PDA

View Full Version : If you were in a room with Prince Abdullah...



ljb5
04-26-2005, 09:31 PM
...and you could ask him one of two questions... (http://slate.msn.com/id/2117517/)
</font> "Will you put an end to your country's human rights abuses and institute democracy?"</font>or
</font> "Will you lower the price of oil?"
</font>Which would you ask?
Which do you think Bush asked?

[ 04-27-2005, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

paladin
04-26-2005, 09:34 PM
he's a couple steps away from a revolution.....

ljb5
04-26-2005, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by paladin:
he's a couple steps away from a revolution.....You mean we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring democracy to this region?

Meerkat
04-26-2005, 09:52 PM
If Saudi Arabia had a revolution tomorrow, the day after would see the military assets of the entire western world en-route to SA - with the asians looking on with great interest!

A revolution in SA would cause a huge disruption in the world's economy!

paladin
04-26-2005, 10:05 PM
O.k. MEER.....TELL ME HOW?

ljb5
04-26-2005, 10:06 PM
I dunno, it sounds like a good idea to me.

Tyrannical, anti-democratic despot, strong links to al Qaeda and a robust WMDs program....

...everything you need to justify regime change.

[ 04-26-2005, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

ljb5
04-26-2005, 10:07 PM
...and you can fudge the WMDs.

Meerkat
04-26-2005, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by paladin:
O.k. MEER.....TELL ME HOW?How what? You think the europeans, the asians and, yes, even us, are not going to do something about political instability in SA? Even though we (the US) only get about 15% of our oil from the Gulf region, losing that percentage of our energy supply overnight would HURT.

Is that what you meant?

paladin
04-26-2005, 10:30 PM
actually...the damn place ain't that stable and there are other places we could get the oil and the folks would rejoice.......the only problem izz that u.s. politicians are afraid of who would take over. We could get the oil from Iran just as easy.....with a little effort we could reduce america's consumption that much.....there's more...just too tired to write.

Meerkat
04-26-2005, 10:32 PM
Rest, friend, rest!

I was under the impression that Iran's oil is all but gone...?

Bruce Hooke
04-26-2005, 10:50 PM
According to this web page (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html) Iran does still have a lot of oil. However, the issue is not the proven reserves, the issue is the ability to pump oil faster from those reserves, and right now my understanding is that pretty much every country around the world with significant proven reserves is currently pumping at or near capacity. That is not to say that more capacity could not be added, but it would take a significant amount of time. So, taking Saudi Arabia's oil off the market abruptly would have serious consquences for the global economy. Sure we could get our oil from Iran, but Iran is already selling all the oil it is pumping so to get more oil from them we would have to outbid the other people who want that oil. It is this price run-up that would hurt the economy. Of course we could greatly cut our oil consumption if we choose to and I think this would be a very good idea. If the price of oil goes way up lots of people are likely to start thinking hard about oil conservation. However, many conservation measures would also take time to implement -- the millions of SUV's out on the roads today could not be replaced overnight.

Of course the fall of the current Saudi rulers would not necessarily mean a cut off of the Saudi oil supply, but it could and that is worrying. A controlled transition to a more representative government in Saudia Arabia seems like the safest course -- but I'm not holding my breath...

Bruce Hooke
04-26-2005, 10:56 PM
Here are some relevant stats from this web page (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watch/Oil_ReservesProducConsump.html):

Reserves (millions of barrels as of January 1, 2002): Top 20 countries
Saudi Arabia: Z61,750
Iraq: 112,500
United Arab Emirates: 97,800
Kuwait: 96,500
Iran: 89,700
Venezuela: 77,685
Russia: 48,573
Libya: 29,500
Mexico: 26,941
Nigeria: 24,000
China: 24,000
United States: 22,045
Qatar: 15,207
Honvay: 9,947
Algeria: 9,200
Brazil: 8,465
Oman: 5,506
Kazakhstan: 5,417
Angola: 5,412
Indonesia: 5,000
First 20 Countries: 975,148
Rest of the World: 56,983
World: 1,032,132

Production (millions of barrels per day): Top 20 Countries
Saudi Arabia: 8.528
United States: 8.091
Russia: 7.014
Iran: 3.775
Mexico: 3.560
Norway: 3.408
China: 3.297
Venezuela: 3.137
Canada: 2.749
United Arab Emirates: 2.550
United Kingdom: 2.540
Iraq: 2.377
Nigeria: 2.223
Kuwait: 1.838
Brazil: 1.589
Algeria: 1.486
Libya: 1.427
Indonesia: 1.384
Oman: .964
Argentina: 825
First 20 countries: 62.762
Rest of the World: 12.464
World: 75.226 World Annual: 28,180

