posted on May 22, 2004 03:45:28 PM new
A couple weeks ago I was wattching Prince Bandar on Meeet the Press and he made an interesting comment about a recent offer made by the Saudis to help elieviate oil problems here in the US. It was a single statement in a comment being made about oil prices and not the maain point of his comments but it has stuck in my head for the past couple weeks for I decided to check it out.
Sure enough. Here it is. From Saudi Arabia's Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Ali Al-Naimi April 22, 2004 speech in Dallas Texas....
I would like to say one more thing about gasoline prices. Some may try to convince you that high gasoline prices are the result of OPEC production decisions. This is not the case. Even if OPEC were to raise output it would not necessarily translate into more gasoline for U.S. consumers. This is because the supply bottleneck is created by the lack of U.S. refining capacity, not by the amount of available crude oil in world markets. Saudi Arabia is willing and ready to invest in two new refineries and their associated marketing facilities in the U.S. to alleviate bottlenecks in product availability.
You would think that SOMEONE would report on this one. I mean it's not every day that someone expresses a williness to do common sense things that our own oil companies won't do in order to benefit our country.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 22, 2004 03:46 PM ]
posted on May 22, 2004 05:40:05 PM new
I can't give you any exact quotes or anything like that, but I heard something about this on FOX News the other day. The reason no refineries are being built is they can't find a place to build one. No one wants one in their area. Everyone thinks it a good idea, but they want them built somewhere else. Then you have the environmentalist and so on.
Everybody complains, but no one wants to make the sacrifice.
Be kind. Everyone is fighting their own secret battles.
...Author Unknown
posted on May 22, 2004 05:53:33 PM new
In 15 years I think they should have been able to find a place. Lets be realistic. It has nothing to do with location and everything to do with the price tag. Plus, what excuse would they use for jacking up prices if they couldn't use "Well, if a refinery goes offline even for a day...."
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 22, 2004 05:54 PM ]
posted on May 22, 2004 06:02:16 PM new
In 15 years I think they should have been able to find a place.
You would think so. But it all comes back to politics. Both parties are guilty. Some of those older than the hills congressmen should go back to the hills and let some younger ones with new ideas have a go at it.
Be kind. Everyone is fighting their own secret battles.
...Author Unknown
posted on May 22, 2004 09:14:17 PM newand he made an interesting comment about a recent offer made by the Saudis to help elieviate oil problems here in the US.
He can't reduce the increased consumption in the world....nor the fact that China is now starting to save reserves of their own.
On top of that...there's always those fanatic environmental groups that have seen to it that costs are so outrageous few want to build new refineries.
Notice that while everyone complains about the price of gas going up.....many countries pay more than we do and some have for many years.
Maybe we should go by kerry's old suggestion and raise the price of gasoline another $.50 a gallon....then people can really complain.
posted on May 23, 2004 12:56:18 AM new
:: He can't reduce the increased consumption in the world....nor the fact that China is now starting to save reserves of their own.::
You're right, but then those factors have very little to do with current gas prices in the US.
:n top of that...there's always those fanatic environmental groups that have seen to it that costs are so outrageous few want to build new refineries. ::
Few? There has not been a new one built in 15 years. I'll buy the enviromental group excuse as soon as you show me the company that has the land and has applied for permits. I sure have not been able to find anything on it.
::Notice that while everyone complains about the price of gas going up.....many countries pay more than we do and some have for many years.
::Notice that while everyone complains about the price of gas going up.....many countries pay more than we do and some have for many years. ::
What does that have to do with anything? We have no shortage , nor is there even a predicted one. There is no shortage of crude oil available to us. Oil companies are raising prices based on some phantom threat and nothing more. Why do you think there are numerous investigations across the nation into the matter.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 23, 2004 05:35:05 AM new
fenix - It has been reported that many OPEC countries are already producing at capacity.
It's been report that usage is up...all over the world..mainly in China and that China is now started to put more than what they're using into a reserve of their own. It's called supply and demand. When there is more demand...oil futures go up. This is a very common cycle and why many want to see America not so dependent on oil.
How you can state that consumption doesn't affect price ......it sure does.
As far as refineries go....one only has to look at all the crap the environmentalists cause everytime an old refinery has it's polution controls lessened so that *more oil CAN be produced*. I don't need to show you a 'permit' were they've tried to build more.....cost and the environmental issues are always given as the reasons they don't attempt to build more
refineries.
posted on May 23, 2004 05:41:22 AM new
Also I've heard that SA is worried that if Russia and Mexico start producting more oil.....then the oil prices would go down drastically....as there would be more oil available...thus reducing it's price.
----------------------
taken from Washington Times 5-21-04
Kerry's gassy allegations
This week, Sen. John Kerry accused the administration of playing global politics with gas prices. Under scrutiny, that scandalous charge raises more questions about Mr. Kerry than President Bush.
The source of the allegations was Bob Woodward's recently published book, "Plan of Attack." Mr. Woodward wrote that the Saudis planed "to fine-tune oil prices to prime the economy in 2004." Mr. Kerry seized upon the text to accuse Mr. Bush of making a "secret deal" with the Saudis to reduce oil prices in time for the election.
Representatives from the Saudi government including Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan have strongly denied making such a sweetheart deal, as have members of the Bush administration.
But taking Mr. Woodward's words at face value has put Mr. Kerry on both sides of the issue.
Scarcely a month ago, the presumptive Democratic nominee was chiding Mr. Bush for his failure to engage Middle Eastern oil producers. In a March 30 statement, Mr. Kerry claimed, "I'll use real diplomacy to do what George Bush hasn't pressure OPEC to start providing more oil." The release added, "As president, John Kerry will engage in diplomacy to ensure that U.S. consumers are not held hostage to price fixing by OPEC."
A few days later, Mr. Kerry said, "By treating the Saudis with kid gloves, the president is giving them the green light to produce less oil and drive prices up."
Mr. Kerry cannot have it both ways on this point. Mr. Bush cannot be in intimate collusion with the Saudis to reduce oil prices at the precise moment he needs an election boost, while at the same time having completely ineffective negotiations with them to increase oil supplies.
Taking Mr. Woodward's word for what Bush was actually doing instead of what Mr. Kerry alleges clears the picture, especially since Mr. Woodward said in an interview on "Larry King Live" Monday night that "[Mr.] Kerry has taken this to the next level." According to an analysis of Mr. Woodward's book by USA Today's Mark Memmott, during a Feb. 24, 2003, meeting that Prince Bandar was not at, Mr. Bush expressed concern about "the adequacy of the oil market" to absorb temporary wartime shortfalls and wondered about the ability of other Arab states to compensate. The 2004 election was not mentioned. During his conversation with Mr. King, Mr. Woodward elaborated, "I say in the book that the Saudis ... hoped to keep oil prices low during the period for before the election because of its impact on the economy."
Prince Bandar, who called in to the show, concurred, adding that there was "nothing unusual" with such a presidential practice.
"President Clinton asked us to keep the prices down in the year 2000," he said. "In fact, I can go back to 1979, President Carter asked us to keep the prices down to avoid the malaise."
In other words, over the past year, Mr. Bush has been doing exactly what Mr. Kerry says he would do as president. Mr. Kerry should clarify his position before he makes more pungent charges.
posted on May 23, 2004 07:20:31 AM new
Typically gasoline prices always go up during the summer months ....as consumption increases ...
but this news in today's NYTs won't help much either:
OPEC Nations Reject Pleas to Increase Their Quotas
OPEC is "deeply concerned" about the continued rise in crude oil prices, Mr. Purnomo said, but many factors are contributing to the climb, including varying specifications for emissions in the United States that prevent states from sharing gas supplies, speculation in the futures markets and tension in some oil-producing regions. OPEC is "deliberating on the proposition to increase production" in line with the cartel's commitment to stabilize oil prices, he said.
On Friday, Saudi Arabia's oil minister said in a statement that recent revisions in demand and supply projections for the coming months indicate that OPEC should increase production more than two million barrels a day. The statement came after an earlier Saudi proposal to increase quotas by that amount.
OPEC's public unwillingness to adopt emergency measures, despite Saudi Arabia's assertion that more production is necessary, has increased speculation that there is a rift among the 11 members of the cartel. Any changes in OPEC production levels must be make by unanimous decision.
Dr. Ibraham Bahr al-Uloum, the oil minister of Iraq, backed OPEC's official line in a statement Saturday, saying that high prices were caused by many factors besides production levels, including accelerated economic growth and speculation in the trading markets. Iraq plans to revive its national oil company, and reorganize its downstream activities, said Mr. Uloum. In recent months, Iraq has pumped 2.5 million barrels a day, and hopes to reach 3 million by the end of the year, he said.
