Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
Huh? How does that make anything trite?Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Your description is about as accurate as any, for a term that's become a trite (yes, GC. That word has a definition and an appropriate way of using it, unlike your quote above.) buzzword for anything right-wing FR related.
If this was all true, it'd be appaling. If it's true, why isn't there some Democrat leading a prosecution charge?
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
When has this ever been true. Business in one form or another has been in the pockets of the government - or in the socialist states ran by the government.
Yes I agree with this - but that is an idealistic opinion.No governmental positions should be held by somebody doing business with the government. For this is a rather important thing to keep the creditability and transparancy of a government institution as a presidency.
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
I don't know, it absolutely perplexes me. Why doesn't the country get interested in these things? Not as stimulating as a BJ story? Bush's insider trading and failure to carry out his duties as head of the audit committee were ignored when his daddy was in office. He sold out shortly before the problems were revealed. The SEC gave him a pass. That has never gotten adequate scrutiny and never will.
Several of the parties settled with the SEC on the Haliburton deal. I don't know what became of shareholder lawsuits. The regulatory types under Dubya didn't seem all that interested (I know, we are all shocked by that...) The regulators can pass it off as small potatoes, accept the standard "he didn't know" defense, "it seemed OK" at the time defense, etc. A lot of the prosecutions and settlements have been coming from folks like Spitzer anyway rather than from the Feds. I've not seen all that much reform considering the magnitude of the financial scandals and the trillions that investors lost.
The facts are pretty clear since the SEC forced Haliburton to restate earnings as a direct consequence (after Cheney left), and Cheney was CEO when this occurred. My company was working on projects with the same E&C firm (KBR portion of Haliburton) among others and I can tell you that unless KBR could point to some "customer change request" that produced the cost over run, they knew they had to eat it. Even the amounts on a change request would be negotiated and might not be accepted. The idea of booking 100% of the overruns as revenue is not defensible, and there is no way they can deny knowing that.
I don't believe such men have the ethics required for the offices they hold, and they've done an excellent job of proving that to me.
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
Was Gore ever CEO of Haliburton?
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
nope - but Gore is just as tied into big business as the next politician
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_GoreGore currently serves as President of the American televison channel Current and Chairman of Generation Investment Management, sits on the board of directors of Apple Computer, and serves as an unofficial advisor to Google's senior management. Although speculation about a possible presidential run in 2008 still continues, he has publicly claimed that he does not plan to return to politics.
http://www.generationim.com/media/pd...ation-bios.pdfMr. Gore served as the Vice President of the
United States of America from 1993 to 2001. Mr.
Gore spent 24 years as an elected official,
serving 8 years in the US House of
Representatives and 8 years in the US Senate
before his election as Vice President. Since
leaving government, Mr. Gore has been involved
in teaching at the university and post-graduate
level and in private business in the fields of
financial services and technology. He is on the
Board of Apple Computer and has served for
four years as Senior Advisor to Google. He is
also Chairman of INdTV.
Mr. Gore is the author of the critically acclaimed
book, “Earth in the Balance” and took the lead
on environmental issues for the Clinton-Gore
White House, including breaking the deadlock to
secure international agreement on the Kyoto
Treaty. For 8 years, he also chaired the
President’s Council for Business and
Sustainable Development and co-chaired, with
the Premier of China, the US-China Bi-National
Commission on Sustainable Development. He is
a graduate of Harvard University.
Coupled with the fact that he is the son of a career politician.
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
The colonies have been independent for like 50 odd years, I really dont see their being former colonies has anything to do with it.
I also dont think your point is valid..
If Zimbabwe is in Britains sphere of influence and not americas then what the hell is the US doing in Iraq?!?
By the criteria you mention Britain alone should be in Iraq.
"England expects that every man will do his duty" Lord Nelson
"Extinction to all traitors" Megatron
"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such and such." Homer Simpson
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
Well other politicians having ties to Haliburton doesn't excuse Cheney who when he was CEO dealt with Iraq through the Cayman Islands even though the US and the UN had imposed economic Sanctions on Iran.
Also the fact that him and Bush are getting filthy rich off of this war whould be a clear give away of why they went in. I think anyone with an unclouded mind can see this.
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
Getting filthy rich? I suddenly feel very clouded. Could you elaborate?
The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
Care to provide proof of such a statementWell other politicians having ties to Haliburton doesn't excuse Cheney who when he was CEO dealt with Iraq through the Cayman Islands even though the US and the UN had imposed economic Sanctions on Iran.
