The Why of Chokingly High Oil Prices: Bush Together with Saudi Arabia Spells Disaster for America

Posted May 12, 2008 | 05:29 AM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

There was a time when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) controlled by Saudi Arabia and under the pragmatic thumb of Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, would have opened wide the oil spigots in the face of sky high prices and a looming U.S. economic recession. The kingdom's wily old minister wanted to maintain a balance, siphoning off just enough out of consumer's pockets to keep the kingdom in opulent palaces and extravagant gift items for U.S. Presidents -- all without strangling the egg-laden Yankee goose that made the royal family's life both fabulous and secure. Then too, no one in the oil patch wanted prices so high as to make the search for alternative fuels economical.

How quaint such reasoning seems today with Ali-al Naimi running the Saudi oil ministry. The U.S. economy is tanking (literally) with oil prices having hit an unthinkable new high of $126 a barrel all the while with OPEC thumbing its nose at George W. Bush's lame plea to his very dear friend, Saudi King Abdullah to pump more oil. This in spite of being the recipient of the showy piece of neckwear that comes with the King Abdul Azziz Order of Merit and all the kissing and hand holding and weapons package procuring during his last swing through the Middle East.

The Saudis account for about a third of the cartel's overall production and are considered its defacto leader. Furthermore based on updated information from those certainly in the know, namely senior Saudi Aramco officialdom, reserves may be as much as three to four times the generally recognized 260 billion barrels (please see "Oil Innovations Pump New Life Into Old Wells" NYTimes 03.05.07). Current Saudi pumping capacity is understood to be at least 11 million barrels, perhaps a great deal more depending on whom you ask, or achievable in relatively short order were there a willingness to do so. Yet no help has been forthcoming from our dear old friends. Actually the market is being supplied with some 200,000 barrels less a day than was pumped and shipped in January.

We have all been endlessly informed by the oil producers and their allies why prices are where they are. The dollar, peak oil, geopolitical tensions, booming world demand, difficulty in accessing oil, refinery capacity. The litany has become familiar. We hear less about a teetering American economy, slowdowns in other industrialized countries weighing on oil consumption, the potential impact of new discoveries such as those in Brazil, warmer winter weather and on. The background music on both sides of the issue continues unabated.

The truth is much simpler. OPEC is manipulating the global oil supply just to keep prices high. It does it by taking oil off the market. Whether it is also actively impacting the price of oil by manipulating trading in oil futures either directly, or by individual members, or through surrogates and/or straw men on otherwise opaque commodity markets is an open question. What is known is that the cartel pulled back 1.7 million barrels a day of supply early last year after the Bush administration, in effect, gave producers its implicit blessing to push prices up from their then languishing $49.90 a barrel. The high sign came in our oilman president's 2007 State of the Union address when he announced his plans to double the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 1.45 billion barrels thereby signaling that the administration would do nothing of meaningful consequence to counter OPEC's tactics. In terms of restraining the price of oil, in terms of the well being of our economy, this policy shift has been an unmitigated disaster. All was further exacerbated by President Bush's stated opposition to the NOPEC legislation, Congress' attempt to remove the sovereign immunity exemption which placed OPEC's collusionary tactics outside the reach of American law, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commision. He made it clear to one and all that he would veto he such legislation if came to his desk. Reasons? You would probably have to go to a pretzel maker to untangle the twists and turns sorting out the reasons why. Perhaps it has much to do with a predilection to being helpful to his oil patch comrades in arms.

As the price of oil shot up subsequent to the Bush announcement, OPEC, perhaps more as gesture, "reinstated" 500,000 barrels a day effective eleven months later during November of last year (though 200,000 of this quantity mysteriously disappeared after January), not nearly enough in quantity nor early enough in time to bring prices down, witness the continued and steepening upward spiral of oil prices. Now the talk has been of further cuts or at best the status quo by OPEC. Why? Because a U.S. recession and a world economic slowdown would lessen demand, and prices might actually retreat, cutting into the producer's enormous profits. This past weekend the Financial Times quoted Abdalla El- Badri mouthing OPEC's now oft repeated mantra that the market was well supplied, "There is clearly no shortage of oil" he said, perpetuating a smokescreen of obfuscation behind which OPEC has chosen to hide and a rationalization for doing nothing.

To add insult to injury the administration's resident "Heckuvajob Brownie!" Energy Secretary Sam Bodman stated unequivocally only a few days ago that he would continue to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (STP). Then with further studied insight advised us after heart to heart discussions with that other dysfunctional government agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), that he was convinced there was no reason to suspect manipulation was the cause in whole or in part in determining the price of oil and its derivatives as traded on the commodity futures exchanges.

