Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Geopolitics / Re: Ukraine Civil War
« Last post by Palloy2 on Today at 11:42:52 PM »
https://www.rt.com/news/397401-ukraine-arms-us-envoy/
US mulls sending arms to Kiev, doesn’t view move as 'provocative' – US special envoy to Ukraine
25 Jul, 2017

Washington is considering sending “defensive” weapons to Ukraine, US special representative Kurt Volker says. He insists the potential move, long desired by Kiev, would not be "provocative." It comes as Moscow warns against fueling Ukraine's civil war.

In an interview with the BBC on Tuesday, Volker, who was appointed by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson as the US special representative for Ukraine negotiations in July, said that US authorities are pondering whether to ship armaments to Kiev.

Noting that the discussion is currently focused on “defensive weapons, ones that would allow Ukraine to defend itself and to take out tanks, for example,” Volker argued that such supplies “would actually to help [sic]” Kiev fend off alleged encroachments from Moscow.

Volker fell short of providing any indication of when such a deal could be reached between Washington and Kiev, saying that he is “not again predicting where we go on this.”

However, he claimed that despite the unresolved conflict in eastern Ukraine, Washington does not view such a move as "provocative."

“I think that argument that it would be provocative to Russia or emboldening of Ukraine is just getting it backwards,” Volker told the BBC, adding that the US believes a “new strategic dialogue” with Moscow is needed to resolve the Ukrainian conflict, which has recently seen a spike in violence.

Volker, who is a former adviser to US Senator John McCain and a former US ambassador to NATO, previously described the conflict between Donbass rebels and Kiev as a "hot war” and an "immediate crisis,” as opposed to a frozen conflict. Volker visited Ukraine on Sunday, offering comments on camera and posing with Ukrainian servicemen before driving off in an armored vehicle.

Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko said in June that Kiev had almost worked out an agreement with Washington on defensive weapons. Hailing the progress reached on “defensive agreements” with the US, the Ukrainian leader claimed the parties “have an almost consensual text of the agreement [about the arms supplies].” Poroshenko voiced hope that the deals would be finalized within the present fiscal year.

Poroshenko’s assurances came on the heels of his meeting with US President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary James Mattis, and other senior US officials during a visit to Washington in June. Poroshenko said he discussed the issue with Tillerson, adding that the agreement could be signed once Mattis arrives in Ukraine.

While no official date for the visit has been announced, the Ukrainian ambassador to the US, Valery Chaly, said in June that Kiev had invited Mattis, Tillerson, and US Secretary of Energy Rick Perry to visit Ukraine before the end of the year. Tillerson visited Ukraine earlier this month.

Last week, fighting in Donbass that had seemingly subsided in recent months again intensified, claiming at least 12 lives. The surge in violence sparked concern among observers and mediators of the Minsk agreements and was addressed during a telephone conversation between the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France, and Germany - known as the 'Normandy Four' - on Monday.

While negotiations surrounding weapons supplies to Ukraine currently appear to concern only “defensive” weapons, Ukrainian authorities have repeatedly said they are eager to receive “lethal” arms from the US.

Meanwhile, Russia has warned Washington against fueling the civil conflict in Ukraine by funneling lethal weapons to Kiev.

Stressing that the potential arms deal between Kiev and Washington is an “exclusively internal matter” between the two countries, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow hopes Washington "would not forget that Ukraine is the country where the civil war is ongoing.”

Last week, Ukraine’s defense minister, Stepan Poltorak, reiterated that Kiev is waiting for Washington to greenlight the transfer of lethal arms to Ukraine, as proposed by the US Senate Armed Services Committee in June.

Following the proposal, an unnamed US State Department official told RIA Novosti that the US has not yet made up its mind on whether to supply lethal arms to Kiev.
2
Doomsteading / Re: RE Gets a Stealth Van!
« Last post by Uncle Bob on Today at 11:04:34 PM »

"There's a lot you don't know.  I used about $.50 of lighter fluid for that demo, but that was just for effect.  I could have got away with less than half of that and got the fire going.  In fact, if I started small with a few sticks of downed branches, I could have started it with one little squirt of less than $.05.  Don't fuck with me on this topic UB, I know a LOT more than you do on this one.  I already LIVED this life for 7 years, I speak from experience."


