Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Oh I've played this thing both ways, sometimes several times a day almost daily. Missed that big runup that you speak of, didn't come across in a watch yet at the time, but caught a lot of it coming down then up and down since then. Haven't missed much, gotten used to how FCEL acts. By now it's many times return even after taxes.
Which ever way it goes no matter to me, it's just been one of the better trading stocks around just with the duration and regularity of it, and I'd be just as happy or happier trading a long term uptrend. Just been more short than long due to it's downward trend the last yr which hasn't turned yet.
It's no big deal, it is what it is, I've got no personal attachment to it other than my own money to be made. I'm just an average trader following the much bigger money the trend(s), and the charts.
Maybe if FCEL can break that 200 day and hold, it can start dealing with all the other resistances it's going to contend with including the general bear market, inflation, and recession that's coming our way in the near future.
I can't help it if there has only been short term upwards trends with larger corrections and longer term downward trend. Not my doing, I just play the hand that's dealt.
March 15, 2022 04:22 PM ET (BZ Newswire) -- Analyst Color
For more than a year, the U.S. Federal Reserve reassured investors that post-COVID-19 pandemic inflationary pressures were transitory. However, Joseph Brusuelas, principal and chief economist for RSM US LLP, said Tuesday that the Russian invasion of Ukraine may have assured investors inflation is here to stay for at least the next several years.
Inflation Typical: Brusuelas said inflation is typical during times of war and economic conflict.
Related Link: 'Held Hostage To External Events': Experts React To 7.9% CPI Inflation, Highest Since 1982
"We have most likely arrived at a turning point where elevated inflation will define the economic narrative for several years. That may require much higher interest rates than have been observed in recent years and will diminish the probability of central banks achieving a soft landing for the economy," Brusuelas wrote.
Recession Risk Rising: In fact, Brusuelas is predicting the next round of economic numbers in the coming weeks could significantly increase the probability of a U.S. recession.
"The combination of a unique confluence of factors during the pandemic and now the disruption to the flow of oil will almost surely unleash a period of inflation unlike anything since the 1970s," he said.
Brusuelas said there's a real possibility that top-line U.S. inflation surpasses 10% in 2022. The good news for Americans is that the U.S. economy is far less dependent on foreign oil than it was in the 1970s. On the downside, rising global energy prices will certainly have a negative impact on consumers' discretionary spending and higher input costs will pressure companies to pass those costs on to their customers via higher prices.
Benzinga's Take: The SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (NYSE:SPY) traded higher throughout the second half of 2021 when inflation really started to ramp up, and it traded higher through the last cycle of Federal Reserve interest rate hikes from 2016 through 2019. However, it may be extremely difficult for the market to grind higher when corporate earnings are getting squeezed by both inflation and rising interest rates simultaneously.
Image by Foto-Rabe from Pixabay
Copyright © 2022 Benzinga (BZ Newswire, www.benzinga.com/licensing). Benzinga does not provide investmentadvice. All rights reserved. Write to editorial@benzinga.com with any questions about this content. Subscribe to Benzinga Pro (http://pro.benzinga.com).
It's taken awhile, and it not etched in stone yet. Might have been valid when it was first devised, but a more modern society and economics has developed making the thing sort of outdated and inefficient. I like how they ended up taking the final hr and not giving it back. Their shenanigan's have caused so much missed sleep already, what's another hour I guess. The sunny side probably is a bit better anyway.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold backs election security upgrades amid Tina Peters indictment
Bill would bar officials from “recklessly” spreading misinformation
https://www.denverpost.com/2022/03/14/colorado-secretary-of-state-jena-griswold-backs-election-security-upgrades-after-tina-peters/
By NICK COLTRAIN | ncoltrain@denverpost.com | The Denver Post
PUBLISHED: March 14, 2022 at 4:30 p.m. | UPDATED: March 14, 2022 at 4:35 p.m.
In light of “insider threats” such as those allegedly committed by indicted Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, Colorado’s top election official wants to mandate increased security and training for people running local elections, as well as increase penalties for people who break election law.
Among other things, Senate Bill 153 would require electronic key cards, with their uses logged, to access voting systems and 24-hour video surveillance of the site. It also bars people from overseeing elections if they’ve been convicted of election-related offenses, sedition or insurrection.
The officials also can’t “knowingly or recklessly” promote misinformation or disinformation, a distinction bill sponsor Senate President Stephen Fenberg said would be up to the courts to sort.
“I don’t think we were thinking about insider threats before Mesa,” Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold said at a news conference Monday to debut the bill, referring to allegations against Peters. “We have lots of safeguards, but the idea that someone elected to uphold elections would try to destroy from within was shocking to the election community in Colorado.”
Griswold, like Fenberg, is a Democrat.
Colorado has “gold standard” elections as is, she argued, citing high turnout and security, but that the bill is necessary to combat emerging efforts to undermine confidence in the system.
The bill would require election officials to get training in testing voting systems, risk-limiting audits of the systems and election security, including how to combat misinformation and disinformation.
The proposal also includes $500,000 in grant dollars to help local election officials improve their security systems.
Pueblo County Clerk Bo Ortiz, who also serves as the president of the Colorado County Clerks Association, called the bill the most important elections-related policy push since voters approved mail-in voting in 2013.
“Recognizing that low-information election officials make for easier targets for grifters and bad actors, we fully support for them to receive their state election certification before they run a major election,” Ortiz, a Democrat, said.
The association largely supports the initiative, Executive Director Matt Crane said. About 50 county clerks, across party lines, were on a call Monday to discuss the measure and all of them supported it, he said. There are 64 county clerks in the state.
Josh Bly, a spokesperson for the Colorado Senate GOP, said senators in his caucus are watching the bill, but didn’t comment on its merits.
“We sincerely hope the opportunity for bipartisan collaboration presents itself when the bill is considered,” he said in a statement.
It is up for debate at a Senate committee Tuesday, along with another Democratic proposal to ban the open carry of firearms at polling places. The committee is its first step through the legislative process.
County clerks throughout Colorado have been targeted by conspiracy theorists concerned about the election, and Griswold’s office keeps a running list of threats she’s received.
Her office, along with law enforcement, investigated Peters over allegations that the clerk and her deputy allowed an unauthorized man access to copy voting equipment servers. Passwords from the equipment were later posted in online QAnon circles.
Griswold has sued Peters and later Elbert County Clerk Dallas Schroeder over allegations of making unauthorized copies of election servers. An investigation into the actions of a third county clerk, Merlin Klotz of Douglas County, cleared him.
Colorado county elections official Tina Peters is indicted in probe of alleged tampering with voting equipment
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2022/03/09/tina-peters-colorado-elections-clerk-charged/
U.S. Senate approves bill to make daylight saving time permanent
By David Shepardson
WASHINGTON, March 15 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Tuesday passed legislation that would make daylight saving time permanent starting in 2023, ending the twice-annual changing of clocks in a move promoted by supporters advocating brighter afternoons and more economic activity.
The Senate approved the measure, called the Sunshine Protection Act, unanimously by voice vote. The House of Representatives, which has held a committee hearing on the matter, must still pass the bill before it can go to President Joe Biden to sign........
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-approves-bill-that-would-make-daylight-savings-time-permanent-2023-2022-03-15/?utm_source=reddit.com
I could give a rats anal about any FCEL story, I'm a active trader with FCEL, I only pay attention to what the general money feels about any story and I trade the charts and trends. I don't marry any stock or get emotionally involved with it. I just pay attention to the numbers and the overall sentiment, direction of the general market involved, and fundamentals if reviewing long term solid stock. I don't ride it down for long periods of time losing 80% of my investment or try to catch falling knives, I just wait till a different trend appears and confirmed looking at any resistances that might get in the way.
It's the CEO's job to put out the best story in the best possible view of any company, keeping the bad points as hidden as possible. If FCEL was some solid growth or value instead of just being a speculative, I might take a listen, but the charts tells me all I need to know here.
This has been true since I started regularly trading this almost a yr ago. Been up down and all around, mostly down as shown on the chart. General trends, comparisons to the general markets, simple charting and my stated facts of the history of FCEL price action have nothing to do with me listening to some stocks CEO. I do pay attention to the pps reaction to the story and the limits of those reactions, why myself and a whole lot of others made 25% or more profit shorting the darn thing in two trading days.
So, indirectly I guess, I did listen to the story and played the hand accordingly.
As I stated and obvious to most, we're in a bear market now, and even some of the best stocks giving out solid earnings and real solid projections way above in quality from FCEL and it's level, have gone down with this market.
Questionable stories from low level stocks and their CEO's aren't going to do any better and probably worse as seen from the last earnings and correlating story from FCEL and it's subsequent drop in pps.
No matter what one pumps up about it or what alternative emotional reality they are in, can't get away from the pertaining facts. The more one gets away from the real reality or the more emotions involved, the more one will lose.
Saudi Arabia Considers Accepting Yuan Instead of Dollars for Chinese Oil Sales
https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabia-considers-accepting-yuan-instead-of-dollars-for-chinese-oil-sales
Saudi Arabia is in active talks with Beijing to price its some of its oil sales to China in yuan, people familiar with the matter said, a move that would dent the U.S. dollar’s dominance of the global petroleum market and mark another shift by the world’s top crude exporter toward Asia.
The talks with China over yuan-priced oil contracts have been off and on for six years but have accelerated this year as the Saudis have grown increasingly unhappy with decades-old U.S. security commitments to defend the kingdom, the people said.
The Saudis are angry over the U.S.’s lack of support for their intervention in the Yemen civil war, and over the Biden administration’s attempt to strike a deal with Iran over its nuclear program. Saudi officials have said they were shocked by the precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan last year.
China buys more than 25% of the oil that Saudi Arabia exports. If priced in yuan, those sales would boost the standing of China’s currency.
That's a really good point. Another confirmation that the trend is your friend. Definitely one should pay attention to the overall market with investing. When markets in general are bearish, stocks will be bearish also, with a few exceptions of course.
Last year when the general market was bullish getting higher highs and higher lows, FCEL was diverging in pps from that and generally getting lower highs and lower lows. Well that divergence is continuing. When the market yesterday went down, FCEL went down a lot more percentage wise, still diverging in pps from the overall market.
Now that the market is bearish overall, and if FCELs trend continues, then it will be even more bearish.
Trend is your friend, pay attention to it.
Probably so. Wondering if there has been any action of officials seizing the place. Ex-son-in-law is pretty close connection and part of the ill gotten gains.
They've been arrested.
Activists held after occupying Biarritz villa owned by Putin’s ex-son-in-law
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/14/activists-occupy-villa-biarritz-france-vladimir-putin-ex-son-in-law
Traders are most of the volume, at times traders are all of it. Exception to that is the exuberance at the time of earnings, but even then large portion was just traders.
For long term, if one doesn't want to look at the fundamentals (not good) or listen to any professional outlooks (again not good), that's fine and accept that it is just speculative. But the only thing that's left is the technical charting and FCELs chart is about as easy as it gets. The trend is your friend is just not a saying, it's reality.
Why my shorting has been 2-3 times more than going long in the past yr. I'm just a pimple on a flea with the amount of money I do compared to all the major money betting on this going down. I'm just following the money and trend. What I do or say isn't going to effect that fact.
Major resistance was at 7 and when it overshot that, it was because of the irrational exuberance at the time and obviously was topping out and going to correct. Big time shorting at that time. When the story is pumped as the shorts are going to have change their pants, that's when we do, only to get a bigger pair to stuff some more IOU's in them. LOL Today a very good day for us. It's pretty much lost last week of gains.
You only have to look at the very basic of charting to see this thing. FCEL been making lower highs and lower lows for quite some time long term and that has not abated and made considerably lower high this last time.
Just the RSI here says a lot. Look at how much below 50 it has done vs how much above and what is it saying now that it has the greatest probability of doing in the future. I can't call the bottom, but it's indicating a greater possibility being a lower low than the last one.
Went up about 5x as hard. OXY up about 50% to it's high in couple of wks and only down about 7-8% from that high 2 trading days ago bouncing right now only off the 10 day line. These days larger swings are becoming just normal and on par changed from days past.
Also, does one think that Buffet's continued buying of OXY is because oil is going to come down in the long term or profits are not going to increase?
Warren Buffett is still buying Occidental Petroleum, adding shares worth $1.5 billion
PUBLISHED SAT, MAR 12 20228:55 AM EST
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/12/warren-buffett-is-still-buying-occidental-petroleum-adding-shares-worth-1point5-billion.html
Just a little ebb and flow going on with price. They need the price up permanently in order to uncap wells, increase flow, and drill on all the permits/leases given out, thousands that were given out 4,5 yrs ago that are not utilized yet due to low price and lack of demand in oil.
They need that guarantee and will get it one way or another and we are going to see higher prices at pump to never go back again.
Republicans seize on rising gas prices amid Ukraine conflict
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/597883-republicans-seize-on-rising-gas-prices-amid-ukraine-conflict
Republicans running in down-ballot races are using soaring gas prices to go on the offensive against Democrats, posing a challenge for President Biden and his allies on the campaign trail.
Biden and Democrats were already contending with record inflation and rising gas prices well before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but Republicans have used the latest price hike to tie their opponents to what they argue is a lack of energy independence under the Biden administration.
On Thursday, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) released an ad titled “Pain at the Pump,” targeting 10 incumbent House Democrats.
“The blame for record-high gas prices lies solely at the feet of Joe Biden and House Democrats,” NRCC Chair Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) said in a statement announcing the ads.
For months, Republicans have been seeking to blame Biden and the Democrats for already high gasoline prices, though analysts largely attributed the high prices seen in recent months to supply and demand mismatches related to the coronavirus pandemic.
With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine driving gasoline prices even higher, the GOP has grown even more aggressive in seeking to pin the blame on Democratic climate policies.
Biden has sought to deflect the attacks.
“Make no mistake, inflation’s largely the fault of Putin,” the president said Friday in remarks to House Democrats, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“I love, you know, the Republicans saying it’s Biden’s gas pipeline, Biden’s said he’s going to stop the Keystone Pipeline and I did and that’s the reason prices went up. Folks let’s get something straight here, the Keystone Pipeline was two years away and had been 2 percent finished. Give me a break,” he added.
The Keystone XL pipeline was about 8 percent built when Biden revoked a key permit for it at the start of 2021, and the company behind it had said it was not expected for completion until 2023. The move has drawn criticism from Republicans, who point to it as an example of the policies they say are weakening the U.S.’s energy independence.
Gas prices reached a record $4.33 per gallon this week, surpassing the previous 2008 record of $4.10. Americans were dealt another tough inflation report this week, which showed that consumer prices rose 0.8 percent in February and 7.9 percent over the last 12 months. Biden reacted to the report by calling it the impacts of “Putin’s price hike.”
??“We’ve seen the price of gas go up at least 75 cents since President Putin lined up troops on the border of Ukraine,” said White House press secretary Jen Psaki said on Thursday when questioned by Fox News’s Peter Doocy about if the White House is going to “start blaming Putin for everything until the midterms.”
The White House also attempted to ease American concerns this week by arguing that high gas prices will be temporary. Republicans running for election are brushing off this narrative, noting that inflation and gas prices were on the rise well before Russia’s invasion.
“We have seen an overregulation from this administration on the oil and gas industry for the past fifteen months, and now blaming it on Vladimir Putin seems awkwardly convenient,” said Wesley Hunt, a Republican running in Texas’s 38th Congressional District.
The newly drawn district makes up much of the Houston area, which has been nicknamed “the energy capital of the world.” Hunt pointed out that the vast majority of his would-be constituents are especially feeling the pinch of higher gas prices due to the district’s ties to the energy sector.
“We’ve been living this nightmare for the past year and now we know better,” he said.
Biden on Thursday argued that the U.S. is increasing oil production with record productivity and that oil production will be higher this year than in recent previous years.
“The Republicans are playing a game here,” the president said on the GOP messaging.
Analysts say that Russia, rather than Biden, is to blame for the latest spike in gasoline prices.
Claudio Galimberti, senior vice president of analysis at energy research firm Rystad Energy, said that suddenly, following the invasion, the approximately 4 million barrels of oil that Russia supplies daily to the global market have become hard to place, resulting in a “supply shock.”
“We are in a shock because we need to find these barrels somewhere else,” he said.
Before the invasion, high gas prices were largely attributable to supply and demand mismatches because of the coronavirus pandemic.
“There’s a lot of damage that was inflicted by COVID and now Russia on top of that kind of further spreading the gap between supply and demand,” said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy.
Democrats, including those in swing states, are seeing this as an important issue for their constituents.
“It’s a big problem for my constituents and Americans. Not only the price of gas, which is a big deal, but the price of groceries as well,” Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who is facing a closely watched reelection bid, told The Hill.
Kelly has proposed a suspension of the federal gas tax to provide some price relief — but the measure faces an uphill battle in Congress.
Asked what else should be done, the senator said, “Call on the administration to — let’s look for options to increase production, and we should be calling on oil companies to increase production.”
Wisconsin Democratic Senate candidate Tom Nelson, a progressive, praised Biden’s moves against Russia, but called for a renewable energy strategy going forward.
“How many times are we going to get smacked in the face?” Nelson told The Hill. “We need to have an energy strategy that moves beyond fossil fuels.”
“That’s a big reason why I support the Green New Deal because it’s a matter of energy security, national security, and global security,” he added.
Biden and down-ballot Democrats face an uphill battle going into the midterms. A Wall Street Journal poll released on Friday found that only 42 percent of respondents said they approved of Biden’s job performance. On top of that, 63 percent of voters said they disapproved of how Biden has handled inflation. Forty-seven percent said they believed Republicans were better situated to handle inflation, while 30 percent said the same about Democrats.
Democratic Party officials have acknowledged rising prices at the pump but are also accusing Republicans of politicizing the issue.
“Republicans are only looking for political talking points,” said Democratic National Committee Chairman Jaime Harrison. “They don’t care about the impact on the pocketbooks of people. They don’t care about the difficulties that it presents. Democrats are looking for solutions.”
Democratic strategist Jon Reinish said that Democrats should be able to fight back against the messaging from the right.
Trump tears into Biden amid Ukraine conflict
Uber to charge riders fuel fee amid rising gas prices
“Show voters all that Democrats are trying to do to ease pain at the pump,” he said. “Show them everything Republicans are not doing, and have never done and how cynically they’re trying to use the issue as a political football instead of actually trying to address the problem.”
He added that with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Democrats may actually be in a better position on high gasoline prices than they were previously.
“There’s a more unifying and tangible explanation for the most recent spike that Americans can automatically understand,” he said.
Why are US gas prices soaring when America barely uses Russian oil?
By Julianne Pepitone, CNN Business
Updated 10:09 AM ET, Sat March 12, 2022
New York (CNN Business)There's pain at the pump for American drivers as US gas prices soar to record highs.
Although the United States barely uses Russian oil, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is still a big factor in the gas-price spike — among other reasons.
Confused? We'll walk you through it.
So why is Russian oil affecting the US?
Most of Russia's oil goes to Europe and Asia. But the key here is to think about the oil supply globally, rather than the US specifically. The commodities world is a heavily interconnected one, and oil is priced through a global market. So what happens in one area of the world can affect another.
The problem at hand is that Russia is one of the world's biggest oil suppliers. In December, for example, Russia sent nearly 8 million barrels of oil and other petroleum products to global markets, including 5 million barrels of the crude oil that's used to make gasoline among other items.
And yes, it's true that very little of that Russian supply goes to the United States — just 90,000 barrels of crude oil per day in December, according to the most recent US government statistics.
In 2021, by contrast, Europe got 60% of Russia's oil exports and China got 20%.
But remember that oil is bought and shipped around the world through a global commodities market. So in that sense it doesn't really matter who specifically is getting crunched by the loss of Russian oil, because lower supply affects those global prices no matter what. And as we know from Econ 101, when there's less supply of an item in demand, prices rise.
For example, if Europe buys less Russian oil, it will have to replace it with oil from somewhere else — perhaps from the powerful Saudi Arabia-led Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. That increase in demand for OPEC oil will send its crude prices higher. And guess who else buys hundreds of millions of barrels of OPEC oil?
You guessed it: the United States.
Why is there less Russian supply, anyway?
At first the West, including the US, exempted Russian oil and natural gas from the sanctions they levied. The Biden administration reversed course on that on Tuesday, banning Russian oil and other fuel imports to the US, while the UK said it will phase out Russian oil imports by the end of the year. (The EU is in a tougher spot on this, because they're far more dependent on Russian oil.)
But the initial lack of formal bans didn't really matter in terms of prices anyway. There's been a de facto ban on Russian oil since the invasion began, with most of the country's supply sitting unsold.
That's because oil traders are incredibly nervous to touch the stuff. There's a ton of uncertainty about buying Russian oil, whether it's about the ability to close deals given the sanctions on Russia's banking system, or finding tankers willing to go to Russian ports amid shipping dangers in the war zone.
As a result, the main type of oil that Russia exports into Europe is being offered for sale at a major discount because nobody wants it. JPMorgan recently estimated more than 4 million barrels per day of Russian oil has been effectively sidelined.
So investors are essentially pricing oil as if Russia's supply isn't available at all. And again, less supply = higher prices.
Why can't other countries pump out more?
Good old Covid strikes again. Nobody wanted oil in general in spring 2020, when global stay-at-home orders meant nobody needed to gas up and get to the office. With demand cratering, oil prices did too — even briefly trading at negative prices.
In turn OPEC+ heavily cut production to support prices. And they've kept production targets low since then, only gradually adding back production, even when demand for oil and gasoline bounced back sooner than expected.
Guess who's part of OPEC+? Russia. So yeah, OPEC+ isn't rushing to the rescue. The Saudis have made crystal clear for months, even before the invasion, that the group doesn't plan to open up the oil taps anytime soon.
That iron resolve may or may not be cracking, however. In one confusing development this week, the United Arab Emirates' ambassador to Washington told CNN that the country wants to increase oil production and will encourage its partners in OPEC+ to do so. But later the UAE's minister of energy and infrastructure tweeted that the nation will to stick to its OPEC+ agreement and gradually raise production.
And then, the Iraqi oil ministry said its leaders met and agreed its OPEC+ partners should balance supply and demand to stabilize the market. At this point, who knows.
Why can't US oil companies ramp up production, then?
Russia was the No. 2 oil producer in the world in 2021, pumping out 9.7 million barrels a day — but the US is No. 1 with 10.2 million. American companies don't abide by those OPEC-style, nationally mandated production targets. But US oil producers can't or won't fill the supply gap, even though they could make a mint given the high prices and demand.
Again here, Covid strikes. Like many industries during the pandemic, oil producers are struggling to find staffers and source specialized equipment. Meanwhile, US oil companies are still smarting from the pain of that major oil bust in 2020, which kicked off a flurry of bankruptcies. Major oil companies' stock performances have lagged the broader market since then too. And as makers of fossil fuels, they're wary that future environmental policies could hurt future demand for oil.
All of the above underscores how oil and gas prices are tied to geopolitical events, the pandemic, drilling logistics and so much more. And it adds up to average US gas prices above $4.33 a gallon as of Friday.
In short, it's all a simple case of supply and demand. But of course it's never really so simple.
— CNN Business' Chris Isidore and Matt Egan contributed reporting.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/12/energy/us-gas-prices-russia-oil/index.html
Traitorous former guy and Russia had more connection with oil than they would have us believe. You really think that the Iran deal just had to do with nuclear armament and cancelling it was for the benefit of America. Ha. Traitor fg did nothing for anybody ever if it wasn't to his benefit. When that supply of oil and power from Iran was limited, it only proceeded to give Russian oil(money) and power a lot more advantage. It was favoritism to Putin, maybe just payment from before or payment forward, probably both. Along with the fact that traitor fs mental and emotional problems needs to dig at Obama.
Reneging on that contract only made the nuclear abilities of Iran greater and Putin's gang richer and more powerful. Even if it's only a conspiracy in my mind, it still the facts of the end results.
One of the main factors now with Iran deal is oil supply and the Russian efforts to control that deal or stop it. It is a negative effect to Putin's power and abilities if the deal goes through, especially now.
Oh, she's already pissed off, and there is going to be hell to pay with many not being able to pay it and will be and is forming that bill. You and I will be dead before the "worst of it" maybe, but I'm afraid we're going to see a lot of really bad, and a LOT sooner than the climate deniers and climate hiders think or want.
It's already getting more than can be denied, but will become deafening and an unavoidable economic disaster within the next decade. With each passing year, the expense getting exponentially worse. This of course is just plain physics in a massive scale and even now has been hitting the normal populations pocket book.
Ever notice how much building material hits the basic structure of supply & demand and the corresponding price effects not just in the effective area but nationally and even globally when there is some climate disaster. How about just insurance costs that have been increased with less coverage. I have family right now in the upper foothills of the Sierras, their rates have increased dramatically, but lucky just to have it "grandfathered" in, but worried even those increased rates will be thing of the past very soon. For many of their neighbors have had their insurance coverage just cancelled, the company no longer wanting the risk, directing them to other insurance companies (satellites of the main insurance system) that charge exorbitant fees and cuts to the lenders. Costs per yr that would exceed the entire properties worth within 3-5 yrs. Believe me, that is not an exaggeration. One neighbor, when they came back home from an fire evacuation, came home to a notice that their home would no longer be insured and only could find insurance through their lender at those fees to replace it.
We have the worst drought in 1200 yrs, water tables never to get back to "normal" in anybody's lifetime. The domino economic effect of that will contribute greatly to our demise, already has. Climate is one thing that will overpower the involvement of oil(money). Without water, sun, and air, there is no oil or anything else. That includes the lack of it, too much of it, and too polluted respectively.
Water and the control of it will become very soon as powerful or even more than black, white, or shiny gold.
That is fact. Why certain parties spend billions of dollars, focus, and major disinformation wars to hide it. Why the traitorous former guy trump disbanded scientist, ordering elimination of the facts out of written words, stopping any flow of information to the public about it, and replaced with lies and disinformation tactics and favors to the worst of the offenders.
The people with the power to mitigate the expense of the results of climate degradation only make policies to shove the expense downward, unwilling to give up their million dollars or more a day quality of life and ever expanding greed for more. Way beyond any reasonable form of capitalism or human needs. As long as they can make some masses to believe that anybody they can't silence trying to address these facts have the wrong policy or no policy at all, it will be a win. For a loss would play against their policy of taking from below protecting their status quo and power. Protecting themselves and their power control regardless of how many millions of lives it will destroy or eliminate is their only policy.
They know Mother's wrath is coming and is a threat to their existence as they know it. They are preparing, just not any "policy" that they want the public to know about. Stating that only they have the answers, don't look over there at true knowledge or expertise. Awareness being the main defense and the enemy of the perpetrators.
An article with one example and only one small part of the entirety of the scam.
The Great Water Grab: Wall Street is buying up the world’s water
November 27, 2019
Following is one of the most comprehensive overviews of the bottled water issue, which includes our backdoor grab attempt by one of the world’s largest bullies and despoilers. Be sure to watch the excellent video.
Read the complete article here at this link to Ecologise.in.
Comments by OSFR historian Jim Tatum.
-A river is like a life: once taken, it cannot be brought back-
The Great Water Grab: Wall Street is buying up the world’s water
Written by Contributor, 17th November 2019, 0 Comments
Jo-Shing Yang reports on how Wall Street banks like Citigroup and multibillionaires are buying up water sources all over the world at unprecedented pace. Simultaneously, governments are moving fast to limit citizens’ ability to become water self-sufficient. Also read an investigative report from The Guardian: Liquid assets: how the business of bottled water went mad
Jo-Shing Yang, Global Research
IT’S EASY TO CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES
Click here for a super easy way to let all of your representatives know what you think.
A disturbing trend in the water sector is accelerating worldwide. The new “water barons” — the Wall Street banks and elitist multibillionaires — are buying up water all over the world at unprecedented pace.
Familiar mega-banks and investing powerhouses such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Macquarie Bank, Barclays Bank, the Blackstone Group, Allianz, and HSBC Bank, among others, are consolidating their control over water. Wealthy tycoons such as T. Boone Pickens, former President George H.W. Bush and his family, Hong Kong’s Li Ka-shing, Philippines’ Manuel V. Pangilinan and other Filipino billionaires, and others are also buying thousands of acres of land with aquifers, lakes, water rights, water utilities, and shares in water engineering and technology companies all over the world.
The second disturbing trend is that while the new water barons are buying up water all over the world, governments are moving fast to limit citizens’ ability to become water self-sufficient (as evidenced by the well-publicized Gary Harrington’s case in Oregon, in which the state criminalized the collection of rainwater in three ponds located on his private land, by convicting him on nine counts and sentencing him for 30 days in jail). Let’s put this criminalization in perspective:
Billionaire T. Boone Pickens owned more water rights than any other individuals in America, with rights over enough of the Ogallala Aquifer to drain approximately 200,000 acre-feet (or 65 billion gallons of water) a year. But ordinary citizen Gary Harrington cannot collect rainwater runoff on 170 acres of his private land.
It’s a strange New World Order in which multibillionaires and elitist banks can own aquifers and lakes, but ordinary citizens cannot even collect rainwater and snow runoff in their own backyards and private lands.
“Water is the oil of the 21st century.” Andrew Liveris, CEO of DOW Chemical Company (quoted in The Economist magazine, August 21, 2008)
In 2008, I wrote an article,
“Why Big Banks May Be Buying up Your Public Water System,” in which I detailed how both mainstream and alternative media coverage on water has tended to focus on individual corporations and super-investors seeking to control water by buying up water rights and water utilities. But paradoxically the hidden story is a far more complicated one. I argued that the real story of the global water sector is a convoluted one involving “interlocking globalized capital”: Wall Street and global investment firms, banks, and other elite private-equity firms — often transcending national boundaries to partner with each other, with banks and hedge funds, with technology corporations and insurance giants, with regional public-sector pension funds, and with sovereign wealth funds — are moving rapidly into the water sector to buy up not only water rights and water-treatment technologies, but also to privatize public water utilities and infrastructure.
Now, in 2012, we are seeing this trend of global consolidation of water by elite banks and tycoons accelerating. In a JP Morgan equity research document, it states clearly that “Wall Street appears well aware of the investment opportunities in water supply infrastructure, wastewater treatment, and demand management technologies.” Indeed, Wall Street is preparing to cash in on the global water grab in the coming decades. For example, Goldman Sachs has amassed more than $10 billion since 2006 for infrastructure investments, which include water. A 2008 New York Times article mentioned Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, and the Carlyle Group, to have “amassed an estimated an estimated $250 billion war chest — must of it raised in the last two years — to finance a tidal wave of infrastructure projects in the United States and overseas.”
By “water,” I mean that it includes water rights (i.e., the right to tap groundwater, aquifers, and rivers), land with bodies of water on it or under it (i.e., lakes, ponds, and natural springs on the surface, or groundwater underneath), desalination projects, water-purification and treatment technologies (e.g., desalination, treatment chemicals and equipment), irrigation and well-drilling technologies, water and sanitation services and utilities, water infrastructure maintenance and construction (from pipes and distribution to all scales of treatment plants for residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal uses), water engineering services (e.g., those involved in the design and construction of water-related facilities), and retail water sector (such as those involved in the production, operation, and sales of bottled water, water vending machines, bottled water subscription and delivery services, water trucks, and water tankers).
Update of My 2008 Article: Mega-Banks See Water as a Critical Commodity
Since 2008, many giant banks and super-investors are capturing more market share in the water sector and identifying water as a critical commodity, much hotter than petroleum.
Goldman Sachs: Water Is Still the Next Petroleum
In 2008, Goldman Sachs called water “the petroleum for the next century” and those investors who know how to play the infrastructure boom will reap huge rewards, during its annual “Top Five Risks” conference. Water is a U.S.$425 billion industry, and a calamitous water shortage could be a more serious threat to humanity in the 21st century than food and energy shortages, according to Goldman Sachs’s conference panel. Goldman Sachs has convened numerous conferences and also published lengthy, insightful analyses of water and other critical sectors (food, energy).
Goldman Sachs is positioning itself to gobble up water utilities, water engineering companies, and water resources worldwide. Since 2006, Goldman Sachs has become one of the largest infrastructure investment fund managers and has amassed a $10 billion capital for infrastructure, including water.
In March 2012, Goldman Sachs was eyeing Veolia’s UK water utility business, estimated at £1.2 billion, and in July it successfully bought Veolia Water, which serves 3.5 million people in southeastern England.
Previously, in September 2003, Goldman Sachs partnered with one of the world’s largest private-equity firm Blackstone Group and Apollo Management to acquire Ondeo Nalco (a leading company in providing water-treatment and process chemicals and services, with more than 10,000 employees and operations in 130 countries) from French water corporation Suez S.A. for U.S.$4.2 billion.
In October 2007, Goldman Sachs teamed up with Deutsche Bank and several partners to bid, unsuccessfully, for U.K.’s Southern Water. In November 2007, Goldman Sachs was also unsuccessful in bidding for U.K. water utility Kelda. But Goldman Sachs is still looking to buy other water utilities.
In January 2008, Goldman Sachs led a team of funds (including Liberty Harbor Master Fund and the Pinnacle Fund) to buy U.S.$50 million of convertible notes in China Water and Drinks Inc., which supplies purified water to name-brand vendors like Coca-Cola and Taiwan’s top beverage company Uni-President. China Water and Drinks is also a leading producer and distributor of bottled water in China and also makes private-labeled bottled water (e.g., for Sands Casino, Macau). Since China has one of the worse water problems in Asia and a large emerging middle class, its bottled-water sector is the fastest-growing in the world and it’s seeing enormous profits. Additionally, China’s acute water shortages and serious pollution could “buoy demand for clean water for years to come, with China’s $14.2 billion water industry a long-term investment destination” (Reuters, January 28, 2008).
The City of Reno, Nevada, was approached by Goldman Sachs for “a long-term asset leasing that could potentially generate significant cash for the three TMWA [Truckee Meadows Water Authority] entities. The program would allow TMWA to lease its assets for 50 years and receive an up-front cash payment” (Reno News & Review, August 28, 2008). Essentially, Goldman Sachs wants to privatize Reno’s water utility for 50 years. Given Reno’s revenue shortfall, this proposal was financially attractive. But the water board eventually rejected the proposal due to strong public opposition and outcry.
Citigroup: The Water Market Will Soon Eclipse Oil, Agriculture, and Precious Metals
Citigroup’s top economist Willem Buitler said in 2011 that the water market will soon be hotter the oil market (for example, see this and this):
“Water as an asset class will, in my view, become eventually the single most important physical-commodity based asset class, dwarfing oil, copper, agricultural commodities and precious metals.”
In its recent 2012 Water Investment Conference, Citigroup has identified top 10 trends in the water sector, as follows:
1. Desalination systems
2. Water reuse technologies
3. Produced water / water utilities
4. Membranes for filtration
5. Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection
6. Ballast-water treatment technologies
7. Forward osmosis used in desalination
8. Water-efficiency technologies and products
9. Point-of-use treatment systems
10. Chinese competitors in water
Specifically, a lucrative opportunity in water is in hydraulic fracturing (or fracking), as it generates massive demand for water and water services. Each oil well developed requires 3 to 5 million gallons of water, and 80% of this water cannot be reused because it’s three to 10 times saltier than seawater. Citigroup recommends water-rights owners sell water to fracking companies instead of to farmers because water for fracking can be sold for as much as $3,000 per acre-foot instead of only $50 per acre/foot to farmers.
The ballast-water treatment sector, currently at $1.35 billion annually, is estimated to reach $30 to $50 billion soon. The water-filtration market is expected to outgrow the water-equipment market: Dow estimates it to be a $5 billion market annually instead of only $1 billion now.
Citigroup is aggressively raising funds for its war chest to participate in the coming tidal wave of infrastructure privatization: in 2007 it established a new unit called Citi Infrastructure Investors through its Citi Alternative Investments unit. According to Reuters, Citigroup “assembled some of the biggest names in the infrastructure business at the same time it is building a $3 billion fund, including $500 million of its own capital. The fund, according to a person familiar with the situation, will have only a handful of outside investors and will be focused on assets in developed markets” (May 16, 2007). Citigroup initially sought only U.S.$3 billion for its first infrastructure fund but was seeking U.S.$5 billion in April 2008 (Bloomberg, April 7, 2008).
Citigroup partnered with HSBC Bank, Prudential, and other minor partners to acquire U.K.’s water utility Kelda (Yorkshire Water) in November 2007. This week, Citigroup signed a 99-year lease with the City of Chicago for Chicago’s Midway Airport (it partnered with John Hancock Life Insurance Company and a Canadian private airport operator). Insiders said that Citigroup is among those bidding for the state-owned company Letiste Praha which operates the Prague Airport in the Czech Republic (Bloomberg, February 7, 2008).
As the five U.K. water utility deals illustrate, typically no one single investment bank or private-equity fund owns the entire infrastructure project — they partner with many others. The Citigroup is now entering India’s massive infrastructure market by partnering the Blackstone Group and two Indian private finance companies; they have launched a U.S.$5 billion fund in February 2007, with three entities (Citi, Blackstone, and IDFC) jointly investing U.S.$250 million. India requires about U.S.$320 billion in infrastructure investments in the next five years (The Financial Express, February 16, 2007).
UBS: Water Scarcity Is the Defining Crisis of the 21st Century
In 2006, UBS Investment Research, a division of Switzerland-based UBS AG, Europe’s largest bank by assets, entitled its 40-page research report, “Q-Series®:Water”—“Water scarcity: The defining crisis of the 21st century?” (October 10, 2006) In 2007, UBS, along with JP Morgan and Australia’s Challenger Fund, bought UK’s Southern Water for £4.2biillion.
Credit Suisse: Water Is the “Paramount Megatrend of Our Time”
Credit Suisse published its report about Credit Suisse Water Index (January 21, 2008) urged investors that “One way to take advantage of this trend is to invest in companies geared to water generation, preservation, infrastructure treatment and desalination. The Index enables investors to participate in the performance of the most attractive companies….” The trend in question, according to Credit Suisse, is the “depletion of freshwater reserves” attributable to “pollution, disappearance of glaciers (the main source of freshwater reserves), and population growth, water is likely to become a scarce resource.”
Credit Suisse recognizes water to be the “paramount megatrend of our time” because of a water-supply crisis might cause “severe societal risk” in the next 10 years and that two-thirds of the world’s population are likely to live under water-stressed conditions by 2025. To address water shortages, it has identified desalination and wastewater treatment as the two most important technologies. Three sectors for good investments include the following:
§ Membranes for desalination and wastewater treatment
§ Water infrastructure — corrosion resistance, pipes, valves, and pumps
§ Chemicals for water treatment
It also created the Credit Suisse Water Index which has the equally weighed index of 30 stocks out of 128 global water stocks. For investors, it offered “Credit Suisse PL100 World Water Trust (PL100 World Water),” launched in June 2007, with $112.9 million.
Credit Suisse partnered with General Electric (GE Infrastructure) in May 2006 to establish a U.S.$1 billion joint venture to profit from privatization and investments in global infrastructure assets. Each partner will commit U.S.$500 million to target electricity generation and transmission, gas storage and pipelines, water facilities, airports, air traffic control, ports, railroads, and toll roads worldwide. This joint venture has estimated that the developed market’s infrastructure opportunities are at U.S.$500 billion, and emerging world’s infrastructure market is U.S.$1 trillion in the next five years (Credit Suisse’s press release, May 31, 2006).
In October 2007, Credit Suisse partnered with Cleantech Group (a Michigan-based market-research, consulting, media, and executive-search firm that operates cleantech forums) and Consensus Business Group (a London-based equity firm owned by U.K. billionaire Vincent Tchenguiz) to invest in clean technologies worldwide. The technologies will also clean water technologies.
During its Asian Investment Conference, it said that “Water is a focus for those in the know about global strategic commodities. As with oil, the supply is finite but demand is growing by leaps and unlike oil there is no alternative.” (Credit Suisse, February 4, 2008). Credit Suisse sees the global water market with U.S.$190 billion in revenue in 2005 and was expected to grow to U.S.$342 billion by 2010. It sees most significant growth opportunities in China.
JPMorgan Chase: Build Infrastructure War Chests to Buy Water, Utilities, and Public Infrastructure Worldwide
One of the world’s largest banks, JPMorgan Chase has aggressively pursued water and infrastructure worldwide. In October 2007, it beat out rivals Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs to buy U.K.’s water utility Southern Water with partners Swiss-based UBS and Australia’s Challenger Infrastructure Fund. This banking empire is controlled by the Rockefeller family; the family patriarch David Rockefeller is a member of the elite and secretive Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, and Trilateral Commission.
JPMorgan sees infrastructure finance as a global phenomenon, and it is joined by its global peers in investment and banking institution in their rush to cash in on water and infrastructure. JPMorgan’s own analysts estimate that the emerging markets’ infrastructure is approximately U.S.$21.7 trillion over the next decade.
JPMorgan created a U.S.$2 billion infrastructure fund to go after India’s infrastructure projects in October 2007. The targeted projects are transportation (roads, bridges, railroads) and utilities (gas, electricity, water). India’s finance minister has been estimated that India requires about U.S.$500 billion in infrastructure investments by 2012. In this regard, JPMorgan is joined by Citigroup, the Blackstone Group, 3i Group (Europe’s second-largest private-equity firm), and ICICI Bank (India’s second-largest bank) (International Herald Tribune, October 31, 2007). Its JPMorgan Asset Management has also established an Asian Infrastructure & Related Resources Opportunity Fund which held a first close on U.S.$500 million (€333 million) and will focus on China, India, and other Southern Asian countries, with the first two investments in China and India (Private Equity Online, August 11, 2008). The fund’s target is U.S.$1.5 billion.
JPMorgan’s Global Equity Research division also published a 60-page report called “Watch water: A guide to evaluating corporate risks in a thirsty world” (April 1, 2008).
In 2010, J.P. Morgan Asset Management and Water Asset Management led a $275 million buyout bid for SouthWest Water.
Allianz Group: Water Is Underpriced and Undervalued
Founded in 1890, Germany’s Allianz Group is one of the leading global services providers in insurance, banking, and asset management in about 70 countries. In April 2008, Allianz SE launched the Allianz RCM Global Water Fund which invests in equity securities of water-related companies worldwide, emphasizing long-term capital appreciation. Alliance launched its Global EcoTrends Fund in February 2007 (Business Wire, February 7, 2007).
Allianz SE’s Dresdner Bank AG told its investors that “Investments in water offer opportunities: Rising oil prices obscure our view of an even more serious scarcity: water. The global water economy is faced with a multi-billion dollar need for capital expenditure and modernization. Dresdner Bank sees this as offering attractive opportunities for returns for investors with a long-term investment horizon.” (Frankfurt, August 14, 2008)
Like Goldman Sachs, Allianz has the philosophy that water is underpriced. A co-manager of the Water Fund in Frankfurt, said, “A key issue of water is that the true value of water is not recognized. …Water tends to be undervalued around the world. …Perhaps that is one of the reasons why there are so many places with a lack of supply due to a lack of investment. With that in mind, it makes sense to invest in companies that are engaged in improving water quality and infrastructure.” Allianz sees two key investment drivers in water: (1) upgrading the aging infrastructure in the developed world; and (2) new urbanization and industrialization in developing countries such as China and India.
Barclays PLC: Water Index Funds and Exchange-Traded Funds
Barclays PLC is a U.K.-based major global financial services provider operating in all over the world with roots in London since 1690; it operates through its subsidiary Barclays Bank PLC and its investment bank called Barclays Capital.
Barclays Bank’s unit Barclays Global Investors manages an exchange-traded fund (ETF) called iShares S&P Global Water, which is listed on the London Stock Exchanges and can be purchased like any ordinary share through a broker. Touting the iShares S&P Global Water as offering “a broad based exposure to shares of the world’s largest water companies, including water utilities and water equipment stocks” of water companies around the world, this fund as of March 31, 2007 was valued at U.S.$33.8 million.
Barclays also have a climate index fund: launched on January 16, 2008, SAM Indexes GmbH licensed its Dow Jones Sustainability Index to Barclays Capital for investors in Germany and Switzerland. Many other banks also have a climate index or sustainability index.
In October 2007, Barclays Capital also partnered with Protected Distribution Limited (PDL) to launch a new water investment fund (with expected annual returns of 9% to 11%) called Protected Water Fund. This new fund, listed in the Isle of Man, requires a minimum of £10,000 and is structured as a 10-year investment with Barclays Bank providing 100% of capital protection until maturity on October 11, 2017. The Protected Water Fund will be invested in some of the world’s largest water companies; its investment decisions will be made based on an index created by Barclays Capital, the Barclays World Water Strategy, which charts the performance of some of the world’s largest water-related stocks (Investment Week and Reuters, October 11, 2007; Business Week, October 15, 2007).
Deutsche Bank’s €2 Billion Investment in European Infrastructure: “Megatrend” in Water, Climate, Infrastructure, and Agribusiness Investments
Deutsche Bank is one of the major players in the water sector worldwide. Its Deutsche Bank Advisors have identified water as a part of the climate investment strategies. In its presentation, “Global Warming: Implications for Investors,” they have identified the four following major areas for water investment:
§ Distribution and management: (1) Supply and recycling, (2) water distribution and sewage, (3) water management and engineering.
§ Water purification: (1) Sewage purification, (2) disinfection, (3) desalination, (4) monitoring.
§ Water efficiency (demand): (1) Home installation, (2) gray-water recycling, (3) water meters.
§ Water and nutrition: (1) Irrigation, (2) bottled water.
In addition to water, the other two new resources identified were agribusiness (e.g., pesticides, genetically modified seeds, mineral fertilizers, agricultural machinery) and renewable energies (e.g., solar, wind, hydrothermal, biomass, hydroelectricity).
The Deutsche Bank has established an investment fund of up to €2 billion in European infrastructure assets using its Structured Capital Markets Group (SCM), part of the bank’s Global Markets division. The bank already has several “highly attractive infrastructure assets,” including East Surrey Holdings, the owner of U.K.’s water utility Sutton & East Surrey Water (Deutsche Bank press release, September 22, 2006).
