Alleged Murder of Turkish Journalist in Saudi embassy

[tedtan]

Everyone's been saying this to me since I was 11 years old and still I don't really get it. Lot's of places have oil. Canada has oil, Mexico has oil, USA has oil... isn't it only like a small fraction of the oil we get from Saudi Arabia anyway? I just looked up some pie charts that are telling me 12% from Persian Gulf. But I guess that's probably a lot of money to a few rich assholes. And I guess I do realize that our country is sort of an oligarchy that is ruled by the ultra wealthy from behind the scenes... so maybe I do get it, after all.

Everyone else has beaten me to the punch here, so instead of rehashing what they've said, I'll just add a bit of perspective.

When we think of oil, we tend to think of the production side of things (actually drilling for oil). But from there, that oil needs to be transported, either by pipeline or by ship, to a refinery where it can be processed into something useful (gas/petrol, diesel, heater oil, etc.). Some of that product is sold to us for powering our cars, heating our homes, etc., and some is sold wholesale to the petrochemicals industry and shipped to a petrochem plant where it is further processed into plastics, styrofoam, etc.

All of those activities create and transport products that contribute a great deal to our GDP, drive our economy and create jobs. And pretty much all first and second world countries are dependent upon oil at this point because, while there are alternatives, they are less efficient than oil based products. Given this dependence, there is a lot of demand for oil, which gives those who control access to oil a great deal of power.

To put that into perspective, let's take a brief look into the economics of the oil and gas industry. I'm not going to get very deep into that, just provide a few number to help us put oil in context from an economic perspective.

First, let's take a look at the Fortune Global 500 list, which lists the largest businesses in the world as ranked by their 2017 revenues. Here are the top 10 on that list:

1. Walmart (retail; $500 billion revenue; 2.3 million employees);
2. State Grid (power generation; $349 billion; 900,000 employees);
3. Sinopec (oil & gas; $327 billion; 670,000 employees);
4. China National Petroleum (oil & gas; $327 billion; 1.5 million employees);
5. Royal Dutch Shell (oil & gas; $312 billion; 84,000 employees);
6. Toyota Motors (automobiles; 265 billion; 370,000 employees);
7. Volkswagon (automobiles; $260 billion; 642,000 employees);
8. British Petroleum (oil & gas; $245 billion; 74,000 employees);
9. ExxonMobil (oil & gas; $244 billion; 71,000 employees); and
   
10. Bershire Hathaway (various investments and insurance; $242 billion; 377,000 employees).

What does that tell us?

1. 50% of the largest companies in the world are directly involved in the oil and gas industry (3, 4, 5, 8, and 9);
2. An additional 20% build products that require oil and gas to operate (6 and 7);
3. Walmart sells gasoline and diesel, along with many products consisting of petroleum or parts made from petroleum (from Vasoline and lemon oil to motor oil to everything made of plastics);
4. Berkshire Hathaway, as an institutional investor, will at any given time hold investments in various oil and gas based businesses;
5. I'm not familiar with State Grid, so I assume that they are producing electricity like most power generation companies do, through coal and nuclear, with a bit of wind, solar, and hydro thrown in. (They could be running generators powered by diesel, too, but we'll assume that they are not).
6. Millions of people depend on the oil and gas industry for their livelihood (and, keep in mind, we are only looking at the top 10 companies in the world here).

Based on that, fully half of the world's top 10 companies are oil and gas producers and refiners and another 40% have their hands in the oil and gas cookie jar in one way or another.

Now, let's take a look at the top economies in the world. I'll link to Wikipedia here, since it contains data from (and links to) the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the United Nations.

Looking at these lists, you'll notice that the top 30-35 or so economies each generate more money in annual GDP than any of the top ten list oil and gas companies do in annual revenues, but when we get to around number 30-35 things get interesting. You'll notice that those oil and gas companies are each generating as much or more revenue in a single year as any of the other 175+ countries in the world generates in GDP. They are literally bigger players on the world stage than the majority of countries are.

And don't forget that those oil and gas companies are funding political campaigns, lobbying congress, taking senators and representatives on lavish trips, providing them high paying jobs after they leave politics (much like the pharmaceuticals and defense industries). Or that these oil and gas companies are blue chip stocks that a great number of investors (including rich powerful investors, both individuals and institutional) rely on to provide some safety and stability within their investment portfolios.