I didnt know lighter fluid comes for 2$ a litre, maybe discounted with a 5$ bag of wood. I didnt know u are allowed campfires at truckstops. I
There's a lot you don't know.  I used about $.50 of lighter fluid for that demo, but that was just for effect.  I could have got away with less than half of that and got the fire going.  In fact, if I started small with a few sticks of downed branches, I could have started it with one little squirt of less than $.05.  Don't fuck with me on this topic UB, I know a LOT more than you do on this one.  I already LIVED this life for 7 years, I speak from experience."

I didnt know youre allowed to burn those expensive bags of firewood at truckstops, while u keep warm by idling a 16 litre engine. That doesnt teach u to keep your face to the side of the accelerant. I only know about felling trees  cutting them up with a chainsaw and axe, stacking it all and using kindling i keep dry ahead of time with a piece of newspaper or piece of naphthalene worth 5 cents to start a fire most nights, 6 months of the year. 

 If you cant understand constructive criticism is not about mine vs yours, i can not comment.

There is no constructive criticism in your posting, only attempts to deconstruct, which are immense failures every time.

No, you can't make fires in a ring in Truckstops, but you most certainly can set up your charcoal grill in the parking lot. You never did this shit UB, I DID IT.  I KNOW how lighter fluid lights up, I have been using that shit since I was 10 years old.  I am not in the least bit worried it will blow up in my face.  Only a complete idiot who doesn't use the stuff would think it would do that.  It's NOT gasoline! lol.

The bag of firewood was NOT expensive, in fact I got it for FREE!  :icon_sunny:  I explain how in the full video.

So go fuck yourself because you are simply firing out of your asshole and no nothing of what you speak.

RE

Lets sort the bullshit specifically hey?

I brought up the possibility the zippo fluid could blow up in your face. Thats bullshit. I said i didnt know it doesnt, like gasoline. I can admit what i dont know. 

 That was 50c worth. Bullshit. Its like 7$ a litre and that was like 200 ml.

I said the rocks were a good idea. But stay hot all night,  bullshit again,  which you would know if you were really spending a week boondocking like i have actually done in what was also clearly a camper.

I dont know how to make a fire too (without cheating). Bullshit.

Anyone keeping it real in the slightest cant stay now, so im gone too. Dont ask me again to come back and contribute, because you cant keep from biting the fingers off the hand that feeds this site.



3
Cyber Security / DNC emails (again)
« Last post by Palloy2 on Today at 10:36:20 PM »
When "Marble Framework" was leaked by Wikileaks in Vault 7 series, it made all subsequent "forensic analysis" impossible.  Well done CIA.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-24/nsa-officials-and-computer-expert-forensic-evidence-proves-dnc-emails-were-leaked-no
NSA Officials and Computer Expert: Forensic Evidence Proves DNC Emails Were LEAKED, Not Hacked
George Washington
Jul 24, 2017

Preface by Washington's Blog: We asked top NSA whistleblower Bill Binney what he thought about a report claiming that the DNC emails were transferred too quickly to have been accessed by a hacker, and could only have been copied by a DNC leaker. This article is his response.   Background here and here.

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside Job?

Executive Summary

Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia.

After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that “telltale signs” implicating Russia were then inserted.

Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see here and here].

Independent analyst Skip Folden, a retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US, who examined the recent forensic findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report titled “Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers,” and sent it to the offices of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General. VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director at the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA “alumni” in VIPS attest to the professionalism of the independent forensic findings.

The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original “Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the “hand-picked analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community Assessment” dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.

NOTE: There has been so much conflation of charges about hacking that we wish to make very clear the primary focus of this Memorandum. We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 “hack” of the DNC server. In earlier VIPS memoranda we addressed the lack of any evidence connecting the Guccifer 2.0 alleged hacks and WikiLeaks, and we asked President Obama specifically to disclose any evidence that WikiLeaks received DNC data from the Russians [see here and here].

Addressing this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described “the conclusions of the intelligence community” as “not conclusive,” even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6 expressed “high confidence” that Russian intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the DNC … to WikiLeaks.”

Obama’s admission came as no surprise to us. It has long been clear to us that the reason the U.S. government lacks conclusive evidence of a transfer of a “Russian hack” to WikiLeaks is because there was no such transfer. Based mostly on the cumulatively unique technical experience of our ex-NSA colleagues, we have been saying for almost a year that the DNC data reached WikiLeaks via a copy/leak by a DNC insider (but almost certainly not the same person who copied DNC data on July 5, 2016).

From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times, by two different entities, for two distinctly different purposes:

-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2017, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and

-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.”

