What if Ukraine's situation escalates?

Is the chewing that is painful. Look at the standard of living, the wealth of common pp. The disposable income to buy all the modetn wants.

specuvestor Wrote:

(29-04-2014, 07:11 PM)sgd Wrote: The next step for our defenses and make the place more stable will be getting at least 2 aircraft carriers now that we closed down paya lebar airbase.

You might want to check out how much it cost to build an aircraft carrier and to MAINTAIN one, vs our defence budget

There are good reasons why even military powers globally only have one carrier, not to mention 2 (Besides US only 2 other countries have 2 aircraft carriers in operation)

I used to think so too, but I can say with some confidence now that everything seems to point to us acquiring aircraft carriers in the future.

The americans have tested sea control ships (scs) basically a downsized version of enterprise class aircraft carrier mostly for asw anti submarine operations consisting of around 10-14 helos and 4 harrier jumpjets this was around 1974.

If you look at carriers today they are generally accompanied by escorts surface cruisers/destroyers underwater submarines and flying overhead awacs. But with the advancement of missile technology we means maintaining expensive big ships with big guns are no longer required.

We are already operating all these escorts we have 6 advance frigates, 4 submarines and contract for another 2 more from HDW and we have awacs and new gulfstream placons.

Plus today we already have naval facilities in place to support large aircraft carriers which we built on the pretext to invite US carriers for stopover in singapore.

ST engineering has the capability to build helicopter carriers they have showcased the Endurance-160 at several exhibitions already.

And mindef has confirmed they interested in F-35b with STOVL - short takeoff vertical landing capabilities like the british harrier jump jets.

[Image: 00000119-jpg.12170]

We have all the elements in place except the real mccoy I estimate with the escorts available we can support 2 small groups of SCS

if anybody still doubt can also read this article.

http://thediplomat.com/2013/10/singapore...e-fighter/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia#Trade

Quote: Russia imports food, ground transports, pharmaceuticals and textile and footwear.

Most of Russian imports are daily essential. Most of Russian exports are oil and gas. Russia is not so different from Iran in that sense.

(30-04-2014, 11:38 AM)specuvestor Wrote: ^^ You are good at google. You can find the range is between optimistic 2020 to 2035.
.
.
.
Hence I think US is likely to have a euphoric decade going forward. If there is any exporting of oil then it would be in the next decade, assuming the legislature even allow for oil export. Beyond that it is anyone's guess on how sustainable is shale as energy source.

Aiyah, I know very well what Google can bring up.

I am just curious what you think since you appear to buy the idea that US will be energy independent. If I read the 2nd para with the first, may I assume that you think that US will be next exporter of crude oil between 2020 to 2035?

I think it is important to read the totality of my statement. Like many others, I think shale is the key determinant. But unlike many others I question the 2 assumptions that I listed. I am not an energy expert but I try to fit theories with observations in the real world and extract what are most important factors, rather than focus on being academic about it.

I don't know if US will be energy exporter due to legislation and strategic considerations, but let's be precise and say zero importer. Based on the projections and the 2 assumptions, I am inclined to think that if anything, it will happen between the period 2020-2025. At the least I think US is striving to be just marginal importers of oil from OPEC. This is a geopolitical consideration. To be energy self sufficient is more important than zero importer of oil.

US is a top 3 oil producing country, with some predicting to be the largest producer within 10 years. Difference between US and OPEC is that it is also the largest consumer of oil. To be self sufficient it may not even be a 18m bpd supply issue. US gasoline prices are amongst the lowest in the world and it consumes 50% more oil than EU.

The sharp and insightful LKY said
(Excerpt of my post in RSX)

CHARLIE ROSE: What if the United States finds another partner or another supplier of energy for Iran?

LEE KUAN YEW: No, in place of Iran?

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.

LEE KUAN YEW: Where will you find...

CHARLIE ROSE: Well, in the Middle East. In Saudi Arabia and -- not possible?

LEE KUAN YEW: No, not possible.

CHARLIE ROSE: But I had a Chinese diplomat say to me that they would welcome that, that if in fact they did not have a necessity of needing Iranian oil, they would go along with sanctions, because they don't think...

