[NYCFarmboy]

http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?St...0-102228-4178r

2 OPEC countries cut oil production
NEW YORK, Sept. 30 (UPI) -- Nigeria and Venezuela plan to cut production amid OPEC concern about the rapid drop in prices, the OPEC countries say.

The move, which accounts for about 170,000 barrels a day, may suggest other cuts by the oil-producing cartel, The Financial Times reports.

Figures to be released in the next few weeks are expected to show Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates also reduced output, but are keeping quiet about it, the newspaper reports.

Nigerian Oil Minister and OPEC President Edmund Daukoru has said the price of oil was "very low."

Nigeria and Venezuela both said their cuts were part of an informal deal worked out at a meeting in September to pare output if prices fell, The New York Times reported.

Oil prices peaked in midsummer at $77.03 a barrel and have fallen nearly 20 percent since then.

Current oil futures rose 15 cents to close at $62.91 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange Friday.


rule 8 post: I found this article interesting and was wondering what others thought of it.

[marden]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

United Press International - NewsTrack - 2 OPEC countries cut oil production

2 OPEC countries cut oil production
NEW YORK, Sept. 30 (UPI) -- Nigeria and Venezuela plan to cut production amid OPEC concern about the rapid drop in prices, the OPEC countries say.

The move, which accounts for about 170,000 barrels a day, may suggest other cuts by the oil-producing cartel, The Financial Times reports.

Figures to be released in the next few weeks are expected to show Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates also reduced output, but are keeping quiet about it, the newspaper reports.

Nigerian Oil Minister and OPEC President Edmund Daukoru has said the price of oil was "very low."

Nigeria and Venezuela both said their cuts were part of an informal deal worked out at a meeting in September to pare output if prices fell, The New York Times reported.

Oil prices peaked in midsummer at $77.03 a barrel and have fallen nearly 20 percent since then.

Current oil futures rose 15 cents to close at $62.91 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange Friday.


rule 8 post: I found this article interesting and was wondering what others thought of it.

I predicted it would happen. Not this reason or rationale, but the action of pulling supplies from our market is an important sign.

Here's my prediction from the other thread.

7-Eleven dropping Venezuela-backed Citgo
Wed Sep 27, 12:16 PM ET

DALLAS - Convenience store operator 7-Eleven Inc. is dropping Venezuela-backed Citgo as its gasoline supplier at more than 2,100 locations and switching to its own brand of fuel.

The retailer said Wednesday it will purchase fuel from several distributors, including Tower Energy Group of Torrance, Calif., Sinclair Oil of Salt Lake City, and Houston-based Frontier Oil Corp.

A spokeswoman for Dallas-based 7-Eleven said its 20-year contract with Citgo Petroleum Corp. ends next week. About 2,100 of 7-Eleven's 5,300 U.S. stores sell gasoline.

Citgo is a Houston-based subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, and the foreign parent became a public-relations issue for 7-Eleven because of comments by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Chavez has called President George W. Bush the devil and an alcoholic. The U.S. government has warned that Chavez is a destabilizing force in Latin America.

7-Eleven spokesman Margaret Chabris said that, "Regardless of politics, we sympathize with many Americans' concern over derogatory comments about our country and its leadership recently made by Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez."

Chabris said a boycott of Citgo gasoline would hurt the 4,000 employees of the U.S. subsidiary, who have no connection to Venezuela.

7-Eleven had been considering creating its own brand of fuel since at least early last year. Company officials said at the time they had spoken with independent fuel distributors.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060927/...eleven_citgo_2

Keep a close eye on this situation.

I have said that Chavez' coming here was part of a plan. What would happen if this move by 7/11 had already been predicted and calculated by Chavez and CALCIUM to help them reach their goal?

When he came here and insulted our President he must have known this would be a likely result.

What if he responded angrily to 7/11's move and threatened us by saying something like, 'Venezuela does not want to punish the poor people of the United States so we will continue to make our oil available at our other Citgo stations." And then the people of the US might say, 'SCREW YOU! Take ALL your oil and drown in it, asswipe! We don't want it and we don't need it, beyotch!'

