• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Saudi Arabia in Talks to boost oil supplies

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,041
Reaction score
33,367
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Link

By David Blair and Jack Farchy in London and Javier Blas in Washington
Published: February 24 2011 12:50 | Last updated: February 24 2011 13:58

Saudi Arabia is in “active talks” with European oil companies to meet the production shortfall left by Libya, the clearest indication to date that the leader of the Opec oil cartel is about to boost supplies to stop further rises in the oil price, which surged to near $120 a barrel on Thursday.
Riyadh is asking “what quantity and what quality of oil they [the European refiners] want,” a senior Saudi oil official said on condition of anonymity.
Oil traders said the talks signalled that Saudi Arabia realised that the political crisis in Libya was now an oil supply crisis and that the kingdom needed to act quickly and decisively to stop oil prices hurting the global economic recovery.
“You can only expect the price to go up. It is fear of the unknown. The risks are all to the upside,” one senior oil trader said. “Saudi Arabia needs to respond.”
The kingdom is considering two options for increasing supplies. The first would be to boost Saudi production and send more crude through the kingdom’s East-West pipeline, which links the Gulf region with the Red Sea port of Yanbu, for shipment to Europe.
Another possibility, which is currently only being “studied”, would be a swap arrangement, whereby West African oil intended for Asian buyers is redirected to Europe, with Saudi Arabia stepping in to supply the Asian customers

Looks like someone is putting on the pressure.
 
If not........world-wide depression?

We're trying to keep our gas under $4 a gallon.

Europe is trying to keep it under $15 a gallon. (and that's only a slight exageration.)
 
Last edited:
If not........world-wide depression?

That will only happen if the US defaults on its obligations because of the pig-headed Republican Tea Party.

We're trying to keep our gas under $4 a gallon.

Europe is trying to keep it under $15 a gallon. (and that's only a slight exageration.

It is a HUGE exageration lol.

Last I bought gas a few days ago, I got it for 1.26ish a litre. A gallon is 3.875 litres, so that is 4,77 Euros, which is about 6,57 dollars at present exchange rate. Now that will rise as everywhere else, but to over the double while yours only goes to 5 bucks? Not on this planet.
 
That will only happen if the US defaults on its obligations because of the pig-headed Republican Tea Party.

Why is it OK for the entire world to never pay us back? We've given away trillions, and the world doesn't appreciate it, and wouldn't dream of repaying it.

But God forbid we ever miss a payment in China. LOL

Oh well, if we can't pay, we'll just blow China the hell up.
 
Why is it OK for the entire world to never pay us back? We've given away trillions, and the world doesn't appreciate it, and wouldn't dream of repaying it.

You have? Care to document this please?

But God forbid we ever miss a payment in China. LOL

Your credibility in the financial markets would be equal that to Greece.... unable to loan any money to run you massively bloated government.. unable to run your wars.

Oh well, if we can't pay, we'll just blow China the hell up.

..... that seems to be the answer to all your problems when it comes for the US right wing...
 
Saudi Arabia is acting in a fashion that is pragmatic and consistent with its interests. It is not in Saudi Arabia's interests to allow the price of oil to reach a point where it triggers a substantial global recession. In a blog entry posted yesterday, economist Dr. Ed Yardeni observed with respect to the most recent global recession:

The global oil bill soared to a record $4,252bn (annualized) during June 2008. It then plunged to $1,256bn during December 2008. That drop of $2,996bn was unprecedented...

At a time of rising pressure for reform in the Arab world, including among some of Saudi Arabia's population, a situation that ultimately leads to a sharp contraction in oil revenue would be potentially destabilizing for Saudi Arabia. Oil revenue currently accounts for 45% of Saudi Arabia's GDP, 80% of its government revenue, and 90% of its export income.
 
You have? Care to document this please?



Your credibility in the financial markets would be equal that to Greece.... unable to loan any money to run you massively bloated government.. unable to run your wars.



..... that seems to be the answer to all your problems when it comes for the US right wing...

Can you really sit there with a straight face argue that the US hasn't given away $trillions? Come on!
 
Maybe we should boost our production, too?
 