*  *  *

Mr. President:

This is our first VIPS Memorandum for you, but we have a history of letting U.S. Presidents know when we think our former intelligence colleagues have gotten something important wrong, and why. For example, our first such memorandum, a same-day commentary for President George W. Bush on Colin Powell’s U.N. speech on March 5, 2003, warned that the “unintended consequences were likely to be catastrophic,” should the U.S. attack Iraq and “justfy” the war on intelligence that we retired intelligence officers could readily see as fraudulent and driven by a war agenda.

The January 6 “Intelligence Community Assessment” by “hand-picked” analysts from the FBI, CIA, and NSA seems to fit into the same agenda-driven category. It is largely based on an “assessment,” not supported by any apparent evidence, that a shadowy entity with the moniker “Guccifer 2.0” hacked the DNC on behalf of Russian intelligence and gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks.

The recent forensic findings mentioned above have put a huge dent in that assessment and cast serious doubt on the underpinnings of the extraordinarily successful campaign to blame the Russian government for hacking. The pundits and politicians who have led the charge against Russian “meddling” in the U.S. election can be expected to try to cast doubt on the forensic findings, if they ever do bubble up into the mainstream media. But the principles of physics don’t lie; and the technical limitations of today’s Internet are widely understood. We are prepared to answer any substantive challenges on their merits.

You may wish to ask CIA Director Mike Pompeo what he knows about this. Our own lengthy intelligence community experience suggests that it is possible that neither former CIA Director John Brennan, nor the cyber-warriors who worked for him, have been completely candid with their new director regarding how this all went down.

Copied, Not Hacked

As indicated above, the independent forensic work just completed focused on data copied (not hacked) by a shadowy persona named “Guccifer 2.0.” The forensics reflect what seems to have been a desperate effort to “blame the Russians” for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton bias, her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from content to provenance – as in, who “hacked” those DNC emails? The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant “mainstream” media; they are still on a roll.

“The Russians” were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, “We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own “forensic facts” and prime the media pump to put the blame on “Russian meddling.” Mrs. Clinton’s PR chief Jennifer Palmieri has explained how she used golf carts to make the rounds at the convention. She wrote that her “mission was to get the press to focus on something even we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.”

Independent cyber-investigators have now completed the kind of forensic work that the intelligence assessment did not do. Oddly, the “hand-picked” intelligence analysts contented themselves with “assessing” this and “assessing” that. In contrast, the investigators dug deep and came up with verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of the alleged Russian hack.

They found that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.

The Time Sequence

June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to publish “emails related to Hillary Clinton.”

June 15, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.

June 15, 2016: On the same day, “Guccifer 2.0” affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the “hack;” claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”

We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to “show” that it came from a Russian hack.

The Key Event

July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.

It thus appears that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a “Russian hack.” This was all performed in the East Coast time zone.

“Obfuscation & De-obfuscation”

Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA documents that WikiLeaks labeled “Vault 7.” WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.

No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA’s Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015.

Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the “Marble Framework” program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as “news fit to print” and was kept out of the Times.

The Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima, it seems, “did not get the memo” in time. Her March 31 article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: “WikiLeaks’ latest release of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.”

The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use “obfuscation,” and that Marble source code includes a “deobfuscator” to reverse CIA text obfuscation.

More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a “forensic attribution double game” or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi.

The CIA’s reaction was neuralgic. Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates “demons,” and insisting, “It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia.”

Mr. President, we do not know if CIA’s Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA’s Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review.

Putin and the Technology

We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin. In his interview with NBC’s Megyn Kelly, he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager – to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7 disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today’s technology enables hacking to be “masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin” [of the hack] … And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.”

“Hackers may be anywhere,” he said. “There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can’t you imagine such a scenario? … I can.”

Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former intelligence colleagues.

We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental. The fact we find it is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times. This is our 50th VIPS Memorandum since the afternoon of Powell’s speech at the UN. Live links to the 49 past memos can be found at https://consortiumnews.com/vips-memos/.

FOR THE STEERING GROUP, VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY

William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center

Skip Folden, independent analyst, retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US (Associate VIPS)

Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)

Michael S. Kearns, Air Force Intelligence Officer (Ret.), Master SERE Resistance to Interrogation Instructor

John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)

Lisa Ling, TSgt USAF (ret.) (associate VIPS)

Edward Loomis, Jr., former NSA Technical Director for the Office of Signals Processing

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former U.S. Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst

Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA

Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)

Cian Westmoreland, former USAF Radio Frequency Transmission Systems Technician and Unmanned Aircraft Systems whistleblower (Associate VIPS)

Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA

Sarah G. Wilton, Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.); Commander, US Naval Reserve (ret.)

Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat
4
UB brought up the issue of the possibility that sprinkling on so much Lighter Fluid onto my pile of logs might have caused this to blow up in my face, hovered right over the logs when I lit it up.  That was impossible.

Lighter fluid is a mix of petrochemicals that has a pretty high vapor pressure until it gets heated up a bit.  So at first when you light it, you just get a bit of flame. then it heats up the fluid around it, and the flame expands pretty fast after that.  But you have plenty of time to move away before the fire gets too big, no matter how much of the stuff you sprinkle down.

Kero has a lower vapor pressure, and is a bit more tricky to use as a fire starter, and gasoline is very tricky to use.  If you sprinkled down gasoline on those logs and lit it up with a Bic Lighter like I did, you would get FRIED!  lol.  If I use gasoline to start a fire, I do it with a long lighter and duck and cover!  It goes up REALLY FAST!  :o

On the camping/backpack level, lighter fluid is WAY better than tinder in your backpack.  What I used to do was have a small plastic squeeze bottle of the stuff in my backpack.  Arriving at a campsite, I would collect a few twigs and some larger branches.  No tinder, no super small stuff.  Then I would make a little TeePee out of the small stuff I collected and drip a few drops of lighter fluid over it.  Strike a Match, touch to the TeePee, INSTANT FIRE!  This worked even in the rain.

It helps to have some experience with this stuff before you start firing bullshit out of your asshole.

RE
5
Doomsteading / Re: RE Gets a Stealth Van!
« Last post by RE on Today at 09:23:57 PM »

"There's a lot you don't know.  I used about $.50 of lighter fluid for that demo, but that was just for effect.  I could have got away with less than half of that and got the fire going.  In fact, if I started small with a few sticks of downed branches, I could have started it with one little squirt of less than $.05.  Don't fuck with me on this topic UB, I know a LOT more than you do on this one.  I already LIVED this life for 7 years, I speak from experience."


I didnt know lighter fluid comes for 2$ a litre, maybe discounted with a 5$ bag of wood. I didnt know u are allowed campfires at truckstops. I
There's a lot you don't know.  I used about $.50 of lighter fluid for that demo, but that was just for effect.  I could have got away with less than half of that and got the fire going.  In fact, if I started small with a few sticks of downed branches, I could have started it with one little squirt of less than $.05.  Don't fuck with me on this topic UB, I know a LOT more than you do on this one.  I already LIVED this life for 7 years, I speak from experience."

I didnt know youre allowed to burn those expensive bags of firewood at truckstops, while u keep warm by idling a 16 litre engine. That doesnt teach u to keep your face to the side of the accelerant. I only know about felling trees  cutting them up with a chainsaw and axe, stacking it all and using kindling i keep dry ahead of time with a piece of newspaper or piece of naphthalene worth 5 cents to start a fire most nights, 6 months of the year. 

 If you cant understand constructive criticism is not about mine vs yours, i can not comment.

There is no constructive criticism in your posting, only attempts to deconstruct, which are immense failures every time.

No, you can't make fires in a ring in Truckstops, but you most certainly can set up your charcoal grill in the parking lot. You never did this shit UB, I DID IT.  I KNOW how lighter fluid lights up, I have been using that shit since I was 10 years old.  I am not in the least bit worried it will blow up in my face.  Only a complete idiot who doesn't use the stuff would think it would do that.  It's NOT gasoline! lol.

The bag of firewood was NOT expensive, in fact I got it for FREE!  :icon_sunny:  I explain how in the full video.

So go fuck yourself because you are simply firing out of your asshole and no nothing of what you speak.

RE
6
Doomsteading / Re: RE Gets a Stealth Van!
« Last post by Uncle Bob on Today at 09:07:14 PM »
"There's a lot you don't know.  I used about $.50 of lighter fluid for that demo, but that was just for effect.  I could have got away with less than half of that and got the fire going.  In fact, if I started small with a few sticks of downed branches, I could have started it with one little squirt of less than $.05.  Don't fuck with me on this topic UB, I know a LOT more than you do on this one.  I already LIVED this life for 7 years, I speak from experience."