Moreover, Deutsche Bank has channeled €6 billion (U.S.$8.55 billion) into climate change funds, which will target companies with products that cut greenhouse gases or help people adapt to a warmer world, in sectors from agriculture to power and construction (Reuters, October 18, 2007).
In addition to SCM, Deutsche Bank also has the RREEF Infrastructure, part of RREEF Alternative Investments, headquartered in New York with main hubs in Sydney, Singapore, and London. RREEF Infrastructure has more than €6.7 billion in assets under management. One of its main targets is utilities, including electricity networks, water-treatment or distribution operations, and natural-gas networks. In October 2007, RREEF partnered with Goldman Sachs, GE, Prudential, and Babcok & Brown Ltd. to bid unsuccessfully for U.K.’s water utility Southern Water.
§ Crediting the boom in European infrastructure investment, the RREEF fund by August 2007 had raised €2 billion (U.S.$2.8 billion); Europe’s infrastructure market is valued at between U.S.$4 trillion to U.S.$6 trillion (DowJones Financial News Online, August 7, 2007).
§ Bulgaria — Deutsche Bank Bulgaria is planning to participate in large infrastructure projects, including public-private partnership projects in water and sewage worth up to €1 billion (Sofia Echo Media, February 26, 2008).
§ Middle East — Along with Ithmaar Bank B.S.C. (an private-equity investment bank in Bahrain), Deutsche Bank co-managed a U.S.$2 billion Shari’a-compliant Infrastructure and Growth Capital Fund and plans to target U.S.$630 billion in regional infrastructure.
Deutsche Bank AG is co-owner of Aqueduct Capital (UK) Limited which in 2006 offered to buy U.K.’s sixth-largest water utility Sutton and East Surrey Water plc from British tycoon Guy Hand. According to an OFWAT consultation paper (May 2007), Deutsche Bank formed this new entity, Aqueduct Capital (short for ACUK), in October 2005, with two public pension funds in Canada, Singapore’s life insurance giant, and a Canadian province’s investment fund, among others. This case, again, is an illustration of the complex nature of ownership of water utilities today, with various types of institutions crossing national boundaries to partner with each other to hold a stake in the water sector. With its impressive war chest dedicated to water, food, and infrastructure, Deutsche Bank is expected to become a major player in the global water sector.
Other Mega-Banks Eyeing Water as Hot Investment
Merrill Lynch (before being bought by Bank of America) issued a 24-page research report titled “Water scarcity; a bigger problem than assumed” (December 6, 2007). ML said that water scarcity is “not limited to arid climates.”
Morgan Stanley in its publication, “Emerging Markets Infrastructure: Just Getting Started” (April 2008) recommends three areas of investment opportunities in water: water utilities, global operators (such as Veolia Environment), and technology companies (such as those that manufacture membranes and chemicals used in water treatment to the water industry).
Mutual Funds and Hedge Funds Join the Action in Water
Water investment funds are on the rise, such as these four well-known water-focused mutual funds:
1. Calvert Global Water Fund (CFWAX) — $42 million in assets as of 2010, which holds 30% of its assets in water utilities, 40% in infrastructure companies, and 30% in water technologies. Also between 65% to 70% of the water stocks derived more than 50% of their revenue from water-related activities.
2. Allianz RCM Global Water Fund (AWTAX) — $54 million assets as of 2010, most of it invested in water utilities.
3. PFW Water Fund (PFWAX) — $17 million in assets as of 2010, with a minimum investment of $2,500, with 80% invested in water-related companies….
4. Kinetics Water Infrastructure Advantaged Fund (KWIAX) — $26 million in assets as of 2010, with a minimum investment of $2,500.
This is a brief list of water-centered hedge funds:
§ Master Water Equity Fund — Summit Global AM (United States)
§ Water Partners Fund — Aqua Terra AM (United States)
§ The Water Fund — Terrapin AM (United States)
§ The Reservoir Fund — Water AM (United States)
§ The Oasis Fund — Perella Weinberg AM (United States)
§ Signina Water Fund — Signina Capital AG (Switzerland)
§ MFS Water Fund of Funds — MFS Aqua AM (Australia)
§ Triton Water Fund of Funds — FourWinds CM (United States)
§ Water Edge Fund of Funds — Parker Global Strategies LLC (United States)
Other banks have launched water-targeted investment funds. Several well-known specialized water funds include Pictet Water Fund, SAM Sustainable Water Fund, Sarasin Sustainable Water Fund, Swisscanto Equity Fund Water, and Tareno Waterfund. Several structured water products offered by major investment banks include ABN Amro Water Stocks Index Certificate, BKB Water Basket, ZKB Sustainable Basket Water, Wagelin Water Shares Certificate, UBS Water Strategy Certificate, and Certificate on Vontobel Water Index. There are also several water indexes and index funds, as follows:
Credit Suisse Water Index
HSBC Water, Waste, and Pollution Control Index
Merrill Lynch China Water Index
S&P Global Water Index
First Trust ISE Water Index Fund (FIW)
International Securities Exchange’s ISE-B&S Water Index
The following is a small sample of other water funds and certificates (not exhaustive of the current range of diverse water products available):
Allianz RCM Global EcoTrends Fund
Allianz RCM Global Water Fund
UBS Water Strategy Certificate—it has a managed basket of 25 international stocks
Summit Water Equity Fund
Maxxwater Global Water Fund
Claymore S&P Global Water ETF (CGW)
Barclays Global Investors’ iShares S&P Global Water
Barclays and PDL’s Protected Water Fund based on Barclays World Water Strategy
Invesco’s PowerShares Water Resources Portfolio ETF (PHO)
Invesco’s PowerShares Global Water (PIO)
Pictet Asset Management’s Pictet Water Fund and Pictet Water Opportunities Fund
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce’s Water Growth Deposit Notes
Criterion Investments Limited’s Criterion Water Infrastructure Fund
One often-heard reason for the investment banks’ rush to control of water is that “Utilities are viewed as relatively safe assets in an economic downturn so [they] are more isolated than most from the global credit crunch, initially sparked by concerns over U.S. subprime mortgages” (Reuters, October 9, 2007). A London-based analyst at HSBC Securities told Bloomberg News that water is a good investment because “You’re buying something that’s inflation proof and there’s no threat to earnings really. It’s very stable and you can sell it any time you want” (Bloomberg, October 8, 2007).
More Pension Funds Investing in Water
Many pension funds have entered the water sector as a relatively safe sector for investment. For example, BT Pension Scheme (of British Telecom plc) has bought stakes in Thames Water in 2012, while Canadian pension funds CDPQ (Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, which manages public pension funds in Québec) and CPPIB (Canada Pension Plan Investment Board) have acquired England’s South East Water and Anglian Water, respectively, as reported by Reuters this year.
Sovereign Wealth Investment Funds Jumping into Water
In January 2012, China Investment Corporation has bought 8.68% stakes in Thames Water, the largest water utility in England, which serves parts of the Greater London area, Thames Valley, and Surrey, among other areas.
In November 2012, One of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA), also purchased 9.9% stake in Thames Water.
Billionaires Sucking up Water Globally: George H.W. Bush and Family, Li Ka-shing, the Filipino Billionaires, and Others
Not only are the mega-banks investing heavily in water, the multibillionaire tycoons are also buying water.
Update on Hong Kong Multibillionaire Li Ka-shing’s Water Acquisition
In summer 2011, the Hong Kong multibillionaire tycoon Li Ka-shing who owns Cheung Kong Infrastructure (CKI), bought Northumbrian Water, which serves 2.6 million people in northeastern England, for $3.9 billion (see this and this).
CKI also sold Cambridge Water for £74 million to HSBC in 2011. Not satisfied with controlling the water sector, in 2010, CKI with a consortium bought EDF’s power networks in UK for £5.8 billion.
Li is now also collaborating with Samsung on investing in water treatment.
Warren Buffet Buys Nalco, a Chemical Maker and Water Process Technology Company
Through his Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffet is the largest institutional investor of Nalco Holding Co. (NLC), a subsidiary of Ecolab, with 9 million shares. Nalco was named 2012 Water Technology Company of the Year. Nalco manufactures treatment chemicals and water treatment process technologies.
But the company Nalco is not just a membrane manufacturer; it also produced the infamous toxic chemical dispersant Corexit which was used to disperse crude oil in the aftermath of BP’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Before being sold to Ecolab, Nalco’s parent company was Blackstone……
Former President George H.W. Bush’s Family Bought 300,000 Acres on South America’s and World’s Largest Aquifer, Acuifero Guaraní
In my 2008 article, I overlooked the astonishingly large land purchases (298,840 acres, to be exact) by the Bush family in 2005 and 2006. In 2006, while on a trip to Paraguay for the United Nation’s children’s group UNICEF, Jenna Bush (daughter of former President George W. Bush and granddaughter of former President George H.W. Bush) reportedly bought 98,840 acres of land in Chaco, Paraguay, near the Triple Frontier (Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay). This land is said to be near the 200,000 acres purchased by her grandfather, George H.W. Bush, in 2005.
The lands purchased by the Bush family sit over not only South America’s largest aquifer — but the world’s as well — Acuifero Guaraní, which runs beneath Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. This aquifer is larger than Texas and California combined.
Online political magazine Counterpunch quoted Argentinean pacifist Adolfo Perez Esquivel, the winner of 1981 Nobel Peace Prize, who “warned that the real war will be fought not for oil, but for water, and recalled that Acuifero Guaraní is one of the largest underground water reserves in South America….”
According to Wikipedia, this aquifer covers 1,200,000 km², with a volume of about 40,000 km³, a thickness of between 50 m and 800 m and a maximum depth of about 1,800 m. It is estimated to contain about 37,000 km³ of water (arguably the largest single body of groundwater in the world, although the overall volume of the constituent parts of the Great Artesian Basin is much larger), with a total recharge rate of about 166 km³/year from precipitation. It is said that this vast underground reservoir could supply fresh drinking water to the world for 200 years….
https://oursantaferiver.org/the-great-water-grab-wall-street-is-buying-up-the-worlds-water/
Oil is in everything we have or do. We can't eat, sleep, drink, play, work, or even breath without involving oil. Been that way for very long while. It is the blood of the world life as we know it. It's the necessary ingredient for everything. Being that, the price and availability will have it's effect and power over everything, including the economy. Oil is the largest contribution to governments (and their corruption) and geo-political control on the planet. Who controls the oil, controls.
A little bit of history with oil. A very short descriptive summary, it definitely doesn't even cover a smidgeon of the involvement by oil.
Warning: There may be statements made by people with College degrees, intelligence, and expertise. There may be some that need to turn away and seek comfort with the dumbest guy in the room, the most corrupt, the most deceiving, the easy convenient theater of lies and disinformation.
For those that are uncomfortable with or the inability to comprehend knowledge, study, and facts, be aware that continuing to read may induce babbling and incoherent uninformed statements. Proceed at your own risk.
https://www.cfr.org/timeline/oil-dependence-and-us-foreign-policy
Oil Dependence and U.S. Foreign Policy
1850 – 2022
The United States’ dependence on oil has long influenced its foreign policy. U.S. oil development spans three major periods: the rise of oil as a commodity, beginning in 1850; the post–World War II age of geopolitical competition; and the post–Cold War era of deregulation and diversification. Most recently, Russia’s war with Ukraine has aggravated geopolitical tensions and revived the debate about U.S. energy independence.
Start
1850 – 1865
An oil well near Titusville, Pennsylvania, four years after Col. Edwin L. Drake struck oil on August 27, 1859. (AP) AP
An oil well near Titusville, Pennsylvania, four years after Col. Edwin L. Drake struck oil on August 27, 1859. (AP Images) Share
Black Gold Rush
The development of the Watt steam engine in the late eighteenth century spurs a wave of mechanization in Europe and the United States known as the Industrial Revolution. Coal is the main energy source driving the revolution in its beginning years. In the mid-1800s, kerosene produced from refined crude oil begins to make its way onto the market in the United States as a lighting fuel, an alternative to the dwindling supply of whale oil. Crude oil is successfully extracted using a new drilling method in Pennsylvania, which sparks a regional influx of speculative oil drilling. The first U.S. oil refinery comes online in 1861, and the United States exports its first shipment of refined oil to London. Over the next century and a half, oil supplants coal as the country’s preeminent fuel source and contributes to its emergence as a major economic power.
1880 – 1900
A section of the Spindletop Field in Beaumont, Texas, 1901. (AP) AP
A section of the Spindletop Field in Beaumont, Texas, 1901. (AP Images) Share
Competition for Oil
In 1880, the United States is responsible for 85 percent of the world’s crude oil production and refining, and kerosene is the fourth largest U.S. export. However, U.S. dominance of European and Asian oil markets is challenged by new oil finds controlled by Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Russia. Still, over the next two decades, major oil finds in states such as California, Oklahoma, and Texas help increase U.S. production from about twenty-six million barrels of oil annually to around sixty-four million barrels per year. By 1900, more than two hundred oil byproducts—including fuel for stoves and internal combustion engines, as well as lubricants for industrial machinery—begin to enter daily life. The 1901 Spindletop gusher—the largest to date—fuels a major oil rush in Texas, and U.S. oil production nearly triples in a decade.
1908
Dubbed by Henry Ford as the “universal car,” more than fifteen million Model Ts are built and sold between 1908 and 1927. Courtesy Library of Congress
Dubbed by Henry Ford as the “universal car,” more than fifteen million Model Ts are built and sold between 1908 and 1927. (Library of Congress) Share
The Model T
Henry Ford’s invention of the Model T in 1908—the world’s first inexpensive, mass-produced car—helps pave the way for a significant increase in auto ownership. By 1910, U.S. consumption of petrol (gasoline) surpasses kerosene. By 1927, the United States is the most motorized country in the world, with one motor vehicle for roughly every five people. Comparatively, other major industrial countries like Britain, France, and Germany have about one motor vehicle for every forty-four people. The United States continues to lead auto ownership per capita for the next century, and refined-motor fuel becomes the country’s predominant use of oil.
1911
A horse-drawn truck employed by Standard Oil in 1902 delivers gasoline for the first automobiles and stationary engine use. AP
A horse-drawn truck employed by Standard Oil in 1902 delivers gasoline for the first automobiles and stationary engine use. (AP Images) Share
July 1911
Birth of U.S. Oil Majors
By the 1880s, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil owns 90 percent of the U.S. oil refineries and pipelines and the world’s largest oil tanker fleet. In 1906, the U.S. government takes the company to court for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. The U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of the government in May 1911. In July, Standard Oil is broken into separate entities, including those that later become Chevron, Amoco, Mobil, Conoco, and Exxon. These companies come to dominate much of the international oil market for the next six decades.
1914 – 1918
The 148th U.S. Aero Squadron field. During WWI, planes were first employed for reconnaissance, but air battles soon followed. (Courtesy National Archives)
The 148th U.S. Aero Squadron field. During WWI, planes were first employed for reconnaissance, but air battles soon followed. (National Archives) Share
World War I
With the onset of World War I, oil becomes vital for modern warfare, fueling ships, land vehicles, and planes. German attacks disrupt U.S. oil exports to Britain and France, causing oil shortages in those countries. When the United States enters the war allied against Germany in 1917, the Wilson administration steps up efforts to supply oil to Britain and France. U.S. production cannot meet both domestic and war demand, so the United States begins importing oil from Mexico to close the gap. During the U.S. war effort, Mexican imports average between 2.5 million barrels and 4 million barrels of oil per month, supplementing U.S. production of about 30 million barrels a month.
1920
Hand drilling at Dunnellon Phosphate Company's prospecting in Florida, April 1923. (Courtesy U.S. Geological Survey)
Hand drilling at Dunnellon Phosphate Company’s prospecting in Florida, April 1923. (U.S. Geological Survey) Share
Addressing Oil Insecurity
In 1919, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates U.S. oil supplies will run out in ten years, triggering the country’s first oil security fears. Though the United States produces roughly one million barrels of oil per day, or 65 percent of global oil supplies, more than 90 percent is consumed domestically. By 1920, crude prices increase to $3 a barrel, more than double the price in 1914. Congress passes the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 [PDF], which requires leasing of federal lands for energy prospecting for the first time. In response to British and French attempts to shut U.S. oil companies out of their Middle East protectorates, the law includes a provision denying access to U.S. mineral rights by any foreign entities whose governments deny similar access to U.S. companies. U.S. oil companies also begin pursuing concessions in Latin America.
1928
Iraq Petroleum Company oil storage tanks, Palestine, 1938. (Time & Life Pictures/Getty)
Iraq Petroleum Company oil storage tanks, Palestine, 1938. (Time & Life Pictures/Getty) Share
The Red Line Agreement
Following British and French attempts to shut U.S. oil companies out of regions they control in the Middle East, the U.S. government begins active oil diplomacy, insisting on an “open door” policy that would allow all companies to compete for foreign concessions regardless of national origins. But the doctrine fails to take hold. Instead, a consortium of seven oil companies is given financial interest in the Iraq Petroleum Company, and the companies agree to not independently develop oil in an area that spans from Turkey to Iraq and Saudi Arabia, but excludes Egypt, Iran, and Kuwait. This 1928 Red Line Agreement with its “self-denial clause” allows seven companies, five of which are American, to control the bulk of Mideast oil production by the early 1930s.
1928 – 1933
Workers at a factory stacking drums of oil in a warehouse, February 1930. (Getty)
Workers at a factory stacking drums of oil in a warehouse, February 1930. (Getty) Share
Oil Quotas
Technological breakthroughs and increasing oil production in Latin America, the Middle East, and the United States lead to overproduction. Disproving shortage projections by the U.S. Geological Survey, in less than a decade U.S. oil production more than doubles from what it was in 1920. Britain’s attempt to stabilize European oil prices through the 1928 Achnacarry Agreement, which limits sales by oil producers, is met with mixed success. In 1931, oil prices plummet to just a few cents a barrel. In 1933, the U.S. government imposes a production quota system for states and a duty tax on imported oil to keep cheap oil from flooding the market. Though the Supreme Court overturns the federal quota system in 1935, U.S. oil-producing states voluntarily continue it and prices begin to recover.
1932 – 1939
Residents of Mexico City celebrating appropriation of foreign oil companies, 1938. (Hulton Archive/Getty)
Residents of Mexico City celebrating appropriation of foreign oil companies, 1938. (Hulton Archive/Getty) Share
Nationalization
Governments begin to take a more active role in the oil industry. Iranian leader Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1932 cancels the concession of the British oil company Anglo-Persia but then later retreats after striking a deal for a fixed royalty and an increase in Persian laborers employed by the company. Meanwhile, European governments impose import quotas, set prices, and require fuel blending with ethanol made from excess crops, as well as requiring investment in domestic oil infrastructure. In 1938, the Mexican government nationalizes the oil industry and revokes U.S. oil concessions. The U.S. government does not retaliate, in part due to fears Mexico will align with Germany in World War II. Mexico’s actions foreshadow a wave of oil nationalizations that will follow in the decades after the war.
1941
The battleship USS Arizona during a Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, December 7, 1941. AP
The battleship USS Arizona during a Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, December 7, 1941. (AP Images) Share
Oil Embargo on Japan
At the start of World War II, the United States is responsible for 60 percent of world production, followed by Russia and Venezuela. Japan, heavily reliant on U.S. oil imports, begins stockpiling oil and equipment shortly before it invades Indochina. In response, the U.S. government imposes controls on oil exports to Japan, effectively cutting off oil supplies in the summer of 1941. On December 7, Japan attacks Pearl Harbor but fails to target the Navy’s on-island oil storage—about four million barrels—leaving it to fuel the surviving Pacific fleet.
1942 – 1945
Four “Roller Vanities” of the Broadway campaign to save gas on New York's Fifth Avenue, June 2, 1942. AP
Four “Roller Vanities” of the Broadway campaign to save gas on New York’s Fifth Avenue, June 2, 1942. (AP Images) Share
Gas Rationing
By 1941, oil shipments from the United States to allies in Europe are impeded by German U-boat attacks. When the United States enters the war, it embarks on a nationwide rationing plan that includes gas coupons and limiting driving speed to thirty-five miles an hour. Efforts also are made to bolster U.S. oil production and transport. Meanwhile, Venezuela enacts a new “fifty-fifty” oil law, which gives the country half of all oil profits but leaves U.S. concessions in place.
1943 – 1945
U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud in discussion aboard the USS Quincy north of Suez, Egypt, on February 14, 1945. AP
U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud in discussion aboard the USS Quincy north of Suez, Egypt, on February 14, 1945. (AP Images) Share
Budding U.S.-Saudi Relations
In 1938, Saudi Arabia is found to have vast quantities of oil. In 1943, with concerns growing about the diminishing U.S. oil production capacity, President Franklin Roosevelt declares Saudi oil vital to U.S. security and provides financial support. In February 1945, Roosevelt and Saudi King Abdul Aziz meet aboard a U.S. ship on the Suez Canal to discuss closer ties. A few years later, the world’s biggest oil field is found in Saudi Arabia, and the country quickly becomes the world’s largest exporter of oil—though it does not become a significant U.S. supplier for several decades.
1945
A General Motors’ auto show at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York, January 18, 1950. AP
A General Motors’ auto show at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York, January 18, 1950. (AP Images) Share
End of the War
At the end of World War II, the United States is an economic and military superpower. The country plays a central role in the global recovery, including providing energy aid to a devastated Europe. The war’s end also brings about the end of U.S. gas rationing. The U.S. auto industry booms, with the number of cars in the United States jumping from twenty-six million to forty million in the five years after the war. In the decades that follow, the transportation sector’s (mainly automobiles) share of oil consumption rises from about 50 percent to more than 70 percent.
1948
A Vespa Piaggio plant helped by Marshall Plan funds near Pisa, Italy, 1948. (Courtesy National Archives)
A Vespa Piaggio plant helped by Marshall Plan funds near Pisa, Italy, 1948. (National Archives) Share
The Marshall Plan
The European Recovery Program, also known as the Marshall Plan, helps war-torn Europe get access to petroleum imports. Over the course of the forty-five-month program, the United States supplies more than $11 billion in oil aid, about 10 percent of the total aid provided by the program. The continent begins to become more dependent on oil for its energy needs as Europeans turn away from coal. But European oil needs begin to be increasingly met by the Middle East and not the United States. The United States is a net oil exporter in 1945, but by 1950 it is importing nearly one million barrels a day and within two decades the country is importing over six million barrels per day—more than a third of U.S. demand.
1954
The Shah on March 18, 1954, after a speech saying oil issues would be settled by the nationalization law. Aziz Rashki/AP
The Shah on March 18, 1954, after a speech saying oil issues would be settled by the nationalization law. (Aziz Rashki/AP Images) Share
U.S.-Iran Oil Consortium
In August 1953, the Iranian military, with the help of British and U.S. intelligence agencies, overthrows Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq—who nationalized the country’s oil industry two years earlier. The U.S. government works with U.S. oil majors and the Iranian government—now run by the Shah—to bring Iranian oil back online following a British embargo of oil shipments. Iran’s oil remains nationalized, but in October 1954 the government agrees to a consortium of mainly U.S. companies to manage Iran’s oil industry. To prevent running afoul of U.S. antitrust laws, U.S. oil majors relinquish a small portion of their share in the consortium to allow independent U.S. producers to buy in.