Based on what everyone has said, and this perspective, I hope it clears up the (very powerful) role oil and gas plays in first world countries. And, from there, you can see that those who control this resource (e.g., Saudi Arabia) have a degree of power that they would not have without oil. So when we say one thing and do another in relation to Saudi Arabia, it is because we want to continue utilizing their oil resources at the lowest prices that we can.

 

[feraledge]

Hard to say if this thread is derailing, since geopolitics explain why Trump is propping up the Saudis when it looks like this was a hit called and coordinated from the very top.

First, the breakeven on shale oil is falling as the technology advances - we're probably looking at more like $40-45 at this point, and unlike deepwater rigs new shale rigs can be brought online fairly fast. I'd say right off the bat, the fact that we're approaching a time where we will have a call-it-$45 ceiling on the price of oil is fairly important.

For the sake of not making this a thread about the ins and outs of oil, I'll just stick with this one. The technology hasn't really advanced or gotten cheaper. The problem is that the actual costs of fracking are pretty quick hindsight. It's not unlike traditional crude in that regard, but it's more like deepwater extraction in that there are more variables that generally aren't considered or even able of being considered until after the fact. Well production declines are continually proving to be incredibly rapid, so most of the breakeven numbers aren't taking into consideration that well heads peak out in 1-3 years instead of 4-8.
Also means that considerations aren't made for the cost of explosions caused by people hitting unregulated and unmarked supply and return lines and explosions caused by reverse feeding old pipelines. And on and on.
Needless to say, I'm against fracking, so consider my view tainted if you want to, but so much of this and all geopolitics is profits on paper and crude spilling on the ground.
Not to say those numbers don't matter, OPEC and the shale industry use them, but we are seeing areas where a lot of this is emboldened and enacted on nationalist gusto, being the Saudi Arabia of shale or whatever, and the math taints it.

 

[Drew]

Needless to say, I'm against fracking, so consider my view tainted if you want to, but so much of this and all geopolitics is profits on paper and crude spilling on the ground.
Not to say those numbers don't matter, OPEC and the shale industry use them, but we are seeing areas where a lot of this is emboldened and enacted on nationalist gusto, being the Saudi Arabia of shale or whatever, and the math taints it.

No, I agree, whether or not it's a GOOD idea is a completely different question than whether or not it would have an impact on the price of oil if were allowed to run unchecked. I'm not really getting into the former (I guess if push came to shove I'm for, but with extremely tight regulations, but barring that against).

The numbers I've seen for production declines are more in the realm of a 12-18 month useful life, but the offsetting factor is costs are generally sunk costs rather than ongoing, so there's really no incentive to take production offline once a well is drilled; it tends to keep pressure on pricing even after levels fall below where new wells would become profitable.

We ARE getting a little far afield, though, but I think (??) we're both in agreement that fracking definitely has some major geopolitical consequences.

 

[feraledge]

No, I agree, whether or not it's a GOOD idea is a completely different question than whether or not it would have an impact on the price of oil if were allowed to run unchecked. I'm not really getting into the former (I guess if push came to shove I'm for, but with extremely tight regulations, but barring that against).

The numbers I've seen for production declines are more in the realm of a 12-18 month useful life, but the offsetting factor is costs are generally sunk costs rather than ongoing, so there's really no incentive to take production offline once a well is drilled; it tends to keep pressure on pricing even after levels fall below where new wells would become profitable.

We ARE getting a little far afield, though, but I think (??) we're both in agreement that fracking definitely has some major geopolitical consequences.

Agreement on that. Also that murdering a journalist should have major consequences.

 

[tedtan]

Well, at least Saudi has admitted that he was killed in their consulate, though their cover story is not particularly credible.

I'm looking forward to see what Edogan has to say tomorrow.

 

[Ordacleaphobia]

Just posting to concur this is absolutely mental and feels more like the plot of a TV show episode than real life.
I get the more neutral response by the president, but I don't like it. However much distaste I have for the press, this kind of thing is absolutely unacceptabe and should come with heavy international consequences. He wasn't even a Saudi-based journalist.

 

[tedtan]

Erdogan didn't really reveal anything new beyond a few details. But those details, 1) the fact that a team from the Saudi consulate scouted two nearby forests the day before Khashoggi was killed, 2) that 12 Saudis, including Saudi generals (note: plural), arrived in Istanbul the day Khashoggi was killed, and 3) the fact that Turkey has evidence that the security cameras were turned off several hours prior to Khashoggi's arrival at the consulate certainly point to premeditation if true.