Can you really sit there with a straight face argue that the US hasn't given away $trillions? Come on!

No, I am asking for proof and a definition of what "given away trillions" is. Military aid? Humanitarian aid? and over what time period? Does lend lease come into the equation? How about the trillions that went the other way in "liberated" technology?

So we are back to the definition question again.. else it is just another lame chest thumping exercise by a right wing american, without no base in facts or reality.
 
Three additional quick points:

1. U.S. assistance e.g., the Marshall Plan, etc., was not a "give away." It was very much in American interests to contribute to the rebuilding of a politically stable and prosperous Europe. The benefits of that political stability and economic prosperity continue to accrue to the U.S. and the European countries.

2. That the U.S. might be squeezed by high energy prices has a lot to do with a lack of energy policy and lack of strategy to diversify the nation's energy supply. That is a problem that has existed for almost 40 years. That deliberate policy choice has adverse consequences, including a lack of flexibility when supply disruptions occur. The U.S., not other countries, is to blame for that deliberate and, IMO, risky policy choice. Complacency can, especially in the medium- and longer-term, be far riskier than the bold policies required to push innovation.

3. That the U.S. apparently engages in little contingency planning is another problem. Hence, when crises erupt, the U.S. often consumes time and resources trying to develop responses when a significant extent of the planning should already have been completed. Unrest in Iran following the disputed election, and more recently in parts of the Mideast, coupled with the reality that many authoritarian regimes have crumbled in the past when subjected to internal or external stress, suggested that the U.S. should have had a contingency plan in place should such a scenario unfold. The reality of spillovers/contagion also should have heightened preparation for the possibility that recent turmoil might not be confined to Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, etc. Contigency planning is a common risk management tool. The apparent lack of preparation in which the U.S. had little or no idea what to do if the turmoil spread to Libya (after two of Libya's neighbors experienced such uprisings) is both extraordinary and troubling.
 
Last edited:
Three additional quick points:

1. U.S. assistance e.g., the Marshall Plan, etc., was not a "give away." It was very much in American interests to contribute to the rebuilding of a politically stable and prosperous Europe. The benefits of that political stability and economic prosperity continue to accrue to the U.S. and the European countries.

2. That the U.S. might be squeezed by high energy prices has a lot to do with a lack of energy policy and lack of strategy to diversify the nation's energy supply. That is a problem that has existed for almost 40 years. That deliberate policy choice has adverse consequences, including a lack of flexibility when supply disruptions occur. The U.S., not other countries, is to blame for that deliberate and, IMO, risky policy choice. Complacency can, especially in the medium- and longer-term, be far riskier than the bold policies required to push innovation.

3. That the U.S. apparently engages in little contingency planning is another problem. Hence, when crises erupt, the U.S. often consumes time and resources trying to develop responses when a significant extent of the planning should already have been completed. Unrest in Iran following the disputed election, and more recently in parts of the Mideast, coupled with the reality that many authoritarian regimes have crumbled in the past when subjected to internal or external stress, suggested that the U.S. should have had a contingency plan in place should such a scenario unfold. The reality of spillovers/contagion also should have heightened preparation for the possibility that recent turmoil might not be confined to Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, etc. Contigency planning is a common risk management tool. The apparent lack of preparation in which the U.S. had little or no idea what to do if the turmoil spread to Libya (after two of Libya's neighbors experienced such uprisings) is both extraordinary and troubling.

I think a good president could spend at least half his term developing a comprehensive energy policy that would project out about 20 years in developing/acquiring energy and energy technologies for the US.
 
What I would like to see is for Obama to quit interfering with Our oil production in the Gulf, and for all potential oil fields in Alaska and off the coast of California.

It would be nice to see some realistic progress with alternatives that the Environmentally Ill have been protesting, like the Solar project in East County San Diego, ot the one near Nellis AFB in NV, or the wind projects off the north east coast.

A little more incentive to install Solar of homes wouldn't hurt either.

Unfortunately most of the ideas that are put out there are not realistic too costly or the Environmentally Ill protest them to same some rare fly, when the truth is they don't progress because it would put them out of business, and those at the top of all of these groups make a great deal of money and do next to nothing for it.