Then once Chavez removes all his oil from the US what if Ahmadinejad does something which puts our M.E. oil supplies in jeopardy? One of the things happening is we are trying to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and to force Iran to stop development of it's nuclear weapons program we are probably going to use sanctions and a sea blockade of Iran to apply economic pressure on them to comply with the resolutions which prohibit their nuke development.

But what if we are not financially able to enforce a blockade on Iran because we would NEED M.E. oil and couldn't afford to do anything that would jeopardize that supply?

This has been simply one possible scenario.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...2/#post3148660

What we have to watch out for is who, what, when and where the next supply will be pulled from our market. If they are trying to starve us into submission or provoke us into HAVING to go to war to provide for our needs, it would send us down a predictable pathway.

This is not good. We need to find a way to augment our oil flows so that if Iran (or anyone else) does something to disrupt our flows we will have options. Once we try to find a 3rd alternative to accepting a nuclear Iran or going to war with an Iran which won't back down from it's nuclear ambitions, the only way is to negotiate hard and have real penalties to impose on Iran.

But if they control our oil supplies, we would have to sing their tune or go to war.

[mitchell_pgh]

IMHO, if it can be proven that they are doing this to influence our elections, it will backfire.

[invisibleX]

Trying to keep oil prices up. Oh my.

[marden]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

IMHO, if it can be proven that they are doing this to influence our elections, it will backfire.

You really think more than 44% of America would recognize it, acknowledge it and respond to it?


In an unrelated story, the latest Presidential approval ratings came out this week...

Sep 20, 2006
Today/Gallup poll shows Bush approval rating at 44 percent

[itai195]

Yes I'm sure it is being done to aid the Democrats and not because a ~20% drop in crude prices is troublesome for their own domestic agendas

[ink]

Originally Posted by marden

This is not good. We need to find a way to augment our oil flows so that if Iran (or anyone else) does something to disrupt our flows we will have options. Once we try to find a 3rd alternative to accepting a nuclear Iran or going to war with an Iran which won't back down from it's nuclear ambitions, the only way is to negotiate hard and have real penalties to impose on Iran.

But if they control our oil supplies, we would have to sing their tune or go to war.

They will also affect the price of oil for every other country.

This can only work in the short-term (according to economic theory).

We can also work to get off oil; war isn't the only solution. We're renowned for our technical prowness. Or, at least we used to be....

[subego]

The Dependence on Foreign Oil Thread

[Nicko]

LOL Nigeria and Venuezula could care less about the US. Their strategy is to keep oil above $60. OPEC will act soon...although probably after the elections.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ink

They will also affect the price of oil for every other country.

This can only work in the short-term (according to economic theory).

We can also work to get off oil; war isn't the only solution. We're renowned for our technical prowness. Or, at least we used to be....

There are some folks who are so stubborn that they won't believe it when someone else tells them a fact. They have to prove it themselves. I hope you don't believe me and look this up to prove me wrong.

It would take 20 years to switch over to non-oil.

And wake me when you invent the non-oil to switch to.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

But if they control our oil supplies, we would have to sing their tune or go to war.

Do countries not have the right to decide what to do with their own exports? I'm not certain you can justify war just because they don't want to sell all their oil.

Note: cutting oil production affects more countries than just the US

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

It would take 20 years to switch over to non-oil.

Too bad we didn't start switching over 30 years ago when environmentalist were arguing that we were too dependant on a non-renewable resource and would be facing oil shortages (albiet for different reasons)

[ink]

Originally Posted by marden

There are some folks who are so stubborn that they won't believe it when someone else tells them a fact. They have to prove it themselves. I hope you don't believe me and look this up to prove me wrong.

It would take 20 years to switch over to non-oil.

And wake me when you invent the non-oil to switch to.

We would be 10 years down that road if we had taken Kyoto seriously in 1994.