1956 – 1957
A group of French commandos going ashore during the Suez conflict, Port Fuad, Egypt, November 10, 1956. AP
A group of French commandos going ashore during the Suez conflict, Port Fuad, Egypt, November 10, 1956. (AP Images) Share
Suez Canal Crisis
In July 1956, Egypt nationalizes the Suez Canal, which has been controlled by Britain and France. The two countries, in a coordinated attack with Israel, temporarily seize the canal in October. Half the canal’s traffic is petroleum, and the ensuing crisis from its closure threatens Middle East oil shipments, which supply about eight hundred thousand barrels a day to Europe. The intervention stokes Cold War tensions, and U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower compels a withdrawal to avoid a showdown with the Soviet Union. In a 1957 speech to Congress, Eisenhower says the Middle East would be a prize for international communism and asks Congress to provide economic and military support for any nation or groups of nations in the region with “governments manifestly dedicated to the preservation of independence and resistance to subversion.”
1959
Men drilling for oil in Kenai, Alaska, 1959. Nat Farbman/Getty
Men drilling for oil in Kenai, Alaska, 1959. (Nat Farbman/Getty) Share
Cap on U.S. Oil Imports
In 1959, the world once again faces an oversupply of oil and prices are slashed. U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower imposes the Mandatory Oil Import Program, a quota system on oil imports, so that they cannot exceed more than 9 percent of domestic consumption. The program also gives preferential treatment to Canada and Mexico. The quota lasts for fourteen years. U.S. oil prices remain stable, and eight years later are 60 percent to 70 percent above Mideast crude prices.
1960
OPEC meeting, 1962. (Courtesy OPEC)
OPEC meeting, 1962. (OPEC) Share
Creation of OPEC
Arab nations, relying heavily on oil revenue, are increasingly frustrated by oil price cuts by largely Western oil companies—and by U.S. import caps, which also depress prices. In August 1960, Western oil majors once again slash prices without consulting exporting countries. In September, representatives from Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela meet in Baghdad with Iraqi officials—together they represent 80 percent of the world’s crude exports. On September 14, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Nations (OPEC) is formed with the purpose of defending oil prices. However, in its initial years, OPEC exerts little influence and is virtually ignored by the U.S. government.
1967
An Israeli tank crew undergoes tank training at an unidentified site in southern Israel on May 20, 1967. AP
An Israeli tank crew undergoes tank training at an unidentified site in southern Israel on May 20, 1967. (AP Images) Share
First Arab Oil Embargo
On June 6, 1967, Israel enters into an armed conflict with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, known as the Six Day War. The next day, Arab oil ministers call for an embargo on countries friendly to Israel. Oil shipments halt to the United States and Britain. U.S. domestic production, however, surges by one million barrels a day and largely offsets the temporary loss of Mideast oil globally. By September, the embargo is lifted, and, for a short time, the world experiences another oil glut.
1971
A view of the pipes and a tanker on Kharg jetty in Iran, the largest in the world, July 1971. Horst Faas/AP
A view of the pipes and a tanker on Kharg jetty in Iran, the largest in the world, July 1971. (Horst Faas/AP Images) Share
Tehran and Tripoli Agreements
In April 1971, OPEC moves to rebalance profit sharing and oil prices and refuses to allow foreign oil companies to deal with the organization as a whole. The bloc instead forces them into separate negotiations, one for Persian Gulf producers (Tehran Agreement) and one for producers on the Mediterranean (Tripoli Agreement), resulting in higher prices. The incident marks a turning point for OPEC’s clout. Within a decade, many of OPEC’s members begin to partially or fully nationalize their oil resources and have greater influence in setting oil prices. By the end of the 1970s, international oil companies have unfettered access to just 7 percent of the world’s oil reserves, down from 85 percent in the 1960s. U.S. oil production, meanwhile, peaks in 1970 and declines about 45 percent within three decades.
1973
U.S. President Richard Nixon during his trip to Iran, May 1972. AP
U.S. President Richard Nixon during his trip to Iran, May 1972. (AP Images) Share
July 1, 1973
End of U.S. Import Quota
U.S. spare production capacity is evaporating. Faced with a looming gasoline shortage, in April 1973 President Richard Nixon announces he is ending the Mandatory Import Program—which sets limits on oil imports—but rejects recommendations to implement conservation efforts and develop fuel alternatives. The import mandate comes two years after Nixon imposes oil price controls as part of his anti-inflation strategy. Oil imports, representing about 30 percent of U.S. consumption in 1973, increase to nearly 50 percent of consumption [PDF] within four years.
Cars line up for their ration of gas in Surrey, Britain, December 4, 1973. Bob Dear/AP
Cars line up for their ration of gas in Surrey, Britain, December 4, 1973. (Bob Dear/AP Images) Share
October 1973
Oil Crisis
Syria and Egypt attack Israel on October 6, 1973, on the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur. On October 19, with the war still underway, the Nixon administration announces a $2.2 billion military aid package to Israel. Arab states respond by suspending oil shipments to nations supportive of Israel. The embargo reduces traded oil supplies by 14 percent internationally. Gasoline prices in the United States increase as much as 40 percent within a few months. Consumers in Europe, Japan, and the United States begin to panic over oil shortages. Hours-long lines at gas stations form across the United States as people start to hoard gas supplies following gas rationing and price controls. President Nixon on November 7 announces a swath of new energy policies and “Project Independence,” a goal of U.S. energy independence by 1980.
1974
Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger during a press conference, February 28, 1974. AP
Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger during a press conference, February 28, 1974. (AP Images) Share
March 1974
End of the Second Arab Oil Embargo
With the 1973 oil embargo after the Yom Kippur War wreaking economic havoc, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger starts “shuttle diplomacy,” helping attain disengagement between Israel and Egypt in January 1974. Arab oil ministers agree to end the embargo on March 18, 1974, on the condition that the United States also promotes Israeli-Syrian disengagement. Kissinger helps achieve an agreement between the two states in May, which includes a cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from some captured territories. The world’s top economies form the International Energy Agency to coordinate “in times of oil supply emergencies.” They also come together at a summit in France in 1975 to discuss the global economy and energy dependency. This heads-of-state forum is called the Group of Six and later becomes the G8 and then the G7.
1975 – 1977
Highway workers change a speed limit sign from 70 mph to the new federally mandated limit of 55 mph on February 12, 1974. (Courtesy Wayne State University)
Highway workers change a speed limit sign from 70 mph to the new federally mandated limit of 55 mph on February 12, 1974. (Wayne State University) Share
U.S. Energy Conservation Spurred
The 1973 oil crisis spurs the U.S. Congress to mandate a fifty-five miles per hour speed limit on highways and to pass the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, which establishes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and fuel efficiency standards for new automobiles. Nixon-era price controls remain on domestic oil, depressing production. Between 1974 and 1978, U.S. consumption of imports nearly doubles, and U.S. oil demand rises by about 2.1 million barrels per day. In 1977, the Carter administration organizes energy agencies into the Department of Energy. President Carter also puts out his first set of energy proposals focusing mainly on conservation, and signs legislation in 1978 to encourage fuel switching and efficiency by electric utilities and other U.S. industries.
1978 – 1979
A poster of exiled Muslim leader Ayatollah Khomeini is carried by marchers with clenched fists during the anti-Shah demonstrations in Tehran, December 11, 1978. Michel Lipchitz/AP
A poster of exiled Muslim leader Ayatollah Khomeini is carried by marchers with clenched fists during the anti-Shah demonstrations in Tehran, December 11, 1978. (Michel Lipchitz/AP Images) Share
Iranian Revolution
In October 1978, thousands of oil workers go on strike in Iran, as part of a cycle of unrest protesting leader Mohammed Reza Shah. Oil output in Iran drops from more than five million barrels a day to zero by December—amounting to about a 5 percent loss in global production. The Shah is forced to leave the country in January 1979. Exiled senior Shiite cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returns to assume control of Iran under an Islamic government. A group of Iranian students takes over the U.S. embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979, taking sixty-three American hostages for more than four hundred days. President Carter responds by severing diplomatic relations and embargoing Iranian oil imports. Between January 1979 and December 1979, global oil prices more than double.
1979
U.S. President Jimmy Carter delivering his energy speech on television, July 15, 1979. Dale G. Young/AP
U.S. President Jimmy Carter delivering his energy speech on television, July 15, 1979. (Dale G. Young/AP Images) Share
July 1979
Crisis of Confidence
Iran’s revolution sparks panic over another oil-supply shortage, and oil prices double. Long gas lines return to the United States. In July, President Jimmy Carter gives his fifth major speech on energy policy, which includes announcing more energy conservation measures and a phase-out of oil price controls. A frustrated Carter admonishes the nation for worshiping “self-indulgence and consumption” and having “a crisis of confidence.” In 1980, Carter signs the Energy Security Act [PDF], which includes incentives for geothermal, solar, and biomass energy to give electricity generators new alternatives to oil. It also establishes the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corporation, intended to produce two million barrels a day in liquid fuel from non-petroleum sources like coal within five years.
1980
A burning fuel tank bombed by Iran in Baghdad, October 1980. Francoise De Mulder/Getty
A burning fuel tank bombed by Iran in Baghdad, October 1980. (Francoise De Mulder/Getty) Share
September 1980
Iran-Iraq War
Iran and Iraq go to war in September 1980. Though the United States is officially neutral, it renews diplomatic ties with Iraq, which have been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli conflict. Continuing attacks on both Iraqi and Iranian oil facilities remove four million barrels a day in oil production from the global market. The Reagan administration issues a national security directive in 1983 [PDF] to increase the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf to help protect the oil facilities and shipments to allies. The war lasts eight years.
1981 – 1983
The drilling platform that spilled 200,000 gallons of crude oil near Santa Barbara, California, February 1969. Vernon Merritt III/Getty
The drilling platform that spilled 200,000 gallons of crude oil near Santa Barbara, California, February 1969. (Vernon Merritt III/Getty) Share
Focus on Offshore Drilling
The U.S. Congress imposes a moratorium on new offshore drilling off the California coast in 1981 in response to public outcry and lingering environmental concerns caused by an oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara in 1969. Within a few years, the ban is extended to all new leases in U.S. coastal waters, except for parts of the Gulf of Mexico and some waters off the coast of Alaska. This ban continues to the present day. However, existing offshore drilling, from leases before the moratorium and from allowed parts of the Gulf and Alaska, represents about 8 percent of all U.S. production in 1981. Between increasing production in allowed offshore areas and a drop in overall U.S. production, offshore drilling rises to about 30 percent of U.S. production in the next three decades.
1981 – 1986
On February 5, 1981, President Reagan addresses the nation, noting the deregulation of oil prices. Courtesy Reagan Library
On February 5, 1981, President Reagan addresses the nation, noting the deregulation of oil prices. (Reagan Library) Share
U.S. Diversifies Energy Consumption
The Reagan administration fully deregulates crude prices in 1981, allowing U.S. producers to raise prices to market levels. Non-OPEC production begins to outstrip that of OPEC—which hinders the cartel’s influence on oil prices. Global demand begins to drop due to high prices and conservation measures, and another oil surplus ensues. By 1982, the United States imports about 28 percent of its oil, down from more than 45 percent in 1977. By 1985, U.S. fuel economy averages for automobiles reach nearly 28 mpg, up from 20 mpg in 1978, and consumer fuel switching for heating and electricity helps lower oil consumption. Oil prices drop from a yearly average of $35 per barrel in 1981 to less than $15 in 1986. The collapse in price encourages oil companies to shift to cheaper foreign exploration, and U.S. imports begin to steadily rise again.
1989
A harbor seal swims through oil-tainted water in Prince William Sound following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. Natalie Fobes/Corbis
A harbor seal swims through oil-tainted water in Prince William Sound following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. (Natalie Fobes/Corbis) Share
March 24, 1989
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
The super tanker Exxon Valdez strikes a reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling eleven million barrels of oil and damaging coastline and fisheries. Considered one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history, the spill—and its $2 billion cleanup cost—bolsters the environmental movement and leads to policies that further restrict offshore drilling. In 1990, Congress passes the Oil Pollution Act [PDF] for offshore accidents, which creates a three-tiered emergency response plan for spills, caps liability for operators of offshore facilities, and establishes a trust fund that makes up to $1 billion available for each spill incident.
1990 – 1991
Greater Burgan oil field in Southern Kuwait is set ablaze by Iraqi soldiers, March 1991. AP
Greater Burgan oil field in Southern Kuwait is set ablaze by Iraqi soldiers, March 1991. (AP Images) Share
Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait
Iraq invades Kuwait on August 2, 1990, following a dispute over the Rumaila oil field on the border. In a speech on August 8, 1990, President George H.W. Bush says Iraq’s aggression poses an economic threat to the United States, which now imports half its oil. Bush also declares the “sovereign independence of Saudi Arabia [a] vital interest” and deploys troops to the country. Nations dependent on Persian Gulf imports, such as Japan, provide much of the funding for a U.S.-led, multinational military effort to liberate Kuwait in January 1991. The Bush administration releases thirty-four million barrels of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve in anticipation of an oil shock, but contrary to predictions, oil prices drop from about $30 per barrel in September to less than $20 in January. Iraq surrenders in late February 1991.
1993 – 2005
A Ford assembly plant in Louisville, Kentucky, building new SUVs, April 4, 2001. John Sommers II/Courtesy Reuters
A Ford assembly plant in Louisville, Kentucky, building new SUVs, April 4, 2001. (John Sommers II/Reuters) Share
A Nation of SUVs
In 1993, the Clinton administration announces a partnership to develop and produce affordable, fuel-efficient, low-emission vehicles. But inexpensive oil and a booming economy drive up consumption in the United States. While European and Japanese car companies move ahead with commercialization of the first hybrid passenger vehicle, sales of gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles (SUVs)—considered light trucks and thus exempted from tougher U.S. fuel economy standards—explode. SUVs make up a large part of the fleet of U.S. automakers, garnering significant profits in comparison to smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. Between 1993 and the country’s record demand for oil in 2005, consumption increases by 3.6 million barrels a day to 20.8 million barrels per day.
1997
The United States continues to focus on energy security and not greenhouse gas emissions in the decade following the Kyoto Protocol. Charlie Riedel/AP
The United States continues to focus on energy security and not greenhouse gas emissions in the decade following the Kyoto Protocol. (Charlie Riedel/AP Images) Share
Kyoto Protocol
In 1997, most of the world’s leaders sign the Kyoto Protocol, an international mechanism for countries to reduce and adapt to rising greenhouse gas levels in order to mitigate climate change. But the United States, the largest greenhouse emitter of the time, refuses to ratify the treaty and for the next decade faces international criticism for its slow adoption of emissions-reduction policies. And though a third of manmade emissions come from petroleum, U.S. policy on oil consumption remains focused on energy security and air quality. Environmental advocates target the U.S. oil and auto industries for lobbying against climate policy in the country for the next decade.
1998 – 2001
Exxon acquires Mobil for a record $80 billion in 1998, creating the world's largest oil company. Ira Schwarz/Courtesy Reuters
Exxon acquires Mobil for a record $80 billion in 1998, creating the world’s largest oil company. (Ira Schwarz/Reuters) Share
Birth of the Super Majors
Asia’s economic crisis in 1997 causes a drop in demand in what has been a growth region for oil markets. Though OPEC tightens its oil production quota, global prices plunge to below $10 per barrel at the end of 1998, down from nearly $20 per barrel in late 1997. The downturn, plus an increasingly constrained environment for oil concessions globally, encourages a string of oil mergers among the world’s largest private oil companies, including ones between BP and Amoco (the largest foreign takeover of a U.S. company to date), Exxon and Mobil, and Texaco and Chevron. Accused of stifling competition, these mergers face political scrutiny [PDF] in the next decade as U.S. gas prices increase significantly.
1999
Chavez greets supporters in Barquisimeto, Venezuela, in November 1998. Jose Caruci/AP
Chavez greets supporters in Barquisimeto, Venezuela, in November 1998. (Jose Caruci/AP Images) Share
New Assertive Oil Powers
In February 1999, Hugo Chavez assumes office as president of Venezuela, and embarks on a social revolution that includes financing new social programs with the country’s oil revenues. Venezuela continues to be one of the largest sources of U.S. oil imports, but Chavez is increasingly critical of U.S. foreign policy over the course of the next decade and threatens repeatedly to cut off oil shipments. In 1999, Vladimir Putin takes office as president of Russia, which has the largest conventional oil reserves outside of OPEC. Both Venezuela and Russia nationalize much of their oil resources and restrict access by international oil companies.
2004
Oil sands operations at Syncrude Canada's Aurora mine project near Fort McMurray, Alberta. Larry Macdougal/AP
Oil sands operations at Syncrude Canada’s Aurora mine project near Fort McMurray, Alberta. (Larry Macdougal/AP Images) Share
Canada Overtakes Saudi Arabia
In 2004, Canada surpasses Saudi Arabia as the largest single exporter of oil to the United States, providing 1.6 million barrels per day compared to the Saudi’s 1.5 million barrels. A decade before, Canada begins investing heavily to develop its oil sands, which requires more money and effort to extract and refine than conventional oil. Many estimate oil sands place the country’s oil reserves second to Saudi Arabia. In 1999, oil sands represent about 15 percent of total Canadian crude production, but by 2010 oil sand production is nearly half. Still, heavily polluting oil sand production increasingly becomes an environmental concern.
2005
Algae to biofuel experiment, Fort Collins, Colorado. Sherri Barber/AP
Algae to biofuel experiment, Fort Collins, Colorado. (Sherri Barber/AP Images) Share
Renewable Fuel Support
In 2005, the U.S. Congress passes the Energy Policy Act, which includes new incentives for transportation fuel alternatives and flex-fuel cars as well as new subsidies for domestic oil exploration. The law mandates that 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels be blended into gasoline by 2012. In his 2006 State of the Union address, U.S. President George W. Bush says “America is addicted to oil.” The law is criticized for adding billions in federal subsidies to the oil industry, and subsidies of corn-based biofuel are criticized as a threat to food security and the environment. Some energy experts criticize U.S. tariffs on Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, which is cheaper and more energy efficient to produce.
2006 – 2008
Gasoline prices advertised in San Diego, California, on June 1, 2008. Mike Blake/Courtesy Reuters
Gasoline prices advertised in San Diego, California, on June 1, 2008. (Mike Blake/Reuters) Share
Skyrocketing Oil Prices
In 2006, a time of near record-high U.S. oil consumption and imports, oil prices begin to rise steadily, topping a record $147 a barrel in the summer of 2008. This translates to gasoline averages above $4 per gallon in much of country. Experts debate the cause of the record prices, blaming it on factors such as the economic rise of China and India, commodity market speculation, and basic issues of supply. Fuel prices and high food prices begin to cause unrest around the world. In the United States, high gas prices in a presidential election year invigorate debate about increasing domestic production, especially ending the moratorium on offshore drilling and in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. “Drill baby drill” becomes a rallying cry for the Republican Party. Shortly after the global financial crisis begins in 2008, oil prices plummet.
2007
U.S. President Bush during the signing of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 in Washington. Kevin Lamarque/Courtesy Reuters
U.S. President Bush during the signing of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 in Washington. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters) Share
Energy Independence and Security Act
In 2007, Congress passes the Energy Independence and Security Act, which will increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards from 27.5 mpg to 35 mpg by 2020, and ends the light truck exclusion. The law also mandates greater production of non-corn-based ethanol, and requires biofuels blended with gasoline and diesel to be at least 20 percent less in greenhouse gas lifecycle emissions than the petroleum-based fuels. In May 2009, the Obama administration announces accelerated CAFE standards of 39 mpg for cars and 30 mpg for light trucks, which the administration highlighted as part of its climate change policy goals.
2010
Brown Pelicans, covered in oil from BP's Gulf of Mexico oil spill, at the International Bird Rescue Research Center in Buras, Louisiana, in 2010. Lee Celano/Courtesy Reuters
Brown Pelicans, covered in oil from BP’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill, at the International Bird Rescue Research Center in Buras, Louisiana, in 2010. (Lee Celano/Reuters) Share
April 2010 – August 2010
BP Oil Spill
In the spring of 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama lays out his plans for U.S. energy policy, including supporting more biofuels and opening more U.S. waters to offshore oil drilling. But in April, a deepwater drilling rig explodes and sinks in the Gulf of Mexico, causing a massive, four-month oil spill. The Obama administration, in response, places a temporary ban on all new offshore drilling projects in order to review U.S. safety and environmental enforcement. Calls renew for strengthened measures to reduce U.S. oil consumption, now at less than nineteen million barrels per day, down nearly two million barrels from 2005 record levels.
2011
Traders work in the oil options pit on the floor of the New York Mercantile Exchange in New York City, February 22, 2011. Brendan McDermid/Courtesy Reuters
Traders work in the oil options pit on the floor of the New York Mercantile Exchange in New York City, February 22, 2011. (Brendan McDermid/Reuters) Share
February 2011
Libya Rocks Oil Markets
In February 2011, Libya becomes the first major oil-producing nation to join a spate of popular uprisings in the region, which topples regimes in Egypt and Tunisia. With the largest reserves in Africa, Libya represents about 2 percent of global oil production. Global oil prices spike nearly 10 percent in one day. Though the country does not supply oil to the United States, concerns grow that the situation in Libya and potential unrest in other oil-producing nations could lead to a new global oil crisis. In a March 30 speech, U.S. President Barack Obama says: “We will keep on being a victim to shifts in the oil market until we get serious about a long-term policy for secure, affordable energy.” He pledges to reduce U.S. oil dependence by one-third within a decade.
Private security contractors patrol the U.S. Department of Energy's Strategic Petroleum Reserve in Bryan Mound, Texas. Donna Carson/Courtesy Reuters
Private security contractors patrol the U.S. Department of Energy’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve in Bryan Mound, Texas. (Donna Carson/Reuters) Share
June 23, 2011
U.S. Releases Oil from Strategic Reserve
The Obama administration announces it will release thirty million barrels from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve over thirty days. The administration says the move is to offset the loss of Libya’s 1.5 million bpd in output since civil war erupted in February. The U.S. release coincides with the release of another thirty million barrels from the reserves of other members of the International Energy Agency. The IEA says “greater tightness in the oil market threatens to undermine the fragile global economic recovery.” The coordinated release comes after OPEC ministers fail to agree to greater output. The U.S. reserve sale represents the fourth major drawdown since the reserve’s initiation in 1977. The administration’s decision draws criticism from some analysts and political opponents for its timing, rationale, political overtones, and uncertain impact on oil markets.
2014
An oil field worker inspects pipe extensions used in oil drilling operations. Rich LaSalle/Getty
An oil field worker inspects pipe extensions used in oil drilling operations. Rich LaSalle/Getty Share
February 2014
U.S. Oil Imports Hit Two-Decade Low
Imports of crude oil and petroleum products fall to less than 260,000 barrels per day, the lowest in almost two decades, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The reduced reliance on foreign oil is the result of both declining demand and a domestic energy revolution which, through the combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, unlocked vast reserves of “tight oil” in shale rock formations. Tight oil production surges from less than one million barrels a day in 2010 to over four million barrels a day by December 2015, exceeding the individual production of every OPEC member except Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia's oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, speaks before a meeting of OPEC oil ministers at OPEC's headquarters in Vienna November 27, 2014. Heinz-Peter Bader/Reuters
Saudi Arabia’s oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, speaks before a meeting of OPEC oil ministers at OPEC’s headquarters in Vienna November 27, 2014. (Heinz-Peter Bader/Reuters) Share
November 27, 2014
OPEC Meets as Global Oil Prices Tumble
U.S. tight oil producers contribute to a global supply glut that puts downward pressure on prices. By November, crude oil falls below $75 a barrel, down from $110 in June. OPEC members meet in Vienna, where, despite opposition from some members who want to cut OPEC oil production to halt the price slide, Saudi Arabia pushes the group to maintain a production target of thirty million barrels per day. The organization meets and regularly exceeds that target, leading to further price declines below $50 a barrel by early 2015, which squeezes the finances of oil-exporting countries and forces unconventional drillers in the United States to curb costs and sharply cut production.
2015
Protesters demonstrate outside the TransCanada offices in Portland, Oregon, in January 2014 in protest of the planned Keystone XL oil pipeline. Alex Milan Tracy/Corbis
Protesters demonstrate outside the TransCanada offices in Portland, Oregon, in January 2014 in protest of the planned Keystone XL oil pipeline. (Alex Milan Tracy/Corbis) Share
November 6, 2015
Obama Administration Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline
President Barack Obama rejects the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would have transported more than eight hundred thousand barrels of oil per day from Canada to Texas. Subject to multiple rounds of State Department review since its conception in 2008, supporters said it would have created jobs and enhanced energy security, while opponents worried about potential damage to the environment from spills and increased carbon emissions. Debate over the merits of the cross-border pipeline will continue, as TransCanada, the company behind the project, files a lawsuit against the U.S. government charging discriminatory treatment under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
The Seaqueen oil tanker, one of the first to leave the United States under relaxed oil export rules, arrives in the port of Rotterdam on January 21, 2016. Jeroen Jumelet/AFP/Getty Images
The Seaqueen oil tanker, one of the first to leave the United States under relaxed oil export rules, arrives in the port of Rotterdam on January 21, 2016. (Jeroen Jumelet/AFP/Getty Images) Share
December 18, 2015
Congress Lifts Oil-Export Ban
Congress votes to lift four-decade-old restrictions on U.S. crude oil exports, and a shipment immediately leaves the port of Corpus Christi, Texas, for sale in Europe. The shipment consists of light sweet crude oil drawn from south Texas’s Eagle Ford shale deposits. Even as the United States continues to import oil, opportunities for exports will arise since many of the country’s existing refineries are not optimized to process the type of light crude drawn from shale. However, most analysts believe that the impact on production, prices, and geopolitics of lifting the restrictions will be modest.
2016
The Eiffel Tower is illuminated to celebrate the first day of the application of the Paris climate accord.
The Eiffel Tower is illuminated to celebrate the first day of the application of the Paris climate accord. Patrick Kovarik/AFP/Getty Images Share
November 2016
Paris Agreement
The Paris Agreement—signed by more than 190 countries, including the United States—enters into force. The most ambitious climate accord to date, the agreement requires all parties to set targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with the goal of arresting the rise in the average global temperature. Countries also agree to aim for net-zero carbon emissions by mid-century. The United States pledges to cut its emissions by more than 25 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, a move that requires transitioning away from fossil fuels, including oil. Although the accord does not include enforcement mechanisms, there are periodic performance reviews meant to encourage countries to adopt more ambitious targets.
2017
Members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and Indigenous leaders participate in a March 2017 protest in Washington, DC, opposing the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines.
Members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and Indigenous leaders participate in a March 2017 protest in Washington, DC, opposing the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines. Kevin Lamarque/Reuters Share
Trump’s ‘America First’ Energy Plan
After campaigning on a promise to boost U.S. oil production and achieve energy independence, President Donald Trump begins rolling back his predecessor’s policies. In June, Trump announces the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which takes effect in November 2020. His administration later scraps Obama’s tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, which the Environmental Protection Agency says will result in about two billion more barrels of oil consumed. The U.S. fracking boom continues, with the administration leasing four million acres of federal land to fossil fuel companies. Trump also revives the Keystone XL pipeline and, with support from the Republican-controlled Congress, opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska for oil drilling despite opposition from Democrats, environmental activists, and some Alaska Native groups. Alaskan lawmakers and other Alaska Native groups support the move due to the expected revenue and job growth.
2020
An aerial view shows an oil storage facility in Compton, California, in April 2020.
An aerial view shows an oil storage facility in Compton, California, in April 2020. David McNew/Getty Images Share
March 2020 – April 2020
COVID-19 Pandemic
The world is rocked by the emergence of a new coronavirus disease, COVID-19, that quickly becomes a global pandemic. Response measures, including stay-at-home orders, trigger a sharp drop in the demand for oil. Falling oil prices create a rift within OPEC and lead to a price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia, with Riyadh ramping up production to further slash prices in an effort to force Moscow to the table. Oil prices hit rock bottom; in April, a major benchmark price for U.S. crude oil briefly falls below zero for the first time in history. After Whiting Petroleum Corporation, a major U.S. producer, declares bankruptcy, President Trump attempts to broker an OPEC deal to prevent further damage to the U.S. industry. After Trump intervenes, OPEC and Russia agree to curb production and raise prices.
2021
President Joe Biden addresses world leaders during a virtual climate summit in April 2021.
President Joe Biden addresses world leaders during a virtual climate summit in April 2021. Tom Brenner/Reuters Share
Biden’s New Direction
President Joe Biden is sworn into office and promises to take aggressive action on climate change. He rejoins the Paris Agreement and pledges to cut U.S. emissions by at least 50 percent of 2005 levels by 2030—and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. To reach that goal, Biden calls for a return to higher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, as well as measures to spur the use of electric vehicles, among other proposals. Biden cancels the Keystone XL pipeline and suspends drilling leases in the ANWR. However, approval for drilling on other federal lands continues at a record pace. As the pandemic abates in the United States, demand for oil rebounds and gas prices surge to a seven-year high.
2022
An oil refinery overlooks residential buildings in Omsk, Russia.
An oil refinery overlooks residential buildings in Omsk, Russia. Alexey Malgavko/Reuters Share
March 2022
Russia’s War With Ukraine
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine causes turmoil in global oil markets. Biden blocks U.S. imports of oil from Russia, and Western sanctions cause energy companies to withdraw from the country. Oil prices, already rising in the wake of the pandemic, surge to their highest level since 2008. In response to near-record gasoline prices, U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle call for boosting domestic oil production, though some in Congress urge a quicker transition to renewable energy. The United States and other members of the International Energy Agency announce plans to collectively release sixty million barrels of oil from strategic reserves. Meanwhile, the Biden administration considers smoothing rocky relations with Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela in the hope that those countries will supply more oil. Senior U.S. officials travel to Caracas for the first time since 2019, and the Biden administration pushes to finalize negotiations on reviving the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement and lifting U.S. sanctions on Tehran.
It wasn't the author that needs to comprehend, it was Robert Kaufmann who the author was quoting. Did just a preliminary check on the guy, wondering if his words would have any meat to them.
Kaufmann is affiliated faculty with the Boston University Institute for Sustainable Energy, also a professor at Boston University and teaches all levels including a 500 level course in World Oil Markets and a 700 class in Regional Energy Models. Written many accepted papers on this subject and others (way too many to list) and working on projects like "investigating the influence of changes in socioeconomic factors on land use and the movements of oil markets."
Kaufmann has got a B.S. in Biology, a M.A. in Economics, and a Ph.D. in Energy Management & Policy.
Founding partner in a company called First Fuel Software which was VC funded with about 50 mil disclosed plus undisclosed amounts. First Fuel Software provided "an analytics based customer intelligence platform for utilities and energy service providers" using "mathematical and engineering methods to conduct energy audits of commercial buildings without stepping foot inside, allowing audits to be significantly cheaper and faster."
FFS was acquired by a company called Tendril for an undisclosed amount but Tendril was private equity funded for a few 100 mil. disclosed + undisclosed. Tendril was acquired by the company Uplight which is where Kaufmann's works are being applied today for large gov, private, university, utility, energy and other corporate institutions.
I got tired of going down the rabbit hole and figured I found enough beef to have some confidence that the guy knows what he's talking about. But nobody knows everything, so good luck with having a comprehension response with him.
I definitely have already recognized that oil is a world run market (racket) and some of the reason that we now are exporting more oil and oil product than we import (or was in the first half of last yr). If the US alone stops all imports, it would not do enough to the supply to change the world oil system and the price would still be based on the world price that the "club" controls and manipulates at will. Even if we became a major exporter and export a lot more than we are doing now above our own usage, the supplies in this world system would still be controlled and we would still be paying the same price at the pump based on the world oil price and the "club" rules.
There is plenty of oil, and thousands of permits given out the last few years (Biden administration beating tfg administration in amount of permits/leases given), along with all the other reduced or capped wells currently. They just want more money/power for it which is exactly what they are achieving.
One can search out for Robert Kaufmann and find the dozen different sites for reference. I'm done for the night, and have lost track of some.
Why Does the U.S. Need Oil From Other Countries?
https://www.newsweek.com/why-us-needs-oil-other-countries-ukraine-russia-gas-1686304
BY DARRAGH ROCHE ON 3/9/22 AT 9:57 AM EST
President Joe Biden announced an import ban on oil from Russia on Tuesday in response to the ongoing invasion of Ukraine, and in addition to other severe sanctions imposed on the country by the U.S. and its allies.
The ban has raised major concerns about the rising price of gas at the pump. Although the U.S. is far less reliant on Russian oil than the European Union, the decision is likely to further exacerbate the market.
The U.S is a major oil-producing nation. Some Americans may be wondering why it's necessary to import oil from other countries in the first place. Experts who spoke to Newsweek explained that the U.S. is not self-sufficient in oil, while market factors play a outsized role in the decision to import the essential fossil fuel.
READ MORE
Nearly Half of Ukraine's 2 Million Refugees Are Children, U.N. Says
Automakers React to the Ukraine Crisis With Plant Closures and Charity
VPN Demand in Russia Soars Over 1,000 Percent As Online Censorship Grows
NEWSWEEK NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP >
Robert Kaufmann, a professor with the Earth and Environment Department at Boston University, researches global climate change, world oil markets and land-use changes.
He told Newsweek that the U.S. uses more barrels of oil per day than it produces, necessitating imports from abroad.
"The U.S. imports oil because consumption of oil products—about 20 million barrels per day—is greater than the quantity of crude oil it produces, about 18 million barrels per day," Kaufmann said. "This difference, about 2-3 million barrels per day, is much smaller than previous years."
Oil products include gasoline used to run the vehicles driven by everyday Americans. It is currently experiencing a serious price spike. The American Automobile Association (AAA) tracks the price of gas and reported the national average per gallon at more than $4.25 on March 9.
The Price of Oil
Kaufmann explained that U.S. oil imports were not the decisive factor in deciding how much Americans pay for a barrel of crude oil.
"The quantity of oil that the U.S. imports has little to no effect on the price we pay for crude oil," Kaufmann said. "There is one global market for crude oil. That global price sets the price for all crude oils, plus or minus a couple of dollars depending on transportation costs and the quality of the crude oil."
"Even if the U.S. produced all the oil it needed, U.S. consumers would pay the global price," he said.
Self-Sufficiency
Kaufmann said U.S. self-sufficiency in oil would not have the effect of reducing prices.
"Suppose the U.S. was self-sufficient in oil and that oil was selling for $70 a barrel, as it was before Russia invaded Ukraine," he said. "The invasion raises the price for crude oil on the global market to $110."
"Would U.S. producers sell U.S. consumers oil for $70 per barrel when they could sell that same barrel overseas for $110? Of course not!" Kaufmann said.
A More Economic Option
Philip Walsh, professor in entrepreneurship and strategy at Ryerson University in Toronto and principal investigator at the university's Center for Urban Energy, told Newsweek that foreign oil is imported to supplement U.S. crude oil production.
Walsh explained that crude oil is used "to produce refined petroleum products such as gasoline or heating oil to be used domestically and to be exported to international markets."
"Since crude oil also comes in various degrees of quality, the economics of refining that crude into petroleum products—and where it is refined—plays a significant role in determining whether the crude is imported or not," he said.
"If importing crude oil is a more economic option than using domestic crude to produce the refined petroleum product, the market will choose the import option," Walsh said.
The price of crude oil was around $125 per barrel on Wednesday morning, a decline from a high of more than $130 per barrel on Monday. However, the price could rise further as the war in Ukraine continues. American consumers could also see further rises in the price of gas as a result.
Lithium Americas: New Russian Sanctions Should Push Lithium Higher
Mar. 09, 2022 9:00 AM ETLithium Americas
Austin Craig
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4493864-lithium-americas-new-russian-sanctions-should-push-lithium-higher
Summary
Thacker Pass will most likely spin off from Lithium Americas. This would make it a pure USA lithium play and open doors to gov funding.
Rising oil prices per Russian sanctions will benefit EV adoption.
Government loans could fund 50% of Thacker Pass via a 25-year loan (per CEO Interview) at lower treasury rates.
Lithium prices and demand continue to rise.
Given that the South American project will come online this year, Lithium Americas stock appears to be very undervalued in this market.
Lithium Americas (LAC) CEO Jonathan Evans was interviewed by Kitco News. This was one of the better lithium interviews. Frankly, you should watch the entire interview, but we will give readers a recap and analysis. Before we begin, realize that all electric cars require lithium. If you think EV is the future, then the reader needs to identify lithium producers that offer a good risk to reward ratio. Furthermore, rising oil prices (per Russian sanctions) will apply additional pressure to adopt EV vehicles as pain at the pump motivates consumers to vacate ICE engines.
Lithium, From Russia With Love
Casting aside the geopolitics of Russia and Ukraine, one has to simply look at the White House to get a rough guess where energy is going. Hint: Up, Up and away! The Keystone pipeline is still shut down. Now politicians want to block oil supplies from Russia and Belarus. In turn, the consequence will be higher fuel prices which we are already experiencing at the pump. We feel the pinch of increased inflation for the broad economy. In an interesting note, Saudi Arabia seems to be playing its cards well.
Conversely, efforts are in place to obtain oil from less-than-savory sources such as Iran (with its deep history of supporting terrorism) or Venezuela. Rising oil prices will put additional pressure on EV adoption and this presents us with opportunity. All we need to do is target lithium stocks, buy and hold. While Ukraine impacted metals are at the moment all the rage, lithium prices are rocketing higher. Eventually, Mr. Market will wake up and take notice. We need to have lithium stocks ready in our holdings and one of the best is Lithium Americas. Let's take a moment to review the CEO interview highlights and then cruise over to some demand news.
Lithium Americas CEO Interview Highlights
Moving on, let's look at some interview highlights from the CEO of Lithium Americas. Highlights of the CEO interview include:
At the 2:15 mark -
"For supply chain in the US today, for batteries is about 40,000 tons per year which is going to go to excess of 400,000 tonnes per year by 2030. So imagine the entire world supply today needs to be replicated just for use in North America in just ten years."
3:00 mark - lithium prices are discussed and Mr. Evans quips
"[Lithium prices] have certainly come up quite a bit and they will come up more where the price of lithium will never be in the range it was a few years ago. It's actually needed though because the question you asked me earlier "How do you get there?", It requires a lot of investment and that's the thing that has lacked in this industry for more than a decade."
4:00 mark - Industry consolidation is discussed.
5:00 mark - Long term pricing of lithium is discussed.
"The pricing that I think you are going to see is going to be above $20,000 a ton. Now your finally at a place that you can get sufficient capital returns to risk that capital, put it in the ground, in order to deliver it to customers at the end of the day."
Now at first glance you might be wondering what Mr. Evans is talking about, since Lithium is obviously much higher priced than $20,000 a ton at the moment. In fact, it is near $75,000.
price of lithium, lithium going to $100,000
Lithium Price in Metric Tons (Dailymetalprice)
(Source: Dailymetalprice.com - Arrow is per the author)
5:57 Mark - Ukraine and the impact on lithium via higher gas prices are discussed.
6:50 Mark - "80% of the processing is done in China, it's probably a little bit more actually". Further discussions of China processing is discussed. Well worth hearing.
8:40 Mark - Electric update by consumers is discussed. Update faster than expected per Mr. Evans.
Thacker Pass Government Funding Exposed
9:30 Mark - The discussion starts and Mr. Evans states in a little bit:
"Post appeal this summer, we are shovel ready. We are starting to line up financing sources, the strategic partnerships, but also leveraging the Department of Energy, which has a very active loan program office now, which offers basically debt up to 50 to 60% of the capital costs of the project at fixed treasury rates for up to 25 years."
Additional details can be found via this PR. It would behoove other lithium/cobalt companies such as HeliosX (OTCQB:HXLTF), Cypress Development (OTCQB:CYDVF), Electra Battery Metals (OTCQX:ELBMF), and Standard Lithium (SLI) to take a similar approach to obtain funding. Moving on.
11:14 Mark - Mr. Evans goes on to talk about the legal case. Well worth hearing for anyone investing in Lithium Americas.
Thacker Pass Spin Off Discussed
12:30 Mark - A detailed discussion involving spinning off Thacker Pass is discussed. Investor concerns; geopolitics; a ban on China investing in crucial elements in the U.S.; national security are discussed. Consider it mandatory listening.
Lithium Americas Eying Canada?
I've known for quite some time LAC is poking around and looking for new projects. As I've previously stated, they are the most aggressive North American lithium company. It comes as little surprise that LAC might eventually look at Canada, but at this point it is just a blurb; however, still one to watch and be aware of as it makes the puzzle pieces easier to fit into place.
14:00 Mark - "In the US, Thacker Pass is actually, could be a cornerstone asset for a business that could follow another regional strategy here, because there is actually more resources in the U.S. and several in Canada that could be developed by the team here."
Strategic Partnership Process
16:00 Mark - Per Mr. Evans, "The Strategic partnering process has started for Thacker Pass". "Filed with the Department of Energy for a loan", "Process takes 6-9 months". "We have $500 million on the balance sheet".
Moving on to lithium prices and demand.
Lithium Prices
We can also see prices blasting off at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence below.
lithium prices, lithium, Jonathan Evans, Lithium Americas, HeliosX
Lithium Prices (Benchmark Mineral Intelligence)
(Source: Benchmark Mineral Intelligence)
lithium prices, lithium blasting off, Thacker Pass, Lithium Nevada
Lithium Prices (Benchmark Mineral Intelligence)
(Source: Benchmark Mineral Intelligence)
Most lithium project studies (PFS / DFS) price lithium in the $9000 to $12,000 range. Given the explosion in lithium prices these figures are rather stale and inaccurate now. Eventually yes lithium prices will come down. However, we can all safely assume that $20,000 is a very conservative estimate of long-term future lithium prices for the ground level. Hence, a lot of the NPV (Net Present Value) figures in the studies are now much lower than they should be as lithium has blasted off. The takeaway is when you read the company's NPV figures, realize they were calculated when lithium was $9,000 to $12,000 typically and are nowhere near reality. This bodes well for lithium investments.
Lithium Supply & Demand News
Demand for lithium is rising and future demand is in the works via various projects that will come online in the future. Projects such as:
Tesla Gigafactory in Germany has been approved.
Panasonic is rumored to be considering a battery deal w/ Tesla in Kansas or Oklahoma.
Unconfirmed reports place Ford at investing $40-$50 billion in EV.
A Porsche Taycan goes coast to coast on 2.5 hours of charging.
Firestone offers charging stations.
LG Energy to spend $1.7 billion on battery factory in the US.
Glencore & Britishvolt to build lithium / cobalt recycling plant in the U.K.
US Gov to put $5 billion into EV chargers nationwide over five years. An additional $2.5 billion will be released later on. (Total $7.5 billion)
EV models will double by 2024.
Pentagon to stockpile rare earths (includes lithium).
Mississippi snags a $500 million Nissan EV plant.
Conclusion
With rising lithium prices, eventually the masses will, once again, focus on lithium investments. Right now various lithium companies are trading at fire sales prices that are frankly not logical. Yet, that is the nature of the market. On the flip side, inflation is a concern and years of loose money have indeed propped up the market. Could the market pain train continue? Absolutely, and it can continue longer than you have liquidity.
The point is if you are in this game for the long term, then lithium needs to be in your holdings. At the same time be careful and nibble in small portions. Various short-term negative events will get resolved with time. We need to have solid investments in place for when good times cycle around again. Lastly remember that rising fuel prices (per internal and external Russian sanctions) will quicken EV adoption.
I've said before, there is no exit, just an end. There is also no good ending, just bad, worse, or final. Can the world make a better beginning after? That is a big question.
Link? (reputable source). BS (little bits of truth to massive amount of lies) of course. They haven't got enough rigs to drill all the permitted wells that we have now. Will be busy drilling for quite some time. We have already 10's of thousands of drilling permits already given out in the last few yrs ready for drilling along with all the capped oil wells that could be uncapped to produce plenty that already drilled. No more oil permits won't make one iota of difference. We also EXPORT more oil and gas than we import.
Mining permits are still being given out obviously. Putting the word "Biden" in everything doesn't negate the reality of things.
Who's we? Must not be in the group that Ford, GM, Tesla, etc are spending 10's of Billions of dollars to produce EV's for. Must be too small of group to stop the reasons for China gaining control of over 50% of Lithium mining and 75% of the world's mega battery factories.
You might be right though, I'm sure it's all done for no profit and no market for EV's in any foreseeable future. They are just throwing billions/trillions $ away because they can I guess. I could go on all day, but it is a worthless debate. "We" better get their act together, "we" is paying big time now and will get worse because they haven't, ignoring the impending issues in the past.
The clouds of War will pass (I hope) at some point in time and when the dust settle's the views (and reality) will become much clearer to "we".
Yes, it always is. This time it will be worse and I hope (can always hope) that the 1% Club will take more than they're used to, a lot more. They are really the only ones who can and they have the control.
Ordinary people in Europe and other countries are really going to get hit, way more than in the US, at least at first. Energy from Russia needs to be cut off and stop feeding Putin's war machine that's going on every day at the rate of millions$ or some ungodly amount I can't remember right now with energy flow from Russia.
Europe is working on it I guess, there going to get it cut back by 2030 I read somewhere. But that date is not going to be efficient. Going to have to take a faster hit than that for any meaningful actions to have any decent effect.
I understand the problems with what investments some of these companies have. We're so world economically entwined and too many deals with the devil have been made. Payment has to made now though, and things must change.
But I can respect big business in this respect for the intensity of the issues involved for them. The losses to this WAR will effect everyone for a very long time. An expense the world MUST endure.