Saudi's need to stay on our good side right now and hope to hell the Royal Family survives the revolutions sweeping North Africa, and the Middle East.
 
Last edited:
No, I am asking for proof and a definition of what "given away trillions" is. Military aid? Humanitarian aid? and over what time period? Does lend lease come into the equation? How about the trillions that went the other way in "liberated" technology?

So we are back to the definition question again.. else it is just another lame chest thumping exercise by a right wing american, without no base in facts or reality.

How much foreign aid does the US Government give away?

$25 billion per Year
The OECD calculated that (in 2008) the US spent about $25 billion in foreign aid per year, although this is a very small percentage of the 2009 estimated federal government income of $2.7 trillion.

Read more: Answers.com - How much foreign aid does the US Government give away

Any more questions ??
 
Last edited:
What I would like to see is for Obama to quit interfering with Our oil production in the Gulf, and for all potential oil fields in Alaska and off the coast of California.

It would be nice to see some realistic progress with alternatives that the Environmentally Ill have been protesting, like the Solar project in East County San Diego, ot the one near Nellis AFB in NV, or the wind projects off the north east coast.

A little more incentive to install Solar of homes wouldn't hurt either.

Unfortunately most of the ideas that are put out there are not realistic too costly or the Environmentally Ill protest them to same some rare fly, when the truth is they don't progress because it would put them out of business, and those at the top of all of these groups make a great deal of money and do next to nothing for it.

Saudi's need to stay on our good side right now and hope to hell the Royal Family survives the revolutions sweeping North Africa, and the Middle East.

Wait. Who the hell is protesting solar? Link please.
 
I think a good president could spend at least half his term developing a comprehensive energy policy that would project out about 20 years in developing/acquiring energy and energy technologies for the US.

Yet when Obama tries to do it with a green energy initiative, people freak out. Go figure.
 
These clowns are.

BrightSource breaks ground on Ivanpah solar plant : Solar Energy - Clean Energy Authority

You treehuggers really need to get on the same page.
Hey apdst!
I would call my positions more science-based... than political.
Tho I'd say because of those views, I AM a "treehugger". Former Greenpeace member too. (full disclosure)

But I am 'For' Building those Solar Plants.. and scores MORE too.

I am also 'for' drilling in ANWR because I believe the foot print is small enough to not have a big impact.
North Slope Drilling, despite some spills, generally did not hurt the environment. The Caribou herd increased after.

This is probably true for my logical friend Deuce too.
These are FACT-based/thought-out/differentiated positions; unlike the FOX talking points of so many people Across the issue spectrum.
 
Last edited:
...unlike the FOX talking points of so many people Across the issue spectrum.

You were on a roll, right up to this point.
 
You were on a roll, right up to this point.
:^)
Sorry, but it's true.
So many here..
You know their positions on Everything. Warming/AGW, abortion, the current Wisconson fight, Taxes, Obama, Healthcare, etc.
It's Fine if your are Consistent Conservative..
but as with taking Religion too literally.. I don't like when they start crossing into science classes/evolution.
Same as with denying warming.
Let's keep science and ideology (political or religous) separate.
 
Last edited:
:^)
Sorry, but it's true.
So many here..
You know their positions on Everything. Warming/AGW, abortion, the current Wisconson fight, Taxes, Obama, Healthcare, etc.
It's Fine if your are Consistent Conservative..
but as with taking Religion too literally.. I don't like when they start crossing into science classes/evolution.
Same as with denying warming.
Let's keep science and ideology (political or religous) separate.

Evolution and global warming are ideology. So, neither should be taught in science classes, because they're the anti-religion.
 
No, I am asking for proof and a definition of what "given away trillions" is. Military aid? Humanitarian aid? and over what time period? Does lend lease come into the equation? How about the trillions that went the other way in "liberated" technology?

So we are back to the definition question again.. else it is just another lame chest thumping exercise by a right wing american, without no base in facts or reality.

It makes not difference what it is, we gave it away and it's common knowledge.
 
Back
Top Bottom