Again care to provide proof - since if there was any - the President and the Vice President both can be impeached and tried for high crimes.Also the fact that him and Bush are getting filthy rich off of this war whould be a clear give away of why they went in. I think anyone with an unclouded mind can see this.
And the politicial opponents of President Bush would of already tried this tact if true.
Some interesting reading that some people are spinning to make the case against Cheney.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...1/0627chen.htm
Sites like this are entertaining to look at and to get a viewpoint - but one must be careful in accepting as the truth information from such sites.The subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., sold water and sewage treatment pumps, spare parts for oil facilities and pipeline equipment to Baghdad through French affiliates from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000, U.N. records show. Ingersoll Dresser Pump also signed contracts -- later blocked by the United States -- to help repair an Iraqi oil terminal that U.S.-led military forces destroyed in the Gulf War.
Former executives at the subsidiaries said they had never heard objections -- from Cheney or any other Halliburton official -- to trading with Baghdad. "Halliburton and Ingersoll-Rand, as far as I know, had no official policy about that, other than we would be in compliance with applicable U.S. and international laws," said Cleive Dumas, who oversaw Ingersoll Dresser Pump's business in the Middle East, including Iraq.
http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
No, the idea of Bush and Cheney "getting filthy rich" isn't accurate. Their friends and the industries that they have the closest affiliations with? Yes, they are profiting from this. Others make money as well, for example I've got gun club & dive buddy friends who do contract security work in the region at times. Cheney profited from financial shenanigans but not in as direct a fashion as the obvious criminal cases in the news. He used the normal route in corporate America: be "aggressive" with the books, get bigger bonuses for perceived (but not actual) performance. Dubya did the same. It's not just the highest level execs, I've had personal experience with the next two levels using the same unethical approach to try to get their *personal* performance bonuses.
The original point of the thread was apparently to prove that the war wasn't about oil, by showing oil prices have shot up anyway. The rapidly rising oil price was being used as a refutation to some arguments about the war being about oil (and not something like WMD which turned out to be a farce.) The problem is that the Administration was basing its economic arguments on the oil revenue and projections of how it would help world supply etc. Those projections, like nearly every other economic or schedule projection by the White House, turned out to be bogus.
So why didn't Iraq stabilize world oil prices? First, the production capacity isn't there and is going to take much more work than the White House projected. The Aministration underestimated occupation, infrastructure, and security concerns; we've paid a heavy price in blood for that. The lack of accurate post war planning has threatened the whole venture and could very well leave Iraq skidding into the ditch as soon as we depart. Second, demand is outstripping supply on a worldwide scale. Oil has proven to have a very inelastic demand curve...basic econ tells us the rest.
The line has been that production improvements would make up for oil gluttony. That doesn't seem to be panning out. The oil is becoming more difficult to extract, so *sustained* prices must be far higher to make extra production worthwhile. Supply growth will continue to lag demand to convince folks to add production capacity. Without excess capacity, the world is more vulnerable to any 10 cent dictator or terrorist movement that comes along.
If supply is a problem that even ever higher prices isn't fixing, what is left? Conservation and alternative sources of energy seem like a wise place to focus. Both of these pay additional benefits. They drive new tech, they reduce greenhouse gases, and they promise some environmental improvements. Since they tend to be investment intensive and require lots of construction and research, they also drive the national economy in good ways. It's a case of lifting oneself up by the bootstraps.
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
Once more there is no shortage of oil only of refineries. Guess who blocks the building of new ones?
Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
If there was excess oil and a restriction of refining capacity, then oil prices would fall, but refinery products would shoot up. Instead, the cost of unrefined oil is shooting up.
The Tooth Fairy perhaps? Or the companies themselves? A massive oil company I was doing consulting work for last year to help debottleneck parts of their refineries was at the same time announcing it would close an existing refinery. The goal is to run big plants at full rates year around and reduce overhead of running smaller/older facilities and ones that are no longer close to the crude sources (depleted fields in the U.S. for example.) So the big plants get additional capacity added as needed/projected. Ideally, the companies want to run as close to capacity rates as they can all the time. Running a plant at 75 or 80% rates is economically unattractive. Running at 100% or 105 or 110% of design is what we like to do in the process industries. (Your customers get really happy when you find easy/inexpensive ways to cut through incremental bottlenecks while they are maxed out.)Guess who blocks the building of new ones?
Do we have refineries shut down around the country? Yes. Is building a completely new plant expensive? DEFINITELY. Would you build one in a country with declining crude production? Seems an awful gamble to me.
Tight refinery production will effect gasoline prices, especially regionally, and especially when something forces an unplanned shutdown. But that is not oil, that is gasoline.