A short time ago I invested in DE and CAT. To disconnect from Russia it's quite a deal. A short bit on Cummings, Deere, and Caterpillar and Russia;
https://www.reuters.com/business/cummins-says-expects-some-impact-russia-deere-says-abide-by-sanctions-2022-02-28/
Cummins says expects 'some impact' in Russia; Deere says to abide by sanctions
By Bianca Flowers
2 minute read
The Deere & Co farm equipment plant in Ankeny, Iowa
The Deere & Co farm equipment plant in Ankeny, Iowa, U.S. October 20, 2021. REUTERS/Scott Morgan
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Feb 28 (Reuters) - Cummins Inc. (CMI.N) expects "some impact" to its business in Russia and is analyzing and preparing for current and anticipated sanctions, the U.S. truck engine maker said in an e-mailed statement on Monday.
Many firms have idled operations in Russia after it invaded Ukraine last week, resulting in powerful Western sanctions.
Cummins has an office in Moscow. In 2006, Cummins entered an agreement with Russian truck maker Kamaz Inc. to produce engines for the company's fleet of trucks, buses and other heavy machinery.
Cummins did not respond to a request for comment on its relationship with Kamaz, which is 47% owned by Russian state conglomerate Rostec and supplies parts to Russian military vehicles.
Shares of Cummins were down 0.6% in late afternoon trading, in line with Wall Street's main indexes as investors digested the sanctions against Russia. read more
Russia's invasion of Ukraine was the biggest attack on a European state since World War Two. Russia calls its actions in Ukraine a "special operation."
Other U.S. manufacturers including Deere & Co (DE.N) and Caterpillar (CAT.N) have distribution and manufacturing facilities in Russia. Deere, the world's largest farm equipment maker, opened a manufacturing and parts distribution plant near Moscow in 2010. It was the company's largest single investment in more than 100 years of doing business in Russia.
Deere didn't specify how its business will be impacted, but said in an emailed statement it will "fully abide by U.S. and international sanctions."
Caterpillar did not respond to a request for comment.
McDonald’s, Starbucks, Coca-Cola and Pepsi suspend Russian operations
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/08/mcdonalds-bows-to-pressure-and-closes-all-its-russian-restaurants
McDonald’s is temporarily closing its 850 restaurants in Russia and pausing all operations in the country, a decision that will affect 62,000 jobs, after mounting calls for action after the invasion of Ukraine. It was later announced that Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Starbucks would also suspend their operations in the country.
The burger chain said it would continue to pay the salaries for all employees in Russia and its charitable arm, Ronald McDonald House Charities, would also continue in the country.
In a message to staff and franchisees, Chris Kempczinski, the chief executive of McDonald’s, said the situation was “extraordinarily challenging for a global brand like ours”, which he said worked with hundreds of local suppliers and partners producing its food. “We understand the impact this will have on our Russian colleagues and partners,” he said.
But he added: “Our values mean we cannot ignore the needless human suffering unfolding in Ukraine.”
McDonald’s and other western food and drink companies have faced calls to pull out of Russia after the invasion of Ukraine.
On Tuesday night the coffee giant Starbucks became the latest company to say it was suspending all business activity in Russia. It said it would stop shipping its products and its cafes, run by a licensee, would close temporarily.
The company said that Kuwait-based Alshaya Group, which operates at least 100 Starbucks cafes, would still support its nearly 2,000 staff in Russia “who depend on Starbucks for their livelihood”.
Coca-Cola Co later said it was suspending its business in Russia. Pepsi also followed suit, saying the sale of its brands, capital investments and all advertising would be suspended in Russia and it would support “our 20,000 Russian associates and the 40,000 Russian agricultural workers in our supply chain”. It said it would continue to sell daily essentials, such as milk and other dairy offerings, baby formula and baby food, in Russia.
Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, told CNN two days ago that “all western companies must withdraw from Russia” on humanitarian grounds. “We were upset to hear companies like Coca-Cola and McDonald’s remain in Russia and continue providing their products,” he said.
McDonald’s, which has operated in Russia for more than 30 years, said it could not predict when it may be able to reopen its restaurants there and would “continue to assess the situation and determine if any additional measures are required”. It said it would “closely monitor the humanitarian situation” as well as disruption to its supply chain.
McDonald’s is also paying full salaries to its Ukrainian employees and has donated $5m (£3.8m) to an assistance fund for employees as well as supporting relief efforts led by the International Red Cross.
The McDonald’s shutdown comes after a host of other consumer brands including Netflix, Levi’s, Burberry, Ikea and Unilever, the owner of Marmite and Ben & Jerry’s, announced they had halted business in the country.
Leading professional services firms including KPMG, PwC, EY and Deloitte have also cut off businesses in Russia and Belarus.
Companies around the world have been scrambling to assess their links with Russia after the US, EU and UK sought to isolate it economically with sanctions.
Sanctions have also made it illegal for US, EU or UK companies to serve some of the biggest Russian businesses, including banks such as Sberbank, Gazprombank and VTB.
No, unfortunately nothing is "that simple", but at least it is a start and a continuance. Another update to "the list". We have a "temporary" action worked on at least.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/08/business/mcdonalds-pepsi-coke-russia/index.html
New York (CNN Business)McDonald's is temporarily closing its locations in Russia.
"McDonald's has decided to temporarily close all our restaurants in Russia and pause all operations in the market," CEO Chris Kempczinski said in a statement Tuesday.
There were 847 locations of McDonald's in Russia at the close of last year, according to an investor document.
Globally, most McDonald's (MCD) locations are operated by franchise operators. But that's not the case in Russia, where 84% of locations are operated by the company, according to the document. Russia's restaurants, along with another 108 in Ukraine, all operated by McDonald's, accounted for 9% of the company's revenue in 2021, according to the document.
"In Russia, we employ 62,000 people who have poured their heart and soul into our McDonald's brand to serve their communities. We work with hundreds of local, Russian suppliers and partners who produce the food for our menu and support our brand," Kempczinski said. "And we serve millions of Russian customers each day who count on McDonald's. In the thirty-plus years that McDonald's has operated in Russia, we've become an essential part of the 850 communities in which we operate."
But, he added, "at the same time, our values mean we cannot ignore the needless human suffering unfolding in Ukraine."
Several Western companies across multiple industries have halted operations in Russia after the country's attack on Ukraine.
A McDonald's location in Russia.
A McDonald's location in Russia.
Yet some big players in the food space are continuing to sell their products in the country.
Critics of Russia's actions are pressuring some of these brands to pull out of the country.
But there are a number of reasons for food companies to stay in Russia when so many other businesses are turning their backs. The supply chain can be more complex for food sellers than other industries. Many restaurant chains are operated by franchises, giving corporate owners less control. Beverage makers, like Coca-Cola, rely on regional bottlers and distributors to sell their products.
Proponents of the food industry remaining in Russia think they have a responsibility to stay, and fear the implications of such a move for Russian citizens, many of whom want nothing to do with the war.
Food companies in Russia
Coca-Cola (KO) products are sold in Russia through independent bottler Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling company. During a February 22 discussion of full year earnings results, Coca-Cola HBC CEO Zoran Bogdanovic pointed to Russia and Ukraine as an important driver of growth. "We've continued to drive strong performance in Nigeria, Russia and Ukraine, with all three now having volumes more than 20% above 2019," he said.
Coca-Cola HBC and Coca-Cola did not respond to requests for comment on their operations in Russia, but a statement from Bogdanovic appears on his company's website.
Record gas prices feel like a slap in the face. And there's more to come
Record gas prices feel like a slap in the face. And there's more to come
"Our thoughts are with all those affected, and we are doing everything we can to support our people, their families, and the humanitarian relief efforts in Ukraine and the region," he wrote, adding that along with Coca-Cola, his company has donated one million euros to the Red Cross in Ukraine, and is offering more support to neighboring countries and Ukrainian employees.
The letter doesn't mention Russia, however, or how the company is proceeding there.
In 2020, PepsiCo recorded about $3 billion in net sales in Russia. PepsiCo (PEP), did not immediately respond to a request for comment on its Russia operations.
Some people have strong opinions about how these companies should proceed.
Twitter users are employing #boycottCoke, and #boycottPepsi because of the companies' operations in Russia.
McDonald's was also under fire before its Tuesday announcement. Twitter users posted messages with #boycottMcDonalds, and the company was called out by New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli.
Before McDonald's made its announcement, DiNapoli emailed a number of companies represented in the New York State Common Retirement Fund, including PepsiCo and McDonald's, urging them to stop doing business with Russia.
"Companies like McDonald's and PepsiCo, which have a large footprint in Russia, need to consider whether doing business in Russia is worth the risk during this extraordinarily volatile time," DiNaPoli said in a statement.
Danone and Yum stay put
Danone (DANOY), which makes Silk milk alternatives, Activia, Oikos yogurt, baby formula and more, has offered some more insight into its operations in Russia.
In a LinkedIn post on Sunday, the company said it and its employees "express their solidarity with the people who are now suffering the atrocities of war," adding that it has "made a donation of 500,000 euros to the Red Cross."
The company detailed its plan for Russia.
"We have decided to suspend all investment projects in Russia," the company said, "but currently maintain our production and distribution of fresh dairy products and infant nutrition, to still meet the essential food needs of the local population."
The company also said that "this war could last for a long time. If so, it will lead to increasing difficulties for the population affected to get hold of basic goods."
Unilever (UL) made a similar statement this week, saying that "we will continue to supply our everyday essential food and hygiene products made in Russia to people in the country," adding "we will keep this under close review."
But the company noted it is has suspended imports of its products to Russia and is stopping all investment in the country, in addition to stopping exports from there. It said it won't profit from its presence in Russia.
Yum Brands (YUM), which owns KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and the Habit Grill, said in a statement that it "has suspended all investment and restaurant development in Russia."
Biden announces ban on Russian energy imports
Biden announces ban on Russian energy imports
The company added that it will "redirect all profits from operations in Russia to humanitarian efforts," in addition to making donations to the Red Cross through the Yum Brands Foundation. Yum has about 1,000 KFC restaurants and 50 Pizza Hut locations in Russia. The company said that most of these are operated by independent owners.
Farryl Bertmann, a registered dietician and senior lecturer in the nutrition and food sciences department at the University of Vermont, warned that if big food companies leave Russia the citizen population could suffer, even if they have other sources of food.
"I feel very strongly that people should be given the opportunity to purchase a variety of foods at different price points," she said. "That can only be successfully done if access is there."
Bertmann pointed out that Coke and Pepsi make more than just sugary sodas.
Coca-Cola sells water, juice, milk and other beverages. PepsiCo makes a number of non-soda beverages, and owns Quaker oats and snacks as well as other food brands.
"Ultimately, foods need to be made available," she said. "And I would be very concerned if the food environment [were] to dramatically change."
— CNN's Robert North contributed to this report.
Well at least there is more nice than naughty which is a good sign. Printed that list out for my wife and mine shopping convenience. I will carry it around with me (with copies for anyone who might want one). I might be also carrying a new marker pen and pad with me in case I want to make any notes to myself or others (^_-). I will try to keep list updated as well as I can.
These charts have been posted before at times, but I think they deserve another.
Should you trust media bias charts?
These controversial charts claim to show the political lean and credibility of news organizations. Here’s what you need to know about them.
Ad Fontes' media bias chart, left, and AllSides' media bias chart, right. Larger versions are available to view below and on each organization's website.
By: Jake Sheridan
November 2, 2021
Impartial journalism is an impossible ideal. That is, at least, according to Julie Mastrine.
“Unbiased news doesn’t exist. Everyone has a bias: everyday people and journalists. And that’s OK,” Mastrine said. But it’s not OK for news organizations to hide those biases, she said.
“We can be manipulated into (a biased outlet’s) point of view and not able to evaluate it critically and objectively and understand where it’s coming from,” said Mastrine, marketing director for AllSides, a media literacy company focused on “freeing people from filter bubbles.”
That’s why she created a media bias chart.
As readers hurl claims of hidden bias towards outlets on all parts of the political spectrum, bias charts have emerged as a tool to reveal pernicious partiality.
Charts that use transparent methodologies to score political bias — particularly the AllSides chart and another from news literacy company Ad Fontes Media — are increasing in popularity and spreading across the internet. According to CrowdTangle, a social media monitoring platform, the homepages for these two sites and the pages for their charts have been shared tens of thousands of times.
But just because something is widely shared doesn’t mean it’s accurate. Are media bias charts reliable?
Why do media bias charts exist?
Traditional journalism values a focus on news reporting that is fair and impartial, guided by principles like truth, verification and accuracy. But those standards are not observed across the board in the “news” content that people consume.
Tim Groeling, a communications professor at the University of California Los Angeles, said some consumers take too much of the “news” they encounter as impartial.
When people are influenced by undisclosed political bias in the news they consume, “that’s pretty bad for democratic politics, pretty bad for our country to have people be consistently misinformed and think they’re informed,” Groeling said.
If undisclosed bias threatens to mislead some news consumers, it also pushes others away, he said.
“When you have bias that’s not acknowledged, but is present, that’s really damaging to trust,” he said.
Kelly McBride, an expert on journalism ethics and standards, NPR’s public editor and the chair of the Craig Newmark Center for Ethics and Leadership at Poynter, agrees.
“If a news consumer doesn’t see their particular bias in a story accounted for — not necessarily validated, but at least accounted for in a story — they are going to assume that the reporter or the publication is biased,” McBride said.
The growing public confusion about whether or not news outlets harbor a political bias, disclosed or not, is fueling demand for resources to sort fact from otherwise — resources like these media bias charts.
Bias and social media
Mastrine said the threat of undisclosed biases grows as social media algorithms create filter bubbles to feed users ideologically consistent content.
Could rating bias help? Mastrine and Vanessa Otero, founder of the Ad Fontes media bias chart, think so.
“It’ll actually make it easier for people to identify different perspectives and make sure they’re reading across the spectrum so that they get a balanced understanding of current events,” Mastrine said.
Otero said bias ratings could also be helpful to advertisers.
“There’s this whole ecosystem of online junk news, of polarizing misinformation, these clickbaity sites that are sucking up a lot of ad revenue. And that’s not to the benefit of anybody,” Otero said. “It’s not to the benefit of the advertisers. It’s not to the benefit of society. It’s just to the benefit of some folks who want to take advantage of people’s worst inclinations online.”
Reliable media bias ratings could allow advertisers to disinvest in fringe sites.
Groeling, the UCLA professor, said he could see major social media and search platforms using bias ratings to alter the algorithms that determine what content users see. Changes could elevate neutral content or foster broader news consumption.
But he fears the platforms’ sweeping power, especially after Facebook and Twitter censored a New York Post article purporting to show data from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, the son of President-elect Joe Biden. Groeling said social media platforms failed to clearly communicate how and why they stopped and slowed the spread of the article.
“(Social media platforms are) searching for some sort of arbiter of truth and news … but it’s actually really difficult to do that and not be a frightening totalitarian,” he said.
Is less more?
The Ad Fontes chart and the AllSides chart are each easy to understand: progressive publishers on one side, conservative ones on the other.
“It’s just more visible, more shareable. We think more people can see the ratings this way and kind of begin to understand them and really start to think, ‘Oh, you know, journalism is supposed to be objective and balanced,’” Mastrine said. AllSides has rated media bias since 2012. Mastrine first put them into chart form in early 2019.
Otero recognizes that accessibility comes at a price.
“Some nuance has to go away when it’s a graphic,” she said. “If you always keep it to, ‘people can only understand if they have a very deep conversation,’ then some people are just never going to get there. So it is a tool to help people have a shortcut.”
But perceiving the chart as distilled truth could give consumers an undue trust in outlets, McBride said.
“Overreliance on a chart like this is going to probably give some consumers a false level of faith,” she said. “I can think of a massive journalistic failure for just about every organization on this chart. And they didn’t all come clean about it.”
The necessity of getting people to look at the chart poses another challenge. Groeling thinks disinterest among consumers could hurt the charts’ usefulness.
“Asking people to go to this chart, asking them to take effort to understand and do that comparison, I worry would not actually be something people would do. Because most people don’t care enough about news,” he said. He would rather see a plugin that detects bias in users’ overall news consumption and offers them differing viewpoints.
McBride questioned whether bias should be the focus of the charts at all. Other factors — accountability, reliability and resources — would offer better insight into what sources of news are best, she said.
“Bias is only one thing that you need to pay attention to when you consume news. What you also want to pay attention to is the quality of the actual reporting and writing and the editing,” she said. It wouldn’t make sense to rate local news sources for bias, she added, because they are responsive to individual communities with different political ideologies.
The charts are only as good as their methodologies. Both McBride and Groeling shared praise for the stated methods for rating bias of AllSides and Ad Fontes, which can be found on their websites. Neither Ad Fontes nor AllSides explicitly rates editorial standards.
The AllSides Chart
(Courtesy: AllSides)
The AllSides chart focuses solely on political bias. It places sources in one of five boxes — “Left,” “Lean Left,” “Center,” “Lean Right” and “Right.” Mastrine said that while the boxes allow the chart to be easily understood, they also don’t allow sources to be rated on a gradient.
“Our five-point scale is inherently limited in the sense that we have to put somebody in a category when, in reality, it’s kind of a spectrum. They might fall in between two of the ratings,” Mastrine said.
That also makes the chart particularly easy to understand, she said.
AllSides has rated more than 800 sources in eight years, focusing on online content only. Ratings are derived from a mix of review methods.
In the blind bias survey, which Mastrine called “one of (AllSides’) most robust bias rating methodologies,” readers from the public rate articles for political bias. Two AllSides staffers with different political biases pull articles from the news sites that are being reviewed. AllSides locates these unpaid readers through its newsletter, website, social media account and other marketing tools. The readers, who self-report their political bias after they use a bias rating test provided by the company, only see the article’s text and are not told which outlet published the piece. The data is then normalized to more closely reflect the composure of America across political groupings.
AllSides also uses “editorial reviews,” where staff members look directly at a source to contribute to ratings.
“That allows us to actually look at the homepage with the branding, with the photos and all that and kind of get a feel for what the bias is, taking all that into account,” Mastrine said.
She added that an equal number of staffers who lean left, right and center conduct each review together. The personal biases of AllSides’ staffers appear on their bio pages. Mastrine leans right.
She clarified that among the 20-person staff, many are part time, 14% are people of color, 38% are lean left or left, 29% are center, and 18% are lean right or right. Half of the staffers are male, half are female.
When a news outlet receives a blind bias survey and an editorial review, both are taken into account. Mastrine said the two methods aren’t weighted together “in any mathematical way,” but said they typically hold roughly equal weight. Sometimes, she added, the editorial review carries more weight.
AllSides also uses “independent research,” which Mastrine described as the “lowest level of bias verification.” She said it consists of staffers reviewing and reporting on a source to make a preliminary bias assessment. Sometimes third-party analyses — including academic research and surveys — are incorporated into ratings, too.
AllSides highlights the specific methodologies used to judge each source on its website and states its confidence in the ratings based on the methods used. In a separate white paper, the company details the process used for its August 2020 blind bias survey.
AllSides sometimes gives separate ratings to different sections of the same source. For example, it rates The New York Times’ opinion section “Left” and its news section “Lean Left.” AllSides also incorporates reader feedback into its system. People can mark that they agree or disagree with AllSides’ rating of a source. When a significant number of people disagree, AllSides often revisits a source to vet it once again, Mastrine said.
The AllSides chart generally gets good reviews, she said, and most people mark that they agree with the ratings. Still, she sees one misconception among the people that encounter it: They think center means better. Mastrine disagrees.
“The center outlets might be omitting certain stories that are important to people. They might not even be accurate,” she said. “We tell people to read across the spectrum.”
To make that easier, AllSides offers a curated “balanced news feed,” featuring articles from across the political spectrum, on its website.
AllSides makes money through paid memberships, one-time donations, media literacy training and online advertisements. It plans to become a public benefit corporation by the end of the year, she added, meaning it will operate both for profit and for a stated public mission.
The Ad Fontes chart
(Courtesy: Ad Fontes)
The Ad Fontes chart rates both reliability and political bias. It scores news sources — around 270 now, and an expected 300 in December — using bias and reliability as coordinates on its chart.
The outlets appear on a spectrum, with seven markers showing a range from “Most Extreme Left” to “Most Extreme Right” along the bias axis, and eight markers showing a range from “Original Fact Reporting” to “Contains Inaccurate/Fabricated Info” along the reliability axis.
The chart is a departure from its first version, back when founder Vanessa Otero, a patent attorney, said she put together a chart by herself as a hobby after seeing Facebook friends fight over the legitimacy of sources during the 2016 election. Otero said that when she saw how popular her chart was, she decided to make bias ratings her full-time job and founded Ad Fontes — Latin for “to the source” — in 2018.
“There were so many thousands of people reaching out to me on the internet about this,” she said. “Teachers were using it in their classrooms as a tool for teaching media literacy. Publishers wanted to publish it in textbooks.”
About 30 paid analysts rate articles for Ad Fontes. Listed on the company’s website, they represent a range of experience — current and former journalists, educators, librarians and similar professionals. The company recruits analysts through its email list and references and vets them through a traditional application process. Hired analysts are then trained by Otero and other Ad Fontes staff.
To start review sessions, a group of coordinators composed of senior analysts and the company’s nine staffers pulls articles from the sites being reviewed. They look for articles listed as most popular or displayed most prominently.
Part of the Ad Fontes analyst political bias test. The test asks analysts to rank their political bias on 18 different policy issues.
Ad Fontes administers an internal political bias test to analysts, asking them to rank their left-to-right position on about 20 policy positions. That information allows the company to attempt to create ideological balance by including one centrist, one left-leaning and one right-leaning analyst on each review panel. The panels review at least three articles for each source, but they may review as many as 30 for particularly prominent outlets, like The Washington Post, Otero said. More on their methodology, including how they choose which articles to review to create a bias rating, can be found here on the Ad Fontes website.
When they review the articles, the analysts see them as they appear online, “because that’s how people encounter all content. No one encounters content blind,” Otero said. The review process recently changed so that paired analysts discuss their ratings over video chat, where they are pushed to be more specific as they form ratings, Otero said.
Individual scores for an article’s accuracy, the use of fact or opinion, and the appropriateness of its headline and image combine to create a reliability score. The bias score is determined by the article’s degree of advocacy for a left-to-right political position, topic selection and omission, and use of language.
To create an overall bias and reliability score for an outlet, the individual scores for each reviewed article are averaged, with added importance given to more popular articles. That average determines where sources show up on the chart.
Ad Fontes details its ratings process in a white paper from August 2019.
While the company mostly reviews prominent legacy news sources and other popular news sites, Otero hopes to add more podcasts and video content to the chart in coming iterations. The chart already rates video news channel “The Young Turks” (which claims to be the most popular online news show with 250 million views per month and 5 million subscribers on YouTube), and Otero mentioned she next wants to examine videos from Prager University (which claims 4 billion lifetime views for its content, has 2.84 million subscribers on YouTube and 1.4 million followers on Instagram). Ad Fontes is working with ad agency Oxford Road and dental care company Quip to create ratings for the top 50 news and politics podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Otero said.