 

[Jacksonluvr636]

This whole story is a lying shit show.

I tried to talk to a co worker about this (just a general discussion, no real opinions were presented)...holy mother she went crazy on me. She's a Republican and was ranting on about Democrats and lies I was trying to fill her head with...I quickly realized there would be no conversation on this matter. All I said was 'yeah he went into a building and never left'...

IDC what side you are on, but when journalists are being killed because of an opinion, that's a serious matter, especially if Trump gets involved.

This is a good example of why being hard right OR hard left is simply bad.

Whatever happened to opinions based on facts and research? Ridiculous.

 

[Jacksonluvr636]

But always side with the lying bad guy...
but don't side with the woman...
but... woman iss... bad...guy....is ...ERROR covfefe ERROR

Meh, Innocent until proven guilty regardless of gender. Let's not get things twisted.

We deal with the country with less respect for human rights in the world, cutting hands for stealing, hanging people for being homo, lapidating women for alleged adultery... they are in the middle ages but with cell phones. But the rich countries don't care as they get profit from weapons and oil commerce. Hypocrisy.

Which is why having SJW's in America is kind of comical.

 

[Jacksonluvr636]

Everyone else has beaten me to the punch here, so instead of rehashing what they've said, I'll just add a bit of perspective.

When we think of oil, we tend to think of the production side of things (actually drilling for oil). But from there, that oil needs to be transported, either by pipeline or by ship, to a refinery where it can be processed into something useful (gas/petrol, diesel, heater oil, etc.). Some of that product is sold to us for powering our cars, heating our homes, etc., and some is sold wholesale to the petrochemicals industry and shipped to a petrochem plant where it is further processed into plastics, styrofoam, etc.

All of those activities create and transport products that contribute a great deal to our GDP, drive our economy and create jobs. And pretty much all first and second world countries are dependent upon oil at this point because, while there are alternatives, they are less efficient than oil based products. Given this dependence, there is a lot of demand for oil, which gives those who control access to oil a great deal of power.

To put that into perspective, let's take a brief look into the economics of the oil and gas industry. I'm not going to get very deep into that, just provide a few number to help us put oil in context from an economic perspective.

First, let's take a look at the Fortune Global 500 list, which lists the largest businesses in the world as ranked by their 2017 revenues. Here are the top 10 on that list:

1. Walmart (retail; $500 billion revenue; 2.3 million employees);
2. State Grid (power generation; $349 billion; 900,000 employees);
3. Sinopec (oil & gas; $327 billion; 670,000 employees);
4. China National Petroleum (oil & gas; $327 billion; 1.5 million employees);
5. Royal Dutch Shell (oil & gas; $312 billion; 84,000 employees);
6. Toyota Motors (automobiles; 265 billion; 370,000 employees);
7. Volkswagon (automobiles; $260 billion; 642,000 employees);
8. British Petroleum (oil & gas; $245 billion; 74,000 employees);
9. ExxonMobil (oil & gas; $244 billion; 71,000 employees); and
   
10. Bershire Hathaway (various investments and insurance; $242 billion; 377,000 employees).

What does that tell us?

1. 50% of the largest companies in the world are directly involved in the oil and gas industry (3, 4, 5, 8, and 9);
2. An additional 20% build products that require oil and gas to operate (6 and 7);
3. Walmart sells gasoline and diesel, along with many products consisting of petroleum or parts made from petroleum (from Vasoline and lemon oil to motor oil to everything made of plastics);
4. Berkshire Hathaway, as an institutional investor, will at any given time hold investments in various oil and gas based businesses;
5. I'm not familiar with State Grid, so I assume that they are producing electricity like most power generation companies do, through coal and nuclear, with a bit of wind, solar, and hydro thrown in. (They could be running generators powered by diesel, too, but we'll assume that they are not).
6. Millions of people depend on the oil and gas industry for their livelihood (and, keep in mind, we are only looking at the top 10 companies in the world here).

Based on that, fully half of the world's top 10 companies are oil and gas producers and refiners and another 40% have their hands in the oil and gas cookie jar in one way or another.

Now, let's take a look at the top economies in the world. I'll link to Wikipedia here, since it contains data from (and links to) the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the United Nations.

