Showing posts with label Famine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Famine. Show all posts

Sunday, September 20, 2026

Judgment Day for the Middle of the Barrel | Larry Johnson

Karl Miller's latest private assessment, dated September 16 and titled "Judgment Day Has Arrived," makes a single governing claim about diesel, jet fuel, and kerosene: physical demand is now outrunning promptly deliverable supply. Not the price of the barrel—the delivery of it. In Miller's framing the market has crossed from a pricing problem, which money solves, to a deliverability problem, which money alone does not. The next phase, he argues, forces buyers to compete not just for fuel but for delivery capacity and for the cash to fund both at once.

 » US pumps are going dark. They started a war over oil and now they can't fill a truck. « 

He is describing something the market has already begun to confirm… US retail diesel crossed $6.00 a gallon on September 11, the first time on record, ten days after setting its prior all-time high. The ULSD crack spread
—the margin between diesel and crude—hit an intraday record above $108 a barrel on September 3, a level never before sustained, which tells you the scarcity is in the product, not the barrel. Distillate inventories fell to roughly 103 million barrels in late August, the lowest for that point in the calendar since 1951, and the EIA expects them to stay below 100 million through much of 2027. Miller wrote his brief into a market that is already validating its premise.
 
The Governing Condition
The spine of the assessment is deliberately simple. Take a recurring shortfall between what a market consumes and what can actually be delivered to it. Inventory and diverted cargoes can bridge that gap for a while. They cannot sustain it indefinitely. Once usable stocks are drawn down, the adjustment arrives as some combination of higher replacement cost, tighter allocation, and reduced activity—and it lands first on whichever buyer, terminal, or airport cannot secure its next delivery on time. Miller's phrase for the resolution is stark: supply must recover, or consumption must fall. There is no third option once the buffers are gone.

How a Diesel Shortage Becomes an Economic Crisis. 

To size the thing, he runs a central diesel stress case
—and here it is essential to be precise about what kind of number this is, because Miller himself is. He assumes a 1.6 million-barrel-a-day export disruption met by 50 percent replacement, leaving a residual gap of 0.8 mb/d. Held constant, that residual would demand about 72 million barrels of stock draw or demand destruction over 90 days, and 144 million over 180. These are explicitly illustrative sensitivities, not a measured global deficit—he flags repeatedly that product-level deficit magnitudes remain uncertain and that the figures are scenario mechanics rather than forecasts. The value is in the method, not the decimal.

And the method maps onto the real shocks cleanly enough. The IEA has identified three disruptions compounding at once: the Hormuz conflict removing on the order of an eighth of global supply, Russian diesel-export bans after drone strikes disabled roughly a quarter of its refining capacity, and winter distillate demand arriving into depleted tanks. Russia
—historically the world’s second-largest diesel exporter—banned exports outright on July 9 to keep fuel for its military. Miller's 1.6 mb/d is an assumption; the machinery pulling barrels off the water is not.

Inventory as a Countdown, not a Cushion
The sharpest operational move in the brief is to demote the national inventory number that dominates the headlines. A country-level buffer, Miller argues, tells you almost nothing about whether a specific business keeps running. What matters is site-level endurance: usable stock—excluding tank bottoms, unqualified material, and volumes already committed to other buyers—divided by the net daily draw. A terminal with a fixed usable volume and a widening deficit is on a clock, and a replacement cargo that arrives four days after the clock runs out may as well not have sailed. The same logic scales down to a hospital’s or data center’s backup generators, where a tank that reads "full" is really a countdown measured in days against a known burn rate.

This is why his diagnosis is that the shortage will be local and uneven long before it is general. A national statistic can look adequate while individual nodes fail, because fuel that exists in the wrong place, in the wrong grade, or under someone else's contract does not cover a missed delivery. This broader point is illustrated in the photos at the top of this article.

Credit Decides Who Gets the Cargo
Miller’s second key insight is financial. In a market where prices are high and delivery cycles are long, the buyer has to fund both simultaneously—pay up for the barrel and carry it for the extra days it spends in transit. He illustrates with a delivered-cost stack that runs, in his tight-to-acute range, from roughly $200 to nearly $300 a barrel once location premium, ocean freight, terminal handling, inland delivery, and financing are added on top of the benchmark—the equivalent of something like $4.80 to $6.90 a gallon before tax. Again, these are illustrative route economics, not quotes. But note that the market has already printed the middle of that range: $6 diesel is here, and California retail has been reported above $9.