I didnt know youre allowed to burn those expensive bags of firewood at truckstops, while u keep warm by idling a 16 litre engine. That doesnt teach u to keep your face to the side of the accelerant. I only know about felling trees  cutting them up with a chainsaw and axe, stacking it all and using kindling i keep dry ahead of time with a piece of newspaper or piece of naphthalene worth 5 cents to start a fire most nights, 6 months of the year. 

 If you cant understand constructive criticism is not about mine vs yours, i can not comment.






7
Doomsteading / Re: RE Gets a Stealth Van!
« Last post by RE on Today at 08:54:39 PM »
If your going to spend the dinero's ($4000) to shack up for a few months why not use the money to
head south like the rest of the blue haired snow birds. $1200 round trip in fuel & 2 oil changes should be
your maintenance costs.

3 months @ $800/mo is only $2400, not $4000.

In fact though, if I was living the life full time, I sure as hell would not stay in Alaska through the winter!  lol.  I would get on the Al-Can around September or so, before any real threat of heavy snow while all the passes are clear.  I would take a week maybe two to make that drive and enjoy the scenery and shoot some pics with my NEW Pocket Powerhouse cam.  :icon_sunny:

Then through Sept-Oct I wold visit with Diners in the north of the lower 48 to get more pics of the Fall Colors.  As it got colder, I would head further south to visit with Eddie on the Toothstead and LD & GM ins South Carolina.  In Dec-Jan, I would take off on my own and head for Margaritaville in the Florida Keys.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/6cbX4DUACYU" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/6cbX4DUACYU</a>

Then in Feb, start the reverse trip.  Rinse & Repeat as long as the gas is still available to do it with.

Energy wise, I don't think I would use as much in a year as the typical McMansion Dweller, because my costs for heating and cooling are so low because the volume of space I control the temps in is so small.  My energy cost is consumed in moving around the vehicle to the right temperature regime.

If I am still above ground next year, after all my testing is complete and the SS mess is tied up, I will do this.  I will go OTR one more time, and I will die somewhere over the road.

RE
8
Doomsteading / Re: RE Gets a Stealth Van!
« Last post by azozeo on Today at 08:23:24 PM »
If your going to spend the dinero's ($4000) to shack up for a few months why not use the money to
head south like the rest of the blue haired snow birds. $1200 round trip in fuel & 2 oil changes should be
your maintenance costs.
9
SUN ☼ / Re: Total Eclipse of the SUN☼: SUN☼/Diner Convocation 2017
« Last post by RE on Today at 07:26:49 PM »
I just got a motorcycle and will attempt to come out there weather providing. What kind of mountains am I looking at though? What are the odds they're passable?

Not much mountains in this neighborhood of Idaho.  It's where they grow the Potatoes.

RE
10
Energy / Peak Shale
« Last post by Palloy2 on Today at 07:05:14 PM »
With WTI stuck below $50 for 3 months ...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-24/peak-shale-anadarko-just-became-first-us-oil-producer-slash-capex
Peak Shale: Anadarko Just Became The First US Oil Producer To Slash CapEx
Tyler Durden
Jul 24, 2017

It appears that Horseman Global's Russell Clark may have been spot on with his bearish take on the US shale sector.

As a reminder, in his latest letter to investors, Clark said that "the rising decline rates of major US shale basins, and the increasing incidents of frac hits (also a cause of rising decline rates) have convinced me that US shale producers are not only losing competitiveness against other oil drillers, but they will find it hard to make money.... at some point debt investors start to worry that they will not get their capital back and cut lending to the industry. Even a small reduction in capital, would likely lead to a steep fall in US oil production. If new drilling stopped today, daily US oil production would fall by 350 thousand barrels a day over the next month."

    What I also find extraordinary, is that it seems to me shale drilling is a very unprofitable industry, and becoming more so. And yet, many businesses in the US have expended large amounts of capital on the basis that US oil will always be cheap and plentiful. I am thinking of pipelines, refineries, LNG exporters, chemical plants to name the most obvious. Even more amazing is that other oil sources have become more cost competitive but have been starved of resources. If US oil production declines, the rest of the world will struggle to increase output. An oil squeeze looks more likely to me.