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
If it were a free market system you would be correct.
In other words they could provide more crude but whats the use if you cant refine it? Also oil prices are specualtive.Build oil refineries - Saudi
14/06/2005 12:08 - (SA)
Print article email story
Related Articles
# Oil hovers above $55
# Opec must raise output - Saudi
# Shell chief sounds oil alarm
# G8 to set up 'shock' trust fund
Vienna - Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ali al-Nuaimi urged consumer countries on Tuesday to build more refineries amid warnings that Opec could do little to stem high oil prices or a shortage of finished petroleum products.
"The supply is here, inventories are building, there is certainly no shortage of supply - so build, build refineries," Nuaimi told reporters.
"Start building refineries and you will solve maybe half of the problem," he added during his traditional morning jog in Vienna, ahead of a meeting of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries due on Wednesday.
Industrialised countries have been pressing members of the cartel to raise their production ceiling for crude oil by half a million barrels per day (BPD) to 28 million bpd.
But real crude output is already far higher and in some instance running at full capacity, according to ministers and analysts.
Opec ministers arriving in the Austrian capital have cautioned that while they are broadly ready to raise their collective production quota for crude, it would have little effect on prices.
The cartel's president, Kuwait's Ahmad Fahd al-Sabah and counterparts from Algeria, Libya and Nigeria signalled they were ready to support the move championed by Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer and widely regarded as the most influential member of the cartel.
An increase now could be a "first stage" towards the fourth quarter when demand is traditionally expected to increase with the onset of winter in the northern hemisphere and higher energy consumption, he said.
But Libya's energy chief Fathi Ben Shatwan echoed a widely held view that the move would be a purely "psychological" gesture.
Nuami dubbed the likely increase of 500 000 bpd "reasonable", and insisted on Tuesday that the market "should be comfortable today with the current supply".
Oil prices had shot up by $2 a barrel on Monday above the $55- mark amid continuing supply fears, partly fuelled by China's growing economy, and low-running concern that high oil prices are undermining global economic growth.
They later eased in Asian trading.
"The world will be more comfortable with prices below $50," Nuaimi said, echoing earlier comments by his Iranian counterpart Bijan Namdar Zangeneh.
He indicated that Saudi Arabia was ready to boost its own production from 9.5 bpd.
"If we have customers, we can put 11 million bpd now," the oil chief added.
But he placed great emphasis on bottlenecks caused by inadequate refinery capacity in consumer countries, pointing out that little or no investment in new refinery plants had been made for about 20 years.
Last edited by Gawain of Orkeny; 08-13-2005 at 23:16.
Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
Then why hasn't any one else stepped up to the plate to take advantage of the massive profits of simply pumping more? Because it isn't that simple, it is an admission that at best only the Saudi's could have substantial excess capacity. The limitation is on the production side, not the refining side. Globally Production is catching up to refining, but it hasn't passed it yet, and it's done this before, kicking off refining capacity additions.
U.S. refining capacity decreased as plants closed as a result of deregulation back in the '80's. U.S. operating rates increased from 69% (my God that's low!) in 1981 to 87% in 1989, mostly through closures of many small plants and only partially due to demand growth. After further declines in capacity (not necessarily production/demand) things flattened and refining capacity rose from 15.0 million bbl/d in 1994 to 16.9 million bbl/d in September 2004 and actual production was at 90% of capacity at that time.
When folks claim refining capacity in the U.S. has not increasing in the past 20 years or so they, ignore the fact that there was a huge excess back then--even in well in excess of current demand TODAY.
And you believe that bull from the Saudi's?In other words they could provide more crude but whats the use if you cant refine it? Also oil prices are specualtive.They want to point elsewhere for bottlenecks. Even his most optimistic statement was, "Start building refineries and you will solve maybe half of the problem" which you know is exaggerated spin, is still only claiming "maybe half." The truth is that the Saudi's don't have enough excess capacity to control price anymore.
Even if I was gullible enough to believe the Saudi line, why would I build a refinery? You've said they have all the pricing power...and I'm just a pawn in this game. If I built it, I wouldn't do it in the U.S. because there is sufficient capacity (and incremental debottlenecking) already. My competitors in the U.S. would murder me economically. Instead, I would be building it where world demand was rising the fastest and economic growth was the strongest...and that is not in the U.S. Building the capacity in the U.S. is not going to help when chemicals *production/manufacturing* is being done overseas. The downstream chemicals demand on the refineries is growing there, not in the U.S. where rates at downstream plants have been depressed since late 1998/early 1999 despite a lot of closures. We moved those plants to Asia and they are not coming back any time soon.