LEE KUAN YEW: They need Iranian oil, they need Arabian oil, they need Nigerian oil, they need Angolan oil...

CHARLIE ROSE: They need all the oil they can find anywhere.

LEE KUAN YEW: Yes, of course.

(30-04-2014, 06:41 PM)specuvestor Wrote: A little learning is a dangerous thing (Alexander Pope)

But a lot of learning without understanding is lethal, because people are persuaded by the facade of knowledge.

Agree but how do folks know whether they know a little or a lot without understanding?

Having read numerous articles on oil production in the US, I will be rather surprised if they can increase oil production beyond 2020 without finding a new Alaska, GOM or new Tight Oil reserves beyond current know areas, i.e. Eagle ford, Bakken, etc. Let's check back again in 1 year's time.

(30-04-2014, 08:19 PM)orangetea Wrote: LEE KUAN YEW: They need Iranian oil, they need Arabian oil, they need Nigerian oil, they need Angolan oil...

Ha Ha. In this instance, I agree 100% with our dear LKY.....

sgd Wrote:I used to think so too, but I can say with some confidence now that everything seems to point to us acquiring aircraft carriers in the future. The americans have tested sea control ships (scs) basically a downsized version of enterprise class aircraft carrier mostly for asw anti submarine operations consisting of around 10-14 helos and 4 harrier jumpjets this was around 1974. If you look at carriers today they are generally accompanied by escorts surface cruisers/destroyers underwater submarines and flying overhead awacs. But with the advancement of missile technology we means maintaining expensive big ships with big guns are no longer required. We are already operating all these escorts we have 6 advance frigates, 4 submarines and contract for another 2 more from HDW and we have awacs and new gulfstream placons. Plus today we already have naval facilities in place to support large aircraft carriers which we built on the pretext to invite US carriers for stopover in singapore. ST engineering has the capability to build helicopter carriers they have showcased the Endurance-160 at several exhibitions already. And mindef has confirmed they interested in F-35b with STOVL - short takeoff vertical landing capabilities like the british harrier jump jets. We have all the elements in place except the real mccoy I estimate with the escorts available we can support 2 small groups of SCS if anybody still doubt can also read this article. http://thediplomat.com/2013/10/singapore...e-fighter/

My view is...

Insufficient manpower to staff the carrier.

Declining population, decrease in NSF service from 2.5 to 2 years.

Hardware, we can buy, 'software' is the challenge.

(30-04-2014, 10:18 PM)HitandRun Wrote:

(30-04-2014, 06:41 PM)specuvestor Wrote: A little learning is a dangerous thing (Alexander Pope)

But a lot of learning without understanding is lethal, because people are persuaded by the facade of knowledge.

Agree but how do folks know whether they know a little or a lot without understanding?

Having read numerous articles on oil production in the US, I will be rather surprised if they can increase oil production beyond 2020 without finding a new Alaska, GOM or new Tight Oil reserves beyond current know areas, i.e. Eagle ford, Bakken, etc. Let's check back again in 1 year's time.

知之为知之，不知为不知，是知也

Like i said, it is more than a supply dynamics to be energy self sufficient. US is not called an oil guzzler for nothing.

I look at 5 years for macro trends because macro trends dont change in a year. My conclusion on shale is not based on what was said past 12 months, but past 5 years: how opinions, statistics, perceptions and results change. It is one thing to read it up and one thing to observe it. It is one thing to study econs pricing models and quite another to go through austerity and devaluations. Observe the current Ukraine crisis and events unfold and one will learn more about international finance than most books on the topic can offer 5 years from now.

Dig up stuff said 5 years ago on shale and you would know how hard predictions on new technologies can be, not to mention energy sector is notoriously difficult to predict. Based on the current trajectory, and if political will wins over auto and oil lobby, it is not impossible for US to be self-sufficient albeit with many dynamic variables, including the impact of RMB on petro$

People conveniently forget Clinton actually achieved budget surplus and debt reduction near the end of his term, no matter how impossible it was or how brief it was