OT(Oh My Topic) RICHARDSON CALLS SAUDI OIL CUT TO US IN MARCH "FIRM STEP IN THE

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

RICHARDSON CALLS SAUDI OIL CUT TO US IN MARCH "FIRM STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION"

WASHINGTON, Feb 11 (Reuters) - U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson criticized Saudi Arabia's decision to reduce its crude oil deliveries to the United States by 25 percent in March, saying on Friday that it was a move in the wrong direction.

"First, from a volume standpoint, this is not a major change from what the Saudis have been delivering," Richardson said in a statement. "Having said that, this action by the Saudis represents a firm step in the wrong direction."



-- Possible Impact (posim@hotmail.com), February 11, 2000

Answers

What is the link? Please provide a link inorder to verify & see context! Not that I don't trust you ...

-- link, link,link (frank@aol.org), February 11, 2000.

Saudi Arabia's decision to reduce its crude oil deliveries to the United States by 25 percent in March
WHAT IS GOING ON HERE!(caps intended...)

"First, from a volume standpoint, this is not a major change from what the Saudis have been delivering"
How many barrels per day?
How long will this policy stay in force?


-- Possible Impact (posim@hotmail.com), February 11, 2000.

Ridchardson's lips move yet he says nothing. LOL

-- David Whitelaw (Dande53484@aol.com), February 11, 2000.

Wow

The Implications of this move by the Saudis is Staggering!

Thanks for the article P.I.

Got Oil Futures?

-- Zdude (zdude@hotmail.com), February 11, 2000.


Frank (and others...),
Sorry, forgot the link in my "haste to paste".
Link
Will try to scare up some second source backups as well...
This is too important to not verify completely!

-- Possible Impact (posim@hotmail.com), February 11, 2000.


From "Raw News" (unedited items) at ABCnews.com: R ichardson Criticizes

Richardson criticizes Saudi cuts in oil to =2 This is the strongest language Richardson has used in public so far to criticize Saudi Arabia -- the most influential member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). His remarks come amid pressure from Congress for the Clinton administration to get tougher with OPEC and its policy of lower oil output. 'The U.S. market needs more (oil) supply, not less,' Richardson said. 'I urge -- in the strongest terms -- that all oil producing nations recognize that the world needs more oil, not less, and needs it sooner rather than later,' he added. Richardson said the European Union also agreed that world oil production should be increased, and he pointed out that Mexico's energy minister Luis Tellez 'recognizes that there is a legitimate concern in the U.S. that high (oil) prices affect economic growth'. Richardson is scheduled to travel to Mexico next week to discuss volatility in the oil market. He will then begin a trip to the Middle East, where he will stop in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to hold similar discussions. His planned trip next week to meet Venezuela's oil minister Ali Rodriguez has been cancelled, an Energy Department official said. The official did not provide any reason for the cancellation, or whether Richardson's visit would be rescheduled. (-Tom Doggett, Washington Energy Desk, 202-898-8320)

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), February 11, 2000.


This from a search for "Richardson" off the Reuters Roundup page on Drudge. Is it because they "can't" or because they just "won't"?

Friday February 11, 4:23 pm Eastern Time

Richardson criticizes Saudi cuts in oil to U.S.

WASHINGTON, Feb 11 (Reuters) - U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson criticized Saudi Arabia's decision to reduce its crude oil deliveries to the United States by 25 percent in March, saying on Friday that it was a move in the wrong direction.

``First, from a volume standpoint, this is not a major change from what the Saudis have been delivering,'' Richardson said in a statement. ``Having said that, this action by the Saudis represents a firm step in the wrong direction.''

This is the strongest language Richardson has used in public so far to criticize Saudi Arabia -- the most influential member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). His remarks come amid pressure from Congress for the Clinton administration to get tougher with OPEC and its policy of lower oil output.

``The U.S. market needs more (oil) supply, not less,'' Richardson said. ``I urge -- in the strongest terms -- that all oil producing nations recognize that the world needs more oil, not less, and needs it sooner rather than later,'' he added.

Richardson said the European Union also agreed that world oil production should be increased, and he pointed out that Mexico's energy minister Luis Tellez ``recognizes that there is a legitimate concern in the U.S. that high (oil) prices affect economic growth''.

Richardson is scheduled to travel to Mexico next week to discuss volatility in the oil market. He will then begin a trip to the Middle East, where he will stop in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to hold similar discussions.

His planned trip next week to meet Venezuela's oil minister Ali Rodriguez has been cancelled, an Energy Department official said. The official did not provide any reason for the cancellation, or whether Richardson's visit would be rescheduled.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), February 11, 2000.