Meanwhile, the United States continues to pick up the $100 million plus-a-day tab to protect Gulf oil shipments and Saudi Arabia. Just days ago Defense Secretary Gates pride fully announced sending our second and newest aircraft carrier through the Straits of Hormuz as a "reminder" to Iran. Reminding Shia Iran of what exactly? Certainly not least to think twice about aggressing against Sunni Saudi Arabia. This, all the while we are continuing negotiations with the Kingdom to permit us to arm Saudi Arabia with our latest and most effective weaponry.

George Bush may still be enamored with Saudi Arabia and its royal family. But, as our so-called friends immutably watch our economy sink into recession with its growing and punishing impact on households across the nation, and untold hardships being visited on developing economies around the globe, it's clear that the price of Mr. Bush's friendship has become frighteningly expensive to us and the rest of the world.


Comments
200
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

Face it - the United States was challenged re oil back in 1974 and has LEARNED NOTHING. We are still wasting precious resources on inefficient engines in factories, homes, and vehicles and we have done little to develop urban environments that are equipped with mass transportation. The American conservation model is Houston...one man in one huge SUV, sitting in slow traffic on the freeway. Geez. Our friends, the Saudis, have brought us to our knees. Let us pray...

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:06 PM on 05/13/2008

BIG NEWS, A GUY LOCAL TO ME HAS SOLVED OUR OIL PROBLEM. HE HAS IMPROVED HIS GAS MILEAGE BY 275% WITH AN INVENTION THAT TURNS WATER INTO HYDROGEN RIGHT AT THE CARS INTAKE MANIFOLD. SPREAD THIS AROUND BEFORE MSM AND BIG OIL SQUASH IT.

THIS IS FOR REAL. NOT A SALES PITCH.

'Gas prices push retiree into action

HARTSELLE -- If you are tired of paying $3.50 to $4 per gallon for gasoline, Larry Thrasher wants you to visit him.

He won't be able to lower the cost of gas. But, he said, his generated hydrogen system will increase your miles per gallon and decrease the number of trips you make to the gas station.

After more than a year of research and testing, Thrasher said he has perfected a system that will allow your vehicle to run on hydrogen and gasoline.

Long range, his plan is to run a vehicle on hydrogen only.

Because of the number of electronics in vehicles, he said, his hydrogen system still depends on some gasoline.

Since installing the hydrogen fuel system on his eight-cylinder Cadillac, Thrasher said his fuel efficiency has increased from 19 miles per gallon to 53. His wife's 1996 Toyota gets about 71 miles per gallon.

A former teacher at several technical schools with more than 30 years of automotive experience, Thrasher started researching his system about 16 months ago.

-FOR REST OF ARTICLE
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080513/BUSINESS/805130339&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:13 PM on 05/13/2008

How old is this scam? 30 years? Or older? Does anybody know when and where it originated?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 PM on 05/13/2008

20% fuel economy gain, by slowing from 65 miles per hour, to 55.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:26 PM on 05/13/2008

Amazing that we talk about conservation and not the major problem that helps to lead to all resourse problems.

There is one animal on this planet whose population is out of control... human. Does little good to drive less if the next week you have more people driving.


Biofuels are part of the solution... buit it should not be ethanol from CORN and that is where almost all of our bio subsidies are flowing to!

Regards

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:02 PM on 05/13/2008

Nice to see someone mention over-population and population growth. Even on the boards where people are discussing the coming decline in oil production and desperately trying to come up with solutions, very few bring up population growth. Somehow they can see the benefit of driving cars that get better gas mileage, but don't think for a second that maybe the amount of people driving could be limited as well. Population growth via births greater than 2 per mother and via immigration is just so sacred to Americans that it clouds peoples thoughts. The Sierra Club can somehow consider it an environmental group and takes no position on immigration into the US (legal immigration is now over a million a year).

I think the best hope is wind and solar and maybe wave energy combined with some as yet undeveloped way to store the electricty.

But as far as what is driving the price up - it's supply and demand. Raymond Learsay and his ilk are going to be blaming OPEC and speculators and whatever for a long long time because oil prices will only go up from here on out as supply begins to decline and demand from China and India and any other country where we have exported massive amounts of jobs, ramps up their oil usage.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:54 AM on 05/15/2008

Wrong, Corn is fine, the problem is the liars talking about Ethanol. The cheapest feed for cattle feedlots is next to an ethanol plant.

There are a lot of reasons food prices are going up, and ethanol doesn't even hit the radar screen compared to the others.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:13 PM on 05/13/2008

I love talk about Oill being free market. What crap. You dont have free markets when you have cartels and 90 percent of the oil reserves are state owwned. Repugs dont even know what a free market is.

We have the same problem with drugs, where drugs prices around the world are set by governments such that we pay 5 times more for the same drug and thus subsidize their healthcare system at our expense.

Repugs need to get off their Idealog asses and realize that Communist China is not a free market anymore than Dubai where in both cases the governement gets a 50% interest in any business.

Or that energy prices are subsidized in much of the world such that their gas prices are not going up to curve demand... which is a problem with thinking that our high prices here will help a lot.

Regards

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:28 AM on 05/13/2008

The free market part is correct because it does not matter that you have a cartel controlling less than half of the production. What matters is that YOU are FREE NOT TO BUY any oil based products like gasoline. OPEC can't make you buy, neither can your own government. Of course, YOU CHOSE to buy the stuff AT ANY price. So why are you complaining? And why do you expect the markets to lower prices when you don't mind paying more?

In most parts of the world energy is highly taxed. The one exemption is the US which uses 25% of the world's energy. See the correlation? Europeans and Japanese are taxed and use half as much as us per capita.

Reality is a hard thing to wrap ones mind around. It is so counterintuitive.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:08 PM on 05/13/2008

What a simple-minded notion: You free to buy something -- or not -- therefore, it is a "free-market". Also, the problems with ethanol from field corn beyond the threat of increasing food prices. It is more related to the fact there is a net loss of energy in producing corn ethanol, it is not an efficient, viable option. Also, if it was relied on to heavily, too much cropland would go the way of energy production, and could, in the long-run, push up food prices.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:43 AM on 05/14/2008

The free market notion is not simple minded at all. There are cars from roughly 9mpg to 60mpg available in the market. That's an enormous range of choices. You can also chose to ride the bus or your bike or to live closer to work. That's what I do since.... well, actually, I am doing that all my life. You can chose to elect local politicians who will improve mass transit. You can chose to elect federal politicians who will increase fuel efficiency standards and charge $2000 annual tax on SUVs. Just because you didn't, does not mean you did not have these choices. Re-electing Jimmy Carter would have gone a long way to have low gas prices and a more peaceful Middle East right now. Lot's of good choices.

No argument on ethanol. It's a scam to give billions of dollars on big agro-business. A farmer could produce more net energy with a couple of acres of solar cells than they can with a hundred acres of corn.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:07 PM on 05/14/2008

So get real. What are we to make your plastics from? The body of your car from? What are we to do about fertilizer? Everything you do has oil in it, not just cars. Oil, Mr. Kill. is in everything. It is not a resource that can be safely left to markets, this is absolutely clear and we have Bush to thank for this. He learned from the master. Markets are a economist joke from the 1900's Eco 101 college book. No longer relevant. Today we have a new reality.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:46 PM on 05/13/2008

Plastics make up only a tiny fraction of our oil consumption. Personally I burn 5 gallons of gasoline a week in my car which is about 15kg. I probably throw 500g of plastics into the trash, maybe less, almost all of which could be recycled (leaving 100-200g/week of loss). The only ingredients needed to make hydrocarbons from scratch are carbon from coal, CO2 or any organic matter like wood or organic waste and some water, air and energy. Plenty of energy to be exact, but it can as well come from solar or wind, it does not matter. Once we are done burning through our oil, we will synthesize what we need from bio-matter, waste or from scratch. Not a fundamental chemical problem, we can do this since the 1950s if not longer, but it will be plenty expensive, though.

I did not say that we should leave any of this to markets. I said that what is happening to prices can be explained perfectly with how markets operate, no conspiracy theory needed.

If you ask me about what we should do, my answer is 100% gas tax tomorrow, 50% higher electricity prices (with the income re-invested in solar) and at least $100-200/ton CO2 tax. And then some. But then, nobody asks me.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:24 PM on 05/13/2008

I hear cow shit works great as fertilizer, I think they used it for a few thousand years even.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:27 PM on 05/13/2008

We invaded the wrong country.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:27 AM on 05/13/2008

We invaded. Period.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:14 PM on 05/13/2008

We need to stop invading countries for their natural resources, and develop other forms of energy. OPEC is comprised of mostly Arab nations all bound together by their religion and race. This squeeze by our so called friends in Saudi Arabia proves that blood in thicker than oil in this case.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:00 AM on 05/13/2008

OPEC is by no means composed of people of the same ethnicity and religion. It is this kind of ignorance of facts that got us into this mess. OPEC also does not squeeze the world at this point. They are pumping as fast as they possibly can. It just happens that the world can not pump much faster.

As far as price is concerned: price is set by the buyer. YOU agree to pay $4/gallon at the pump (or $8/gallon when you are a European) whenever you lift the lever. OPEC can not make you pay that much. Once YOU decide that YOU won't buy any gas at more than $2/gallon, oil prices will go down commensurately.

I know it does not feel that way because you think that you just have to use as much gas as you do. But that is an illusion. In Europe and Japan they use half as much and live. Quite well, actually. I use less than half as much (by driving a Prius and commuting on the bus and train) than the average American and I don't feel squeezed. If you do, you might have to change your habits. There will never be much more oil available in the market than there is now and soon there will be a lot less.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:06 AM on 05/13/2008

Kill... btw I agree with you probably more than I agree with anyone on this board.. Tax the hell out of it and use less. I laughed at the idiots years ago pulling up in their Suburbans at $1 a gallon.. We are getting what we deserve.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:14 PM on 05/13/2008

You know what is really amazing about all of this? How much we are willing to pay for gas... including me and my $25/gallon. Gasoline has 130MJ/gallon of energy content. A really good hybrid can liberate 30% as useful mechanical energy. So that's maybe 40MJ/gallon. 1kWh=3.6MJ, therefor 40MJ=11kWh, give or take. I pay 12 cents per kWh... which makes $1.32 for a gallon of gas worth of electrical energy. Add in 75% efficiency for battery charging and electric motor and you get a conservative $1.76 for replacing one gallon of gas with electricity for charging a fully electric vehicle. Since an electric vehicle can be made lighter it will probably be closer to $1.50!

We are already paying more than double for gas than what it's worth in terms of household electricity rates and almost five times as much as for the lowest industrial rates!

We are truly suckers. And we know it. But, of course, once we start driving electric, oil won't suddenly become cheaper... instead electricity will become more expensive... again economics 101 is not on our side.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:53 PM on 05/13/2008

You are wrong about price in so many ways

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:42 AM on 05/13/2008

World traveler, I am not a trader or economist. I am a physicist and engineer and to me reality is what I see, not what I can imagine. Now, if you tell me that we are not drilling as fast as we can, that's fine with me, I am sure you know the people who have the tens and hundreds of billions of dollars to drill faster. And if those people are willing to invest their money, I am sure we are going to see that oil hit the market within ten years. I will let reality decide. If we won't see that oil, peak oil is NOW. I don't really care if it's a geological peak or an economic peak. It does not matter.

But you also have to explain how sucking faster on a finite reservoir (which you seem to admit) will profit us. All that does is to make the end run on oil worse. Burning oil in SUVs at 15mpg means one third of the miles driven that can be had from that same oil ten years down the road with most people driving 45mpg hybrids. Getting it cheaper now means paying a truly horrible price later. I rather take on reality now than to crash and burn five years from now.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:52 PM on 05/14/2008

Kill,
Your energy equivalent MegaJoules was excellent. You seem to have misunderstood me a bit though. It is not that I disbelieve in Peak Oil. I am well aware that it is getting much harder to replace reserves,but I also am aware that there is no way that we are drilling as fast as we can. I am very wired into the energy world as I very recently ran one of the largest energy trading floors in the country,so this isn't my belief only as every time I open AIM i get bombed with these conversations. These traders and these producers and end users are my counterparties. Significant point here though is this is theoretical, as you pointed out, disaster today or disaster tomorrow. My point was OPEC will not allow competition and can easily control price so long as they act in a concerted manner. I assure you if there wasn't a cartel the world would be flooded with so much oil at these prices that gas would be back to 40 cents a gallon on NYMEX and people would be storing wetbarrels on boats that they couldn't unload. Exactly what happened in 98. The real problem is when this happens with food as opposed to energy and with exponential population growth that one is inevitable also.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:01 PM on 05/13/2008

You assume that peak oil is not real. Geologists disagree with you. The rig crews who are desperately drilling holes in the Saudi Arabian desert and pump gigatons of sea water down there to increase failing well pressure and flow will disagree with you, too. Same for the Mexican government which is going to lose most of its oil revenue in the next five years and the population of Alberta which is witnessing one of the worst ecological catastrophes imaginable.

If you think we are not drilling as fast as we can, you probably never looked at rig counts. Never mind that even if we could take out oil faster than we do, all it would do is to make the crash harder. Would crashing faster really solve the problem?

The number of buyers in the market is not constant. Every day China mints dozens of millionaires and tens of thousands of middle class families who buy their first car. We are competing against them and if they are willing to bid more at this auction than us, the price goes up.

Since I have a Prius which needs 20 gallons of gas a month and I can (grudgingly) afford to budget $500 a month for gas, I can bid up to $25/gallon. And I will (as a fact, not as a threat). Result: prices will go up for everyone. The only question is: at what price do WE drop out and when?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:41 PM on 05/13/2008

Part 2
Now they became real good at managing there members so even if supply and demand is balanced and then we drop consumption they can easily lower production and maintain the same balance/imbalance. In a normal market if price exceeds cost of production individual players (not being organized) invest as much as they can until they overproduce and price drops below cost, this signal usually takes time as investment is usually planned in advance. See here is the problem with peak oil theory and price. Assume we have discovered all the oil, regardless it does not mean that we can not take it out faster by adding drills one after another. OPEC will not allow that. I bet Nigeria would love to double production but it's not going to happen. Basically as long as they remain organized we are screwed.
As for me i drive very rarely, and since when i do it is an SUV i feel i have no right to complain so i shut my mouth.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:40 PM on 05/13/2008

Kill,
OK in most every market price is set by both a BUYER and SELLER agreeing on price based on supply and demand. Almost every transaction has a counterparty so when the news says the market went up or down because there were more buyers and sellers this is silly. There are always an equal number one is just more aggressive than the other. In most markets need sets price whether it be a need to sell or a need to buy, whichever side is more aggressive moves price. See the problem with OPEC is this. Driving less and using less gas will not lower price because it is a cartel. For many years it was nice, they always cheated behind one anothers back and you could always bet when price went up that they would pump away.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:39 PM on 05/13/2008

If I am wrong, prove it to me. I have made this argument a dozen times and I never received a logical counter-argument. Not once. That does not make me right, of course. But it makes you wrong about me not being right until you come up with a better explanation. Give it a good shot.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:16 PM on 05/13/2008

GOOD GRIEF..so,we're supposed to lower the price of oil...SO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AGAIN BECOMES TOO EXPENSIVE??? SUCK IT UP AMERICA...$5 A GAL GAS..will bring a technological revolution....SOLAR, WIND, HYDROGEN, and no telling what else...are coming into their own...
and Dont believe Cheney..HYDROGEN IS HERE....and can be produced by SOLAR ENERGY..GET IT??
THE LAST thing I want...is for the price of oil to fall...Alternative Energy will bring MILLIONS of JOBS to the US....WE ARE AT THE BRINK of something wonderful....as soon as we get the REPUBLICAN BASTARDS OUT OF OFFICE.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:37 AM on 05/13/2008

While I understand you want high energy prices so it forces a change... that change is not happening. That change became economical at 60 bucks a barrel which is what the price was a year ago, At these prices, people will be starvng in the summer and freezing in the winter.

McCain after the last 8 years of Bush who he supported is some how a viable canidate who may even win!


I haven't heard one Candidate talk about an Appollo or Manhatten style project where in the American dessert we begin to immediatley build huge wind and solar energy warms that within 10 years would be producing half of our energy. And setting up engery farm areas within our City borders and feeding that energy into the local grid reducing locals energy bills.

In our goal to go to the moon in ten years , the technology didnt exist, this technology does and it has immediate payback within weeks of starting, which going to the moon did not or we would still be there.

In your approach, we backrupt the country, further increase our trade deficits and hurt the poor and our country. We wipe out several industries. As I said there is no one doing what is needed and all we are getting is high prices and Petro goes into plastics, insulation, carpet and every food item.

This s/b sold as Security Project. Now back to the important stuff like what is Reverend Wright doing today.

Regards

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:14 AM on 05/13/2008

Golly gosh, a lot of rhetoric here, and Very Few Facts.

Hate to lay the truth on ya, but (a) OPEC was the brainchild of a Venezuelan, probably before you were born ...

As for dem narsty speculators ... (b) maybe you missed the groupie message that China was and has been advancing at 10% per annum. That is, 'a year', for the NCLB crowd. Eh? The old 'supply and demand' equation, no pixie dust, see?

And those windfall profits? Average oil company returns on investment are way up to 8.7 % -- not that I'm a devil's advocate for Exxon or the rest. I just like to occasionally see Reality seep into these fascinating discussions.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:56 AM on 05/13/2008