Bush says Saudi oil boost doesn't solve US problem

Source: The Houston Chronicle

SHARM EL-SHEIK, Egypt — President Bush said Saturday that the Saudis' modest increase in oil production is "something but it doesn't solve our problem" of soaring gas prices.

Taking note of the kingdom's recent decision to raise production by 300,000 barrels a day, the president said the United States must act, too, to ease the gasoline crisis. He mentioned steps such as developing alternate fuels, improving conservation and expanding domestic exploration.

Bush said he told Saudi King Abdullah during their talks this week that the king should be concerned that high energy prices are hurting some of Saudi Arabia's biggest oil customers, including the United States.

"One of the interesting things about American politics is, those who are screaming the loudest for increased production from Saudi Arabia are the very same people who are the fighting the fiercest against domestic exploration, against the development of nuclear power and against expanding refining capacity," Bush told reporters.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/5787315.html

Why aren't more being built, or the existing ones repaired rather than shut down?

He is also right about alternative energy, etc. I would like gas prices to come down a bit but I want that only so that our economy doesn't go into depression. We need to work toward getting off of petroleum altogether to cut our CO2 emissions down as much as possible. Climate change dictates we get off of Saudi Oil altogether. The Saudis know they are running out. Bush knows they are running out. Why else would he sound like a Peak Oil/Environmental advocate?

Peak Oil means higher and higher prices. Move to wind, solar, a little nuclear (in the short term), etc.

Climate change means we must get off the petroleum teat. It is all moving to alternate energy creating electricity to run our world.

Less demand, less people, etc. It is all coming together. The Green Revolution can produce jobs and give us a manufacturing boom if we don't let China build all of the wind generators, etc.

Get Busy America!

could be a big renewal for our economy and perhaps make the "L" in the graph look more like a "V".

The oil companies are barely scraping by as it is. You can't expect them, in this economic climate, to invest a whole bunch of money in refineries. And although this has been an ongoing problem for years, the lack of refinery capacity can hardly be addressed without another whopping round of tax cuts, credits and other financial incentives paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.

Golly, where is your heart?

They shut down or mouthballed many refinneries in the 80's because of lack of profit, but blame lack of new refinneries on those dastardly tree hugger enviornmentalist wackos. Its the perfect excuse and common wisdom of our liberal press sucks it up as truth then regurgitates it to the masses.
tib

If GAS was going up in price, but OIL was NOT, then suspecting a lack of refining capacity as the 'cause' might make some sense. When oil is skyrocketing, gas will go up as well. I don't see gas going up in price any faster, percentage wise, than the oil it's made from, therefore I don't see how it's logical to conclude we have a refining issue.

Furthermore, the answer to your question should be obvious. They aren't building more refineries because there is no longer an incentive for the oil companies to do so. We are AT PEAK OIL right now, friends. Period. The oil industry knows it, so they aren't wasting their money building more refineries when they know damn well that supplies of petroleum are NEVER going to be MORE than what they are now.

Now that demand has outstripped the worlds ability to produce oil, there is no longer any real phenomena of 'competition' in the industry. There is only monopolies, those who HAVE IT ... have those who DON'T (but need it) by the proverbial short and curlys. Therefore, why build more refineries when the INFINITELY more profitable solution is NOT build them, let the price go UP, and reap huge profits without spending any extra money?

There really cannot be legitimate 'competition' when you are talking about an absolutely ESSENTIAL FOR LIFE natural resource which is entering a stage of permanent depletion, where demand is exceeding supply, and for which we have no practical replacement in the near term.

As a democracy, we have let this happen to ourselves ... we've known it was coming someday, and we failed to do anything about it. We immersed ourselves in TV and movies, failed in our duty to stay politically aware, to elect intelligent leaders instead of people we'd like to 'have a beer with', we let our media become hopelessly corrupted, we bought fucking SUVS hand over fist, and overpaid for houses out in bumfucked egypt like a bunch of brain-dead kool-aid drinkers (no offense to the people who DIDN'T fall into this group, I am generalizing bout what the AVERAGE US citizen has been doing) with no concept of the notion of FINITE resources.

The world's oil and other fossil fuels are running out people. And we are STONE COLD JUNKIES who cannot exist without our 'shit'. And we have NO PLAN B that can be enacted 'in time' to save our asses, in fact, people who talk about alternative energy being able to replace petroleum as though that can be done whilst retaining ANY SEMBLANCE of what we think of as our 'way of life' ... I'm sorry to say ... they are just drinking a different kind of kool-aid.

Had we started IN EARNEST 30 years ago, it might be different. But now, it is far too late. Our descent as a Nation into utter catastrophe over our past poor choices on a whole range of issues is already written in stone I'm afraid...

They are laying off people at refineries and they are operating below capacity.

