MRO Becomes A US-Pure Play Company For Crude Oil -- June 2, 2019

MRO press release. Marathon Oil Corporation moves one step closer to divesting all crude oil plays outside the US, closer to becoming a true pure play US company for crude oil. From the linked article:

MRO has closed on the sale of its 15% participating interest in the Atrush Block in Kurdistan, where first quarter 2019 production averaged 2,400 net barrels of oil equivalent per day (100% oil).

As previously disclosed, this divestiture represents a complete country exit for Marathon Oil.

Including this transaction and the recently announced agreement to divest of its U.K. business, Marathon Oil will have exited from 10 countries since 2013. 

Much more at oilprice.

******************************

Japan

Meanwhile, Japan markedly decreases crude oil imports from Iran.

******************************

No More Waivers

The Trump administration says there will be no more waivers for Iranian oil imports. Oil through purchases and loadings completed by May 2, 2019, are the last to be allowed under the "old" waivers.

Link at WSJ.

*******************************

Brexit: For The Archives

I'm not sure I agree with this essay written by a former reporter and editor at The Wall Street Journal. But having just read a couple of books on the US revolution, I was curious to see what this was all about: "Theresa May should have listened to John Adams. To win support for high-stakes votes on independence, May and Adams used starkly different strategies, but only one of them worked."

In the early summer of 1776, John Adams had grown profoundly exasperated.
King George had declared the 13 American colonies in open rebellion and sent troops to enforce his authority. A declaration of independence, and all-out war, seemed inevitable but still, holdouts in the Second Continental Congress kept clogging the docket with feckless half-measures and spineless appeasements.

“In politics, the middle way is none at all,” Adams fumed that March in a letter to an ally. “If we finally fail in this great and glorious contest, it will be by bewildering ourselves in groping for the middle way.” 

One of the hallmarks of a great leader is the ability to convince others to do something difficult under maximum duress. For Adams, America’s loudest voice for independence, this test finally arrived on July 2, 1776, when the matter was put to a vote.

More than two centuries later, on March 29, 2019, British lawmakers convened in London to vote on a different kind of high-stakes divorce proposal: The United Kingdom’s long-planned departure from the European Union.

When Prime Minister Theresa May rose that day to support her Brexit deal, I couldn’t help but wonder if she’d spent any time studying the events of 1776. By the time she’d finished talking, I was fairly certain she hadn’t.

These two “exits” were vastly different, of course, but there were a few key similarities. In both cases, the will of the people was clear enough. In 1776, most colonists supported independence, or soon would, while British voters had approved Brexit in a 2016 referendum. 

Political maneuvering had delayed both measures for months, and time was running short. The colonists had a war to prepare for, while the U.K. faced the prospect of expulsion from the EU with no accommodations at all.

The key difference was the outcome: The colonies opted for independence without a single dissenting vote, but Parliament rejected Mrs. May’s last-ditch Brexit proposal by a 58-vote margin. John Adams, hailed as the “Atlas” of independence, went on to become president in 1796. On May 24, with no Brexit resolution in sight, Mrs. May announced her resignation.

If there’s a leadership lesson in these two tales, it’s this: The best way to persuade people to do something hard is to present them with the hardest possible choice.

********************************

The F-15: For The Archives

From "Loony Tunes" in realcleardefense, back in February, 2019.

As a former F-15 pilot, I love the aircraft. It was my first and the only front-line fighter I flew throughout my 40-year career and 2500 plus F-15 flying hours. It pains me greatly to write this article, but decision makers must accept what I have – the F-15’s air superiority days have come and gone! The 5th generation era has arrived, and the global near-peer threat is evolving to meet that capability.

The F-15 Eagle, designed in response to the Air Force’s requirement for an aircraft dedicated solely to the air superiority mission, was first flown in the early 70s.

Like the P-51 and the F-86, that were the greatest air superiority fighters of their generation, the F-15 was the greatest air to air fighter of its generation – the 80s and 90s.

However, like the P-51 and the F-86, the F-15 has been surpassed by a more capable fighter. Like it’s legacy aircraft counterparts, the F-15 is a fighter built for the threats of its timeframe – the 20^th century. Not a fighter built in anticipation of what capability and survivability would be needed in the 21^st century.

I flew with William R. Looney III when I was stationed in Bitburg, Germany, back in the 1980s.

*********************************

In The Good Ol' Summertime