Salim erklärt mal wieder Geopolitik:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBj1d59uk_4

Die behaupteten Waffenlieferungen sind bei den Kurden nicht angekommen:

https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iran/050420261

Ach nee:

"The US produces a lot of crude. Record amounts, actually - around 13.6 million barrels a day in 2025. Nobody produces more. And yes, the US does export some of that crude to other countries.

But the US also imports crude. A lot of it. 6.2 million barrels a day, to be exact.
Do the math: 6.2 million barrels coming in, 4.0 million barrels going out. The US is a net importer of crude oil by 2.2 million barrels every single day. That’s the EIA’s own numbers - the official US government energy statistics agency.
So how does the “net exporter” story survive? Where does it come from?"

https://no01.substack.com/p/americas-energy-independence

Er beantwortet die Frage im nächsten Absatz:

"Welcome to the wonderful world of official terminology.
When politicians say “petroleum exports,” they don’t mean crude oil. They mean all petroleum products combined. And that definition includes something called natural gas liquids, or NGLs. Think propane, ethane, butane. These are gases that come out alongside natural gas when you drill (and in lesser quantities when you cook it). They’re not oil. You can’t put them in your car. Those are mainly used as feedstocks for plastics and petrochemicals, or for heating in some parts of the world.

The US produces enormous amounts of NGLs - far more than it needs domestically. So it exports them. In 2025, NGL exports hit a record 3.1 million barrels per day. Propane alone: 1.8 million barrels a day, shipped mostly to Asia.
Add all that together - crude exports plus NGL exports plus refined product exports - and suddenly the US looks like a net exporter of “petroleum”. Which is true, in the same way that a country that exports wine and imports grain is technically a ‘net agricultural exporter’. Try eating wine.
That’s the trick. The “net exporter” number is propped up by gas byproducts that have nothing to do with your gas tank."

Das hat ja der Salim schon erklärt:

"The US produces light, sweet crude. “Light” means it flows easily. “Sweet” means low sulphur. It’s actually the good stuff - easier and cheaper to refine. The shale boom that made the US the world’s largest producer? Almost entirely light, sweet crude coming out of places like Texas and North Dakota.
The problem is that American refineries weren’t built for it.
Back in the 1970s and 80s, when the US was deeply dependent on Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil, it built refineries to handle heavy, sour crude - the thick, high-sulphur stuff that’s harder to process but was widely available cheaply from abroad. Nearly 70% of US refinery capacity is optimised for that heavier crude. Then the shale boom happened, producing an ocean of light crude that most of those same refineries can’t efficiently process."

Die Info ist mir allerdings neu:

"Upgrading a refinery to switch between crude types costs between $100 million and $1 billion per facility. No1’s rushing to do that."

Sein Fazit:

"When supply tightens globally, Europe faces both the higher global price and potential actual physical shortages. The US faces the higher global price but has enough domestic production to keep its refineries running - assuming it can solve the heavy crude gap and the refinery mismatch. It’s a real advantage. Just not the absolute immunity that the phrase “energy independent” implies."

https://no01.substack.com/p/americas-energy-independence

Das mit dem heavy crude & den Raffinerien hat Trump ja elegant mit der Maduro-Entführung gelöst...

Interessant, Moon of Alabama geht davon aus, dass diese "Rettungsmission" im Iran de facto der gescheiterte Versuch war, angereichertes Uran aus den Atomanlagen zu holen:

"The U.S. may have found and retrieved the F-15 officer. But that will have been tens of miles from the place near Isfahan where it lost two HC-130 transport planes and four MH-6 special force helicopters. That special force operation was most likely an attempt to steal enriched Uranian known to be hidden under a mountain somewhere around Isfahan. Such an operation was pre-viewed on April 1 by the Washington Post:

Risky commando plan to seize Iran’s uranium came at Trump’s request (archived)

It seems that the attempt ran into an ambush like situation and had to evacuate.

For details see how Will Schryver and Armchair Warlord are connecting the dots. Iranian analysts agree with their take."

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2026/04/war-on-iran-failed-special-operation-threat-escalation.html

Das ist das ganze Interview mit Rabbi Elhanan Beck:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td23chkYKzM

Neues Video !!!

https://youtu.be/Hd29GgoiIlU

Den Yann-Song-King-Kanal abonnieren:
http://t.me/yannsongking

Telepolis berichtet auf Deutsch:

https://www.telepolis.de/article/Macht-Chinas-neuer-Sensor-die-US-Atommarine-wertlos-11246057.html

War ja klar:

https://www.heise.de/news/Chatkontrolle-Tech-Riesen-wollen-trotz-ausgelaufener-EU-Regeln-weiter-scannen-11245882.html

Peter Zwegat hatte Schulden bei Chuck Norris.