Not even the mighty Middle East can survive cheap oil forever.

Hatu

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
645
132
MIA
If oil stays around $50 a barrel, most countries in the region will run out of cash in five years or less, warned a dire report from the International Monetary Fund this week. That includes OPEC leader Saudi Arabia as well as Oman and Bahrain.

Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, needs to sell oil at around $106 to balance its budget, according to IMF estimates. The kingdom barely has enough fiscal buffers to survive five years of $50 oil, the IMF said.

Iran's break-even oil price is estimated at $72 and it could survive cheap oil for less than 10 years, the IMF estimates. It's a rosier outlook compared to its neighbors. But Iran's outlook is clouded by potential sanctions relief (which hasn't come yet) and a surge in oil production from its nuclear deal with the West.

Iraq has virtually no fiscal buffer remaining, according to the IMF. The country is grappling with internal strife and has lost large swaths of land to ISIS.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/25/investing/oil-prices-saudi-arabia-cash-opec-middle-east/index.html

You think it's a crazy mess over there now, oh boy, just wait!
 

jimntx

Veteran
Jun 28, 2003
11,218
3,301
Dallas, TX
www.usaviation.com
Considering how the Middle East over-produced for years to make things difficult for Western producers--such as the U.S.--it is tempting to say "what goes around comes around." But, the last thing we need is total instability or outright war between nations in that part of the world--especially since several countries over there have nuclear capability.
 

townpete

Corn Field
May 30, 2008
4,654
3,740
jimntx said:
Considering how the Middle East over-produced for years to make things difficult for Western producers--such as the U.S.--it is tempting to say "what goes around comes around." But, the last thing we need is total instability or outright war between nations in that part of the world--especially since several countries over there have nuclear capability.
 Its gonna be ok, Iran has nukes now so im sure everything will be just peachy.
 
lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Ifly2

Veteran
Jul 10, 2004
2,124
627
townpete said:
Its gonna be ok, Iran has nukes now so im sure everything will be just peachy.
 
lol

Really

Interested posting your proof, or even in sharing just a bit of your evidence to support this statement?
 

delldude

Veteran
Oct 29, 2002
29,084
6,050
Downrange
www.youtube.com
Ifly2 said:
Really

Interested posting your proof, or even in sharing just a bit of your evidence to support this statement?
 
Quite an interesting question that has distinct parallels with their ballistic missile efforts. I don't think too many develop long range ICBM's as conventional HE delivery systems. Iran already has missiles standing by awaiting a warhead.
 
No one can answer your question accurately except Iran. Estimates are they have that capability now to the Obama Disneyland version of ten years from now. Stand by your seismographs.
 
 

Bomb potential of Iran's low-enriched uranium
  • Total amount of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) enriched to approximately 3.5 percent U-235 produced as of August 2015:
    15,651 kg [b]
  • Amount of this material ready for further enrichment (i.e., stored in gaseous form) as of August 2015:
    7,854 kg [c]
  • Amount theoretically needed to produce a bomb's worth of weapon-grade uranium metal:
    1,053 kg [d]
  • Number of first generation implosion bombs this 7,854 kilograms could fuel, if further enriched:
    7 [e]
  • Time needed to convert this  uranium to one bomb's worth of finished uranium metal enriched to 90 percent U-235:
    3 - 12 months [f]
  • Date by which Iran's  uranium stockpile probably was sufficient to fuel one first generation implosion bomb, if further enriched:
    February 2009 [g]
  • Approximate number of first generation IR-1 centrifuges being fed with UF6 at the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant, as of the last reported visit by IAEA inspectors:
    9,000 [h]
  • Number of months theoretically needed for these 9,000 centrifuges operating at their present  capacity to produce enough enriched uranium  for one bomb:
    1.6 [i]
 
 

Iranian Nuclear Breakout Times Under Different Scenarios
 
If Iran feeds its IR-centrifuges with natural uranium and operates:
  • 9,000 centrifuges (the number now running):
    6.8 months [q]
  • 6,104 centrifuges (the number allowed to be installed under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action):
    10.1 months [r]
  • 5,060 centrifuges (the number allowed to operate under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action):
    1 year [s]
 
If Iran feeds its IR-centrifuges with low-enriched uranium and operates: [t]
  • 9,000 centrifuges:
    1.6 months 
  • 6,104 centrifuges:
    2.4 months
  • 5,060 centrifuges:
    2.9 months
 
http://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/articles-reports/irans-nuclear-timetable
 

Glenn Quagmire

Veteran
Apr 30, 2012
4,841
4,429
townpete said:
Its gonna be ok, Iran has nukes now so im sure everything will be just peachy.
 
lol
Are those the ones that the US taxpayers bought?

You know, those that you posted about and backed up with several very convincing cartoons as proof positive.

Nice work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people

Ifly2

Veteran
Jul 10, 2004
2,124
627
Maybe It's the ones Benji said they can't get for ten hears now with the treaty, instead of the six months he said it would take before...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

delldude

Veteran
Oct 29, 2002
29,084
6,050
Downrange
www.youtube.com
I have a sneaking suspicion an intentional drive to attack OPEC was planned under previous admin's.
For one, oil futures trading has run the global economy amok for some time.
Second, if OPEC is losing money, so are the terrorist organizations which are largely funded off oil revenues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

777 fixer

Veteran
Jul 21, 2004
4,792
912
Either way the Saudi's attempt to put a damper on the US and Canadian oil business might have not worked out the way they thought.  Guess someone forgot to remiond them that economically they are a one trick pony.
 

Ifly2

Veteran
Jul 10, 2004
2,124
627
Dell,

Maybe it was this administration, working with other countries

the previous preferred unilateral shooting wars to coalitions or diplomacy, remember?
 

townpete

Corn Field
May 30, 2008
4,654
3,740
Ifly2 said:
Dell,

Maybe it was this administration, working with other countries

the previous preferred unilateral shooting wars to coalitions or diplomacy, remember?
 
Working with other countries?
 
Like giving them everything they want + more and we get nothing?
 
That's a strange definition of "working with other countries."
 

townpete

Corn Field
May 30, 2008
4,654
3,740
Ifly2 said:
Dell,

Maybe it was this administration, working with other countries

the previous preferred unilateral shooting wars to coalitions or diplomacy, remember?
 
Lets try this "Obama Negation strategy 101" in real life.
 
Lets "work together".
 
You'll give me everything I want....like your house, cars, wife, kids, dog, bird, hamster, etc
 
In the spirit of "working together"
 
and in turn...
 
you'll get nothing.
 
Deal?
 
lol
 

Ifly2

Veteran
Jul 10, 2004
2,124
627
Petey,

"We" are now draining "their" bank accounts, bice when your boy W was The Decider and "we" were making "them" rich, and fighting their battles.

Is that what we wanted?
Making them rich while protecting them, at the US taxpayer's expense?