OPEC members met during the International Energy Forum, which brings together oil ministers and company representatives from around the world. High prices and increasing demand were the main concerns of most delegates. "The challenge to the oil and gas sector is enormous," said Peter Sutherland, the chairman of BP, in a press briefing at the forum.
Increased population, and larger than expected growth in oil consumption, mean that the oil industry needs to raise $16 trillion in investment by 2030 to develop the sector, he said. Current proven oil reserves will only last for another 40 years, without factoring in population increases, Mr. Sutherland said.
------------------------
This must be why kerry is NOT calling for more oil refineries to be built....especially ones owned by SA....but rather for President Bush to pressure OPEC....DEMAND from OPEC...more oil.
The democrats have fought the energy proposals that this President has been trying to get passed for the last two years. At least he's tried to help with the energy crisis....as opposed to the dems who fight it. Especially IF it's going to be in their own back yard.
posted on May 23, 2004 08:45:19 AM new
Kraftdinner - How much is a liter of gas in Canada? Canadian gas has been just a little higher in the US. But we have to remember they are buying a liter and we are buying a gallon.
posted on May 23, 2004 10:29:03 AM new
There are 3.78 liters in a gallon.
Early in may Kraft said she was paying $3.32 per gallon, so at that time she was paying 88 cents per liter. Probably, like us, she is paying much, much more now.
I bought gas yesterday: $2.41 was the cheapest I could find (at some places 87 was going for $2.48)
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 23, 2004 10:39:27 AM new
LInda- Why try to turn this into a political issue? It has nothing to do with politics. It has nothing to do with Bush or Kerry.
By the way - The NYT headline is amazingly inflamatory and not correct. It is based on a a decision not to have a vote during an informal side meeting this week in Amsterdam when the actual vote is next month at an official meeting in Beruit where they will decide whether or not to approve a proposal and that Saudi Arabia has put worth to increase production by 2 million barrels a day. (BTW - The Saudis are actually producing above quota right now). The controversy has to do with a
Try this one - Luckily the writer of this article could care less about the political ramifications and actually wrote about the topic at hand.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AMSTERDAM : The president of OPEC, which is under strong pressure to boost oil production in the face of spiralling crude prices, said the cartel has capacity to spare should it decide to increase output.
"Now production is at 88 percent of total capacity, so there is still spare capacity to be used if we want to increase production," Purnomo Yusgiantoro, who is also Indonesia's energy minister, told reporters.
Ministers from Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries met this weekend on the sidelines of the International energy Forum here, which brings together about 55 oil consuming and producing countries.
Despite calls from consuming nations to give a clear sign about increasing oil supply, the ministers deferred taking a group position on a Saudi Arabian proposal for the cartel to raise oil output to reduce surging prices until its next official meeting in June.
Asked about the Saudi Arabian initiative, Yusgiantoro said: "That's fine with us if they want to put it into a proposal, we don't have problem with it. right now we encourage member countries to do as much as they can to stabilise the oil markets."
Flexing its muscles as the world's biggest oil producer, the kingdom proposed on Friday that OPEC boost production by more than 2.0 million barrels a day, provoking a mixed reaction from within the cartel.
Despite Saudi Arabia's willingness to increase production, there are concerns about how much spare capacity producers have to increase output should they choose to do so.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 23, 2004 10:41 AM ]
posted on May 23, 2004 10:56:27 AM new
BTW - I agree that Kerry doing a chest pounding routine regarding Bush and the Saudi's is ridiculous. The Saudis are the ones that have been pushing to increase production in order to bring the price down and that have always stated that they would prefer to keep the price per barrel in the $25 range. They have their own interests involved in accomplishin g this task since they know as well as they car companies her that as the price of their product rises, people start seeking alternative energy forms. They want their product to stay affordable.
If you want to go the political route - this is an interesting story in that it actually is something that both sides will have a problem getting publicly behind and for entirely different reasons.
Democrats
Isn't it going to be a little hard to keep selling the "Saudis are demons and our enemies" theory when they are volunteering to put a couple $500 million refineries into play in the US in order to help the American people and economy?
Republicans
How much would profits of domestic oil companies drop as well as campaign contribuions if there was no longer an excuse for them to hike up prices based on hypothetical future refinery production problems?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 23, 2004 10:56 AM ]
posted on May 23, 2004 10:56:55 AM new
fenix - LInda- Why try to turn this into a political issue? It has nothing to do with politics. It has nothing to do with Bush or Kerry.
You're kidding, right? kerry and the democrats are making it an issue and putting the blame on Bush. Oil prices have ALWAYS been a political issue.
The NYT headline is amazingly inflamatory and not correct.
Tell that to some here....it's their Bible.
It is based on a a decision not to have a vote during an informal side meeting this week in Amsterdam when the actual vote is next month
I know that....but in the meanwhile our gas prices will continue to go up. And it takes a while for more production to be felt at the pumps too.....might want to get a head start on that and that's why they asked to call an 'emergency' meeting.
---------------------
The Arabs have long had control of world economies via their oil. And they still do.....and imo *until* prices of gasoline are so high that it makes alternative energy prices appear reasonable by comparison.....we're not going to give up our dependence on oil.
posted on May 23, 2004 11:03:28 AM new
Linda - please explain to me how it is the arabs fault that gas prices will rise when they are not reducing production? I could understand you blaming it on them if they called for a cutback but all they said is that they will make a decision in a month.
Why do so many people want to put the finger at the arabs whe the gas hikes have can be laid cleanly at the feet of domestic oil companies. The price per barrel of oil has stayed stead and even at times dropped even as the price for gasoline skyrockets. Our oil companies claim that they are currently operating at capacity and if this is true, it does not matter a lick how much additional oil is produced.
This has nothing to do with OPEC and everything to do with domestic oil companies and until people start accepting that fact this is going to continue to be a problem.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 23, 2004 11:05 AM ]
posted on May 23, 2004 11:09:45 AM new
Here is another factor that's been mentioned more than once.....
this one from the WSJ
[when talking about using our oil reserves...and why Bush has said he won't.
Recently, the oil market has also been hit with a "fear" premium--especially concern that terrorists will disrupt the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf.
There have been several violent incidents in recent weeks. In Iraq, suicide attackers launched three boats laden with bombs toward oil tankers in Basra. Then saboteurs damaged an Iraqi pipeline, cutting exports by almost a third.
More frightening, Saudi gunmen killed five Western contractors at an oil facility in western Saudi Arabia, causing most of the remaining personnel to leave the country. Some market watchers figure this anxiety fillip could be worth as much as $10 a barrel.
Sure, low prices are better than high ones, and everyone grumbles when it costs more to fill up the tank. But the good news is that the economy depends much less on oil than it once did. As the nearby chart shows, the U.S. is almost twice as energy-efficient as it was in the "crisis" days of the late 1970s.
If the current high prices are sustained over the next several months, economists expect this could shave anywhere from 0.5% to 0.9% off U.S. GDP growth. That's lamentable, but for an economy growing by 4% or more it is hardly terminal.
posted on May 23, 2004 11:17:48 AM new
Gas is now 96 cents a litre here but it doesn't seem to slow anyone down, probably because of all the baby bonus cheques being issued.
posted on May 23, 2004 11:18:27 AM new
fenix - please explain to me how it is the arabs fault that gas prices will rise when they are not reducing production?
Because they are the ones who decide, when demand is going up, whether they'll produce more oil or not.
I could understand you blaming it on them if they called for a cutback but all they said is that they will make a decision in a month.
But they WERE calling for a cutback....I believe by 4% of their current production....that's a part of what started those who speculate the price of oil to start getting worried....thus oil further go up....as they have.
Why do so many people want to put the finger at the arabs whe the gas hikes have can be laid cleanly at the feet of domestic oil companies.
fenix - IF that were true...why are other large countries paying much more for their gas than we are? Do OUR domestic oil companies influence the price they pay for gas too?
The price per barrel of oil has stayed stead and even at times dropped even as the price for gasoline skyrockets.
And that has been addressed in other threads where this issue has been discussed. There are different requirements for producing ...say home heating oil than there are for gasoline. And on the gasoline alone there are so many different 'standards' for what is allowed to be sold where. ie: CA vs another state where the 'air standards' aren't so heavily regulated.
posted on May 23, 2004 11:21:23 AM new
Actually, the fault is OURs for being oil dependent when we don't have to be. The technology is there for us end the dependence, but OUR oil companies do everything they can to discourage that.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 23, 2004 11:29:07 AM new
Actually....I agree with you bunni.
But having lived through many 'gasoline crisis' over the years and listening to the 'right' always getting the blame.....I'm starting to think it's a good thing prices are going up.
The reason other energy sources haven't been accepted is because they cost so much more than oil.....high gas prices might just change that....this time. We can only hope.
posted on May 23, 2004 11:36:43 AM new
KD - but it doesn't seem to slow anyone down, probably because of all the baby bonus cheques being issued.
You and those 'bonus' checks..lol
Must be the same reason most here aren't cutting back....all those doubled child tax credits the Bush tax plan has given to families with children....more children...more tax credits = more money to spend.
posted on May 23, 2004 11:58:22 AM new
:: And that has been addressed in other threads where this issue has been discussed. There are different requirements for producing ...say home heating oil than there are for gasoline. And on the gasoline alone there are so many different 'standards' for what is allowed to be sold where. ie: CA vs another state where the 'air standards' aren't so heavily regulated.::
Que? Linda - I am talking abut in the past four months. Why do you so desperately seem to want to ignore what even one of your own articles cites. The recently dubbed "fear tax". Why is it so hard to believe that oil compnaies are greedy. Did you not learn anything from the farce that was the California Energy Crisis two years ago where energy companies manipulated output in order to drive up prices and financially rape the consumer.
With people so damn eager to find something new to blame the arab world for is it such a stretch to see the oil companies doing to same thing and then pointing the finger at OPEC?
I think we have discussed the proposed cut back before as well. It was that pesky seasonal cutback that comes with spring time and higher temperatures and lower demand. Thing is Linda - they did not actually enact the cutback so why are prices not coming down?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 23, 2004 12:00 PM ]
[ edited by fenix03 on May 23, 2004 12:01 PM ]
posted on May 23, 2004 12:22:48 PM new
fenix - I am talking abut in the past four months.
So am I.
Why do you so desperately seem to want to ignore what even one of your own articles cites. The recently dubbed "fear tax". Why is it so hard to believe that oil compnaies are greedy.
I'm not desperate about it....I see it differently than you do. Fuel is something we all need and the republicans have LONG been blamed for their connection to the oil industry. It's always their fault...no matter what goes wrong, when there ARE OTHER circumstances that raise the price of gasoline.....not just greed. As a business....are they going to make money? Sure they are. As are other companies that don't touch each and every American. The only difference is when those prices get too high...people stop buying those products. With fuel...it's a different issue.
Did you not learn anything from the farce that was the California Energy Crisis two years ago where energy companies manipulated output in order to drive up prices and financially rape the consumer.
Sure I learned that Gray Davis and his band of thievin' legislators robbed the citizens of CA by the policies they put in place and then tried to blame the President for the crisis.
With people so damn eager to find something new to blame the arab world for is it such a stretch to see the oil companies doing to same thing and then pointing the finger at OPEC?
We wouldn't be so eager IF they weren't pretty much telling us to go xxxx ourselves rather than working with THE WORLD to keep global economies stable. This crisis isn't JUST affecting the US...it's having a global affect...and they sit there with the ability to do something about it and won't.
Thing is Linda - they did not actually enact the cutback so why are prices not coming down?
fenix - [shaking my head here] - have you not read one of the reasons I've already given? No they haven't....but they COULD and MIGHT next month...which, again causes serious speculation - and they're not willing to call for an emergency session to decide to open up more oil.....shows their lack of concern about how this IS affecting the global economies...many of which are all struggling and just beginning to see a turn around in their economies like we are.
posted on May 23, 2004 12:40:40 PM newhave you not read one of the reasons I've already given? No they haven't....but they COULD and MIGHT next month...
I'm not sure if this is a perfect example of misdirection from the oil companies or just a result from this not being an issue that you are up on but those proposed spring time cut backs were to be enacted on April 1 (hence the springtime reference ) and they were not enacted.
Seriously Linda, you should read a little on OPECs POV on this issue, stop falling into the trap of believing that it is a political issue, stop swallowing a party line and really find out what is going on.
OPEC wants the prices to come down and quickly. It is not in their long term best interest for prices to remain so high as I stated earilier.
The Saudis have actually basically told the other nations that they don't give a damn what the outcome of the vote is, they are going to increase production so the rest of the countries may as well fall in line.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 23, 2004 12:42:24 PM new
AMSTERDAM: OPEC holds informal talks on Saturday to discuss a Saudi proposal to lift output and try to quell an outcry among leading economic powers over high oil prices.