This link is a list of Yahoo search results on "Reuters", "Saudi", and "oil". You can get background, and refresh it periodically to monitor the story as it develops.

http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news? n=10&p=Reuters+saudi+oil

-- Markus Archus (markus@archus.com), February 11, 2000.


Sorry. Try this.

http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news?% 20n=10&p=Reuters+saudi+oil

-- Markus Archus (markus@archus.com), February 11, 2000.


I give up.

-- markus@archus.com (markus@archus.com), February 11, 2000.


Scary post. I thought foreign policy wasn't important with the current administration. Anyone know how many barrels per day cut a 25% reduction from the Saudi's makes? How about % of gross oil imports?

-- trafficjam (road@construction.ahead), February 11, 2000.

How do you say "uncle" in arabian?

I say let saddam teach 'em how to say it.

The stupid bastards don't have the brains to not piss on the country that saved their sheeted asses.

-- pfzpfth (pfzpfth@pfz.pfth), February 11, 2000.


One explanation:

The government of Russia has been making a few phone calls to Saudi Arabian leaders -- "Cut oil production . . . or you will have a serious accident."

-- Rick (rick7@postmark.net), February 11, 2000.


Hate to say this people, but what makes you think USA Oil companies and USA Corp. are not involved in this? oilstuff@think.com

-- oil com (oil@stuff.com), February 11, 2000.

We don't need no more sticking crude oil. We can't refine it anyway!

-- Y2kObserver (Y2kObserver@nowhere.com), February 11, 2000.


Funny that the SEC Y2K disclosures from oil corps stressed the possibility of disruptions late last year.

I hate to be the one that could suggest a Y2K problem therefore a possible supply problem, but is there any reason not to think this is not the case?

There is no shortage of documentation in the archives indicating that we were warned. Mind you in Vancouver BC they are having Gas wars and the prices have dropped 33%. Go figure.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), February 11, 2000.


There is also the issues of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria.

The Arabs have very long memories.

-- nenene (wishy@washy.puk), February 11, 2000.


1) It is in the CONSUMING countries' interests to have low priced oil.

2) It may or may NOT be in the producing countries' best interests to have low priced oil.

3) What would the United States' response be to say, Saudi and Former USSR "demand" that we sell more wheat at depressed prices.

4) It would appear that the Saudi's have finally realized the difference between a finite and an infinite number. (as a friend once pointed out, he was 19 when he realized he would not have an infinite number of erections, that the number would be finite. Perhaps this has dawned on the Saudis in terms of the oil they have in the ground).

5) International monopolies are legal.

6) these are some of the lessons that the US needs to learn, not to mention the POSSIBILITY that there MIGHT be a crack in the US Manifest Destiny.

Joss Metadi

-- Joss Metadi (warhammer@Pride.of.Mandeyne), February 11, 2000.


Let's not forget, as several people have pointed out earlier on this forum, that the new regime in Saudi is not as pro-american as old King Fahd was. Also, you can bet the Saudis can read oil depletion curves as well as the next person. We don't have the North Sea to temper the mix with anymore -- Norway production is way down, the Brits aren't doing any better. They can play currency games all they want (You don't like our prices? Well, from now on you pay us in euros or gold, no more dollars.)

And on top of everything else, it's a good way to cover y2k (scuse me, CDC) problems. Have we heard any reports from our Deep Throat friends in the Middle East?

All in all, this looks like the first step toward permanent oil restrictions. Glad I didn't sell my woodstove.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), February 11, 2000.


Hey folks,

It *is* their oil. Besides, why *should* they like us, given our (Brits, French, Germans, Israel, US) history toward them. If you were one of them, you would hate us, too.

-- bz (beezee@statesville.net), February 11, 2000.


Next time they get their ass in a sling, I say we should hate 'em right back.

The sheetheads didn't mind us dying for them when it suited 'em.

Next time saddam comes a-knockin', let the bastards die for themselves.

-- pfzpfth (pfzpfth@pfz.pfth), February 12, 2000.


I heard a rumor that DOE is considering whether or not to break out the ration coupons that were printed up during the 1974 oil crisis. Does anyone know where they are stored? Big Bill would rather convince the Saudis to keep production up at least until ALGORE can be elected then all h_ll can break loose. He probably does not even realize that he embarrassed himself with his comments on the 30 year bond fiasco. He also cost some Clinton adminstration friends and supporters big bucks when they were suddenly underwater on some bond "investments."

-- Alan (Alan@dumb.gren), February 12, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