suffer until
developed economies recover and stimulate their under-developed economies.
However, long-term population growth in SE Asia and Africa will demand greater
energy consumption and I believe economic growth in these regions will be the
primary drivers of greater oil consumption. That's because renewable energies
will be much, much more expensive than non-renewables (until we tax the hell
out of them) and developing economies must pursue the most cost-effective
alternative.

Sorry, for the long response, I just love this shit.

------
unclebucknasty
> _How might the United States and its partners prepare for more turmoil in
> these countries..._

Serious question: who, exactly, are the United States' partners these days?

~~~
hasseio
The 5 Eyes? NATO?

~~~
ilstormcloud
5 eyes are more of client states than partners at this point. That's not to
say they have no utility, far from it, I think they are very potent. It's just
that 'partner' is not the right word to describe them. I say this mainly
because they don't seem to have opinions about foreign policy other than the
one set by the USA. A better example of a partner in my opinion would be
Germany, or France. As for NATO, The only countries that need it are the USA,
UK and the Eastern European countries. For western and southern Europe, NATO
seems like a gym membership they haven't gotten to canceling. That's not to
say member states are not partners or friends of USA, just that they know they
can create something better for the current reality. Change was always
inevitable, but GWB and Trump might have accelerated it to reckless speeds.

~~~
teruakohatu
My country, New Zealand, is in the 5 eyes. Other than intelligence, we have
very little military interaction with the USA. Apparently they won't even
allow us to buy high tech gear because we ban US Navy nuke ships from
visiting. We are a long way off from being a client state.

~~~
prawn
But probably not big enough to be a partner?

(I'm from Australia and would consider the "client state" assessment for us to
be fair.)

------
janee
I haven't been able to find a nice breakdown of the reasons behind the price
decrease that wasn't driven by reduced demand.

So my understanding is that SA increased production because it couldn't get
Russia to limit its output? So they crashed the market with the hopes to bend
them to their will. If so are they basically signalling that they can survive
such conditions but Russia can't? Or what's going on here

------
pmoriarty
It's times like these that I really wonder where all the oil peak guys are who
you used to see crawl out of the woodwork whenever anyone talked about oil.
Now they're suddenly quiet.

They used to predict doom and gloom due to an oil shortage, but what we got
instead was doom and gloom and an oil glut. Where are they now?

~~~
djsumdog
Hubbert peak oil theory seems to not really hold water in retrospect. People
try to say the peak is just delayed as we're finding more oil reserves or
because there's been a big switch to renewables. I think his models assumed a
very different metrics for oil supply and distribution that don't seem to
apply today. This podcast from a few years back goes into a lot of it:
[https://youtu.be/0wlNey9t7hQ](https://youtu.be/0wlNey9t7hQ)

~~~
ethbro
Not an expert, but the doomsday peak scenario seemed predicated on no
fundamentally different oil sources becoming available (e.g. shale).

As it played out, fracking technology matured, and a lot of additional supply
was "added" once the price crossed a threshold.

------
irjustin
I really appreciate this piece as there's a lot of the world of oil I don't
understand.

One thing I don't understand is, why is it favorable for OPEC not to cut
supply? Is it they want to crush all non OPEC based producers? Or are their
buyers forced to buy at a particular price so they don't care if they keep
producing?

~~~
mbreese
ArsTechnica / Wired has a good article out about just that question. One
reason that isn’t economic (and there are many economic factors a play here
too) is that if you stop pumping oil, you can potentially damage the well.
This would make it more difficult to reopen the well in the future when the
prices improve. This also tends to affect smaller producers with fewer wells
and thus more risk of one of them is damaged.

(This is related to why haven’t wells shut down in response to the drop in
price, as opposed to simply producing less oil from existing wells.)

[https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/heres-why-the-
world-...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/heres-why-the-world-is-
still-producing-more-oil-than-it-needs/)

~~~
xiphias2
Isn't another solution to just let the oil go into the ground, and stop
worrying about destroying earth? I can imagine Trump getting rid of all
environmental regulations. How likely is that? (I'm on the environmental
regulations side of course, but I'm quite worried that this will be the
logical next step).

~~~
csours
Sure but how will that make money for the well operator? I understand what
you're saying, but what actual legal/political/economic framework are we
talking about?

~~~
xiphias2
Right now the operators have to pay for the storage as far as I know. The game
is not about making money, but at least not losing. That's why I'm afraid that
some people would rather make an environmental disaster than to pay for a
company to store the oil. But of course I don't know anything about the oil
industry.

------
teslaberry
the dollar is too strong, it means you get less for your production ( barrel
of oil) than you used to. so little, that you might not be able to feed the
people in your country that pump the oil.

a strong dollar creates problems for the entire rest of the world. this is how
the king of the throne applies coercive force to the 'developing world'.
because their own currencies are even that much shittier, so they CHOOSE to
rely on the dollar. because...it's far more useful than trying bilateral trade
( oil for food) , which isn't so easy, using a currency is far better, and if
you think it's not, try bilateral trade, see what happens. in the rare cases
that it may work, you'll have the u.s. navy knocking at your door too!

------
purplezooey
The premise of this article is a bit dicey. Sure nobody can sustain oil below
$40, but it will be back there within a year.

------
jsnider3
How many resets have we had already?

------
FpUser
_given President Putin’s need to demonize the United States_

I am curious how exactly Putin/Russia are demonizing the US?

~~~
golergka
Recently, one of the most famous russian movie directors, who's also very
close to the government (and also heads a "copyright protection" agency that
gets 1% tax on all writeable media - because they could be used, to, you know,
pirate movies) said in his own TV show, on state television, that Bill Gates
wants to implant chips into people to earn crypto. In general, state media is
full of conspiracy theory level of propaganda - with aliens, lizard people and
secret world government.

~~~
FpUser
Is this the best you can come up with? This is not Russia demonizing the US.
This is conspiracy theory coming out of tinfoil hat public from everywhere
including US.

------
baybal2
A fresh look the news we heard on May 1st

Why do you think Trump phoned Saudis with such a strong threat when:

1\. He previously showed no regard for how US oil industry fares, beside
taking credit for it doing well

2\. US oil industry is screwed below $40 except for the most productive wells
in Texas. US shale is screwed below $60.

If his actions can't do a thing to really positively affect US oil industry,
why he even tries?

Answer:
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8232865/amp/Donald-...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8232865/amp/Donald-
Trump-Vladimir-Putin-four-phone-calls-past-two-weeks.html)

So, Trump does 4 phone calls with Putin, then a single one with a right away
direct threat to Saudis.

You don't need to think for long what it means.

------
blackrock
This sounds like an opportunity for someone to kickstart a whole new post-
petroleum industry.

How? Use the sun, wind, tide, nuclear, geothermal, space-solar, anything, to
produce electricity, in order to crack hydrogen from water, and jumpstart the
hydrogen economy. And will also need to begin mass production of fuel cells to
get it cheaper.

This proves that the world does not need oil, if an alternative energy source
can be harvested.

And along the way, it can possibly topple the biggest superpower on the
planet. As well as effectively neutering the major countries with massive
petroleum reserves.

I can only think of one player that can achieve such a monumental task. And
even then, I doubt that they are that bold.

------
worik
How is it possible to talk of the future of oil and ignore the elephant in the
room?

~~~
briffle
Like you just did?

~~~
worik
Can't you see it?