Consumption (Millions of barrels per day): Top 20 Countries
United States: 19.993 redface.gif
Japan: 5.423
China: 4.854
Germany: 2.814
Russia: 2.531
South Korea: 2.126
Brazil: 2.123
Canada: 2.048
France: 2.040
India: 2.011
Mexico: 1.932
Italy: 1.881
United Kingdom: 1.699
Spain: 1.465
SaudiArabia: 1.415
Iran: 1.109
Indonesia: 1.063
Netherlands: .881
Australia: .879
Taiwan: .846
First 20 Countries: 59.134
Rest of the World: 16.854
World: 75.988 World Annual: 28,460

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-26-2005, 10:58 PM
Actually, Canada has the largest reserves next to Saudi Arabia. Most of it is in the Athabasca Tar Sands, and costs more to extract. When oil was 20 bucks a barrel, people weren't too interested. At fifty, we just signed a deal with the Chinese for a new pipeline to the west coast. ;) I knew that was coming. There has been Chinese delegations all over the oil sands for the last two years. ;)

Here's a fairly definitive page on the subject, since it's the US governments. ;)

EIA oil reserves world (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html)

[ 04-27-2005, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

LeeG
04-27-2005, 12:00 AM
just out of curiosity,,did the prince have any questions?

ok,,mine would be "can I come on a falcon hunt?"

brad9798
04-27-2005, 08:10 AM
Boy, I love those loaded questions ... damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I will tell you that I'll bet a YEAR's salary, that anonimously at least 80% of Americans would choose to lower oil ...

So, it's really an odd ... incindiary question that has no bearing on anything at all real.

That's like asking what child you would save if one had to die??? A twisted fantasy it is to pose questions like that, in your typical partisan context ...

:rolleyes:

TomF
04-27-2005, 08:15 AM
If Saudi Arabia has a revolution any time soon, I doubt that it will be a democracy at the end of the day.

As I understand it, the worry the Saudi princes have is a replication of Islamic theocracy.

t.

ljb5
04-27-2005, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by brad9798:
A twisted fantasy it is to pose questions like that, in your typical partisan context ...Fantasy? I think not.

For at least one person, it is a reality.

Bush met with Abdullah. Sure, he can mention both topics, but he cannot criticize the Saudi family while simultaneously asking for a favor.

He must choose which of these two issues is more important to him.

Bruce Hooke
04-27-2005, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
Actually, Canada has the largest reserves next to Saudi Arabia. Most of it is in the Athabasca Tar Sands, and costs more to extract. When oil was 20 bucks a barrel, people weren't too interested. At fifty, we just signed a deal with the Chinese for a new pipeline to the west coast. ;) I knew that was coming. There has been Chinese delegations all over the oil sands for the last two years. ;)

Here's a fairly definitive page on the subject, since it's the US governments. ;)

EIA oil reserves world (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html)Thanks for the correction. What is striking as well is how much variation there is in the different sources quoted on the web page you posted a link to. This gives one a good feeling for how inexact a science "proven reserves" is.

Bruce Hooke
04-27-2005, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by brad9798:
Boy, I love those loaded questions ... damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I will tell you that I'll bet a YEAR's salary, that anonimously at least 80% of Americans would choose to lower oil ...

So, it's really an odd ... incindiary question that has no bearing on anything at all real.

That's like asking what child you would save if one had to die??? A twisted fantasy it is to pose questions like that, in your typical partisan context ...

:rolleyes: I expect you are right that most people in this country would choose cheap oil over a more representative government for the people of Saudia Arabia. BUT, I don't think that paints a very nice picture of the United States. One could hope that we would care more about freedom than about cheap oil for our SUV's, but from what I've seen we don't, and the world knows it and judges us on thereby.

Furthermore, it is, I think, valid to be concerned that our lack of interest in freedom in Saudia Arabia will come back to bite us (some would argue that it already did on Sept. 11). Of course this lack of interest in freedom in Saudia Arabia is nothing new and Bush II does not deserve all the blame, but he does obviously deserve the blame, if there is any, for decisions that he makes.

brad9798
04-27-2005, 09:14 AM
Ljb5- Bush asks the question based on the desires/wants/needs of his consituents ...

