Saudi Arabia: 'We've seen the pain' and we don't care

[joelbc1]

I'm as sober as a judge.

Your misguided policies to force oil to stay in the ground will come back to haunt us. We need to have the capacity to respond to future threats, but you and your CO2-headed buddies want to tie our hands behind our collective backs.

It isn't Obama's fault that the oil companies have no interest in producing this sand oil as a loss. Is it? Or do you want Obama to sign an executive order freeing up these oil producers from all regulations and taxes? 'Cause Congress won't "ok" this.

 

[naturalmwa]

I'm as sober as a judge.

Your misguided policies to force oil to stay in the ground will come back to haunt us. We need to have the capacity to respond to future threats, but you and your CO2-headed buddies want to tie our hands behind our collective backs.

That assumes a lot of facts not in evidence. But at least you are getting around to policy. Spell out the policy you want that will take on SA. I'm going to keep chasing until you fess up you like government industrial policy too.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I'm as sober as a judge.

Your misguided policies to force oil to stay in the ground will come back to haunt us. We need to have the capacity to respond to future threats, but you and your CO2-headed buddies want to tie our hands behind our collective backs.

*sigh* The US was pumping oil out of the ground hand over fist. Production was being ramped up everywhere. Maybe you were drunk THEN. The oil is staying in the ground NOW because it's TOO F'N EXPENSIVE to pump it out. That's a market decision made by the oil companies.

More capacity would be ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS in pressuring the Saudis unless we can pump it out of the ground as cheaply as they can. Hint - we can't...under ANY scenario that doesn't involve massive govt subsidies to the oil companies.

So are you suggesting that the US govt force the oil companies to keep pumping their expensive oil out of the ground and sell it on the world market at a loss to punish the Saudis? That's the ONLY conclusion that can be drawn from the crap you're posting.

 

[The Tradition]

*sigh* The US was pumping oil out of the ground hand over fist. Production was being ramped up everywhere. Maybe you were drunk THEN. The oil is staying in the ground NOW because it's TOO F'N EXPENSIVE to pump it out. That's a market decision made by the oil companies.

More capacity would be ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS in pressuring the Saudis unless we can pump it out of the ground as cheaply as they can. Hint - we can't.

So are you suggesting that the US govt force the oil companies to keep pumping their expensive oil out of the ground and sell it on the world market at a loss to punish the Saudis? That's the ONLY conclusion that can be drawn from the crap you're posting.

No, we build infrastructure with an eye toward future needs, rather than using it as a political football in the Global Warming Bowl.

 

[naturalmwa]

No, we build infrastructure with an eye toward future needs, rather than using it as a political football in the Global Warming Bowl.

Go on, tell us more. What sort of infrastructure are you talking about? Who is funding and coordinating this infrastructure build? Would it be the government by chance? You're almost home, just a few more steps and you can get a hug.

 

[The Tradition]

Go on, tell us more. What sort of infrastructure are you talking about? Who is funding and coordinating this infrastructure build? Would it be the government by chance?

Are freaking serious? Keystone XL was going to be built by TransCanada Corporation and ConocoPhillips.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

No, we build infrastructure with an eye toward future needs, rather than using it as a political football in the Global Warming Bowl.

What the hell are you talking about? You think more "infrastructure" would prevent the Saudis from flooding the market with cheap oil? How exactly does that work? We threaten to hit them over the head with pipes?

 

[naturalmwa]

Are freaking serious? Keystone XL was going to be built by TransCanada Corporation and ConocoPhillips.

How does that move the needle in your direction? That oil is foreign too and still costs more than the SA stuff.

 

[The Tradition]

What the hell are you talking about? You think more "infrastructure" would prevent the Saudis from flooding the market with cheap oil? How exactly does that work? We threaten to hit them over the head with pipes?

Please go back and read the explanation I gave earlier in this thread and warned that I wasn't going to explain it again.

You're just arguing in circles at this point.

 

[naturalmwa]

Please go back and read the explanation I gave earlier in this thread and warned that I wasn't going to explain it again.

You're just arguing in circles at this point.

You're going to miss out on the hugs. We already showed why your explanation is wrong.

 

[The Tradition]

How does that move the needle in your direction? That oil is foreign too and still costs more than the SA stuff.

Irrelevant. If OPEC decides to pull back on production to cause prices to spike, additional available capacity will allow us (North America) to increase production and blunt OPECs attempts.

 

[The Tradition]

You're going to miss out on the hugs. We already showed why your explanation is wrong.

I love it when people declare internet victory. It's pretty much a concession speech.

 

[KennyPowers_96]

Saudi Arabia isn't immune from the pain of low oil prices. The country's sovereign credit ratings were cut to "A+/A-1" from "AA-/A-1+" by the credit-rating company Standard and Poor's.

In a release, S&P said a "pronounced negative swing" in Saudi Arabia's fiscal balance prompted the downgrade.

Over the 10 years that ended in 2013, S&P noted that Saudi Arabia's budget surpluses — or money available after all government expenses had been met — averaged about 13% of gross domestic product. This situation, however, has changed rapidly as the price of oil has crashed, and in 2015 Saudi Arabia is expected to see a budget deficit equal to 16% of GDP.


For those of you who never took an economics class, that means that they used to make money, and now they're losing money. They are running government deficits to maintain this price war.

There is no price war. They know that if they keep prices low enough, long enough, others will drop out of production. When that happens, they can bump it again until it goes high again. Losing money for a little while to eliminate competition is typically a worthwhile endeavor.

Nice troll by the way.

 

[Vroom_C14]

 

[naturalmwa]

I love it when people declare internet victory. It's pretty much a concession speech.

I do feel validated, but victory would be you recognizing you too support the government imposing fair trade policies on our partners to protect our collective industry. Now you have said as much in this thread so I'm inclined to assume its pride that keeps you from stating your position plainly.

 

[The Tradition]

There is no fair trade proposal on the table. So, non-OPEC countries need to take measures to counter the OPEC countries, or they'll control the market. If would be great if the free market reigned, but when there are state-owned players colluding with one another, then the playing field is slanted.

 

[22*43*51]

Look at all the Libs making pro-Capitalism arguments.

It's bizzaro world in this thread.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Irrelevant. If OPEC decides to pull back on production to cause prices to spike, additional available capacity will allow us (North America) to increase production and blunt OPECs attempts.

We have tremendous idled capacity right now. HOW IS IT AFFECTING THE SAUDIS? When they cut back on production, we'll have all that capacity to bring back online. That takes time. How do you plan to get oil companies to increase infrastructure when they have idle capacity to get up to speed first? Govt fiat?

So as we come back on-line...what stops the Saudis from cranking up the faucet again? The fact that we now have more capacity than we can utilize?

Make your case. Your end game is very murky.

 

[Jan Itor]

How? That oil isn't going anywhere. We should empty Saudi Arabia before we use our own supply. That's awesome they want to sell to us at a discount. You're not thinking very logically today.

There is a little thing called layoffs in the US Oil Industry.

 

[naturalmwa]

There is no fair trade proposal on the table. So, non-OPEC countries need to take measures to counter the OPEC countries, or they'll control the market. If would be great if the free market reigned, but when there are state-owned players colluding with one another, then the playing field is slanted.

Anything is on the table, I asked you what you would want to do. We certainly could write trade agreements that protect our industry from this sort of dumping. Of course doing so would be a collectivist action.

Being state owned isn't anything the free market gets rid of. The free market allows for state owned enterprises. If you want things like Opec to go away, you would need to regulate the market probably through embargo and sanctions backed with military force.

 

[Joes Place]

Saudi Arabia isn't immune from the pain of low oil prices. The country's sovereign credit ratings were cut to "A+/A-1" from "AA-/A-1+" by the credit-rating company Standard and Poor's.

In a release, S&P said a "pronounced negative swing" in Saudi Arabia's fiscal balance prompted the downgrade.

Over the 10 years that ended in 2013, S&P noted that Saudi Arabia's budget surpluses — or money available after all government expenses had been met — averaged about 13% of gross domestic product. This situation, however, has changed rapidly as the price of oil has crashed, and in 2015 Saudi Arabia is expected to see a budget deficit equal to 16% of GDP.


For those of you who never took an economics class, that means that they used to make money, and now they're losing money. They are running government deficits to maintain this price war.

Do you SERIOUSLY not understand the DIFFERENCE between 'not making a profit' and 'running a government spending deficit'?

Those are COMPLETELY different things. They would probably turn a profit on $15/bbl oil, something not really possible in the US, because we have more complex extraction required here, not simply due to 'regulations', but because our oil is offshore, or deeper or in shale deposits, not as easily pumped out.

You are so woefully educated and uninformed on this, it's embarrassing for you.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

There is no fair trade proposal on the table. So, non-OPEC countries need to take measures to counter the OPEC countries, or they'll control the market. If would be great if the free market reigned, but when there are state-owned players colluding with one another, then the playing field is slanted.

And what action would you suggest? The idea that we can compete with them on oil price is idiotic. So how...how...how...can we make OPEC oil irrelevant to the economic fortunes of the US? Hmmmm...think...think...think.

 

[naturalmwa]

There is a little thing called layoffs in the US Oil Industry.

Are you saying our trade policies should focus on protecting American jobs over securing the lowest priced goods for our markets?

 

[Jan Itor]

So you want to nationalize the oil industry? Tell me more.

Harry Reid does.

 

[The Tradition]

We have tremendous idled capacity right now. HOW IS IT AFFECTING THE SAUDIS? When they cut back on production, we'll have all that capacity to bring back online. That takes time. How do you plan to get oil companies to increase infrastructure when they have idle capacity to get up to speed first? Govt fiat?

So as we come back on-line...what stops the Saudis from cranking up the faucet again? The fact that we now have more capacity than we can utilize?

Make your case. Your end game is very murky.

You're so annoying.

Again, private enterprise WANTED to build a pipeline and the administration drug its feet for FIVE YEARS. If we didn't have all these ridiculous rules and roadblocks to progress, the pipeline would have been built by now, ready to supply additional transport capacity. The fact that it isn't needed in today's exact market environment is not relevant. Oil prices are highly unstable. It's just a matter of time when upward price pressures will occur, and the only solution to that is more supply (unless you can somehow reduce demand).

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Harry Reid does.

That doesn't really have any bearing on your post.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You're so annoying.

Again, private enterprise WANTED to build a pipeline and the administration drug its feet for FIVE YEARS. If we didn't have all these ridiculous rules and roadblocks to progress, the pipeline would have been built by now, ready to supply additional transport capacity. The fact that it isn't needed in today's exact market environment is not relevant. Oil prices are highly unstable. It's just a matter of time when upward price pressures will occur, and the only solution to that is more supply (unless you can somehow reduce demand).

You're sooooooo close. Now think that through.

And please explain how your increased capacity prevents the Saudis from flooding the market again. You missed that.

 

[The Tradition]

You're sooooooo close. Now think that through.

We're not reducing demand in any significant manner in our lifetimes. Sorry.

 

[joelbc1]

There is no fair trade proposal on the table. So, non-OPEC countries need to take measures to counter the OPEC countries, or they'll control the market. If would be great if the free market reigned, but when there are state-owned players colluding with one another, then the playing field is slanted.

The only problem with people is that they are human beings. "Free market" is a theory only. "Free markets" do not exist. Human beings don't like free markets....human beings like an advantage, especially when it comes to matters involving money. "Free markets" are an Ivory Tower....they have no place in reality. Human beings use the idea of "free markets" to gain an advantage over their competition.

 

[Jan Itor]

Are you saying our trade policies should focus on protecting American jobs over securing the lowest priced goods for our markets?

Instead of you playing the 1000 questions game here, why don't you tell us your opinion. You stated the low oil prices are a good thing. This is true. But what is your opinion on the job losses related to this? Answer those, and I may consider answering yours.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

We're not reducing demand in any significant manner in our lifetimes. Sorry.

Well...except, of course...we haven't even tried. But that's not really relevant, eh? And since you missed the edit...please explain how your increased capacity prevents the Saudis from flooding the market again.

 

[naturalmwa]

You're so annoying.

Again, private enterprise WANTED to build a pipeline and the administration drug its feet for FIVE YEARS. If we didn't have all these ridiculous rules and roadblocks to progress, the pipeline would have been built by now, ready to supply additional transport capacity. The fact that it isn't needed in today's exact market environment is not relevant. Oil prices are highly unstable. It's just a matter of time when upward price pressures will occur, and the only solution to that is more supply (unless you can somehow reduce demand).

This only makes sense if you think that Canadian oil was dependant on the pipeline. That's not how I understand the reality. And you're missing the fact that is still foreign oil. US firms you care about are still fracked.

 

[Jan Itor]

That doesn't really have any bearing on your post.

On my post? I was responding to natural's question about making the oil industry state run. So, no, it doesn't have any bearing on my post, because I had no post. It does have some bearing on the post I was responding to.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Instead of you playing the 1000 questions game here, why don't you tell us your opinion. You stated the low oil prices are a good thing. This is true. But what is your opinion on the job losses related to this? Answer those, and I may consider answering yours.

Heck, I'll take that one. I feel bad for them. Most of my wife's family is in the oil business and they're hurting right now. But oil has always been a boom or bust field. Everybody in the business knows that. Those who understand it, prepare for the busts.

 

[Jan Itor]

Heck, I'll take that one. I feel bad for them. Most of my wife's family is in the oil business and they're hurting right now. But oil has always been a boom or bust field. Everybody in the business knows that. Those who understand it, prepare for the busts.

That's fine. But I'm just trying get get Natural to answer a question from time to time. He's asked plenty so it's time to answer.

 

[The Tradition]

Well...except, of course...we haven't even tried. But that's not really relevant, eh? And since you missed the edit...please explain how your increased capacity prevents the Saudis from flooding the market again.

Are you even paying attention? It doesn't prevent them from flooding the market. Never said that.

For about the tenth time: The Saudis/OPEC are flooding the market now. When they pull back, prices will go up. If non-OPEC nations don't want the price to go up, then the non-OPEC nations will need the capacity to increase their own production, blunting OPEC's attempt to force an increase in price.

That is how an increase in capacity gives us the ability to counter OPECs actions.

 

[naturalmwa]

Instead of you playing the 1000 questions game here, why don't you tell us your opinion. You stated the low oil prices are a good thing. This is true. But what is your opinion on the job losses related to this? Answer those, and I may consider answering yours.

Oh no, I'm in the middle of a game and I'm enjoying it. Feel free to jump in or sit out. The game works like this. I ask you a series of leading questions until you arrive at the inescapable conclusion that you too like progressive trade and labor policy.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

On my post? I was responding to natural's question about making the oil industry state run. So, no, it doesn't have any bearing on my post, because I had no post. It does have some bearing on the post I was responding to.

Sorry...thought you were the op. It still has no bearing. It's more of a random observation that has no basis in fact...unless you can supply a link where Reid proposed nationalizing the oil industry.

 

[The Tradition]

The only way I'd ever consider an electric car is if it could go at least 500 miles on a charge and be able to be fully recharged while I sat in a fast food place and quickly ate a meal. Until we have that sort of technology and widespread charging stations, I'll be relying on gas.

But of course, most electricity is generated by fossil fuels, so that doesn't really change the demand much.

 

[Jan Itor]

Sorry...thought you were the op. It still has no bearing. It's more of a random observation that has no basis in fact...unless you can supply a link where Reid proposed nationalizing the oil industry.

He said it when GWB was POTUS and Harry was the Senate leader. If I have time, I'll search, but he did say it. It was back when gas prices were skyrocketing and Harry was blaming Bush. You know, because both parties do that.