It's about greed.

that the Saudis did on May 10 at the request of their buyers.

Looks like the Saudis don't give a damn what Bush wants.

As submitted to Oil & Gas Journal for publication February 3, 2003

All warning signs that existed prior to the energy crises of 1973 and 1979 exist today. Various energy security measures indicate that the potential for an energy shortage is high.


Various measures of US energy security indicate that the US might be heading for an energy crisis. Many of the warning signs that existed before the energy crises of 1973 and 1979 exist today and they indicate that the current situation could be even worse. US dependence on petroleum imports has grown steadily for over a decade and has been at record levels for several years. Petroleum inventories are low and the ability of Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) and commercial petroleum stocks to cope with an interruption in imports matches the historic lows preceding the 1973 and 1979 energy crises.

The potential for an energy crisis has never been higher. Oil prices have recently exceeded $30 per barrel and they may continue to increase. The disruption of Venezuelan oil supplies has increased the US dependence on Middle Eastern oil and made the US more susceptible to supply interruption. With the crisis in Venezuela, the capacity of OPEC to meet any additional supply interruption is limited and a war with Iraq would put OPEC at its limit. Any energy crisis in the near future will hinder President Bush’s efforts to stimulate the economy through tax cuts and other fiscal measures. An energy crisis could cause a recession, inflation, and higher unemployment.

http://www.wtrg.com/EnergyCrisis/index.html

Did somebody clue in pResident Chimpy, the oil expert?

This will be fundamentally different from the seventies though, in that then we had a supply crunch that was artificially imposed by OPEC. Future shortages will be more attributable to surging demand, not choked supply. The symptoms will manifest in similar ways, but this will probably be nastier, and with no clear endgame...

For what it's worth, this charade that plays out in the media is really pretty insulting. Are we really to believe Bush goes down to Riyadh to discuss GAS PRICES? It strains credulity. No, this has more to do with the money we send over there and the dollar-based system in general, in all likelihood:

If you're wondering where the demand is coming from...

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest oil consuming government body in the US and in the world

“Military fuel consumption makes the Department of Defense the single largest consumer of petroleum in the U.S”

“Military fuel consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities makes the DoD the single largest consumer of petroleum in the U.S”

According to the US Defense Energy Support Center Fact Book 2004, in Fiscal Year 2004, the US military fuel consumption increased to 144 million barrels. This is about 40 million barrels more than the average peacetime military usage.

http://www.energybulletin.net/13199.html

the BEST. If only it were true.THANKS!!:thumbsup:

Fossil fuels are for fossil brains.

:sarcasm:

along with the speculators who're deliberately driving up the price of oil

Not one mention of solar panels-you mean to tell me that after 8 years we can't attempt to lower the cost of solar panels-and why does the GOP and its Main Man fail to support this? Because solar panels are not their base, oil is their base. So Shrub fails to protect the vital interest of the country he took an oath to defend?Even the poor in China have solar panels on their homes to heat their water.

What about wind power? Can't we make a windmill in this country-a technology around for centuries. Again no word from Shrub. His failure of leadership in this area and his failure to argue for rudimentary changes in power production just further highlights his party's willingness to sell the people out to industry friends.

Wind and solar will not solve it all but even this relative safe and free energy production is not discussed by the Grand Oil Party.

One thing is clear-this President does not care about the interest of the people whom he is to serve. And his approval rating is a reflection that even after all the dumbing down of the American public, they can still recognize a politician who hates them.

1/20/09 will be here before you know it

We need to get alternative energy technologies that already exist scaled up.

The answer is not increasing oil production. The answer is getting off of oil.

Why is it that Crude Oil is legal, while heroin is not?

You dumbass.

Maybe there is a good explanation for why there hasn't been an epidemic of gas stations without gas to sell. There doesn't seem to be a real shortage so much as more demand internationally and speculation driving up the price. I just don't buy the refinery issue. It seems like a way to blame environmentalists for high fuel prices while oil producers reap the reward. In terms of intrinsic value and inflation offset oil is the new gold.

As for the push to drill ANWAR, I think it's only a matter of time until political pressure has a drilling operation up there. I think it would be a good idea to hold off on the drilling for as long as possible and treat the field like the strategic reserve. 10 years ago oil was around $28/barrel and it's $125/barrel or so now. If I had an investment that had gone up nearly 450% in 10 years I won't cash it out now. Leaving domestic oil in the ground as long as possible while the Middle East, Russia, Mexico, South America, and other oil producers go through their reserves seems like the soundest strategy for buying us time to develop an economy and energy policy that doesn't rely as heavily on oil while keeping our own stocks sound.

A big :thumbsup: to the Village Idiot.

to get the Saudis to do anything but laugh at him, by saying we need to do all the things his administration and the oil companies have blocked from happening all these years

?