While the bearish thesis has yet to play out, moments ago Anadarko poured cold water on US energy investors after it missed earnings badly, reporting a Q2 EPS loss of 77c, more than double the 33 cent loss expected. However, what was far more concerning to shale bulls (and perhaps oil bears), is that the company admitted that it can no longer support its capital spending budget, and it would cut its 2017 capital budget by $300 million, becoming the first major U.S. oil producer to do so, as a result of depressed oil prices. In March, Anadarko had forecast total 2017 capex of $4.5 billion to $4.7 billion, a continuation of the recent CapEx rebound which troughed in Q3 2016.



Ahead of the Tuesday earnings call, APC CEO Al Walker confirmed Wall Street's growing fears that oil prices are simply too low to sustain ongoing exploration when he said that "the current market conditions require lower capital intensity given the volatility of margins realized in this operating environment. As such, we are reducing our level of investments by $300 million for the full year."

Ironically it was Walker himself who issued a clear warning to Wall Street in June, when he bought up something we first covered in April of 2015 in "When QE Leads To Deflation: A Look At The "Confounding" Global Supply Glut", when he said that it was the relentless supply of cheap capital that was masking the underlying lack of profitability and allowing shale companies to pump beyond the point of negative returns: “The biggest problem our industry faces today is you guys,” Al Walker, chief executive of Anadarko Petroleum Corp. told investors at a conference last month, quoted by the WSJ.

    Companies have more capital to keep drilling thanks to $57 billion Wall Street has injected into the sector over the last 18 months. Money has come from investors in new stock sales and high-yield debt, as well as from private equity funds, which have helped provide lifelines to stronger operators. Flush with cash, virtually all of them launched campaigns to boost drilling at the start of 2017 in the hope that oil prices would rebound.

     

    The new wave of crude has again glutted the market. The shale companies are edged even further from profitability, and a few voices have begun to question the wisdom of Wall Street financing the industry’s addiction to growth.

     

    Wall Street has become an enabler that pushes companies to grow production at any cost, while punishing those that try to live within their means, Mr. Walker said, adding: “It’s kind of like going to AA. You know, we need a partner. We really need the investment community to show discipline.”

Ultimately, it was up to Walker to demonstrate that discipline when he voluntarily reduced the amount of capital he would reinvest in his business. And since oil exploration is by far the most capital intensive industry, the hit to revenue will be quick and painful, much to the delight of OPEC which may finally be seeing light at the end of a long, dark tunnel. To that point, Anadarko also said it was trimming its 2017 production forecast to 644,000 bpd, a 2% cut.

Incidentally, Horseman is not the first to turn bearish on shale. As Bloomberg reported earlier, Goldman Sachs Asset Management has been shedding oil and gas-related company bonds in the past few months and shorting oil in some portfolios, according to Mike Swell, the firm's co-head of global fixed-income portfolio management. The investment manager has moved from an overweight position in energy-related corporate bonds a few months ago to neutral today and toward an underweight stance, he said in an interview on Friday.

    Some investors seem to agree with Goldman's asset-management arm, at least enough to have a touch of skepticism about the prospect of these oil and gas explorers. Since the end of January, credit traders have demanded slightly more yield to own junk-rated bonds of oil and gas companies than other high-yield debt.

In an amusing twist, we reported last week that the very same Goldman reported last Friday that energy junk bonds are finally starting to notice the decline in oil prices:



Once the APC news reverberates across the industry, this may just be the straw that breaks the energy junk bond market's back, as a scramble out of the sector ensues, resulting in the double whammy of also yanking much needed capital from shale companies.  Such an exodus could not come at a worse possible time: as Bloomberg calculated if oil prices were to stay below $47 a barrel, "investors will demand a bigger cushion of extra yield to own junk-rated energy debt. Part of the reasoning is that these firms still require an excessive amount of leverage (and investor faith) to keep operating as junk-rated oil and natural gas producers have more than $25 billion of credit-line commitments expiring in 2019. If oil prices don't rebound, banks have good reason to reduce those lines substantially, siphoning off a crucial funding source."

Think a rerun of the late 2015/early 2016 period all over again.

However, while the Anadarko news is clearly negative for its shale peers, most of whom are set to announce similar capex declines, it will likely end up being positive for oil prices as much of the "swing" crude production courtesy of the US shale basin is about to be reduced substantially, in a clear victory for OPEC which has been waiting long for just this day.

Anadarko's CapEx cut also comes in the same month as the EIA announced that US shale production just hit a new all time high of 5.472mmb/d.



To the disappointment of many energy bulls (and oil bears as a reduction in production means that the shale supply glut is about to get far smaller), it may be all downhill from here.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10