MH17 - RUSSIAN CEASE-FIRE PROPOSAL BLOCKED BY U.S., AUSTRALIA & TAG-ALONG LITHUANIA

West blocks Moscow’s UN plea to reinstate ceasefire at MH17 crash site Published time: August 08, 2014 11:07 The UN Security Council failed to adopt a resolution on reinstating the ceasefire at the site of the Malaysian Airlines plane crash in eastern Ukraine after Russia’s draft was blocked by Western states. “Unfortunately, some UNSC members have reacted in their usual way as they oppose any criticism of the Ukrainian leadership,” Churkin said, adding that Lithuania, the US, and Australia began proposing inappropriate amendments to the text. In July, The UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution calling for an international investigation into the MH17 incident and demanded safe access to the site for investigators. In the wake of the decision, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko announced a unilateral ceasefire in a 20-kilometer (12.4-mile) area around the site of the crash. However, shelling and fighting in the area has continued, hampering the experts' work several times in the past weeks. But on Thursday Kiev suspended the truce with self-defense forces at the crash site. "The ceasefire in the plane crash zone, announced by the President of Ukraine at the request of international experts, which has been thoroughly observed by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, will not be in place at the beginning of the second phase of the investigation," the Ukrainian government said. The government claims that the international mission has been halted because of “terrorists’ provocations” who “posed threats to the lives” of the recovery mission members. The suspension of the ceasefire in the MH17 crash area is a direct violation of the UN resolution, Vitaly Churkin stressed: “The truce was approved by UN Security Council resolution 2166, thus it is a clear violation of the resolution and will have very serious consequences for international inspectors' abilities to conduct the investigation when they decide to return to the area.” Before the ceasefire was cancelled, the Netherlands, who lead the international probe, announced it was halting the mission to recover victims and debris of the July 17 MH17 crash because of fighting between Ukrainian forces and rebels in the area. The international investigating team arrived at the site days after the tragic incident, delayed for security reasons. Experts are expected to resume their efforts once the situation allows. Currently, at least three areas containing the Boeing-777’s debris remain unexamined by the international mission, according to the Ukrainian government. The majority of experts will leave Ukraine until a decision on resuming the operation is made, it said in a statement.  SOURCE - RT NEWS - HERE.

What's the bet that the US aligned mob think there's some advantage in not pursuing a ceasefire.

Love how Lithuania is brown-nosing the US.  Maybe Lithuania should worry about their human trafficking problem instead of worrying about the drafting of Russia's ceasefire proposal.  

As for Australia, when you're bound up in protection/defence agreements, you're owned.  And someone like Rupert Murdoch's boy, Tony Abbott, would just love the US boot-licking that's part and parcel of that.  I'm sure he'd even think he was rather 'special'.  LOL.

US - OFF-SHORE DEEP-WATER FRACKING - BRAZIL, AFRICA, GULF OF MEXICO

Fracking’s next frontier: Energy giants seek bigger offshore payoffs with deep-water fracking fleets David Wethe, Bloomberg News | August 7, 2014 | Last Updated: Aug 7 2:59 PM ET Energy companies are taking their controversial fracking operations from the land to the sea — to deep waters off the U.S., South American and African coasts. Cracking rocks underground to allow oil and gas to flow more freely into wells has grown into one of the most lucrative industry practices of the past century. The technique is also widely condemned as a source of groundwater contamination. The question now is how will that debate play out as the equipment moves out into the deep blue. For now, caution from all sides is the operative word. Offshore fracking is a part of a broader industrywide strategy to make billion-dollar deep-sea developments pay off. The practice has been around for two decades yet only in the past few years have advances in technology and vast offshore discoveries combined to make large scale fracking feasible. While fracking is also moving off the coasts of Brazil and Africa, the big play is in the Gulf of Mexico, where wells more than 100 miles from the coastline must traverse water depths of a mile or more and can cost almost US$100 million to drill. Those expensive drilling projects are a boon for oil service providers such as Halliburton, Baker Hughes Inc. and Superior Energy Services Inc. Schlumberger Ltd., which provides offshore fracking gear for markets outside the U.S. Gulf, also stands to get new work. And producers such as Chevron Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc and BP Plc may reap billions of dollars in extra revenue over time as fracking helps boost crude output. Fracking in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to grow by more than 10% over a two year period ending in 2015, said Douglas Stephens, president of pressure pumping at Baker Hughes, which operates about a third of the world’s offshore fracking fleet. [...] Pancaked Layers Deep-water wells cut through multiple pancaked layers of oil-soaked rock, and each layer must be fracked to get the most oil out — a task that can take a full day to get to the bottom of the well. Halliburton and others have figured out a way to save time and money by fracking all those layers in one trip down the well, instead of doing each layer separately. The more intense fracking means larger volumes of water, sand and equipment are needed to coax more oil out — and bigger boats to carry it all. “It’s getting more sophisticated,” James Wicklund, an analyst at Credit Suisse in Dallas, said in a phone interview. “The volumes needed, especially for these lower tertiary fracks, are huge.” http://business.financialpost.com/2014/08/07/frackings-next-frontier-energy-giants-seek-bigger-offshore-payoffs-with-deep-water-fracking-fleets/?__lsa=730c-e6c4

