pull down to refresh
It is pretty clear that the actions in Venezuela and Iran are co-ordinated and do benefit the market demand for US LNG exports. One man- POTUS Trump has initiated these actions.
He is well known for and very vocal about his 'advocacy' for US oil and gas interests.
Similarly he has not ended to war in Ukraine but rather appears to have allowed it to continue...again significantly influencing global demand for US LNG exports.
The video shows Biden stating quite clearly that Nordstream would be shutdown
Chevron clearly lobbys and funds whoever gains presidency.
The benefit this delivers to Chevron is also self evident.
On the claim of 10x price I did not see any source given in the video but it seems plausible given the current global energy crisis that has resulted from these 3 energy markets being partially or fully obstructed due to US government actions and inactions.
It would be interesting to know the price now being achieved for US LNG shipped globally compared to prior to these three major areas of obstruction to the global market all of which US has been instrumental in, with Chevron funding the president all the way.
Prior to Ukraine and taking out Nordstream was it even viable to ship US LNG globally?
You’re jumping between a few very different claims here:
- this benefits US LNG
- therefore it was coordinated for that purpose
- therefore Chevron is behind it
What is the evidence for each step?
Also, if the 10x claim had no source, why is it carrying so much weight in the argument?
And how does “Trump likes US oil and gas” become proof of a coordinated multi-theater energy strategy?
The 'evidence' you request is in the actions taken and who they benefit.
Not sure the 10x claim is carrying so much weight- rather that you are asserting things that I have not asserted.
Do either of us know and have evidence for the exact degree of increase for US/Chevron CNG since these military actions by the US government? No- that data is probably held by Chevron as 'commercially sensitive'.
The point is all these blockades do directly and logically significantly increase demand for US gas and Chevron does benefit from that.
If you seriously doubt that Big Oil corporates have a significant influence on US government policy and military actions over the last 70 odd years then lets agree to disagree...starting with the removal of the democratically elected Mossadagh government of Iran in 1953!
The petrodollar is perhaps the most significant US strategic economic asset and is based upon military power projection. There is plenty of evidence for this and this war provides more every day!
Fair enough although I would sum up by suggesting that Big Oil and its political proxies are highly unlikely to leave any definitive evidence of their inherently unlawful market rigging conspiracies, although over time historians and researchers often do eventually uncover the definitive evidence you are seeking as decades later government documents are eventually declassified...long after anyone responsible could be held to account.
Plausible deniability is their default modus operandi.
All we can do in regard to seeking to understand present day events unfolding is join the dots and consider past behaviour, follow the money, and extrapolate what is likely to be happening.
isn’t the same as evidence.
If there are primary sources showing:
• a mechanism for “10x LNG pricing”
• coordinated policy across these regions
• or corporate influence on a naval blockade
I’m open to them.
I’m not seeing that, just a narrative stitched together after the fact.