Fortunately, or unfortunately, that's the way it is!

Right now, the more pressing issue is sustaining OUR economy ... I'm neither endorsing nor condemning this (at this point) ... that's just what is happening.

---------------

Bruce Hooke-

Yes- sometimes capitalistic priorities get skewed ... to be sure! :(

But let's be realistic- with a wife and three kids, three US-based businesses, ... well, they come first. And oil prices directly affect profitability for all three ... thus, they directly affect employment issues in said companies ... it trickles down ... or up, however you choose to look at it.

I know that may sound cold-hearted ... and I guess it is ... but it is honest.

Most people care, but when it comes right down to it, other priorities supercede SA ... at least for me. Again, maybe distasteful to some, but I can never be accused of being dishonest ... on this forum, or in real life.

WWheeler
04-27-2005, 09:49 AM
Other small talk you could make while in the room with Prince Abdullah:

1) Nice skirt.

2) So, how are the wives.

3) How 'bout those Iraqis.

martin schulz
04-27-2005, 09:56 AM
Ohh Abdullah - a pain in the ...

http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/~wiesman/kuifjeindex/abdoella.gif

ljb5
04-27-2005, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by brad9798:
Ljb5- Bush asks the question based on the desires/wants/needs of his consituents ...Certainly this is true, although I still hold out hope for a leader who leads his people, rather than just panders to their interests.

The American people have made a beggar out of him. Our appetite for oil has put him over the barrel, as it were and forces us to chose cheap oil over human rights. We should be ashamed, but sadly, many refuse to acknowledge it.

I can't help but notice that Bush sometimes fights for unpopular causes, such as his Social Security plan, or the war in Iraq.

Sadly, we find that sometimes a leader pushes the "desires/wants/needs" of his constituents, and sometimes he pushes the unpopular cause -- but always he pushes for what he wants.

If Bush had a soul, he'd say, "It shamed me greatly to beg a foreign despot for table scraps, but I did it for you, the American people. Please don't put me in this position again. Curb your irrational appetite for oil so that when next I see this tyrant, he will beg me to increase consumption and I will force him to advance democracy and human rights."

MJC
04-27-2005, 11:28 AM
If Bush had a soul, he'd say,Ahh, for once, ljb5 isn't being paranoid and cynical enough.

Since, apparently, Bush has no soul, he'd say: 'Y'all think ya could come up with somthin that might, you know, increase instability jest a teeny tiny bit more, cause ya know, y'all, my pals and I shore are makin out like banditos at $55, but, shucks, whyn't we go for sebenty mebbe eighty?

ljb5
04-27-2005, 12:26 PM
I imagine it was more like:


My buddies and I are making out like bandits at $55, but my approval ratings have dropped to 44%. Dick is worried some people might finally figure out that what's in the best interest of a couple of Texas oilmen isn't necessarily in the best interest of the nation. So let's say we simmer it down a little.

Oh, and don't worry about your human rights record, your links to al Qaeda or your suppression of democratic reform. I wasn't really serious when I said those were worth fighting for.Regardless of what he may have said to Abdullah, one thing is for sure: He has never impressed on Americans the relationship between high consumption and high prices or urged us to make a serious effort to reduce demand.

LeeG
04-27-2005, 01:02 PM
Ljb5,,,it's not his job to urge us to conserve,,that's just plain silly.
I'm curious about the different coverage of their meeting. One would think Prince Abdulla was summoned to Texas for a good talking to.."now start them pumps pumping,,we got driving to do"

http://arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=6 2767&d=26&m=4&y=2005 (http://arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=62767&d=26&m=4&y=2005)

Both countries intend to increase the number of students, visitors and business travelers between the two nations, and the United States is pledging to advance Saudi Arabia’s entrance into the World Trade Organization.

“We welcome the renewed determination of Saudi Arabia to pursue economic reform and its quest to join the WTO. We’ll work together as partners to complete our negotiations and with other WTO members in Geneva with the aim of welcoming Saudi Arabia into the WTO before the end of 2005,” said a joint statement after the meeting.

The statement said the number of Saudi students going for higher studies to the US would increase.