Let's sleep another 10 years, OK? That'll put it out 30 years, and then the conservatives can continue to bitch about the cost of gasoline. I think the term you used in another thread was that we were "literally forced" to go to war because of our dependence on oil. I'd think that you'd support our national security by getting off oil.

At least we have states like California and Oregon who look like they have the balls and the leadership to do something about our unhealthy dependence.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ink

We would be 10 years down that road if we had taken Kyoto seriously in 1994.

Let's sleep another 10 years, OK? That'll put it out 30 years, and then the conservatives can continue to bitch about the cost of gasoline. I think the term you used in another thread was that we were "literally forced" to go to war because of our dependence on oil. I'd think that you'd support our national security by getting off oil.

At least we have states like California and Oregon who look like they have the balls and the leadership to do something about our unhealthy dependence.

You seem like a nice enough person. But the quality of your questions and statements suggest personal qualities I find personally irritating. Because of that I am going to refrain from responding to your posts for a while because I don't think you deserve what I'm tempted to send your way.

Good luck. God bless. Study hard.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

You seem like a nice enough person. But the quality of your questions and statements suggest personal qualities I find personally irritating. Because of that I am going to refrain from responding to your posts for a while because I don't think you deserve what I'm tempted to send your way.

Good luck. God bless. Study hard.

Says the pot to the kettle when the questions are too hard.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Says the pot to the kettle when the questions are too hard.

That's me NOT laughing WITH you, but instead...

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

That's me NOT laughing WITH you, but instead...

Which reminds me, you haven't yet answered my question:

Do countries not have the right to decide what to do with their own exports?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Which reminds me, you haven't yet answered my question:

Do countries not have the right to decide what to do with their own exports?

I just reviewed the thread.

"Do countries not have the right to decide what to do with their own exports? I'm not certain you can justify war just because they don't want to sell all their oil."

I think this is a perfect example of where legality is secondary or incidental to the priorities of survival. We would go to war, if necessary, to assure access to oil. But that doesn't mean we are looking for war. CALCIUM might be.

"Note: cutting oil production affects more countries than just the US"

I know that. So what?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

I think this is a perfect example of where legality is secondary or incidental to the priorities of survival. We would go to war, if necessary, to assure access to oil.

So, you feel it's justifiable to invade a nation without any provocation just to steal that nation's oil if they won't sell it to you?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

So, you feel it's justifiable to invade a nation without any provocation just to steal that nation's oil if they won't sell it to you?

Do they have signed agreements with us?

[D. S. Troyer]

Farmer boy cuts and runs. COWARD!

Oink, Oink!

[marden]

Originally Posted by D. S. Troyer

Farmer boy cuts and runs. COWARD!

Oink, Oink!

Reported.

[D. S. Troyer]

Originally Posted by marden

Reported.

Resnorted.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

Do they have signed agreements with us?

That would justify stealing someone else's property?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

That would justify stealing someone else's property?

What DOES the law say about a situation like that?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by D. S. Troyer

Farmer boy cuts and runs. COWARD!

Oink, Oink!

huh?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

What DOES the law say about a situation like that?

I'm not certain, but somehow I don't think that not selling a product to someone, or limiting the amount of product they can purchase, amounts to an act of war.

What do you think?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Do countries not have the right to decide what to do with their own exports?

No, that's what NATO's for.

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

So, you feel it's justifiable to invade a nation without any provocation just to steal that nation's oil if they won't sell it to you?

Invading cuts off the oils supply from the country entirely as long as the country is instable.

That being said, I definitely would aplaud the US *****-slapping Chavez, although not for oil malarky, but instead, how he seized all my families stuff that we couldn't get out of the country. I despise his commie agenda.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by itai195

Yes I'm sure it is being done to aid the Democrats and not because a ~20% drop in crude prices is troublesome for their own domestic agendas

He's just pointing out how stupid "OIL PRICES ARE DROPPING BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO RIG TEH ELECTIONS!!!1oneeleventybillion" are to anyone who's cynical of most conspiracy theories. The easiest explanation is usually the correct explanation. Oil prices were dropping because Wall Street realized that there was no reason to keep the oil futures.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ink

We would be 10 years down that road if we had taken Kyoto seriously in 1994.

Kyoto had good ideas. The sucky part is, signing it would also put in effect many many bad ideas.

It needed re-written. To be less FUDish.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

So, you feel it's justifiable to invade a nation without any provocation just to steal that nation's oil if they won't sell it to you?

Hyperbole. No one is stealing oil.

Quit this intellectual dishonesty please.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

Do they have signed agreements with us?

Ummmmmm no? Unless you'd otherwise like to enlighten us.

I don't think any of our oil providers have signed agreements with us.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

Ummmmmm no? Unless you'd otherwise like to enlighten us.

I don't think any of our oil providers have signed agreements with us.

What planet do you imagine this is where billions of dollars of commerce goes on without contracts?



Earth to goMac. Earth to goMac!

If this is what you believe, what else might you get wrong? Why should anyone listen to you?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Hyperbole. No one is stealing oil.

Quit this intellectual dishonesty please.

I'm sorry, what would you call invading another country simply because it isn't selling it's oil?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

...I definitely would aplaud the US *****-slapping Chavez, although not for oil malarky, but instead, how he seized all my families stuff that we couldn't get out of the country. I despise his commie agenda.

Sorry about your family's sufferings. I hope he is deposed.

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

Invading cuts off the oils supply from the country entirely as long as the country is instable.

Not totally. But in the case of Iraq the insurgents have sought to use oil as a weapon by trying to deny our access to it. That isn't always the case, but it is here. This may help some of you understand what might have happened if we had not invaded. Saddam might easily have applied the pressure on the US by denying us oil. All kinds of explanations might have been created to explain this if it were done. From outright confrontation (We are not going to sell you any oil. Now, what are you going to do about it?) to subterfuge (Those darned rebels are very wiley! They have blown up your oil tankers. What can we do?).

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I'm sorry, what would you call invading another country simply because it isn't selling it's oil?

Regime change. And then, before you get on a horse (high, hobby or hobbled) think about the big picture.

A nation does business with an oil company which has contracts with customers. Or, if the oil is nationalized (I'd assume it was taken over illegally by the government and the oil company suffers a loss in the nationalization) the national oil company has contracts with customers. These contracts benefit the supplier as well as the customer. For the supplier to cut off oil to a customer would assumably be in breech of a number of agreements. Why would they do this? To use oil as a weapon. When a country uses oil as a weapon to attack another country that is a hostile act. It is an act of war.

Now, ask your question.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Nicko

LOL Nigeria and Venuezula could care less about the US. Their strategy is to keep oil above $60. OPEC will act soon...although probably after the elections.

Is that why Venezuelan President Chavez is always rambling on about the US?

And if Nigerians are anything at all like their co-continentalists, the Kenyans (ahem) then they eat, sleep, and breath American politics.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

Regime change.

lol ...

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

What planet do you imagine this is where billions of dollars of commerce goes on without contracts?

Hmmm... Someone needs a review of a commodities market.

Do you have a contract when you buy orange juice from the store? Oil is the same way.

I mean, if oil sales are based on contracts, how do oil suppliers change the price of oil all the time?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

Saddam might easily have applied the pressure on the US by denying us oil. All kinds of explanations might have been created to explain this if it were done. From outright confrontation (We are not going to sell you any oil. Now, what are you going to do about it?) to subterfuge (Those darned rebels are very wiley! They have blown up your oil tankers. What can we do?).

Now you're talking about possibilities again without considering likelihood. Denying the US oil would have hurt Saddam's pocket book more than the US. All those mansions were built on the sale of oil to the US.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

What planet do you imagine this is where billions of dollars of commerce goes on without contracts?



Earth to goMac. Earth to goMac!

If this is what you believe, what else might you get wrong? Why should anyone listen to you?

Well, obviously, the kind of agreement you're talking about is one that says "'X' country will sell oil to the US. Failure to do so will result in invasion/regime change by the US ... and theft of your oil".

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Now you're talking about possibilities again without considering likelihood. Denying the US oil would have hurt Saddam's pocket book more than the US. All those mansions were built on the sale of oil to the US.

Do your homework. China paid to buy Canadian OIL SANDS. (That is desperation.) They could have bought our sweet light crude instead from the calculating, heavy handed, brutal Saddam. There is and there would be no excess oil on the market that won't get sold. So you can stop worrying that Saddam would suffer while trying to bring America to it's knees. He'd have done just fine while selling our oil to another thirsty nation or three.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Well, obviously, the kind of agreement you're talking about is one that says "'X' country will sell oil to the US. Failure to do so will result in invasion/regime change by the US ... and theft of your oil".

Denying us oil which had been legally and mutually agreed upon would be breaking the law and more seriously, because of the impact of such an action, be considered a hostile act. An act of war.

Oil to America is like Air or Water or Food to an individual human. Deprive us of it for a long enough period and we die.

What you are trying to justify is the same as suffocating a person. Denying them the element they need to sustain life.

Yes. We would try to restore the balance of things that had existed BEFORE the killer regime tried to murder the USA.

Do you EVER think kindly, friendly or charitably about the USA? With neighbors like you...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I'm sorry, what would you call invading another country simply because it isn't selling it's oil?

I don't know what It's called. It's simply not happening.

I thought the left gave up the "Oil for Blood" propaganda long ago.

Can't believe it's still making it's turn.

Tell mew Wisk, why didn't we just take it in 91? Why aren't we taking it now?

You do realize we get most of our oil from Canada right?

Why aren't we invading them?

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Well, obviously, the kind of agreement you're talking about is one that says "'X' country will sell oil to the US. Failure to do so will result in invasion/regime change by the US ... and theft of your oil".

That sounds very moonbatish.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by marden

What planet do you imagine this is where billions of dollars of commerce goes on without contracts?

What evidence do you have that these producers won't sell the crude they've agreed to produce for the prices they've already agreed to? Crude is sold months before it's delivered.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

Hmmm... Someone needs a review of a commodities market.

Do you have a contract when you buy orange juice from the store? Oil is the same way.

I mean, if oil sales are based on contracts, how do oil suppliers change the price of oil all the time?

We are getting in way over our heads here. Until someone introduces facts about the exact nature of futures contracts from the investors standpoint and the agreements oil companies or nationalized oil companies have with their customers, we will be just dancing in faery circles.

I prefer to deal in facts re: this matter, thank you.

Anybody got some?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

We are getting in way over our heads here. Until someone introduces facts about the exact nature of futures contracts from the investors standpoint and the agreements oil companies or nationalized oil companies have with their customers, we will be just dancing in faery circles.

I prefer to deal in facts re: this matter, thank you.

Anybody got some?

Just think about it. If there was a contract, they could never change their oil output or how much they charge for oil. And we both know that's not true.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by itai195

What evidence do you have that these producers won't sell the crude they've agreed to produce for the prices they've already agreed to? Crude is sold months before it's delivered.

This is probably as far as the contracts go. Some oil producer puts x barrels on the market for y dollars, and an American company buys those barrels. All Chavez is doing is changing how many barrels he'll have available to sell.

Oil companies don't have agreements with US companies that say they'll supply X number of barrels a month. The companies here make separate oil purchases each time.

[Spliffdaddy]

The contract can be for a given quantity over a given time period - bought at current market prices.

Oil futures are the same thing as buying oil. You purchase a contract at a set price for a set quantity - and you hope to sell the contract in the future when prices rise higher than your contract price.

You can buy pork bellies and coffee and any other commodity 'futures', the same way they buy oil.

There's no magic. It's pure speculation.

What the gas stations do is sell gasoline based on current oil prices - even though they paid lower prices for the stuff they're selling you. Funny how gasoline prices can go up 35 cents overnight - but never fall more than a nickel overnight.