Looking at these lists, you'll notice that the top 30-35 or so economies each generate more money in annual GDP than any of the top ten list oil and gas companies do in annual revenues, but when we get to around number 30-35 things get interesting. You'll notice that those oil and gas companies are each generating as much or more revenue in a single year as any of the other 175+ countries in the world generates in GDP. They are literally bigger players on the world stage than the majority of countries are.

And don't forget that those oil and gas companies are funding political campaigns, lobbying congress, taking senators and representatives on lavish trips, providing them high paying jobs after they leave politics (much like the pharmaceuticals and defense industries). Or that these oil and gas companies are blue chip stocks that a great number of investors (including rich powerful investors, both individuals and institutional) rely on to provide some safety and stability within their investment portfolios.

Based on what everyone has said, and this perspective, I hope it clears up the (very powerful) role oil and gas plays in first world countries. And, from there, you can see that those who control this resource (e.g., Saudi Arabia) have a degree of power that they would not have without oil. So when we say one thing and do another in relation to Saudi Arabia, it is because we want to continue utilizing their oil resources at the lowest prices that we can.

Very good post.

I guess it did derail @feraledge but this post is spot on and has IMO everything to do with USA hugging Saudi.

 

[NateFalcon]

What I find comical is the US has been financially backing the Saudis’ war on Yemen for years and Americans could care less (hasn’t been brought up once yet lol)...but one journalist gets murdered in the one of most oppressive countries in the world and all of the sudden people only care because of the negative connotation it puts on Trump and his response...I think when someone uses the term “post Trump” to describe any political climate in a country where oppression, execution and harsh punishments have been law for thousands of years seem oblivious...

 

[NateFalcon]

**

 

[Randy]

What I find comical is the US has been financially backing the Saudis’ war on Yemen for years and Americans could care less (hasn’t been brought up once yet lol)...but one journalist gets murdered in the one of most oppressive countries in the world and all of the sudden people only care because of the negative connotation it puts on Trump and his response...I think when someone uses the term “post Trump” to describe any political climate in a country where oppression, execution and harsh punishments have been law for thousands of years seem oblivious...

There's a universe where it's possible to be disgusted universally by barbaric behavior but too busy, you know, working and raising a family of your own to pour all of your energy trying to, you know, over throw a foreign country single handedly. Events like this just serve as the occasional reminder why none of us go vacationing there. Just because we don't pack up an arsenal and fly over there doesn't make us all hypocrites.

 

[narad]

What I find comical is the US has been financially backing the Saudis’ war on Yemen for years and Americans could care less (hasn’t been brought up once yet lol)...but one journalist gets murdered in the one of most oppressive countries in the world and all of the sudden people only care because of the negative connotation it puts on Trump and his response...I think when someone uses the term “post Trump” to describe any political climate in a country where oppression, execution and harsh punishments have been law for thousands of years seem oblivious...

Just more evidence of contrast between this administration and previous ones. While W was a buffoon, I still would have expected him to take a strong stance in this type of situation. Trump always finds a way to be wishy-washy when the ethical response (following from self-proclaimed American values) would be obvious.

White supremacist runs over a protester? ~"Well, there was blame on both sides"

Saudis kill a guy? ~"Well, we're friends and I believe him when he says they weren't involved"

Weaksauce.

 

[feraledge]

What I find comical is the US has been financially backing the Saudis’ war on Yemen for years and Americans could care less (hasn’t been brought up once yet lol)...but one journalist gets murdered in the one of most oppressive countries in the world and all of the sudden people only care because of the negative connotation it puts on Trump and his response...I think when someone uses the term “post Trump” to describe any political climate in a country where oppression, execution and harsh punishments have been law for thousands of years seem oblivious...

One of my friend's partner was to be killed by ISIS in Yemen a bit back. Had been held for almost a year, was to be executed immediately. The US did an excavation raid that was botched and he was killed in the incident. Know that I'm an anarchist. I'm against all governments. Obama's administration was in power at the time and the government had asked his family not to make it widely known for some time that he was being held by a number of groups, finally winding up in the hands of ISIS. I also know that Obama was in the situation room when the botched raid took place. So while I have no soft spot for any politician nor any government, know that there's a gulf of difference between a president who was actively involved in trying to thwart the execution of a photojournalist and another captive and a president who blindly tows conspiracy theories and props up a puppet regime just because of one journalist being executed.