“It’s not strictly traditional news sources, because so much of the information that people use to make decisions in their lives is not exactly news,” Otero said.
She was shocked when academic textbook publishers first wanted to use her chart. Now she wants it to become a household tool.
“As we add more news sources on to it, as we add more data, I envision this becoming a standard framework for evaluating news on at least these two dimensions of reliability and bias,” she said.
She sees complaints about it from both ends of the political spectrum as proof that it works.
“A lot of people love it and a lot of people hate it,” Otero said. “A lot of people on the left will call us neoliberal shills, and then a bunch of people that are on the right are like, ‘Oh, you guys are a bunch of leftists yourselves.’”
The project has grown to include tools for teaching media literacy to school kids and an interactive version of the chart that displays each rated article. Otero’s company operates as a public benefit corporation with a stated public benefit mission: “to make news consumers smarter and news media better.” She didn’t want Ad Fontes to rely on donations.
“If we want to grow with a problem, we have to be a sustainable business. Otherwise, we’re just going to make a small difference in a corner of the problem,” she said.
Ad Fontes makes money by responding to specific research requests from advertisers, academics and other parties that want certain outlets to be reviewed. The company also receives non-deductible donations and operates on WeFunder, a grassroots crowdfunding investment site, to bring in investors. So far, Ad Fontes has raised $163,940 with 276 investors through the site.
Should you use the charts?
Media bias charts with transparent, rigorous methodologies can offer insight into sources’ biases. That insight can help you understand what perspectives sources bring as they share the news. That insight also might help you understand what perspectives you might be missing as a news consumer.
But use them with caution. Political bias isn’t the only thing news consumers should look out for. Reliability is critical, too, and the accuracy and editorial standards of organizations play an important role in sharing informative, useful news.
Media bias charts are a media literacy tool. They offer well-researched appraisals on the bias of certain sources. But to best inform yourself, you need a full toolbox. Check out Poynter’s MediaWise project for more media literacy tools.
This article was originally published on Dec. 14, 2020.
Support high-integrity, independent journalism that serves democracy. Make a gift to Poynter today. The Poynter Institute is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, and your gift helps us make good journalism better.
DONATE
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2021/should-you-trust-media-bias-charts/
https://adfontesmedia.com/
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
These charts have been posted before at times, but I think they deserve another.
Should you trust media bias charts?
These controversial charts claim to show the political lean and credibility of news organizations. Here’s what you need to know about them.
Ad Fontes' media bias chart, left, and AllSides' media bias chart, right. Larger versions are available to view below and on each organization's website.
By: Jake Sheridan
November 2, 2021
Impartial journalism is an impossible ideal. That is, at least, according to Julie Mastrine.
“Unbiased news doesn’t exist. Everyone has a bias: everyday people and journalists. And that’s OK,” Mastrine said. But it’s not OK for news organizations to hide those biases, she said.
“We can be manipulated into (a biased outlet’s) point of view and not able to evaluate it critically and objectively and understand where it’s coming from,” said Mastrine, marketing director for AllSides, a media literacy company focused on “freeing people from filter bubbles.”
That’s why she created a media bias chart.
As readers hurl claims of hidden bias towards outlets on all parts of the political spectrum, bias charts have emerged as a tool to reveal pernicious partiality.
Charts that use transparent methodologies to score political bias — particularly the AllSides chart and another from news literacy company Ad Fontes Media — are increasing in popularity and spreading across the internet. According to CrowdTangle, a social media monitoring platform, the homepages for these two sites and the pages for their charts have been shared tens of thousands of times.
But just because something is widely shared doesn’t mean it’s accurate. Are media bias charts reliable?
Why do media bias charts exist?
Traditional journalism values a focus on news reporting that is fair and impartial, guided by principles like truth, verification and accuracy. But those standards are not observed across the board in the “news” content that people consume.
Tim Groeling, a communications professor at the University of California Los Angeles, said some consumers take too much of the “news” they encounter as impartial.
When people are influenced by undisclosed political bias in the news they consume, “that’s pretty bad for democratic politics, pretty bad for our country to have people be consistently misinformed and think they’re informed,” Groeling said.
If undisclosed bias threatens to mislead some news consumers, it also pushes others away, he said.
“When you have bias that’s not acknowledged, but is present, that’s really damaging to trust,” he said.
Kelly McBride, an expert on journalism ethics and standards, NPR’s public editor and the chair of the Craig Newmark Center for Ethics and Leadership at Poynter, agrees.
“If a news consumer doesn’t see their particular bias in a story accounted for — not necessarily validated, but at least accounted for in a story — they are going to assume that the reporter or the publication is biased,” McBride said.
The growing public confusion about whether or not news outlets harbor a political bias, disclosed or not, is fueling demand for resources to sort fact from otherwise — resources like these media bias charts.
Bias and social media
Mastrine said the threat of undisclosed biases grows as social media algorithms create filter bubbles to feed users ideologically consistent content.
Could rating bias help? Mastrine and Vanessa Otero, founder of the Ad Fontes media bias chart, think so.
“It’ll actually make it easier for people to identify different perspectives and make sure they’re reading across the spectrum so that they get a balanced understanding of current events,” Mastrine said.
Otero said bias ratings could also be helpful to advertisers.
“There’s this whole ecosystem of online junk news, of polarizing misinformation, these clickbaity sites that are sucking up a lot of ad revenue. And that’s not to the benefit of anybody,” Otero said. “It’s not to the benefit of the advertisers. It’s not to the benefit of society. It’s just to the benefit of some folks who want to take advantage of people’s worst inclinations online.”
Reliable media bias ratings could allow advertisers to disinvest in fringe sites.
Groeling, the UCLA professor, said he could see major social media and search platforms using bias ratings to alter the algorithms that determine what content users see. Changes could elevate neutral content or foster broader news consumption.
But he fears the platforms’ sweeping power, especially after Facebook and Twitter censored a New York Post article purporting to show data from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, the son of President-elect Joe Biden. Groeling said social media platforms failed to clearly communicate how and why they stopped and slowed the spread of the article.
“(Social media platforms are) searching for some sort of arbiter of truth and news … but it’s actually really difficult to do that and not be a frightening totalitarian,” he said.
Is less more?
The Ad Fontes chart and the AllSides chart are each easy to understand: progressive publishers on one side, conservative ones on the other.
“It’s just more visible, more shareable. We think more people can see the ratings this way and kind of begin to understand them and really start to think, ‘Oh, you know, journalism is supposed to be objective and balanced,’” Mastrine said. AllSides has rated media bias since 2012. Mastrine first put them into chart form in early 2019.
Otero recognizes that accessibility comes at a price.
“Some nuance has to go away when it’s a graphic,” she said. “If you always keep it to, ‘people can only understand if they have a very deep conversation,’ then some people are just never going to get there. So it is a tool to help people have a shortcut.”
But perceiving the chart as distilled truth could give consumers an undue trust in outlets, McBride said.
“Overreliance on a chart like this is going to probably give some consumers a false level of faith,” she said. “I can think of a massive journalistic failure for just about every organization on this chart. And they didn’t all come clean about it.”
The necessity of getting people to look at the chart poses another challenge. Groeling thinks disinterest among consumers could hurt the charts’ usefulness.
“Asking people to go to this chart, asking them to take effort to understand and do that comparison, I worry would not actually be something people would do. Because most people don’t care enough about news,” he said. He would rather see a plugin that detects bias in users’ overall news consumption and offers them differing viewpoints.
McBride questioned whether bias should be the focus of the charts at all. Other factors — accountability, reliability and resources — would offer better insight into what sources of news are best, she said.
“Bias is only one thing that you need to pay attention to when you consume news. What you also want to pay attention to is the quality of the actual reporting and writing and the editing,” she said. It wouldn’t make sense to rate local news sources for bias, she added, because they are responsive to individual communities with different political ideologies.
The charts are only as good as their methodologies. Both McBride and Groeling shared praise for the stated methods for rating bias of AllSides and Ad Fontes, which can be found on their websites. Neither Ad Fontes nor AllSides explicitly rates editorial standards.
The AllSides Chart
(Courtesy: AllSides)
The AllSides chart focuses solely on political bias. It places sources in one of five boxes — “Left,” “Lean Left,” “Center,” “Lean Right” and “Right.” Mastrine said that while the boxes allow the chart to be easily understood, they also don’t allow sources to be rated on a gradient.
“Our five-point scale is inherently limited in the sense that we have to put somebody in a category when, in reality, it’s kind of a spectrum. They might fall in between two of the ratings,” Mastrine said.
That also makes the chart particularly easy to understand, she said.
AllSides has rated more than 800 sources in eight years, focusing on online content only. Ratings are derived from a mix of review methods.
In the blind bias survey, which Mastrine called “one of (AllSides’) most robust bias rating methodologies,” readers from the public rate articles for political bias. Two AllSides staffers with different political biases pull articles from the news sites that are being reviewed. AllSides locates these unpaid readers through its newsletter, website, social media account and other marketing tools. The readers, who self-report their political bias after they use a bias rating test provided by the company, only see the article’s text and are not told which outlet published the piece. The data is then normalized to more closely reflect the composure of America across political groupings.
AllSides also uses “editorial reviews,” where staff members look directly at a source to contribute to ratings.
“That allows us to actually look at the homepage with the branding, with the photos and all that and kind of get a feel for what the bias is, taking all that into account,” Mastrine said.
She added that an equal number of staffers who lean left, right and center conduct each review together. The personal biases of AllSides’ staffers appear on their bio pages. Mastrine leans right.
She clarified that among the 20-person staff, many are part time, 14% are people of color, 38% are lean left or left, 29% are center, and 18% are lean right or right. Half of the staffers are male, half are female.
When a news outlet receives a blind bias survey and an editorial review, both are taken into account. Mastrine said the two methods aren’t weighted together “in any mathematical way,” but said they typically hold roughly equal weight. Sometimes, she added, the editorial review carries more weight.
AllSides also uses “independent research,” which Mastrine described as the “lowest level of bias verification.” She said it consists of staffers reviewing and reporting on a source to make a preliminary bias assessment. Sometimes third-party analyses — including academic research and surveys — are incorporated into ratings, too.
AllSides highlights the specific methodologies used to judge each source on its website and states its confidence in the ratings based on the methods used. In a separate white paper, the company details the process used for its August 2020 blind bias survey.
AllSides sometimes gives separate ratings to different sections of the same source. For example, it rates The New York Times’ opinion section “Left” and its news section “Lean Left.” AllSides also incorporates reader feedback into its system. People can mark that they agree or disagree with AllSides’ rating of a source. When a significant number of people disagree, AllSides often revisits a source to vet it once again, Mastrine said.
The AllSides chart generally gets good reviews, she said, and most people mark that they agree with the ratings. Still, she sees one misconception among the people that encounter it: They think center means better. Mastrine disagrees.
“The center outlets might be omitting certain stories that are important to people. They might not even be accurate,” she said. “We tell people to read across the spectrum.”
To make that easier, AllSides offers a curated “balanced news feed,” featuring articles from across the political spectrum, on its website.
AllSides makes money through paid memberships, one-time donations, media literacy training and online advertisements. It plans to become a public benefit corporation by the end of the year, she added, meaning it will operate both for profit and for a stated public mission.
The Ad Fontes chart
(Courtesy: Ad Fontes)
The Ad Fontes chart rates both reliability and political bias. It scores news sources — around 270 now, and an expected 300 in December — using bias and reliability as coordinates on its chart.
The outlets appear on a spectrum, with seven markers showing a range from “Most Extreme Left” to “Most Extreme Right” along the bias axis, and eight markers showing a range from “Original Fact Reporting” to “Contains Inaccurate/Fabricated Info” along the reliability axis.
The chart is a departure from its first version, back when founder Vanessa Otero, a patent attorney, said she put together a chart by herself as a hobby after seeing Facebook friends fight over the legitimacy of sources during the 2016 election. Otero said that when she saw how popular her chart was, she decided to make bias ratings her full-time job and founded Ad Fontes — Latin for “to the source” — in 2018.
“There were so many thousands of people reaching out to me on the internet about this,” she said. “Teachers were using it in their classrooms as a tool for teaching media literacy. Publishers wanted to publish it in textbooks.”
About 30 paid analysts rate articles for Ad Fontes. Listed on the company’s website, they represent a range of experience — current and former journalists, educators, librarians and similar professionals. The company recruits analysts through its email list and references and vets them through a traditional application process. Hired analysts are then trained by Otero and other Ad Fontes staff.
To start review sessions, a group of coordinators composed of senior analysts and the company’s nine staffers pulls articles from the sites being reviewed. They look for articles listed as most popular or displayed most prominently.
Part of the Ad Fontes analyst political bias test. The test asks analysts to rank their political bias on 18 different policy issues.
Ad Fontes administers an internal political bias test to analysts, asking them to rank their left-to-right position on about 20 policy positions. That information allows the company to attempt to create ideological balance by including one centrist, one left-leaning and one right-leaning analyst on each review panel. The panels review at least three articles for each source, but they may review as many as 30 for particularly prominent outlets, like The Washington Post, Otero said. More on their methodology, including how they choose which articles to review to create a bias rating, can be found here on the Ad Fontes website.
When they review the articles, the analysts see them as they appear online, “because that’s how people encounter all content. No one encounters content blind,” Otero said. The review process recently changed so that paired analysts discuss their ratings over video chat, where they are pushed to be more specific as they form ratings, Otero said.
Individual scores for an article’s accuracy, the use of fact or opinion, and the appropriateness of its headline and image combine to create a reliability score. The bias score is determined by the article’s degree of advocacy for a left-to-right political position, topic selection and omission, and use of language.
To create an overall bias and reliability score for an outlet, the individual scores for each reviewed article are averaged, with added importance given to more popular articles. That average determines where sources show up on the chart.
Ad Fontes details its ratings process in a white paper from August 2019.
While the company mostly reviews prominent legacy news sources and other popular news sites, Otero hopes to add more podcasts and video content to the chart in coming iterations. The chart already rates video news channel “The Young Turks” (which claims to be the most popular online news show with 250 million views per month and 5 million subscribers on YouTube), and Otero mentioned she next wants to examine videos from Prager University (which claims 4 billion lifetime views for its content, has 2.84 million subscribers on YouTube and 1.4 million followers on Instagram). Ad Fontes is working with ad agency Oxford Road and dental care company Quip to create ratings for the top 50 news and politics podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Otero said.
“It’s not strictly traditional news sources, because so much of the information that people use to make decisions in their lives is not exactly news,” Otero said.
She was shocked when academic textbook publishers first wanted to use her chart. Now she wants it to become a household tool.
“As we add more news sources on to it, as we add more data, I envision this becoming a standard framework for evaluating news on at least these two dimensions of reliability and bias,” she said.
She sees complaints about it from both ends of the political spectrum as proof that it works.
“A lot of people love it and a lot of people hate it,” Otero said. “A lot of people on the left will call us neoliberal shills, and then a bunch of people that are on the right are like, ‘Oh, you guys are a bunch of leftists yourselves.’”
The project has grown to include tools for teaching media literacy to school kids and an interactive version of the chart that displays each rated article. Otero’s company operates as a public benefit corporation with a stated public benefit mission: “to make news consumers smarter and news media better.” She didn’t want Ad Fontes to rely on donations.
“If we want to grow with a problem, we have to be a sustainable business. Otherwise, we’re just going to make a small difference in a corner of the problem,” she said.
Ad Fontes makes money by responding to specific research requests from advertisers, academics and other parties that want certain outlets to be reviewed. The company also receives non-deductible donations and operates on WeFunder, a grassroots crowdfunding investment site, to bring in investors. So far, Ad Fontes has raised $163,940 with 276 investors through the site.
Should you use the charts?
Media bias charts with transparent, rigorous methodologies can offer insight into sources’ biases. That insight can help you understand what perspectives sources bring as they share the news. That insight also might help you understand what perspectives you might be missing as a news consumer.
But use them with caution. Political bias isn’t the only thing news consumers should look out for. Reliability is critical, too, and the accuracy and editorial standards of organizations play an important role in sharing informative, useful news.
Media bias charts are a media literacy tool. They offer well-researched appraisals on the bias of certain sources. But to best inform yourself, you need a full toolbox. Check out Poynter’s MediaWise project for more media literacy tools.
This article was originally published on Dec. 14, 2020.
Support high-integrity, independent journalism that serves democracy. Make a gift to Poynter today. The Poynter Institute is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, and your gift helps us make good journalism better.
DONATE
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2021/should-you-trust-media-bias-charts/
https://adfontesmedia.com/
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
These charts have been posted before at times, but I think they deserve another.
Should you trust media bias charts?
These controversial charts claim to show the political lean and credibility of news organizations. Here’s what you need to know about them.
Ad Fontes' media bias chart, left, and AllSides' media bias chart, right. Larger versions are available to view below and on each organization's website.
By: Jake Sheridan
November 2, 2021
Impartial journalism is an impossible ideal. That is, at least, according to Julie Mastrine.
“Unbiased news doesn’t exist. Everyone has a bias: everyday people and journalists. And that’s OK,” Mastrine said. But it’s not OK for news organizations to hide those biases, she said.
“We can be manipulated into (a biased outlet’s) point of view and not able to evaluate it critically and objectively and understand where it’s coming from,” said Mastrine, marketing director for AllSides, a media literacy company focused on “freeing people from filter bubbles.”
That’s why she created a media bias chart.
As readers hurl claims of hidden bias towards outlets on all parts of the political spectrum, bias charts have emerged as a tool to reveal pernicious partiality.
Charts that use transparent methodologies to score political bias — particularly the AllSides chart and another from news literacy company Ad Fontes Media — are increasing in popularity and spreading across the internet. According to CrowdTangle, a social media monitoring platform, the homepages for these two sites and the pages for their charts have been shared tens of thousands of times.
But just because something is widely shared doesn’t mean it’s accurate. Are media bias charts reliable?
Why do media bias charts exist?
Traditional journalism values a focus on news reporting that is fair and impartial, guided by principles like truth, verification and accuracy. But those standards are not observed across the board in the “news” content that people consume.
Tim Groeling, a communications professor at the University of California Los Angeles, said some consumers take too much of the “news” they encounter as impartial.
When people are influenced by undisclosed political bias in the news they consume, “that’s pretty bad for democratic politics, pretty bad for our country to have people be consistently misinformed and think they’re informed,” Groeling said.
If undisclosed bias threatens to mislead some news consumers, it also pushes others away, he said.
“When you have bias that’s not acknowledged, but is present, that’s really damaging to trust,” he said.
Kelly McBride, an expert on journalism ethics and standards, NPR’s public editor and the chair of the Craig Newmark Center for Ethics and Leadership at Poynter, agrees.
“If a news consumer doesn’t see their particular bias in a story accounted for — not necessarily validated, but at least accounted for in a story — they are going to assume that the reporter or the publication is biased,” McBride said.
The growing public confusion about whether or not news outlets harbor a political bias, disclosed or not, is fueling demand for resources to sort fact from otherwise — resources like these media bias charts.
Bias and social media
Mastrine said the threat of undisclosed biases grows as social media algorithms create filter bubbles to feed users ideologically consistent content.
Could rating bias help? Mastrine and Vanessa Otero, founder of the Ad Fontes media bias chart, think so.
“It’ll actually make it easier for people to identify different perspectives and make sure they’re reading across the spectrum so that they get a balanced understanding of current events,” Mastrine said.
Otero said bias ratings could also be helpful to advertisers.
“There’s this whole ecosystem of online junk news, of polarizing misinformation, these clickbaity sites that are sucking up a lot of ad revenue. And that’s not to the benefit of anybody,” Otero said. “It’s not to the benefit of the advertisers. It’s not to the benefit of society. It’s just to the benefit of some folks who want to take advantage of people’s worst inclinations online.”
Reliable media bias ratings could allow advertisers to disinvest in fringe sites.
Groeling, the UCLA professor, said he could see major social media and search platforms using bias ratings to alter the algorithms that determine what content users see. Changes could elevate neutral content or foster broader news consumption.
But he fears the platforms’ sweeping power, especially after Facebook and Twitter censored a New York Post article purporting to show data from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, the son of President-elect Joe Biden. Groeling said social media platforms failed to clearly communicate how and why they stopped and slowed the spread of the article.
“(Social media platforms are) searching for some sort of arbiter of truth and news … but it’s actually really difficult to do that and not be a frightening totalitarian,” he said.
Is less more?
The Ad Fontes chart and the AllSides chart are each easy to understand: progressive publishers on one side, conservative ones on the other.
“It’s just more visible, more shareable. We think more people can see the ratings this way and kind of begin to understand them and really start to think, ‘Oh, you know, journalism is supposed to be objective and balanced,’” Mastrine said. AllSides has rated media bias since 2012. Mastrine first put them into chart form in early 2019.
Otero recognizes that accessibility comes at a price.
“Some nuance has to go away when it’s a graphic,” she said. “If you always keep it to, ‘people can only understand if they have a very deep conversation,’ then some people are just never going to get there. So it is a tool to help people have a shortcut.”
But perceiving the chart as distilled truth could give consumers an undue trust in outlets, McBride said.
“Overreliance on a chart like this is going to probably give some consumers a false level of faith,” she said. “I can think of a massive journalistic failure for just about every organization on this chart. And they didn’t all come clean about it.”
The necessity of getting people to look at the chart poses another challenge. Groeling thinks disinterest among consumers could hurt the charts’ usefulness.
“Asking people to go to this chart, asking them to take effort to understand and do that comparison, I worry would not actually be something people would do. Because most people don’t care enough about news,” he said. He would rather see a plugin that detects bias in users’ overall news consumption and offers them differing viewpoints.
McBride questioned whether bias should be the focus of the charts at all. Other factors — accountability, reliability and resources — would offer better insight into what sources of news are best, she said.
“Bias is only one thing that you need to pay attention to when you consume news. What you also want to pay attention to is the quality of the actual reporting and writing and the editing,” she said. It wouldn’t make sense to rate local news sources for bias, she added, because they are responsive to individual communities with different political ideologies.
The charts are only as good as their methodologies. Both McBride and Groeling shared praise for the stated methods for rating bias of AllSides and Ad Fontes, which can be found on their websites. Neither Ad Fontes nor AllSides explicitly rates editorial standards.
The AllSides Chart
(Courtesy: AllSides)
The AllSides chart focuses solely on political bias. It places sources in one of five boxes — “Left,” “Lean Left,” “Center,” “Lean Right” and “Right.” Mastrine said that while the boxes allow the chart to be easily understood, they also don’t allow sources to be rated on a gradient.
“Our five-point scale is inherently limited in the sense that we have to put somebody in a category when, in reality, it’s kind of a spectrum. They might fall in between two of the ratings,” Mastrine said.
That also makes the chart particularly easy to understand, she said.
AllSides has rated more than 800 sources in eight years, focusing on online content only. Ratings are derived from a mix of review methods.
In the blind bias survey, which Mastrine called “one of (AllSides’) most robust bias rating methodologies,” readers from the public rate articles for political bias. Two AllSides staffers with different political biases pull articles from the news sites that are being reviewed. AllSides locates these unpaid readers through its newsletter, website, social media account and other marketing tools. The readers, who self-report their political bias after they use a bias rating test provided by the company, only see the article’s text and are not told which outlet published the piece. The data is then normalized to more closely reflect the composure of America across political groupings.
AllSides also uses “editorial reviews,” where staff members look directly at a source to contribute to ratings.
“That allows us to actually look at the homepage with the branding, with the photos and all that and kind of get a feel for what the bias is, taking all that into account,” Mastrine said.
She added that an equal number of staffers who lean left, right and center conduct each review together. The personal biases of AllSides’ staffers appear on their bio pages. Mastrine leans right.
She clarified that among the 20-person staff, many are part time, 14% are people of color, 38% are lean left or left, 29% are center, and 18% are lean right or right. Half of the staffers are male, half are female.
When a news outlet receives a blind bias survey and an editorial review, both are taken into account. Mastrine said the two methods aren’t weighted together “in any mathematical way,” but said they typically hold roughly equal weight. Sometimes, she added, the editorial review carries more weight.
AllSides also uses “independent research,” which Mastrine described as the “lowest level of bias verification.” She said it consists of staffers reviewing and reporting on a source to make a preliminary bias assessment. Sometimes third-party analyses — including academic research and surveys — are incorporated into ratings, too.
AllSides highlights the specific methodologies used to judge each source on its website and states its confidence in the ratings based on the methods used. In a separate white paper, the company details the process used for its August 2020 blind bias survey.
AllSides sometimes gives separate ratings to different sections of the same source. For example, it rates The New York Times’ opinion section “Left” and its news section “Lean Left.” AllSides also incorporates reader feedback into its system. People can mark that they agree or disagree with AllSides’ rating of a source. When a significant number of people disagree, AllSides often revisits a source to vet it once again, Mastrine said.
The AllSides chart generally gets good reviews, she said, and most people mark that they agree with the ratings. Still, she sees one misconception among the people that encounter it: They think center means better. Mastrine disagrees.
“The center outlets might be omitting certain stories that are important to people. They might not even be accurate,” she said. “We tell people to read across the spectrum.”
To make that easier, AllSides offers a curated “balanced news feed,” featuring articles from across the political spectrum, on its website.
AllSides makes money through paid memberships, one-time donations, media literacy training and online advertisements. It plans to become a public benefit corporation by the end of the year, she added, meaning it will operate both for profit and for a stated public mission.
The Ad Fontes chart
(Courtesy: Ad Fontes)
The Ad Fontes chart rates both reliability and political bias. It scores news sources — around 270 now, and an expected 300 in December — using bias and reliability as coordinates on its chart.
The outlets appear on a spectrum, with seven markers showing a range from “Most Extreme Left” to “Most Extreme Right” along the bias axis, and eight markers showing a range from “Original Fact Reporting” to “Contains Inaccurate/Fabricated Info” along the reliability axis.
The chart is a departure from its first version, back when founder Vanessa Otero, a patent attorney, said she put together a chart by herself as a hobby after seeing Facebook friends fight over the legitimacy of sources during the 2016 election. Otero said that when she saw how popular her chart was, she decided to make bias ratings her full-time job and founded Ad Fontes — Latin for “to the source” — in 2018.
“There were so many thousands of people reaching out to me on the internet about this,” she said. “Teachers were using it in their classrooms as a tool for teaching media literacy. Publishers wanted to publish it in textbooks.”
About 30 paid analysts rate articles for Ad Fontes. Listed on the company’s website, they represent a range of experience — current and former journalists, educators, librarians and similar professionals. The company recruits analysts through its email list and references and vets them through a traditional application process. Hired analysts are then trained by Otero and other Ad Fontes staff.
To start review sessions, a group of coordinators composed of senior analysts and the company’s nine staffers pulls articles from the sites being reviewed. They look for articles listed as most popular or displayed most prominently.
Part of the Ad Fontes analyst political bias test. The test asks analysts to rank their political bias on 18 different policy issues.
Ad Fontes administers an internal political bias test to analysts, asking them to rank their left-to-right position on about 20 policy positions. That information allows the company to attempt to create ideological balance by including one centrist, one left-leaning and one right-leaning analyst on each review panel. The panels review at least three articles for each source, but they may review as many as 30 for particularly prominent outlets, like The Washington Post, Otero said. More on their methodology, including how they choose which articles to review to create a bias rating, can be found here on the Ad Fontes website.
When they review the articles, the analysts see them as they appear online, “because that’s how people encounter all content. No one encounters content blind,” Otero said. The review process recently changed so that paired analysts discuss their ratings over video chat, where they are pushed to be more specific as they form ratings, Otero said.
Individual scores for an article’s accuracy, the use of fact or opinion, and the appropriateness of its headline and image combine to create a reliability score. The bias score is determined by the article’s degree of advocacy for a left-to-right political position, topic selection and omission, and use of language.
To create an overall bias and reliability score for an outlet, the individual scores for each reviewed article are averaged, with added importance given to more popular articles. That average determines where sources show up on the chart.
Ad Fontes details its ratings process in a white paper from August 2019.
While the company mostly reviews prominent legacy news sources and other popular news sites, Otero hopes to add more podcasts and video content to the chart in coming iterations. The chart already rates video news channel “The Young Turks” (which claims to be the most popular online news show with 250 million views per month and 5 million subscribers on YouTube), and Otero mentioned she next wants to examine videos from Prager University (which claims 4 billion lifetime views for its content, has 2.84 million subscribers on YouTube and 1.4 million followers on Instagram). Ad Fontes is working with ad agency Oxford Road and dental care company Quip to create ratings for the top 50 news and politics podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Otero said.
“It’s not strictly traditional news sources, because so much of the information that people use to make decisions in their lives is not exactly news,” Otero said.
She was shocked when academic textbook publishers first wanted to use her chart. Now she wants it to become a household tool.
“As we add more news sources on to it, as we add more data, I envision this becoming a standard framework for evaluating news on at least these two dimensions of reliability and bias,” she said.
She sees complaints about it from both ends of the political spectrum as proof that it works.
“A lot of people love it and a lot of people hate it,” Otero said. “A lot of people on the left will call us neoliberal shills, and then a bunch of people that are on the right are like, ‘Oh, you guys are a bunch of leftists yourselves.’”
The project has grown to include tools for teaching media literacy to school kids and an interactive version of the chart that displays each rated article. Otero’s company operates as a public benefit corporation with a stated public benefit mission: “to make news consumers smarter and news media better.” She didn’t want Ad Fontes to rely on donations.
“If we want to grow with a problem, we have to be a sustainable business. Otherwise, we’re just going to make a small difference in a corner of the problem,” she said.
Ad Fontes makes money by responding to specific research requests from advertisers, academics and other parties that want certain outlets to be reviewed. The company also receives non-deductible donations and operates on WeFunder, a grassroots crowdfunding investment site, to bring in investors. So far, Ad Fontes has raised $163,940 with 276 investors through the site.
Should you use the charts?
Media bias charts with transparent, rigorous methodologies can offer insight into sources’ biases. That insight can help you understand what perspectives sources bring as they share the news. That insight also might help you understand what perspectives you might be missing as a news consumer.
But use them with caution. Political bias isn’t the only thing news consumers should look out for. Reliability is critical, too, and the accuracy and editorial standards of organizations play an important role in sharing informative, useful news.
Media bias charts are a media literacy tool. They offer well-researched appraisals on the bias of certain sources. But to best inform yourself, you need a full toolbox. Check out Poynter’s MediaWise project for more media literacy tools.
This article was originally published on Dec. 14, 2020.
Support high-integrity, independent journalism that serves democracy. Make a gift to Poynter today. The Poynter Institute is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, and your gift helps us make good journalism better.
DONATE
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2021/should-you-trust-media-bias-charts/
https://adfontesmedia.com/
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
I almost always post the link to my posts or reference the author and/or source and believe that is generally accepted proper way of posting. I didn't in this case in attempt to focus on the meaning and message and try to give the original source just a tiny bit more power.
These days, where valid news sources have been claimed and made to believe that they are the "enemy of the people" and reject those sources, the real "truth" (not the "alternatives" masquerading as the truth). In reality the valid news sources are the enemy of who is waging the "information war" against that reality. Meaning their enemy is really our friend.
I also knew that it was a just a matter of a few clicks to get that source (highlight heading or subject, right mouse button, search on the heading for example). Most times, one might read the posting, but never click on the source link and only one time viewing the post.
Advertising 101, it takes multiple times of looking at something to make a greater impact. This is due that there is greater actual indent upon the human brain the more times something is projected upon it or the more intensely something is addressed. Why people like tfg or Putin and their enablers just repeat, repeat, and more repeat of all the lies they spew (hence the information wars).
It would also double, triple, etc the amount of "clicks" or views to the original source giving it just a little more effective power.
Now I can't even compete or have even a minuscule effect against the information war machine that prevails currently by a few postings on Ihub, but hopefully in some tiny way, it was better than doing nothing in only this instance.
It's the same as when a lover gets dumped by the other party, the jilted lover goes around and says "I broke up with them". Just more of Putin's disinformation wars.
I purposely left that out. It's the message and not the messenger that's important here. It needs no fact checking or political debate, just given some thought.
I'm not sure if I would label it "good". This is bad. I'm just wondering how much are they putting up the price to the consumer over what the increased expense is to produce and distribute. Whenever oil, groc, etc have an event that raises the cost of the product sold, retailers/distributers raise the cost to the consumer 10,15, 20% more than the increased expense of the actual event.
Icahn still kept his warrants though. Besides OXY and SWX, he also has stake in SD and DK, and a few others. The whole darn sector is going bonkers. I think a lot of this is just exuberant fear factor. It really was a just a dart throwing to anything practically having to do with the recognition of the war effects. Oil and gas, agriculture, metals even. Really making it hard to determine long term values. So many of these things are just up to the extremes right now. How far will they go?
Carl Icahn exited a big bet on Occidental Petroleum Corp. , selling the last of what was once a roughly 10% stake in the oil-and-gas producer as its shares surge.
Mr. Icahn , who had been cutting the position, in recent days sold the remainder of it, according to a letter he sent to Occidental's board Sunday. The move brings to a close one of Mr. Icahn's most dramatic recent clashes, which began when he criticized Occidental for outbidding larger rival Chevron Corp. to strike a $38 billion deal to buy Anadarko Petroleum Corp. in May 2019 .
The activist investor's two representatives on Occidental's board are also resigning, he said in the letter, as was required by a settlement agreement with the company at the onset of the pandemic.
Occidental's shares plummeted in March 2020 , allowing Mr. Icahn to double down on the investment, boosting his stake from 2.5% to around 10%. By that time, he had been arguing for almost a year that the Anadarko deal was an ill- conceived defensive move and campaigning for the ouster of Chief Executive Vicki Hollub . He also took issue with the $10 billion of pricey financing from Warren Buffett that Occidental relied on to pay for the deal.
Mr. Buffett has been buying Occidental shares in recent days. As of Friday, Mr. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. reported owning roughly $5 billion worth.
Within weeks of Mr. Icahn raising his stake, he and Occidental called a truce that brought back former CEO Stephen Chazen as chairman and added three directors, including Mr. Icahn's two representatives. Ms. Hollub remained CEO, and the company announced deep cost cuts.
Mr. Icahn thanked Mr. Chazen in Sunday's letter, including for supporting his push to issue a free dividend of warrants that he said created over $4 billion of value for Occidental shareholders.
"While we certainly had our disagreements with Vicki Hollub concerning M&A, we thank her for using her well-honed operating skills and resiliency so well in Occidental's darkest hours," Mr. Icahn wrote. "We believe our relationship with Occidental turned out to be activism at its best."
With the help of a surge in oil prices, Occidental's shares have more than quintupled after sinking below $10 in 2020. They closed Friday at $56.15 , just below where they were before the Anadarko deal was finalized.
Mr. Icahn realized a profit of around $1 billion on the investment, according to people familiar with the matter. He also has an unrealized net profit of roughly $500 million on the warrants, they said. He said in the letter that he still owns over 15 million warrants.
Mr. Icahn has recently been focused on a smaller energy company, the utility Southwest Gas Holdings Inc., which last week announced plans to separate a subsidiary he had called for it to sell. He is also running a proxy contest at McDonald's Corp. over its suppliers' treatment of pregnant pigs. The latter is an atypical campaign for Mr. Icahn , who turned 86 last month, as he holds a tiny stake and doesn't expect to turn a profit.
Write to Cara Lombardo at cara.lombardo@wsj.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
03-06-22 1500ET
Copyright (c) 2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc
I'm sure they are ramping it up. Maybe we ought to keep more oil and oil product of what we export. There is whole world system in place, and it doesn't just involve the US, and it's pretty involved, so changing around the system can't happen over night. They are definitely working on it intensely right now though.
As of the first half of 21, the amount of oil and oil products from in the US today is being EXPORTED out of the country more than we import by the tune of about 120,000 barrels a day over what we import. We also export more refined product than crude.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49596
The drilling rigs will be getting more active with the thousands and thousands of new oil drilling permits/leases that would be coming online down the road. We already have at last count in 2020, 936,934 producing oil wells down from over a million in 2014 due to lower oil prices with less rig activity right here in the US. Maybe the numbers are off a few and they don't all produce equally, but still equates to a crap load of oil and oil product produced in the US.
New Data: Biden’s First Year Drilling Permitting Stomps Trump’s By 34%
Thousands of Permits OK’d Despite President’s Authority to End Drilling by 2035
WASHINGTON— New federal data shows the Biden administration approved 3,557 permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in its first year, far outpacing the Trump administration’s first-year total of 2,658.
Nearly 2,000 of the drilling permits were approved on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management’s New Mexico office, followed by 843 in Wyoming, 285 in Montana and North Dakota, and 191 in Utah. In California, the Biden administration approved 187 permits — more than twice the 71 drilling permits Trump approved in that state in his first year.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/06/biden-is-approving-more-oil-gas-drilling-permits-public-lands-than-trump-analysis-finds/
https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/new-data-biden-slays-trumps-first-year-drilling-permitting-by-34-2022-01-21/
Ukrainians are giving Americans two lessons about democracy that we've forgotten
He stands guard today atop a granite pedestal near a riverbank in Concord, Massachusetts -- a stout, handsome farmer clutching a musket while scanning the horizon for the advancing enemy.
He is the iconic "Minute Man" statue, a bronze monument built to commemorate the first battle of the Revolutionary War. That's when patriots fired "the shot heard around the world," taking on the mightiest army of their era to preserve the birth of democracy in America.
Ukrainians are now building their own monuments to democracy, with their blood. For more than a week, the world has been transfixed by their battle to repel the mighty Russian army and preserve the birth of democracy in their homeland.
In recent days stories of Ukrainian courage have also been heard around the world: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky turning down an offer to evacuate him from the country by saying, "The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride"; the besieged defenders of Snake Island who told a Russian warship to "go f**k yourself"; the images of Ukrainian civilians making Molotov cocktails and carrying assault rifles while heading to the front lines.
"Each passing day adds more stories that Ukrainians will tell not only in the dark days ahead, but in the decades and generations to come," the author and historian Yuval Noah Harari said in a recent essay. "This is the stuff nations are built from. In the long run, these stories count more than tanks."
But here's another reason why the Ukraine struggle is so inspiring:
This is also the stuff that built the US.
The war in Ukraine isn't just a geopolitical struggle -- it's a call to remember. The courage of the Ukrainian people is a reminder of what the US used to be -- a "beacon of liberty," where virtually every schoolchild memorized the "Concord Hymn" poem inscribed at the base of the Minute Man statue.
The Ukrainians are teaching Americans two lessons about democracy that many of us have forgotten.
Lesson 1: The most ferocious defenders of democracy are those who have been denied it
Ukrainian's democratic tradition bears little comparison to the US at first glance. The country has been independent for only 31 years.
And it's not clear that everyone opposing Russia is fighting for liberal democracy in Ukraine. There's evidence that ultra-nationalists and far-right groups are part of the armed Ukraine resistance.
Ukraine also borders Russia, an oppressive regime that has installed puppet governments in the country before. The country is familiar with brutal leaders imposing their will on its people. The Russian dictator Joseph Stalin caused the deaths of nearly 4 million Ukrainians in the 1930s by engineering a famine. The German invasion of Ukraine in World War II led to the deaths of an estimated seven million people.
But that history of brutality is partly why so many Ukrainians are willing to fight so hard for democracy.
Freedom tastes sweeter for those who have never had it.
This is the same dynamic that helped make the US.
The most fervent believers in American democracy tend to come from groups that have been denied liberty and equality -- either in the US or from their country of origin.
The first martyr in the fight for American independence was a runaway slave named Crispus Attucks, shot by British redcoats during the Boston Massacre.
The most decorated unit in US military history was a Japanese American regiment that fought during World War II. These "Nisei" soldiers volunteered for combat though they came from families that had their property confiscated and were placed in internment camps by the US government.
The first people who made a genuine democracy a reality in the US were Black civil rights marchers in Selma, Alabama, and other Southern cities. They forced the US to abandon its neo-apartheid political system by pushing Congress to pass the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
You can't talk about exclusion in the US without mentioning immigrants. The country's history is filled with spasms of intolerance and raw racism directed at immigrants. And yet many immigrants outwork, outvote and outfight many native-born Americans.
One in five Medal of Honor winners have been immigrants. Immigrants are nearly twice as likely to start businesses as native-born Americans. Nearly half of all Fortune 500 companies -- including Apple, Google and Amazon -- were founded by immigrants or their children.
Many of these immigrants left countries run by dictators and convulsed by civil wars and political violence because of one American trait: Our democratic ideas.
"Since World War II, that has been the single most important driver of American influence and power," said Marie Yovanovitch, the former US ambassador to Ukraine, in a recent interview. "Yes, we have a big military. Yes, we have a strong economy. But it's our ideas that attract others. Russia under Putin doesn't really have that power of attraction. He only has the power of coercion, and we are seeing that now in Ukraine in a brutal way."
Lesson 2: Ordinary people are the true heroes of democracy
When a CNN crew recently interviewed Ukrainan President Zelensky in a bunker in Kyiv, the country's capital, he said something that was revelatory.
A journalist asked him what it was like to go from being a comic actor to becoming a globally acclaimed wartime leader. But Zelensky was not interested in adding to the Western praise of his charismatic leadership.
"I'm not iconic," he said. "I think Ukraine is iconic."
It's the kind of statement that would have made the "embattled farmers" who fought at Concord during the Revolutionary War nod in recognition. Ordinary people, not charismatic leaders, sustain democracy. This was an abiding belief throughout US history.
There was a time when most young men were expected to join the military or go into government as part of some form of public service. This expectation also applied to the wealthy and the famous. That's part of the reason why former president George H.W. Bush, the grandson of a steel industrialist and scion of a wealthy family, enlisted as a fighter pilot in World War II.
Actor Jimmy Stewart turned down an offer to stay stateside as a flight instructor and volunteered for combat duty as a US Army Air Force pilot. He flew 20 bombing missions in harrowing combat conditions, an experience he rarely talked about after the war.
This attitude, though, wasn't confined to World War II. It was there at the nation's beginning. It was Nathan Hale, an American Revolutionary War officer, who reputedly said, "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."
And it wasn't confined to the military. There's a generation of Americans who entered the Peace Corps because of what President John F. Kennedy declared at his 1960 inaugural address:
"Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can for your country."
When asked what he learned from studying US history, historian Howard Zinn once said, "Democracy is not what governments do; it's what people do, too."
His message: Don't depend on saviors.
"Don't depend on the founding fathers, on Andrew Jackson, on Theodore Roosevelt, on Lyndon Johnson, on Obama," Zinn said. "Don't depend on our leaders to do what needs to be done, because whenever the government has done anything to bring about change, it's done so only because it's been pushed and prodded by social movements, by ordinary people organizing.
"Lincoln was pushed by the antislavery movement," he added. "Johnson and Kennedy were pushed by the Southern Black movement..."
This power of ordinary people is what Zelensky evoked when he released a taped appeal to the Russian and Ukrainian people before Russia's invasion. He said there was one group that could ultimately prevent war: "Regular people. Regular, normal people."
It's a lesson many contemporary Americans have seem to have forgotten. Our political discourse is driven by searches for a savior: a charismatic leader who will vanquish the other side; a pivotal Supreme Court appointment that will finally "take back" the country, a commentator who will "destroy" opponents on TV.
Many have stopped believing that ordinary people can change anything because of political gridlock.
The spirit of democracy in the US feels like it's under siege
More Americans even now doubt the power of their democratic ideas. One recent poll showed that 64% of Americans believe their democracy is "in crisis and at risk of failing." Another recent poll found 72% of Americans say the US used to be a good model of democracy for other countries to follow but has not been in recent years.
It's not as if the Democratic spirit has been extinguished in the US. The 2020 presidential election was held during a pandemic but saw the highest voter turnout in a century. The nationwide protests after the murder of George Floyd that same year have been described as the largest movement in the country's history. And there was a palpable hope early in 2020 that the pandemic would bring Americans together.
But that burst of civic participation was followed by 19 states passing voter restriction laws. The pandemic became a political wedge issue. And the US still lags behind most developed nations when it comes to voter turnout.
Today it's Ukranians -- not Americans -- who are embodying Kennedy's exhortation: They're asking what they can do for their country, not the other way around.
Ukrainian citizens are blocking Russian tanks with their bodies. Ukrainians are leaving safety and well-paying jobs in Europe to go fight for their homeland. Famous figures like Ukrainian boxer Vasiliy Lomachenko, a two-time Olympic gold medalist, are giving up lucrative paydays to go home and join a defense battalion. Ukrainian tennis star Sergiy Stakhovsky left his wife and their three young children in Hungary to join the fight in his homeland.
And now Americans and other foreign fighters are traveling to Ukraine to defend the country.
These stories don't just inspire, they force people in the West to reexamine our cynicism, Tom McTague wrote in a recent Atlantic essay.
McTague said the US and Western Europe have lost their sense of being a force for moral good and taking on heroic struggles in the cause of freedom. Instead we follow cynical opportunists in shows like "Succession" and "Billions" and pragmatic, cautious leaders who lack any overt idealism, he said.
Ukraine changes that, McTague said. One of the reasons why Zelensky reduced hardened politicians -- and even a translator -- to tears in his appeals to freedom is because "Western countries don't have this type of leadership anymore: unembarrassed, defiant belief in a cause."
In standing up to Putin, McTague wrote, "Ukraine is articulating a certain idea of itself that is righteous and dignified and heroic -- virtues we long ago dismissed as old-fashioned. How tragic it is that Zelensky's idea has to be attacked for us to be reminded of ours."
It would be more tragic if Americans could no longer remember the ideas we stand for at all.
Our country's history is filled with brutality. It is also riddled with hypocrisies. Yet that's why monuments like the Minute Man still stand. They remind us of who we are at our best, that democracy is something worth fighting, and dying for.
Ukrainians know that. We used to know that.
Their story echoes our story.
Let us not forget.