Just imagine what these corporations are doing to the environment:

Cuprits:

• CHEVRON
• SHELL
• BP

USA - OIL SURGE - 'HOTBED FOR SHALE OIL'

Permian’s Oil Surge Creates Need for Pipelines By Matthew Rocco Published August 07, 2014 FOXBusiness With crude gushing from the Permian Basin, companies are ramping up efforts to build pipelines and better capitalize on the production surge. Drillers have been producing oil in the Permian for some eight decades. But in recent years, the Texas formation’s central region, which consists of the Delaware and Midland basins, became a hotbed for shale oil. The Permian is now the top oil-producing area in the U.S., accounting for 18% of the nation’s total output in 2013. Based on data from the Energy Information Administration, the Permian recorded production of 1.35 million barrels per day last year. The region hit a low mark of 850,000 bbl/d in 2007. EXTRACT - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2014/08/07/permians-oil-surge-creates-need-for-pipelines/

Ooh, look ... more shale!

USA - $500M Shale Gas Pipeline

Former Chesapeake chief's company joins in pipeline venture By Collin Eaton August 7, 2014 A $500 million pipeline planned for next year could carry natural gas from Aubrey McClendon's growing web of gas wells in Ohio to the Gulf Coast, Colorado and several Southern states. [...] The pipeline would start in the Utica Shale, where American Energy has spent $3.5 billion amassing more than 260,000 net acres over shale gas deposits. The company plans to drill 1,600 net wells there in coming years as McClendon, one of the first wildcatters to pounce on U.S. shale gas plays, builds a new company after his departure last year from Chesapeake Energy. He has concentrated his efforts in the southeastern corner of the Utica, where high reservoir pressures have made reaching gas more affordable. Recent research by Houston energy consultant Wood Mackenzie shows that certain zones in the Utica rival wells in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale in terms of profitability. EXTRACTS ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Former-Chesapeake-chief-s-company-joins-in-5675875.php

The specifics don't interest me.  It's just interesting that it's booming. 

Gulf Coast is also interesting, because that's where export shipments would leave, I guess.

USA - FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS & PROPOSED FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS LIST

US Free trade agreements in force Here is a list of free trade agreements of which the United States is part. Israel: Israel–United States Free Trade Agreement (incl. Palestinian Authority; 1985) Mexico Canada North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (incl. Canada and Mexico; 1994) Jordan: Jordan–United States Free Trade Agreement (2001) Australia: Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement (2004) Chile: Chile–United States Free Trade Agreement (2004) Singapore: Singapore–United States Free Trade Agreement (2004) Bahrain: Bahrain–United States Free Trade Agreement (2006) Morocco: Morocco-United States Free Trade Agreement (2006) Oman: Oman–United States Free Trade Agreement (2006) Peru: Peru–United States Trade Promotion Agreement (2007) Costa Rica El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Dominican Republic Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA; incl. Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic; 2005) Panama: Panama–United States Trade Promotion Agreement (2011) Colombia: United States–Colombia Free Trade Agreement (2011) South Korea: United States–Republic of Korea Free Trade Agreement (2011) Proposed free trade agreements The United States is negotiating bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements with the following countries and blocs: Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA; incl. all countries on the Western Hemisphere, except Cuba) U.S.–Middle East Free Trade Area (US-MEFTA; incl. most countries in the Middle East) United States, Europe Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA; European Union) Thailand: United States–Thailand Free Trade Agreement (on hold since the 2006 Thai coup d'état) New Zealand: US–New Zealand Free Trade Agreement Ghana: US–Ghana Free Trade Agreement Indonesia: US–Indonesia Free Trade Agreement Kenya: US–Kenya Free Trade Agreement Kuwait: US–Kuwait Free Trade Agreement (Expert-level trade talks held in February 2006) Malaysia: US–Malaysia Free Trade Agreement (last meeting was in July 2008) Mauritius: US–Mauritius Free Trade Agreement Mozambique: US–Mozambique Free Trade Agreement Taiwan: US–Taiwan Free Trade Agreement United Arab Emirates: US–United Arab Emirates Free Trade Agreement (5th round of talks are yet to be scheduled) US–Southern African Customs Union Free Trade Agreement (US-SAUC; incl. South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, and Namibia; on hold since 2006 due to US demands on intellectual property rights, government procurement rights and investment) Ecuador: US–Ecuador Free Trade Agreement Qatar: US–Qatar Free Trade Agreement (on hold since 2006) Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership SOURCE - WIKIPEDIA @ AUG 2014 - here.

US - NEW WAVE OF LNG EXPORT FACILITIES - BOOMING

As one LNG project moves forward, another caught in regulatory tussle Sempra Energy and Cheniere want to construct export terminals By Rhiannon Meyers and Ryan Holeywell August 7, 2014 One plan to export natural gas from the Gulf Coast moved forward this week toward construction of a $10 billion facility, while another got caught in a tussle between two federal agencies. Sempra Energy and its partners announced their final investment decision in favor of a plan to add gas liquefaction and export capability to the existing Cameron LNG import terminal in Hackberry, La. They expect to bring it online in 2018. Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said a federal energy regulator hasn't done enough to determine how Cheniere Energy's proposed liquefied natural gas export terminal near Corpus Christi would affect the air, water, wetlands and wildlife. The projects are among a wave of proposed LNG export facilities looking to capitalize on cheap and abundant supplies of natural gas produced in the U.S. shale boom. Chilling natural gas into a liquid makes it possible to transport the fuel on tanker ships. Cameron LNG obtained Federal Energy Regulatory Commission clearance in June to build and operate the project, and has a conditional permit from the Department of Energy to export natural gas to countries with which the United States doesn't have free trade agreements. It will have three liquefaction plants, called trains, with a total capacity to produce 12 million metric tons of LNG per year. Cheniere's proposed Corpus Christi export terminal has yet to receive approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is conducting environmental assessments and other reviews of Cheniere's permit application. It was the environmental component that drew the negative comments from the EPA. In a letter Monday to FERC, the EPA said its fellow agency's draft environmental review for Cheniere's proposed Corpus Christi expansion was insufficient. The EPA comments aren't likely to slow down the overall approval process significantly, but the final environmental review may be delayed slightly, depending on how much the energy regulator needs to do to address the EPA concerns, said Daniella Landers, head of Sutherland Asbill and Brennan's environmental practice. She said it depends on the extent to which FERC has to do additional studies. Activists may take note While FERC will give the EPA's input the same weight it gives other comments, Landers said, the EPA's concerns could provide fodder for environmental groups and others opposed to the project to argue against it. In the letter, Craig Weeks, chief of the EPA's office of planning and coordination, said his agency identified "a number of potential adverse impacts to aquatic resources, air quality, environmental justice populations and wetlands," and recommended specific issues be addressed in the energy regulator's final plan. Without an adequate plan to mitigate potential impacts, the terminal, proposed for a 991-acre site along the northern shore of Corpus Christi Bay, could cause a number of environmental problems, according to the EPA. Among them, the terminal could take away wetlands and special aquatic habitats, while dredging and frequent ship traffic could contribute to chronic cloudiness in the water, which inhibits the growth of underwater plants on which fish and shellfish feed, the EPA said. [...] Deals for half of output [...] Houston-based Cheniere already has begun construction on liquefaction and export facilities at its existing Sabine Pass import plant in Cameron Parish, La. The project has Energy Department and FERC approval. http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/As-one-LNG-project-moves-forward-another-caught-5675870.php

Wonder if that's the Japanese $10billion facility in the Gulf Coast, or if the figure's just a coincidence and the money's from somewhere else?

Anyway, there's a shale boom ... and there's a scramble to build LNG export facilities.

cheap and abundant supplies of natural gas produced in the U.S. shale boom. Chilling natural gas into a liquid makes it possible to transport the fuel on tanker ships.



LNG?  HELLO EUROPE.

** NOTE - Europe (ie Economic Union) is on the proposed free trade agreements list -  here.

Does this mean US is preparing to export LNG to Europe?

US - UNPRECEDENTED REVIVAL OF US OIL PRODUCTION - CRUDE OIL EXPORTS SURGED JUNE, TOPPING 1957 SUEZ CRISIS EXPORTS - THANKS SHALE OIL DRILLING TECHNOLOGY

U.S. oil exports reach milestone: June shipments highest since 1957 By Reuters Media on Aug 7, 2014 at 11:47 p.m. NEW YORK — News this week that U.S. crude oil exports had surged in June to reach the highest since 1957 raised a question not often asked: Why did U.S. exports suddenly surge, then just as quickly drop, nearly six decades ago? In March 1957, the United States exported a record 455,000 bpd of crude, up from just 40,000 bpd in the same month a year earlier, data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showed. A year later, exports were back to just 27,000 bpd. Unlike the current export boom, fueled by new shale oil drilling technology that has unleashed an unprecedented revival in U.S. production, the abrupt rise and fall in the 1950s was the result of political turmoil in the Middle East. In July 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, the waterway constructed some 90 years earlier connecting the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea. The 101-mile seaway was a crucial link between big oil producers and European refiners, ferrying some 1.2 million bpd to Western Europe, particularly to Britain and France. The move was seen as punishment for the United States and Britain withdrawing funding for the Aswan High Dam, but it also stung European nations who were losing sway over former colonies and led to a global struggle known as the Suez Crisis. Israel, France and Britain moved troops into the region to assert their control, bringing commercial oil flows through the canal to a halt — with dire consequences for Europe. Alternative routes were far too long to compensate. “(The oil) could go around the Cape Horn, but that was difficult and there was limited shipping capacity,” said Dr. Philip K. Verleger Jr., president of consultancy PKVerleger LLC and a former advisor to President Carter. At the time of the nationalization, Britain had around six weeks’ worth of supply of oil on hand, and France had only slightly more, according to Rose McDermott’s book Risk Tasking in International Politics. Amid pressure from Washington and growing economic strain, oil-starved nations in Europe removed their troops from territory and the United States started pushing crude oil across the Atlantic. By November 1956, oil exports jumped to 285,000 bpd from 47,000 bpd a month prior, according to the EIA data. The Canal reopened in April 1957, allowing Europe to resume direct shipments and bringing a quick halt to U.S. exports.  ... The current rise in exports has been more measured and is likely to be much longer-lasting. Shipments from U.S. shores in June rose to 389,000 bpd, a 35 percent increase from May, with most of that oil going to Canada. But while the exports have recently reached modern-day highs, they are still a much smaller fraction of U.S. supply. “Back then, a couple thousand barrels a day would be a big deal. But now, we’ve got a story of the North Dakota and Texas boom and a production figure of some 8.5 million barrels a day.” http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/content/us-oil-exports-reach-milestone-june-shipments-highest-1957

Yellow is current market.
Pink is some interesting history re Suez Canal Crisis and small peak in US oil export.

Current news:  US crude oil export SURGED ... and here's why:

current export boom, fueled by new shale oil drilling technology that has unleashed an unprecedented revival in U.S. production,

I'm new to looking at this stuff and thought that shale was only connected with gas/LNG.

I'm unclear how crude oil and shale drilling are connected.

Is crude oil the same as 'shale oil'?   No idea.  Random site has this to say about 'oil shale':

Oil shale is unevenly distributed around the world.  The United States possesses roughly 70% of world oil shale deposits, with the vast majority located in the Green River shale regions in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. 

Fears over domestic energy supplies sparked small oil shale booms in the 1950’s due to Cold War energy concerns, and again in the 1970’s as a result of the Arab oil embargo.  But by 1980, the federal government had assembled a pot of subsidies, price supports, loans, and other incentives luring major oil companies to make substantial investments in the Piceance Basin area of western Colorado.  This boom would be short lived.  On May 2, 1982 -- “Black Sunday” -- ExxonMobil pulled out of oil shale due to falling oil prices and vanishing federal subsidies.  The economy of western Colorado collapsed and the entire state of Colorado entered an economic slump as a result.
Reemergence of oil shale

Oil shale has returned to the world stage due to rising oil prices and concerns about national energy independence.  What has not changed is the lack of a technology capable of turning oil shale rocks into transportation fuels in a commercially viable manner.    [SOURCE]

Not sure about that last point.  Couldn't see a date on the page, so I don't know how current the info is.

As I understand there's a shale boom, so the 'lack of technology' part doesn't sound right.

There's three types of shale energy deposits - here - Liquid (shale oil), Gas (shale gas) and Solid (oil shale).  The first two are good; the solid form is crap commercially because it's not easy to break down for fuel. 

I think I need to go to shale school, because I'm still not really clear on how 'crude oil' relates to shale.

Anyway, thanks to current technology, there's a boom in crude oil production and export in USA!!!

HELLO, EUROPE!!!