“The US and Saudi Arabia agree that our future relations must rest on a foundation of broad cooperation. We must work to expand dialogue, understanding and interactions between our citizens. This will include programs designed to 1) increase the number of young Saudi students to travel and study in the US; 2) increase our military exchange programs so that more Saudi officers visit the US for military education and training; and 3) increase the number of Americans traveling to work and study in the Kingdom,” the statement said.

Washington also agreed to facilitate travel of Saudi businessmen and students to the US.

“The US recognizes we must exert great efforts to overcome obstacles facing Saudi businessmen and students who wish to enter the US, and we pledge to our Saudi friends that we will take on this effort,” the statement added.

xxxxxx

Although some pundits predicted a contentious meeting between the two leaders, a tone of congeniality was set Sunday night when former President George Herbert Walker Bush entertained the crown prince, calling him a “noble man.”

At the beginning of yesterday’s meeting between the crown prince and the president, the men greeted each other with a warm embrace and walked hand-in-hand into the meeting room.

“I hope that these relations will get stronger,” the crown prince said after the meeting. “I admire George Bush, the father, who’s a close friend of mine,” he added.

xxx

The crown prince also met here with US Vice President Dick Cheney and Roy Hunt, chairman of Hunt Oil Company. Today, he is scheduled to meet with former President Bill Clinton.

[ 04-27-2005, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

LeeG
04-27-2005, 01:14 PM
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d638cd74-b532-11d9-8df4-00000e2511c8.html

Both Cairo and Riyadh are chafing at the pressure from Washington, arguing that Mr Bush has destabilised the region by invading Iraq and strengthened militant Islam through his strong support of Israel's Ariel Sharon.

On oil, Mr Bush raised expectations last week that the US would seek to extract fresh promises from Saudi Arabia.

"I don't think they're pumping flat out. I think they're near capacity, and so we've just got to get a straight answer from the government as to what they think their excess capacity is," he said.

Such outspoken remarks did not go down well in Riyadh. "Mr Bush's comments were ill-advised and factually have no basis whatsoever," said Nawaf Obaid, head of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project, an independent consultancy that works closely with the Saudi government. "I can't understand why he was saying this, because the US knows the kingdom's position."

Diplomats said the oil issue was of less importance to the US than maintaining a close relationship with a stable nation undergoing reform.

LeeG
04-27-2005, 01:37 PM
Hadley,Hadley,,,wasn't he the assistant to Rice ensuring that GW included the comment about Iraq purchases from Niger over CIA protests? Nahh, in the battle of perceptions,,you gotta talk about how the other guys perceptions are wrong. So is there inadequate refinery capacity or the perception of an inadequate capacity?
Must get Rove on this.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15098625-401,00.html

The Saudi prince came armed with good news for Mr Bush yesterday: the kingdom would be lifting its capacity to produce more oil.

He outlined a plan - flagged last week - to increase production capacity to 12.5 million barrels a day by 2009 from the current 11million limit.

Saudi Arabia is pumping about 9.5million barrels daily. If necessary, it says, it will increase its capacity to 15million barrels a day.

But against rampant growth in China, well-scripted announcement appeared more like window-dressing and offered no real short-term relief on oil prices.

Saudi Arabia has long argued that the US and other oil-consuming nations also need more refining capacity to help push down petrol prices.

But US National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said the plan to boost production would be seen as positive news by financial markets.

"The problem in the oil market now is a perception that there is inadequate capacity," Mr Hadley said, noting that yesterday's news should "have a downward pressure on the price".

Wild Wassa
04-27-2005, 01:40 PM
Why don't the oil companies lower their margins?

BP's quarterly after tax return, just released yesterday or the day before ... is an all time profit record for the company.

OPEC's cheif minister said two days ago, that the oil reserves and supply were adequate in the west and it was the oil companies themselves who were manipulating the supply to consumers, to keep profits at record highs.

This I believe ... because oil isn't about the consumer, it is going to be consumed anyway ... it is about manipulation ... just ask Uncle Dick.

Warren.

[ 04-27-2005, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

TomF
04-27-2005, 01:54 PM
The oil refinery that produces virtually all gasoline, heating oil etc. for Atlantic Canada is in Saint John NB.

One would think that the market would show gradual price increases, as one went farther from the refinery ... to reflect transportation costs. In fact, fuel was cheaper 5 hours drive north, last week, than next door to the refinery that produced it. And gasoline and heating oil are both regularly cheaper in Newfoundland than in Fredericton, which is a 1 1/2 hour drive from the Saint John refinery, rather than a tanker trip.

redface.gif