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
Because they cant do anything with it. They say they could pump more but for what? They cant make anything useful out of it. We didnt suddenly start running out of oil this year to drive prices up like this. Its speculation. They see the demand increasiing and yet no attempt to increase refineries and production. So the price of refined oil goes up as does the value of the crude its made from. Demand is going up while supply cannot keep up. But its the refined product not the crude thats in limited supply. The stockpiles are in good shappe.Then why hasn't any one else stepped up to the plate to take advantage of the massive profits of simply pumping more?
Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
It doesn't matter if it never been true or not. It's still not right.
Sure, it's an idealistic opinion. Doesn't make it less right.....
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
It's an idealist opinion shared by many the world over.
ichi
Stay Calm, Be Alert, Think Clearly, Act Decisively
CoH
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
That falls apart on scrutiny. The only way that works is if the Saudi's have full control and their heavy crude can't be refined by just anyone so they won't produce. But that puts us back to square one... So that would be claiming Saudi's are manipulating high prices, by not allowing refinery capacity addition within Saudi, because the could make money shipping stuff anywhere at even a fraction of these prices. The problem is if the Saudi's truly had more production capacity available it would be EASY to justify big refineries to handle it. Once you have a suitable feedstock pricing arrangement with these very Saudi's you could build it anywhere and still make money off of shipping the refined products--the current price differential is huge. It has moved up $40 bbl from the projections I was disputing 2 years ago as unrealistically low.
If refinery capacity was truly the limitation, then refiners would make a fortune, but oil prices would not be as high. Otherwise, these big multi-nationals *will* add capacity. And China, which controls its own industry would certainly add the capacity.
Here is the actual worldwide spare capacity. Notice anything...
Dept. of Energy Graph of World Spare Capacity
Of course getting to the answer is easy. If refining is the bottleneck, then Saudi should increase production and prove it. If the value of their crude falls, but overall oil prices don't, then they are telling the truth with respect to refining capacity for *Saudi Crude* (and it would be easy to correct by tightening again.) If the prices fall together...and refined products are not effected, then it is clearly a refining problem. If on the other hand both crude and end products fall, then refining is not the issue at all.
Last edited by Red Harvest; 08-14-2005 at 08:16.
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
Why should they want to prove it their making a killing they way things are?Of course getting to the answer is easy. If refining is the bottleneck, then Saudi should increase production and prove it.
Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
The Saudi's don't want to prove it because it isn't true in the first place. The Saudi's have wanted to keep the oil price from going this high, as an oil shock ends up causing them pain in the long run. Your/their argument boils down to there not being enough refining capacity for Saudi heavy sour crude. Even if it proved to be true it is such a slight difference between a supposed refining limit and their total current capacity that it is irrelevant. The Saudi's admitted as much in their statement.
Production capacity of lighter crude can definitely no longer keep up. Fields are being depleted too rapidly. That is not a surprise.
You never responded to that surplus capacity graph. The DOE is showing a 2005 *estimated* surplus production capacity of less than 1.5% of the 83 million bbl/day. That is only slightly less than 2004--and from what I'm seeing it has only gotten worse, so the projection of surplus capacity is probably optimistic. Regardless, that is not enough surplus to keep the market stable.
This oil price shock has been different than all the previous, because it is a *DEMAND* price shock. It has not been created by artificial supply restriction. This time, demand has started to outstrip supply. China's consumption grew by 16% last year, and India and the US had substantial growth as well (think it was 6% and 3% respectively.)
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
But Bush and his croonies are getting rich from this are they not? Didint they realise invading Iraq would cause this reaction? Sure they say they want to keep prices down. If the price of oil drooped you would say it proves that the war was for oil. Now the price of oil rises and you say it proves the war was for oil. Bush cant win. You habe nomore of an idea of how much oil the Saudis and the rest of the middle east can pump than I do. Besides that why the hell arent we using our own oil. We could get by without any middle eastern oil.The Saudi's don't want to prove it because it isn't true in the first place. The Saudi's have wanted to keep the oil price from going this high, as an oil shock ends up causing them pain in the long run.
Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
Who is supposed to make the investments for exploiting the oil sands (I assume you are referring to that source)?
Why should the oil companies make the investments if exploiting oil sands would become unprofitable again, should the oil price fall (if it falls again
The oil companies are currently making big profits using the conventional sources, why should they start investing in low margin sources?
Would you suggest that the state makes the investment and risks running the operation at a loss if oil prices fall?
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
Who is supposed to make the investments for exploiting the oil sands (I assume you are referring to that source)?