Saudi has called on the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to increase production limits by at least 8.5 percent to topple prices from $40 a barrel for US crude.
Producers face heavy pressure from consumer nations who fear rising energy costs could stunt world economic growth.
The Group of Seven top industrialised nations, meeting this weekend in New York, is expected to call for swift OPEC action.
Riyadh has already decided to raise its own output to nine million barrels daily next month, up from about 8.3 million bpd in April, Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said on Thursday.
He said Riyadh could open the pumps even further if necessary, giving an assurance that Saudi was capable of reaching a maximum of 10.5 million barrels daily.
Never doubt what Saudi Arabia says, Mr Naimi told reporters.
Other OPEC members, already pumping at full capacity, are expected to back Riyadhs proposal to raise official cartel quotas by at least two million barrels daily to a minimum 25.5 million bpd.
Iran supports: Number two cartel producer Iran said it will not oppose the plan, but warned that factors beyond OPECs control were driving oil prices.
I dont object to it, Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh told Reuters. Its good to send a signal to consumers ... but not everything is in our hands.
So far, only price hawk Venezuela has objected but a final policy decision is not expected until OPECs next full conference in Beirut on June 3.
World oil prices eased on Friday on news of the Saudi plan, US crude ending off 87 cents at $39.85 a barrel, its first close below $40 in 10 days.
US refinery bottlenecks, Middle East security worries and heavy speculation on crude futures by investment hedge funds have all helped drive up oil prices.
Consultancy Petrologistics released a report on Friday estimating supplies from 10 OPEC members with quotas rose to 26.38 million bpd in May.
That is 2.88 million above existing official OPEC limits of 23.5 million bpd, well in excess even of the Saudi proposal for a two million bpd increase.Reuters
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 23, 2004 12:44:47 PM new
Linda - how do you reconcile comments like and they're not willing to call for an emergency session to decide to open up more oil.....shows their lack of concern about how this IS affecting the global economies with the offer to invest in the building of new refineries here in the US in order to eliminate the bottleneck thus bringing prices down?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 23, 2004 12:53:46 PM new
fenix - I will be more than happy to address your additional questions AFTER you answer mine.
fenix said: Why do so many people want to put the finger at the arabs whe the gas hikes have can be laid cleanly at the feet of domestic oil companies.
fenix - IF that were true...why are other large countries paying much more for their gas than we are? Do OUR domestic oil companies influence the price they pay for gas too?
Re-elect President Bush!!
edited to add fenix's statement.
[ edited by Linda_K on May 23, 2004 01:59 PM ]
posted on May 23, 2004 01:56:31 PM new
fenix - Guess you're not going to address my question.
Seriously Linda, you should read a little on OPECs POV on this issue, stop falling into the trap of believing that it is a political issue, stop swallowing a party line and really find out what is going on.
If you think the rise in gasoline prices are not a political issue....you're in TOTAL denial.
And I do read...both what the left and the right are saying on this subject. And what I quoted has been from the NYT....NOT a party-of-mine-newpaper.
OPEC wants the prices to come down and quickly.
Imo, IF that were true...they would have voted already to lower prices. They haven't....they're making us wait until next month.
It is not in their long term best interest for prices to remain so high as I stated earilier. Maybe not long term but it sure is short term. Keeps those barrel prices way up there. And like I said....they're not stupid...they realize if Russia and Mexico could put more oil out in the world trade....the high prices they're getting would quickly come down.
The Saudis have actually basically told the other nations that they don't give a damn what the outcome of the vote is, they are going to increase production so the rest of the countries may as well fall in line.
Yes, and what you're not recognizing is the threat that SA faces now. US troops are no longer in SA and they have limited ability to protect their own oil fields....AND that's what part of the speculation is based on....attempts by other Arabs/terrorists to blow up the SA oil fields. [Like the examples I've given].
But the NYT article did state:
OPEC's public unwillingness to adopt emergency measures, despite Saudi Arabia's assertion that more production is necessary, has increased speculation that there is a rift among the 11 members of the cartel.
Any changes in OPEC production levels must be make by unanimous decision.
So...unless the NTY is mistaken...not me and my lack of knowledge, lack of sympathy to SA....all the other Arab nations will have to agree to do so ...or it won't happen.
n top of that...there's always those fanatic environmental groups that have seen to it that costs are so outrageous few want to build new refineries. ::
...
