Wednesday, July 02, 2008

If A + B = C Then Replace B with Water

Exerpts Taken from This NY Times Article

"Even over the past year, as Iraq intermittently curtailed its exports of two million barrels a day to demand changes in the United Nations sanctions against it, Saudi Arabia acted as the 'swing producer,' making up much of the difference."

As occupiers of Iraq, shouldn't our government use its relationship with Saudi Arabia to prevent this?  Wouldn't part of forging sustainable democracy in Iraq contain something about removing barriers between them and economic prosperity?    

"Short of withering in the grip of a coup d'état, Saudi Arabia's oil exports could be cut if its rulers decide that they no longer can afford to support the United States-led campaign against terrorism. If the bombings kill many civilians or if the war expands quickly, the Saudis may feel that they have no choice but to veer away from the United States and reduce the flow of oil."

Afford monetarily or in terms of self-preservation/keeping power?  Both?

'''The only way I see that happening is if the U.S. would continue to pick targets that would include Middle Eastern oil-producing countries -- and how many it picked -- and if it were done in a unilateral way,''' said Marianne Kah, chief economist at Conoco. '''But if it continues its multilateral approach, and includes friendly Arab countries, that won't happen.'''

Thanks for your input Marianne from the oil company.

"Even in the case of state overthrow somewhere in the Middle East, she said, the flow of oil would be likely to continue. 'Usually anyone in power wants oil revenues,' she said, 'though that may not be true for Osama bin Laden, who wants to live in a cave.'"

I think you might be right, Marr.  Who wants oil revenue more than the people in power?  

"If oil supplies from the Middle East dwindle, the impact on the United States would not be acute shortages, at least for a few months. Less of its oil comes from the Persian Gulf now, and more from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela."

That's right Middle East!  We don't need you.  If push comes to shove we can just lean on our three closest friends, Canada, Mexico, and...wait a second.

"Instead, a sharp drop in oil supplies would set off a steep rise in prices. How long they stay high would depend on the length and the severity of any cuts. The United States has few options to increase supply and damp a price surge. Oil fields in the United States and most of the rest of the world are running close to full capacity, except, as luck would have it, in the Persian Gulf. New fields, regardless of the promise they hold, take several years to bring on stream."

What a coincidence!  We have a bit of a military presence there right now!

''There is a big lag time between when you drill exploratory wells and when you get production,'' Ms. Kah said. Although the Bush administration and the oil industry have long pushed to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, delivering oil from there would mean 'expanding the oil pipeline in Alaska to handle the extra volume, and then you would be sending the oil down at the soonest in three or four years.'''

Is it making any sense, yet?  No?  Ok.  No need to go any further.  Let's start drilling the shit out of the Pacific shelf.  

"The United States, with just 5 percent of the world's population, has an enormous appetite for oil: it goes through 19 million barrels a day, or nearly one-quarter of the world total of about 76 million barrels. Imports increased about 4.5 million barrels a day in the last decade. To put it in perspective, Mr. Diwan pointed out, Germany and France together consume 4.7 million barrels a day."

This is getting frustrating.

"The dependence on foreign oil and the lack of a backup plan, either in the form of a bolstered reserve or conservation, evolved in large part because the United States thought Saudi Arabia would again make up for any supply disruption. 'In the 90's, we let a lot of things slide,'' said Mr. Hakes, the former Energy Department official. 'We quit improving the efficiency of automobiles. We quit buying oil' for the reserve."

Ask GM how that decision's going.

"The price shocks from a serious disruption in oil supplies would course through every quarter of the United States economy. Prices for gasoline and jet fuel would jump, hamstringing commuters and businesses alike. Heating-oil prices would climb. The drain on people's incomes and companies' revenue would further sap a weakened economy."

Sounds pretty serious.  

"Most major oil companies, like Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch/Shell, and large independent refiners like Valero Energy get substantial amounts of oil from Saudi Arabia. Oil companies declined to comment officially on the impact of a disruption, but some industry executives said privately that if the Saudis continued to ship oil elsewhere, American oil concerns could buy it through third parties, although at higher prices. If an embargo turned global, American companies could get some oil from the petroleum reserve before that ran out."

No problem.  We'd just have to pay more money for oil.    

"'We could buy the oil from OPEC, and because it is not a commercial sale, the members would not be violating their production quotas,' Mr. Goldstein said. 'It wouldn't push up prices, because oil demand is so low. It buys us flexibility, because none of us know what tomorrow will look like.'"

Wait.  Oil demand is low?  Someone's going to have to explain that to me.  

"But more than anything else, consumers would be likely to react on their own. In 1981, during the Iran-Iraq war, oil prices hit $40 a barrel. By 1986, they had dropped to $12, largely because of reduced demand. ''Prices go up, people consume less,'' Mr. Diwan said. ''The market really does work.''' 

Minor difference: Oil is a finite resource.  Minor detail: It's destroying the environment. 

We have governments of greatly varied ideologies purportedly acting on the behalf of nations of people who seem hellbent on prolonging and maximizing this cash cow at all costs.  Forget the whole global warming thing.  Ladies and gentlemen, in the event you haven't heard, I present to you, Genepax.




1 comment:

Anonymous said...

O'C,

1. Why did you use a NY Times article from 2001? (If you want more up to date date we have some good stuff from MS about the state of Oil, where it comes from, where the price is going and what is going to happen next)
2. What is the point of this post? Are you saying that Oil is bad? The high price of Oil is bad for the economy? Wouldn't the left be happy the price is so high cause people are driving smaller cars, and driving less? Please clarify.
3. GWB (My hero) has been trying to Drill in ANWAR since 2001, it has been blocked by left wing tree huggers all along, yes it will take 3 to 4 to get up or running, but 2001 + 4 years = 2005.
4. The argument that "you can't drill your way out of an oil shortage" is like saying, "You can't eat your way out of starvation," or "You can't drink your way out of dehydration." A rediculous argument created by the left, which suprise suprise, lacks logic or reason.
5. How mad are you going to be When Obama loses cause he is nothing but an empty suit with good speach writers? (Especially since Hillary Clinton would have won easily and overwhelmingly.)
6. Have you noticed he has taken several positions on the same issues over and over again? (I know McCain is no virigin in flip flopping either) If you know where Obama stands on anything I'm all ears.
7. Have you noticed that people seem to think that Obama is the lefts answer to everything it ever wanted even though he has explictly promised nothing and contradicted himself over and over again?

Looking forward to your responses..., FYI i predicted over a year ago that Obama would be the nominee. How long before he completly implodes?