Why should the oil companies make the investments if exploiting oil sands would become unprofitable again, should the oil price fall (if it falls again )?
The oil companies are currently making big profits using the conventional sources, why should they start investing in low margin sources?
Would you suggest that the state makes the investment and risks running the operation at a loss if oil prices fall??
Thanks for proving my point. If there really were a shortage of oil we would be doing these things. I said the same as you why change when your raking in the dough.
Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
Here we go again.
Actually I do have a better idea and I've been looking at the DOE projections. I read between the lines better, and I take a wider view of what's going on in energy than you do. Unlike those in the Admin, the oil industry, and yourself, I correctly predicted this run up 2 years ago (though not in its magnitude, I was sticking with trends), when all were saying it was headed the other way. I was looking at all the official projections and they flat out ignored the increasing demand side: China, India and U.S. It didn't make sense since we were seeing some recovery. I warned my own employer that their lack of interest in investment in certain areas was based on illogical projections of pricing trends from the industry. However, the herd instinct prevailed, as did the desire to accept rosy projections. It was the same all over.You habe nomore of an idea of how much oil the Saudis and the rest of the middle east can pump than I do.
I also happen to have read a few reports written recently of the Saudi's trying to put in substantially more capacity to keep up (1.5 to 2.0 million bbl/day) if I remember correctly. And I looked at the considerable rise in production in the region relative to the rest of the world over the past several years.
Perhaps it is because that is only a small portion of what is needed? And oil demand/price is largely global, rather than isolated regionally. We are depleting fields and so is Mexico. That's why the burden is shifting to heavier crudes. The capacity on the light side is declining according to the industry. (And it seems to be reflected in the data.)Besides that why the hell arent we using our own oil. We could get by without any middle eastern oil.
You are trying to use an isolationist view of U.S. oil pricing. Yet the production and refining are controlled by multi-nationals, not an insulated market. OPEC does what price regulation it can/wants.
This isn't artificial and it isn't a problem created by not building new refineries in the U.S. Putting more crude production capacity on line up North takes time. I've not been following it closely but I heard from some other engineer's that they are presently bottlenecked by recompression capacity. I'm not familiar with their particular equipment, but in other process industries where big compressors were involved they were "critical path" long delivery items and projects like that tend to require quite a bit of lead time. Plus, up there the work/delivery season is likely to be limiting as well.
And ANWR isn't going to make much difference. If it had to make up all the difference the known reserves would be gone in a few years. As it is, the DOE projection for ANWR in 2025 is only about 1.6 million bbl/day by which point it starts to decline (depleted.) This isn't even enough to keep up with demand rise in the U.S. (The "C" word comes to mind again, "conservation.") But it gets worse, because other U.S. production will be about 1 million bbl/day lower by then due to depletion.
This forces the realization that tar sands and shale are going to have to provide more long term, or the Saudi's are going to have to pump a lot more. To do this, oil prices will need to be much higher to support investment--I don't know how high, I've been looking but haven't found anything concrete. I'm guessing between $50 and 75 as a price floor, sustained, but it could be higher. These are still in production development stages. And the CO2 emissions from shale processes are going to be MASSIVE since the oil recovery is very low, and very energy intensive.
But Gawain, I realize I'm not ever going to get anywhere with this conversation, because no matter how deep I dig or what I uncover, you are always going to be able to find some reports that support what you want to believe. There are plenty of them out there. So far they have been uniformly wrong for two years. They will appear "right" again IF there is some event that halts growth, like some sort of global recession. However, that would merely confirm that this has been a demand based issue. And there will always be ripples and spikes. What interests me is long term trends.
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
Sharukin , does that mean that you have ben pulling good money from your accurate predictions, and other oi; investors have also being pulling good money ,m yet the average supporter of this action has not only not made big bucks , but is also paying you big bucks for your forsight?
But they love you , how can you do this to them , do you know how much a gallon costs nowadays
Gas expensiv. War not work?
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs...01/NEWSREC0201
Must soon invade Japan, they get better milage.
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
Bartix' "Gas expensive. War not work?" thread has been merged with this one as it is on the same issue.
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
For any of you interested the price of oil us still cheaper than it was under Carter when all things are taken into consideration gas would have to top 3 dollars a gallon to reach those prices.
Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
Hmm ... the crude oil price is at almost 67 USD/bbl - is your statement based on inflation adjustments?
Re: Well Wheres the Oil?
It would have to be considering gas was around a dollar back then dont you think.Hmm ... the crude oil price is at almost 67 USD/bbl - is your statement based on inflation adjustments?
Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks