$200-$300 a barrel?

Topspin said:
I think the republicans with half a brain are laughing at the lib-tards. Lets see, a strategic most important commodety with restricted supply and increasing demand. Hmmm, bet a lot of smart republicans are among the millions who own oil stocks.
Click to expand...

elected and appointed government representatives should not be allowed to own any kind of stocks.
 
Ice Dancer said:
In April 2005 Bush met with Saudi prince to stabilize rising oil prices. Here and here


Again in 2008
Click to expand...

You are kidding yourself if you think that is some kind of 'deal'. In the 80's and 90's we were able to force concessions that kept oil at artificially low levels. Since 2000, the demand growth (especially in the developing countries like China and India) swamped supply levels and thus oil prices went from the undervalued $10/brl at the end of 99 and escalated up towards fair value ever since. A President meeting with Saudi leadership is for SHOW. Simply saying 'can you help us out' is not a deal. The US doesn't have the ability to dictate oil prices anymore.

Take a look at oil prices throughout 2005, 2006 and beyond. Oil fluctuated with demand. It never went down for any sustained time frame. It continued trending up.

As for 2008.... don't make me laugh. Oil escalated to $148/brl and then demand destruction kicked in. That, coupled with the financial meltdown, drove oil back to an undervalued $35/brl. After the financial meltdown, oil again trended right back up to fair value. Currently, it is above fair value do to the uncertainty in the middle east. Either the middle east settles down and prices retract to fair value.... or oil trends too high and demand destruction once again sets in.
 
Superfreak said:
You are kidding yourself if you think that is some kind of 'deal'. In the 80's and 90's we were able to force concessions that kept oil at artificially low levels. Since 2000, the demand growth (especially in the developing countries like China and India) swamped supply levels and thus oil prices went from the undervalued $10/brl at the end of 99 and escalated up towards fair value ever since. A President meeting with Saudi leadership is for SHOW. Simply saying 'can you help us out' is not a deal. The US doesn't have the ability to dictate oil prices anymore.

Take a look at oil prices throughout 2005, 2006 and beyond. Oil fluctuated with demand. It never went down for any sustained time frame. It continued trending up.

As for 2008.... don't make me laugh. Oil escalated to $148/brl and then demand destruction kicked in. That, coupled with the financial meltdown, drove oil back to an undervalued $35/brl. After the financial meltdown, oil again trended right back up to fair value. Currently, it is above fair value do to the uncertainty in the middle east. Either the middle east settles down and prices retract to fair value.... or oil trends too high and demand destruction once again sets in.
Click to expand...

You are correct that the ability to force concessions has long passed due to India and China. This does not mean that a deal was not reached, albeit a small one-AND the point was that Bush was out there trying to do something-including working with congress to open up domestic drilling-while it appears Obama is doing nothing and receiving very little criticism for it.
 
Ice Dancer said:
You are correct that the ability to force concessions has long passed due to India and China. This does not mean that a deal was not reached, albeit a small one-AND the point was that Bush was out there trying to do something-including working with congress to open up domestic drilling-while it appears Obama is doing nothing and receiving very little criticism for it.
Click to expand...

Again, there was NO deal. Bush and Saudi are but two of the players. Together they could do little to effect oil prices. It was all for show. They TALKED about what to do.... saying that is some kind of 'deal' is a very very big stretch.

That said, you are correct that Bush took far more heat for high oil prices than Obama has. The left is obsessed with big Oil and the ties it has with the Rep party. They see conspiracy when a Rep is charge and oil prices rise.
 
Superfreak said:
Again, there was NO deal. Bush and Saudi are but two of the players. Together they could do little to effect oil prices. It was all for show. They TALKED about what to do.... saying that is some kind of 'deal' is a very very big stretch.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's a lie.

Superfreak said:
That said, you are correct that Bush took far more heat for high oil prices than Obama has. The left is obsessed with big Oil and the ties it has with the Rep party. They see conspiracy when a Rep is charge and oil prices rise.
Click to expand...

Well, Bush said he would "jawbone" the Saudis to lower prices and never delivered.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Actually, it's a lie.
Click to expand...

No, it is not a lie. Technically if the two men agreed to work together, then it could be called a 'deal' between them. Calling it a deal to lower oil prices in general is where the stretch comes into play. Sometimes I think you get nitpicky like this just because you are such a complete douche bag that you can't agree unless your masters give you approval.
 
ID claims that "Bush acted and landed a deal to bring prices down" in "April 2005." There was no such deal. You can call it whatever the fuck you want, but where I come from that's called lying.
 
Superfreak said:
that is all
Click to expand...

You have NDS.

You were pretty clear on ID's posts; you said she's kidding herself if she thinks there was a deal, and then reiterated: there was NO deal.

Then Nigel comes along, and you go into hyperspin mode, and describe how it really could be construed as a "deal."
 
Onceler said:
You have NDS.

You were pretty clear on ID's posts; you said she's kidding herself if she thinks there was a deal, and then reiterated: there was NO deal.

Then Nigel comes along, and you go into hyperspin mode, and describe how it really could be construed as a "deal."
Click to expand...

There was a deal-All SF said was that he did not consider it any deal of import since the advent of China and India into the market. from the link:

Mr. Bush even held the crown prince's hand, a traditional Saudi sign of friendship, as he guided Abdullah up the steps through a bed of bluebonnets to his office, the very picture of Saudi-American interdependence.

But the focus was on oil prices. Officials from both sides emerged from the meeting to say there was agreement on the value of Saudi Arabia's signaling to global markets that it would push down prices over the long run as demand for energy increased. American officials said they hoped the Saudi policy might put immediate downward pressure on oil prices, even though the expansion plan has been public for weeks.

"A high oil price will damage markets, and he knows that," Mr. Bush said as he waited for his guest to arrive.

Officials said there was no explicit request by Mr. Bush for short-term steps to bring down rising oil and gasoline prices, which are threatening to take a toll on the economy in the United States and are already pulling down the president's approval ratings. They said that Mr. Bush and other officials had already signaled to the Saudis that they wanted a commitment to pump more oil in the short run, and that last week the Saudi oil minister had publicly expressed a willingness to do so.

The officials said the Saudis used the meeting to detail for Mr. Bush the steps they intended to take to cushion the global market from future increases in demand from fast-growing economies like China and India, and from the United States and other industrial nations.

Saudi Arabia's plan, which it began discussing publicly weeks ago, calls for spending up to $50 billion to increase its maximum sustainable production capacity to 12.5 million barrels a day by 2009, and to 15 million in the subsequent decade, from about 10.8 million barrels now. The Saudis are currently pumping about 9.5 million barrels a day.
 
anybody doesn't think both sides are just about as corrupt as possible.
Please read thier financial disclosures, 99% leave significantly wealthier than when they came. They spend millions for a job that pays under $200,000. Yet when they leave they are millions more to the good!!!

Buy what they buy or what they own going into the trust.
 
Onceler said:
You have NDS.

You were pretty clear on ID's posts; you said she's kidding herself if she thinks there was a deal, and then reiterated: there was NO deal.

Then Nigel comes along, and you go into hyperspin mode, and describe how it really could be construed as a "deal."
Click to expand...

The point dear hack supporter is that I really don't believe she lied. She thought what she was stating was accurate. She posted links to what she was referring to. I can see how a novice in the pricing of oil might think that was a deal. Technically the two reached an agreement... so for him to stamp his feet screaming 'she lied, she lied' is beyond pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top