Food and energy are two of the most immediate and visible inflation channels

The consequence he draws is the one worth keeping: credit becomes a supply constraint. A buyer can be perfectly solvent on annual earnings and still lack the working capital to prepay a larger cargo, meet collateral calls, and carry slower-moving inventory all at the same time. When that happens, the fuel goes to whoever can fund it, not whoever needs it most. Financially weaker importers can lose access before larger economies feel the squeeze at all.

Aviation and the Airport Problem
Jet A and Jet A-1 get their own treatment, because aviation has the least room to improvise. Qualified fuel has to be at the airport, in the hydrant, before the aircraft departs; a refinery barrel somewhere else is worthless to a delayed flight. Airlines are left to choose among buying costlier replacement fuel, tankering extra where it is operationally feasible, reworking schedules, or cancelling. Miller’s illustrative math — a $20-a-barrel step adding $60 million over 30 days for a 100,000-barrel-a-day buyer — is less important than the structural point: hedging can change what a carrier pays, but it cannot conjure a delivery that the airport cannot physically make. He is also careful to note that jet fuel and kerosene are the same cut of the barrel, so the aviation volume must not be double-counted as additional kerosene demand — a discipline that a lot of looser analysis ignores.

Where It Bites First, and How It Ends
The geography of risk, in his ranking, runs through the weakest local links: import-dependent Northwest Europe and inland markets facing winter demand on top of freight fuel; the US Gulf Coast, whose refining and export weight makes any local outage a global event; import-dependent emerging markets where foreign exchange and cargo finance can fail before physical stocks do; and airports with concentrated, hard-to-substitute supply. The common thread is that substitution is hardest exactly where the stakes are highest.

On duration, Miller offers no normalization date, and insists none can be honestly given. His planning horizon is 90 to 180 days with contingency held into 2027. The recovery point he stresses is one that calendar-watchers routinely miss: ending the shortage requires not a daily balance but a sustained surplus, because supply first has to stop the draw and then rebuild the usable buffer while still covering consumption. At a half-million-barrel-a-day surplus, rebuilding 30 million barrels of cover takes two months — and that clock only starts after supply overtakes demand. A market that merely returns to breakeven stays fragile.

The Verdict
Strip the brief to its load-bearing claim and it does not merely hold up against the tape—the tape is racing to catch up to it. This is, by every current metric, a middle-distillate physical-supply crisis: record crack spreads above $108 confirm a refining and yield failure rather than a crude shortage, inventories sit at their lowest level in seven decades heading into heating season, refineries are already running at 98 percent and still cannot make enough of the middle of the barrel, and traders and the IEA alike are warning the tightness runs clear through winter and into 2027. Miller called the nature of the danger correctly and early: this is about deliverability—the next cargo, the qualified grade, the funded position—not headline price, and that lens is sharper than nearly all of the commentary still treating a structural break as a passing spike. He wrote "Judgment Day Has Arrived" into a market that promptly broke $6 diesel for the first time in history, printed the highest distillate margins ever recorded, and watched a quarter of Russia's refining capacity and an eighth of global supply go offline at once. The banner is not hyperbole. It is a description.

One distinction has to be kept, and it is the one that makes the brief stronger rather than weaker: the quantified apparatus is a scenario toolkit, not a set of measured deficits. The 1.6 mb/d disruption, the cost ladders, the barrel counts are illustrative sensitivities—Miller says so himself—and their power is in the method, not the decimal: the residual-gap arithmetic, the site-level endurance countdown, the credit gate. Insist on that and the framework is unassailable, because you are handing a reader a way to run the numbers rather than a number to argue with. And the one development that could ease the price—softening freight and contracting manufacturing—is no refutation at all. It is the second of the two exits Miller named. Either supply recovers or consumption falls, and consumption falling is not the crisis being escaped. It is the crisis arriving.
 
Reference:
Larry C. Johnson (b. 1954) is a former CIA analyst, State Department counter-terrorism advisor, and 24-year Special Operations trainer who has served as managing partner of BERG Associates LLC since 1998, specializing in financial analysis and anti-money laundering investigations. Sidelined from mainstream media for offering candid assessments against foreign interventionism, he now provides independent geopolitical analysis to businesses, non-partisan commentary outlets, and international platforms, including the UN Security Council and channels like Judging Freedom, The Duran, and Redacted.

Karl W. Miller (b. 1965) is an energy veteran with over 35 years of experience in commodities trading, risk management, and market strategy, having held senior executive roles at firms like JPMorgan Chase, Enron, El Paso Energy, and PG&E. Typically operating behind the scenes, he strictly reserves his proprietary insights for private clients, making his recent public warnings regarding unprecedented middle-distillate shortages a rare, high-stakes departure from standard practice. 
See also:

Friday, March 27, 2026

No Energy, No Food: Global System Breakdown Begins | Stanislav Krapivnik

What is developing is not an "energy crisis" in the conventional sense. It is a loss of physical supply on a scale that the system is not built to absorb. A large share of global oil and LNG capacity is now either offline or severely impaired, and that supply cannot be replaced quickly because the infrastructure behind it is slow, complex, and highly specialized. We are not dealing with something that can be fixed by price signals or short-term policy adjustments. If the energy is not there, it is not there.
 
Los Cuatro Jinetes del Apocalipsis, símbolos de conquista, guerra, hambre y muerte.—Gustave Doré, 1866.
» 
And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, 
and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine. « 

Infrastructure Cannot Be Rebuilt Quickly
Energy systems run on heavy, custom-built equipment—pressure vessels, pipelines, processing units—that take months to manufacture and even longer to install. If those systems are damaged, they cannot be repaired overnight. In many cases they need to be scrapped and rebuild. If upstream production is affected—wells, wellheads, reservoirs—the timeline stretches further. Redrilling alone can take months per site, and that assumes stable conditions, available crews, and functioning logistics. None of that is guaranteed in a disrupted environment. Even under ideal circumstances, restoring lost capacity is measured in years. 

»
You can tighten your own belt, but when you see your children wailing and crying from hunger and there’s nothing you can do, that’s different. People pick up pitchforks, light torches, go to the city halls, and start burning things. We are going to see a lot of that. « 
The System Is Trapped in a Feedback Loop
The bottleneck does not stop at the damaged infrastructure. The global ability to produce replacement equipment is limited and concentrated in a handful of countries, all of which have their own demand. Manufacturing itself depends on energy, especially natural gas. That creates a closed loop: you need energy to rebuild energy systems, but the energy is what you are short of. So the recovery process is constrained by the same shortage that caused the problem.

Europe Is Structurally Exposed
Europe is in the most exposed position because it depends on imported energy while maintaining a large industrial base that cannot function without it. When supply falls short, the system does not adjust smoothly. It is forced into rationing. Governments prioritize households and critical services, and industry is cut first. That leads to forced shutdowns—chemicals, steel, fertilizer, glass—sectors that do not operate intermittently. When they stop, they stop completely. Some will not restart, because the economics no longer work or the supply chains around them have already broken down. This is how industrial capacity is lost, not gradually but abruptly.
 
» The first major trend is deindustrialization, depopulation of cities, and return to farms. The second is remilitarization, and the third mercantilism. In the future there will be regional trade blocs that are controlled by a local hegemon. We are witnessing the shattering of the old global order, and the emergence of a much more splintered multipolar system. « — Jiang Xueqin, March 10, 2026.
Fertilizer Is the Critical Link
Fertilizer sits at the center of the next phase. It is produced from natural gas, and without sufficient gas, production drops. When fertilizer becomes scarce or too expensive, farmers reduce usage. That directly lowers yields. Modern agriculture is not resilient to this; it is built on chemical inputs. At the same time, fuel costs affect every stage of farming—planting, harvesting, transport. So both key inputs are constrained simultaneously. The result is straightforward: less food is produced.

Food Systems Tighten, Then Strain
Food systems do not break instantly, but they tighten. Prices rise first. Then availability becomes uneven. Some goods become scarce, others disappear temporarily. Europe can buffer this for a time through imports, but it is still drawing from a global pool that is under the same pressure. If multiple harvest cycles are affected, the shortages become more visible and harder to manage.
 
 "They've been beaten to shit!" Epstein's boyfriend keeps
babbling about Iran wanting a 'deal.' — March 26, 2026.
 
"All the goals of the war with Iran have been achieved." 
US VP tries his hand at market manipulation. — March 26, 2026.

» The Pentagon is developing bold military options that could deliver a so-called "final blow" to Iran—ranging from seizing strategic islands in the Strait of Hormuz to launching ground operations against nuclear facilities. With oil above $100 a barrel, thousands of additional US troops deploying to the region, and diplomatic talks hanging by a thread, the most dangerous escalation scenarios are now firmly on the table. « — David Oualaalou, March 27, 2026.
Economic Contraction Is Inevitable
As energy and food costs rise, the economy contracts. Industry shuts down, jobs are lost, and consumption falls because people can no longer afford what they used to. This is demand destruction in its simplest form. It is not a choice—it is forced by cost. That contraction feeds on itself: lower output, lower income, lower demand. Under sustained pressure, this moves beyond a standard recession into a deeper, longer-lasting downturn.

Social Stability Comes Under Pressure
The social effects follow directly. Energy and food are not optional. When access becomes strained, people react. Lower-income groups are hit first, but the pressure spreads. We begin to see unrest, political instability, and governments imposing stricter controls—rationing, restrictions, prioritization of supply. Those measures can manage the shortage, but they do not remove it.

This Is a Multi-Year Problem
The timeline is the critical constraint. Even if conditions stabilize, rebuilding lost energy capacity takes years. That means the sequence does not resolve quickly. Energy shortages persist, industrial capacity remains impaired, agricultural output declines, and economic pressure builds over multiple cycles.

The Sequence Is Direct
The progression is linear and difficult to avoid once the supply gap is large enough: insufficient energy leads to rationing; rationing leads to industrial shutdown; industrial shutdown removes fertilizer production; reduced fertilizer lowers food output; lower food output raises prices and creates shortages; rising costs force economic contraction; and sustained pressure produces social instability. This is not a theoretical chain of events. It is the direct consequence of a system losing access to the inputs it requires to function.
 
Stanislav Krapivnik is a Russian born former US army officer, energy and industrial supply chain specialist with direct experience in oil and gas infrastructure. He held senior supply chain positions at Cameron and Halliburton, managing sourcing and logistics for critical field equipment across Eurasia. He later worked in EPC project execution with Tecnimont, supporting large-scale refinery and LNG developments. His background centers on the manufacturing timelines, logistics, and operational realities behind global energy systems.

Sunday, September 29, 2024

Famine - Another Globalist Recipe for the Demise of Europe | Lucas Leiroz

Selling grain, meat, dairy products and everything that is produced in the countryside seems to be no longer an attractive business in Europe. Since 2022, protests for change have been taking place in all parts of the European continent. From Poland to France, no European farmer is happy to see his products being replaced on the market by massive quantities of cheap Ukrainian agricultural items. This is due to the irrational decision of European decision-makers to ban all import tariffs on Ukrainian food products. The measure is allegedly intended to boost the Ukrainian economy during the crisis caused by the conflict with Russia – which ironically is sponsored by the West itself. In the current European market, it is cheaper to import Ukrainian food than to resell the native products, which is obviously causing thousands of farmers to abandon their businesses.

» And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, 
and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine. « 

As well known, most of Europe does not have a very strong agricultural sector, with local farmers relying on government aid to stay active in the market. Without this aid and with the invasion of Ukrainian products, it is simply no longer profitable to be part of European agribusiness, which is why thousands of people are likely to stop working in the rural areas and join the growing class of the European “precariat”. At first, some analysts may see this scenario as a mere market shift, replacing European production with Ukrainian production. However, this analysis is limited. Despite having some of the most fertile soils in the world, Ukraine is currently a target of Western financial predators, who demand the handover of arable land as a means of payment for NATO’s billion-dollar aid packages. Organizations such as Blackrock and other funds will soon own almost all that is left of Ukraine’s “black soil.” And then Ukrainian agricultural production will depend on the willingness of the “financial sharks” to feed the Europeans.

Cull the many, save the few: the globalist's eugenicist cult mantra, 
etched in stone on the Georgia Guidestones.

It is true that the lack of food self-sufficiency in European countries is not a new problem. Imports are already a vital mechanism for all of Western Europe. But parallel to the dependence on imports, there is also the irrational policy of sanctions and coercive measures against several emerging food-producing countries. The Russian Federation, for example, is prohibited from selling anything to Europeans, but the problem is even greater. The EU has been considering for years imposing severe sanctions on Brazil, for example, alleging “environmental irregularities”. It will get to the point where the EU’s “humanitarian and environmental” requirements will prevent Europeans from buying anything from any country.

 » Europe faces one of the bleakest futures in human history. «

If we ask who is interested in this whole scenario, the answer will once again seem clear. There is only one country encouraging Europe to impose more and more sanctions, buy more and more Ukrainian grain and send more and more weapons to Kiev under payment terms regulated by Blackrock. Of course, this is the same country that boycotted Russian-European energy cooperation and committed the terrorist attack on Nord Stream. And certainly this is also the only state interested in maintaining the geopolitical status quo and preventing the creation of a multipolar world, where Europeans would have freedom of alignment and could pragmatically choose their partners. The US-EU alliance is a real time bomb and in the long run it will lead Europe to famine. Already in the process of deindustrialization, energy crisis and destroying its entire food security architecture, Europe faces one of the bleakest futures in human history. And almost all European decision-makers seem happy with this scenario.

Quoted from:
 
See also: