Possible Chinese involvement in fighting ISIS

[Brumby]

What generosity did China take advantage of without giving anything in return?

I guess that's make you more a freeloader when you demand China do something and you personally aren't going to fight ISIS yourself. You're a hypocritical freeloader. And by your loose definition of a freeloader, you don't think the West is a freeloader? What did the West do when Chinese civilians were attacked by terrorists? Nothing.


You are still avoiding explaining what China is getting for free. That's assuming the US and the West did something for China to get for free. What is that? Iraq is worse than before Saddam fell. And who's saving China's assets for China to be obligated? Maybe you're already assuming victory over ISIS ahead of time to demand China contribute and owes for a victory that hasn't happened.

China invest assets and they lose assets. How does that translate in your bizarro world that China has to contribute to the punishing ISIS over the beheading of Americans. Because that's the reason why Obama is taking actions not because he's saving Chinese assets. Is Chinese investment the reason for the rise of ISIS? No! So where's the responsibility and obligation for China to help punish ISIS for beheading Americans?

Your frequent usage of "demand" is giving me a headache. We are going into circular mode.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Your frequent usage of "demand" is giving me a headache. We are going into circular mode.

Now you know how we feel for people who never explain anything when asked. I'm still waiting for what's free that China is getting from the West doing something for China that can't be for some reason identified. You're the one that has a liberal definition of freeloader. It should be easy for you to point out what generosity China is taking advantage of to give nothing in return. Is it the wondrous utopia of Iraq that was created by the West for China to have safe invested assets? But then you said China's assets are threatened. That's mean there's was no utopia that was a generous opportunity for China. The headache if of your own making.

 

[Brumby]

Now you know how we feel for people who never explain anything when asked. I'm still waiting for what's free that China is getting from the West doing something for China that can't be for some reason identified. You're the one that has a liberal definition of freeloader. It should be easy for you to point out what generosity China is taking advantage of to give nothing in return. Is it the wondrous utopia of Iraq that was created by the West for China to have safe invested assets? But then you said China's assets are threatened. That's mean there's was no utopia that was a generous opportunity for China. The headache if of your own making.

I don't believe you are acting in good faith in the discussions. I have already addressed the notion of free loading many times.

 

[jobjed]

You are certainly entitled to hope that the Iragi government will get their act together and blame them if they fail to protect your assets.

Southern Iraq is Iraqi Shi'ites' final refuge, they will defend it, and by extension China's oil installations, with their lives. There is no need to 'hope'; IS is getting nowhere near Chinese oil installations.

You can certainly go into denial mode that the problem isn't there and hence conclude no action is necessary.

And you can certainly go into strawman mode and shove words into my mouth. Here, let my quote myself: "China is victim to circumstances". In fact, let me further emphasise the important bits; "is victim to". Allow me to reiterate once more; "VICTIM".

Great, now you can elaborate your claim that I went "into denial mode" and claimed "the problem isn't there".

 

[getready]

Funny how the same can be said the other way around. China isn't demanding other people do their dirty work. If it were the coalition of the willing, then why is China expected while those who feel they're the victims of beheading are the ones barking out the demands?

China would be wise not to get suckered into this. Unlike the bumbling fool Abbott, I suspect they won't. Alas, our status as perennial lackey dogs of the US means we will send forces to bombard people in the Middle East again. Now with stronger terror laws coming into effect, one step closer to a police state. Hail our grand leaders lol

 

[Blackstone]

This is why I say that China and every other sensible country in the world should stay out of this war. They are going to war without a strategy! Its simply bomb first and think later. What can possibly go wrong ?

Lots of sensible Americans feel the same way, and few are confident of Obama in the endeavor, especially when they're reports of large differences between how the Pentagon thinks ISIS operations should be prosecuted and how Obama wants it done.

And US energy independence ? Dream on! Its a bubble!

Oh really? It's a bubble? What's your reason behind your claim?

 

[Blackstone]

China would be wise not to get suckered into this. Unlike the bumbling fool Abbott, I suspect they won't. Alas, our status as perennial lackey dogs of the US means we will send forces to bombard people in the Middle East again. Now with stronger terror laws coming into effect, one step closer to a police state. Hail our grand leaders lol

Did you just graduate from PRC Internet Gestapo Academy, or is this some new Xi Jinping directive?

 

[getready]

Did you just graduate from PRC Internet Gestapo Academy, or is this some new Xi Jinping directive?

Lmao no. I graduated from Clive Palmer's school of international politics. And I know ASIO is monitoring this. Hey listen, I'm on your side guys!

 

[Franklin]

Oh really? It's a bubble? What's your reason behind your claim?

The generals at the Pentagon will eventually win out over Obama which means a massive escalation from the current strategy. Not that I think it will work its going to be another disaster like Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq 2003. That is because they have nearly zero understanding of their enemies nor their allies or the countries they are invading or bombing. The US and the other coalition members have pin their hopes on the new Iraqi leader al-Abadi. But in my view what happened in Baghdad was merely a musical chair dance. al-Abadi comes from the same party and ideology as al-Maliki who is now the vice president of Iraq. So in my view the chances of Sunni Shia reconciliation are very poor indeed. This has been the problem with all those American wars mentioned before. They rely on the most incompetent people's to run the country after the regime change. Because only the most immoral and talentless opportunists would come to power on the backs of foreign tanks and warplanes. And those are the only kind of people that would work with the Americans in the propaganda and war phase. Not to mention that they often say what they think the Americans wants to hear. Just like Ahmed Chalabi of the INC who forgot to tell his neo con friends about his friendly contacts in Teheran. So they are the ones inheriting the power after the regime change. And then proceed to make a mess out of things! Since the US has so little knowledge and understanding about the countries and people's they are bombing they have to rely on them to run the countries after the regime change just as those people are relying on American bombs to get them into power. The reason why they have so little understanding of the rest of the world is because the politicians, intellectuals, journalist and experts often see the world through an ideological lens and people see what their ideology tells them to see and not what is actually there.

The reason why American energy independence is a myth is simply because the new energy resources are almost all shale resources. That means either fracking or mining. And that is enormously capital intensive not to mention damaging to the environment. Most of those fracking companies are high on credits and low on profits. That makes them vulnerable to future interest rate hikes. Right now interest rates in America is nearly zero. In the future there is only one way interest rate can go and that is up. Once interest rate rises a lot of these fracking companies may have to go bust. You should also know that the technology they are using that is hydraulic fracking is not something new. It already existed since 1997. Between 1997 and 2007 the industry barely grew. The industry only took off around 2008. So what happened in 2008 ? Since the bursting of the housing bubble in august of 2007 interest rate in America went from 5,25% to 0,25% in about 16 months time. And that means a massive expantion of the money and credit supply. And that's were the money comes from for all those fracking companies. If fracking was such a profitable business then why wasn't there a immediate boom when the technology came in to being ? Why wait for another 10 years before the boom ? The low interest rate of the 1990's caused the Dotcom bubble, the low interest rates of the mid 2000's caused the housing bubble and the low interest rates now are causing multiple bubbles in the economy and fracking is just one of them.

 

[Blackstone]

The generals at the Pentagon will eventually win out over Obama which means a massive escalation from the current strategy. Not that I think it will work its going to be another disaster like Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq 2003. That is because they have nearly zero understanding of their enemies nor their allies or the countries they are invading or bombing. The US and the other coalition members have pin their hopes on the new Iraqi leader al-Abadi. But in my view what happened in Baghdad was merely a musical chair dance. al-Abadi comes from the same party and ideology as al-Maliki who is now the vice president of Iraq. So in my view the chances of Sunni Shia reconciliation is very poor indeed. This has been the problem with all those American wars mentioned before. They rely on the most incompetent people's to run the country after the regime change. Because only the most immoral and talentless opportunists would come to power on the backs of foreign tanks and warplanes. And those are the only kind of people that would work with the Americans in the propaganda and war phase. Not to mention that they often say what they think the Americans wants to hear. Just like Ahmed Chalabi of the INC who forgot to tell his neo con friends about his friendly contacts in Teheran. So they are the ones inheriting the power after the regime change. And then proceed to make a mess out of things! Since the US has so little knowledge and understanding about the countries and people's they are bombing they have to rely on them to run the countries after the regime change just as those people are relying on American bombs to get them into power. The reason why they have so little understanding of the rest of the world is because the politicians, intellectuals, journalist and experts often see the world through an ideological lens and people see what their ideology tells them to see and not what is actually there.

US leaders know very well what's going on in Iraq and the Middle East, as America has the best State Department and intelligence gathering organs money can buy. The problem is the political class in the US and in most democratic forms of government; elected politicians are often poorly qualified to lead the country and set military and geopolitical policies, because the qualifications to be elected are abilities to gather supporters, network the movers and shakers, raise tons of money, and out demagogue your opponents. Knowledge and experience in running businesses, governments, and combat teams are helpful, but not required. That's why we see completely unqualified individuals elected to high office in democracies. Barack Obama and Cristina Kirchner are prime examples of that.

We're in agreement Obama's Iraqi, Syrian, and Iranian policies will be miserable failures, but it's not due to lack of solid information from US agencies.

The reason why American energy independence is a myth is simply because the new energy resources are almost all shale resources. That means either fracking or mining. And that is enormously capital intensive not to mention damaging to the environment. Most of those fracking companies are high on credits and low on profits. That makes them vulnerable to future interest rate hikes. Right now interest rates in America is nearly zero. In the future there is only one way interest rate can go and that is up. Once interest rate rises a lot of these fracking companies may have to go bust. You should also know that the technology they are using that is hydraulic fracking is not something new. It already existed since 1997. Between 1997 and 2007 the industry barely grew. The industry only took off around 2008. So what happened in 2008 ? Since the bursting of the housing bubble in august of 2007 interest rate in America went from 5,25% to 0,25% in about 16 months time. And that means a massive expantion of the money and credit supply. And that's were the money comes from for all those fracking companies. If fracking was such a profitable business then why wasn't there a immediate boom when the technology came to being ? Why wait for another 10 years before the boom ? The low interest rate of the 1990's caused the Dotcom bubble, the low interest rates of the mid 2000's caused the housing bubble and the low interest rates now are causing multiple bubbles in the economy and fracking is just one of them.

You might be right, and you might be wrong, but I'll stake my believes on data and facts, and for now they say you're wrong. Enclosed is an EIA (Energy Information Administration) analysis of US energy production and outlook.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Energy Productions and Imports


figure dataNet imports of energy decline both in absolute terms and as a share of total U.S. energy consumption in the AEO2014 Reference case (Figure 10). The decline in energy imports reflects increased domestic production of petroleum and natural gas, along with demand reductions resulting from rising energy prices and gradual improvement in vehicle efficiency. At the same time, natural gas exports increase (as domestic supplies increase and it becomes attractive to liquefy the natural gas for export), along with exports of motor gasoline (as demand declines and refiners are left with more than they can sell domestically) and exports of crude oil (as lighter domestic crude oil is swapped for the heavier crudes more commonly run in modern refineries). The net import share of total U.S. energy consumption is 4% in 2040, compared with 16% in 2012 and about 30% in 2005.
Petroleum and other liquids


figure dataU.S. production of crude oil (including lease condensate) in the AEO2014 Reference case increases from 6.5 MMbbl/d in 2012 to 9.6 MMbbl/d in 2019, 22% higher than in AEO2013 (Figure 11). Despite a decline after 2019, U.S. crude oil production remains at or above about 7.5 MMbbl/d through 2040. Higher production volumes result mainly from increased onshore oil production, predominantly from tight (very-low-permeability) formations. Offshore crude oil provides a steady supply of domestic crude oil production, ranging between 1.6 and 2.0 MMbbl/d from 2015 through 2040, as the pace of development activity quickens and new, large development projects, predominantly in the deepwater and ultra-deepwater portions of the Gulf of Mexico, are brought into production.

The faster growth of tight oil production through 2020 in the AEO2014 Reference case results in higher domestic crude oil production than in AEO2013 throughout the projection. The pace of oil-directed drilling in the near term is much stronger than in AEO2013, as producers locate and target the sweet spots of plays currently under development and find additional tight formations that can be developed with the latest technologies. In the AEO2014 Reference case, tight oil production increases from 2.3 MMbbl/d in 2012 (35% of total U.S. crude oil production) to 4.8 MMbbl/d in 2021 (51% of the total). As in AEO2013, tight oil production declines in AEO2014 after 2021, as more development moves into less-productive areas.


figure dataU.S. use of imported petroleum and other liquid fuels continues to decline in AEO2014 mainly as a result of increased domestic oil production. Imported petroleum and other liquid fuels as a share of total U.S. use reached 60% in 2005 before dipping below 50% in 2010 and falling further to 40% in 2012. The import share continues to decline to 25% in 2016 and then rises to about 32% in 2040 in the AEO2014 reference case, as domestic production of tight oil begins to decline in 2022 (Figure 12).
Natural Gas

Cumulative production of dry natural gas from 2012 to 2040 in the AEO2014 Reference case is about 11% higher than in AEO2013, primarily reflecting continued growth in shale gas production resulting from the dual application of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Another contributing factor is ongoing drilling in shale and other plays with high concentrations of NGL and crude oil, which in energy-equivalent terms have a higher value than dry natural gas. Cumulative production levels for tight gas and onshore associated-dissolved gas from oil formations exceed those in AEO2013 through 2040 by 9% and 36%, respectively, making material contributions to the overall increase in production. Natural gas prices above $6/MMBtu toward the end of the projection period encourage drilling in less-productive but still-profitable areas in tight oil, shale oil, and natural gas formations. Lower 48 offshore natural gas production fluctuates between 1.7 Tcf and 2.9 Tcf per year, similar to the pattern in AEO2013. The multiyear decline in offshore natural gas production was reversed in 2012, with 15 new deepwater projects coming on line during the year.

In the AEO2014 Reference case, the United States becomes a net exporter of LNG in 2016, and it becomes an overall net exporter of natural gas in 2018, two years earlier than in AEO2013. U.S. exports of LNG from new liquefaction capacity are expected to surpass 2 Tcf by 2020 and increase to 3.5 Tcf in 2029. Net pipeline imports from Canada fall steadily until 2033, and then increase through 2040. Net pipeline exports to Mexico grow by more than 400% in the Reference case, with additional pipeline infrastructure added to enable the Mexican market to receive more pipeline natural gas from the United States.

U.S. cumulative net LNG exports from 2012 to 2040 are up by 160% in AEO2014 compared with AEO2013, supported by increased use of LNG in markets outside North America, strong domestic production, and low U.S. natural gas prices relative to other global markets.
Coal

Total U.S. coal production grows at an average rate of 0.3% per year in the AEO2014 Reference case, from 20.6 quadrillion Btu (1,016 MMst) in 2012 to 22.6 quadrillion Btu (1,121 MMst) in 2040. U.S. electricity generation accounted for 91% of total U.S. coal consumption (in Btu) in 2012. Coal production declined by more than 7% in 2012, from 1,096 MMst in 2011, mostly in response to gas-on-coal competition. In the Reference case, production recovers to 1,062 MMst by 2015, in response to a rise in natural gas prices along with a moderate increase in electricity demand. A wave of coal-fired generating capacity retirements in response to MATS requirements coincides with a secondary drop in coal production to 1,022 MMst in 2016. Total production then increases gradually to 1,127 MMst in 2030 before stabilizing as a result of limits on achievable long-term capacity utilization rates for available coal units compared to AEO2013.

Coal production from the Eastern Interior region in the AEO2014 Reference case increases at a faster rate than projected in AEO2013, because of an improved productivity outlook, with 2020 production 27 MMst (18%) higher and 2040 production 58 MMst (34%) higher than projected in AEO2013. Lower overall coal consumption and improved competitiveness of coal produced in the Eastern Interior region compared to AEO2013 lead to lower outlooks for Northern Appalachian and Powder River Basin coal production, as well as an accelerated decline in Central Appalachian production in AEO2014. As a result of changes to CTL cost assumptions, no CTL coal consumption or related production is projected in AEO2014, compared with 0.3 quadrillion Btu in 2040 in AEO2013. Expectations for total U.S. coal exports in AEO2014 are generally similar to those in AEO2013, with an increase from 126 MMst in 2012 to 161 MMst by 2040.