It's my life's work to bring push injustices to the front and make people confront them. Most people genuinely don't know. Two things being awful doesn't make one lesser just because it doesn't catch the headlines.
But just in case you're missing the clear narrative arch here: journalists (the people who no doubt want everyone to know about the war in Yemen) are the "enemy of the people," a butchered journalist is less important than a vastly overinflated arms deal, a politician who assaults journalists is Trump's "kind of guy," and then "well, it's just one journalist." Yeah, that's a pretty damn big deal.

I know this is some lame trolling kind of position, but fuck it, I'll bite. Things have been bad for a very long time, yet they're still getting far, far worse. If you want to drag some line about "well you weren't upset about....." then maybe the killing of a journalist should provoke some more outrage from you than your indifference to people being outraged.

 

[Bentaycanada]

Does anyone else see where this is leading?.....

Saudi’s have admitted they kidnapped and killed the journalist. Trump acts outraged, even though there’s a very high likelyhood US intelligence helped in some capacity, and they knew all along.

The Saudi’s will now bring out a couple dozen offenders that they will claim acted against the state. A kangaroo court will ensue and they will likely be executed.

A bunch of envoys will be recalled with embassy back n’ forth, and then it’ll be forgotten like Kony 2012.

 

[tedtan]

What I find comical is the US has been financially backing the Saudis’ war on Yemen for years and Americans could care less (hasn’t been brought up once yet lol)...but one journalist gets murdered in the one of most oppressive countries in the world and all of the sudden people only care because of the negative connotation it puts on Trump and his response...I think when someone uses the term “post Trump” to describe any political climate in a country where oppression, execution and harsh punishments have been law for thousands of years seem oblivious...

I work in an engineering company with offices all over the world, including several in the Middle East, and we also have a number of Middle Eastern engineers working with us here in the US, either on work visas or as naturalized citizens. Having spoken with many of them, I am well aware that the Middle East is not a bastion of freedom, equality, humanitarian good will or progressive thinking. But you are missing the point here - Trump has nothing to do with this.

This is not just another case of an oppressive regime oppressing their citizens on their own soil. This was the premeditated murder of a dissident living in a foreign country (Virginia, USA) and committed on foreign soil (Turkey), putting it in the same category as Russia killing former intelligence operatives in the UK. It is an issue in and of itself.

 

[Drew]

What I find comical is the US has been financially backing the Saudis’ war on Yemen for years and Americans could care less (hasn’t been brought up once yet lol)...but one journalist gets murdered in the one of most oppressive countries in the world and all of the sudden people only care because of the negative connotation it puts on Trump and his response...I think when someone uses the term “post Trump” to describe any political climate in a country where oppression, execution and harsh punishments have been law for thousands of years seem oblivious...

You had me right up to the point where you said "...because of the negative connotation it puts on Trump." I mean, I think it's clear Trump kind of bungled his initial response, yeah... But this was becoming a pretty big story before Trump weighed in, and the reaction has more to do with how fucking brazen the Saudis were about executing a critic of the state, and less about what Trump thinks about the matter.

I mean, second time I've referenced this in this thread, but it's the exact inverse of Stalin's famous quip - a million deaths are a statistic, one death is a tragedy.

 

[Ordacleaphobia]

Does anyone else see where this is leading?.....

Saudi’s have admitted they kidnapped and killed the journalist. Trump acts outraged, even though there’s a very high likelyhood US intelligence helped in some capacity, and they knew all along.

Do you have a source for this, or is this just speculation?
Not busting your balls, if you read anything that specifically made you think this I really want to read it too.

 

[NateFalcon]

I think it speaks volumes about how people seem anaware of actual atrocities that have been going on for years (it’s true, nobody mentions it) but ‘smart’ enough to have strong opinions on a polarizing political hot button story in the same place (not to downplay his actual murder). Is this reporters murder fucked up? Sure! But the collective timing of people outraged by Saudi Arabia’s lack of humanity and democracy coupled with the negligence of a war going on while concerned about Saudis’ elections paints a picture that people are only watching (or paying attention to) mainstream, ratings based news it seems. I’m also not pointing out hypocrisy but a lack of awareness and the subsequent reactionary behavior that often comes with it when the light switch is flipped on to a particular event. “Johnny come lately” is the saying I guess that comes to mind. I’m also not trolling or challenging anyone, I’m just passing thoughts on a bigger picture -we seem concerned RIGHT NOW about this event while a defensless country has been getting brutalized by the same people -and WE’RE funding them...when things like this get brought up I find that people quickly change the subject because it’s not the current scope of what they want to talk about yet equally important