I'm pretty worried right now...

[DrumCorpsFan27]

David,

I never made an initial claim on how much Cheney and Bush own in oil stocks. YOU did.

Sooooo.....where's your source?

I told you and you felt it was invalid.

[DrumCorpsFan27]

Because he doesn't have to. We're not the only ones who want oil.

Here's what is going on in Saudi Arabia. You won't hear this from the maninstream media because it doesn't fit the anti-Bush, anti-oil message they have been spewing.

SOURCE: Mike Rothman, Oil Analyst

International Strategy and Investment Group

May 24, 2006 Morning Oil Update

The start up of the Haradh field in Saudi Arabia – 300,000 barrels/day of Arab Light crude – is the first of three main projects designed to raise the Kingdom's production capacity.

As a follow-up to our report a month ago about Saudi Arabia's capacity expansion (detailed on the following page), indications are that ARAMCO will bring on the 2nd stage of Shaybah (250,000 b/d of extra light oil) in 2008. This would raise capacity to 12.75 million b/d by 2009.

Manifa is a 40-50 billion barrel field. If developed, initial output will be 1.0-1.5 million b/d of Saudi Heavy crude.

Zuluf is a field lying in about 80 feet of water with approximately 10 billion barrels. It currently produces 400,000-450,000 b/d of Arab Medium. Plans are being considered to add another 200,000-300,000 b/d.

Nuayim in central Arabia may be developed at an initial flow rate of 100,000 b/d as early as 1999 with another 50,000 to 100,000 coming on soon after that.

Shaybah began producing 500,000 b/d of Arab Extra Light crude in 1998. There are now indications that production will be raised by another 250,000 b/d in 2008 and then possibly another 250,000 b/d after that.

These three fields constitute the Khursaniyah project due to bring on 500,000 b/d initially in 2008. Haradh came on stream last month at 300,000 b/d of Saudi Light crude oil.

Khurais comes on stream in 2009 at an initial rate of 1.2 million b/d of Saudi Light crude oil.

OK, so they will have the capability of increasing production two, three or four years down the road. Great. What about increasing producton today, which they can easily do?

[DrumCorpsFan27]

I call it cite your sources. I don't believe you.

ABC news.

[DrumCorpsFan27]

Here's your claim. Post #74 in this thread. Prove it.

The market is opening in 15 minutes...time to fry some real fish.

So, which part do you refute? The record high prices being charged? The record high profits that the oil companies themselves have reported? That the Clinton administration successfully convinced the middle east to increase production? That, in 2004 Bush had $35 million in oil and Cheney had $50 million?

Which fish would you like to fry?

[81regiment]

OK, so they will have the capability of increasing production two, three or four years down the road. Great. What about increasing producton today, which they can easily do?

Oh God, go to this link and tell me what OPEC output is.

No, what, I'll do it for you since you refuse to engage in analysis.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t21.xls

OPEC output is increasing.

2001 30.87 million barrels per day

2002 28.99

2003 30.72

2004 32.92

2005 33.95

Is production increasing?

Yes, and it has been since the oil price trough in 2002, when oil bottomed at $15.

[Dave]

There are a lot of factors that impact the price of gas, very few of which if any are really in control of the oil companies. Out of every gallon of gas, oil companies make a grand total of about eight cents in profit. On average about fifty cents gets sucked up in taxes, more in some states; I think in New York it's around 68 cents, especially since gas is taxed by the dollar rather than by the gallon. The rest of the money that comes out of a gallon of gas goes towards all the costs associated with producing it. When you take a look at how much effort it takes to produce that gallon of gas--seeking it, drilling for it, pumping it out, transporting it, refining it, transporting it again--the price we pay in the end is rather reasonable. Refinery capacity still hasn't recovered completely from hurricane damage, and before that all our refineries were operating at 100% capacity; building more refineries will go a long way to avoiding such future problems and lowering prices. I know it feels good to accuse the oil companies of malfeasance, but the facts just don't back it up.

[Phantombari1]

To many times I have heard about Bush/Cheney having stock in oil companies ect. Every politician does...In regards to the solution for the cost of travel...

I don't think we'll be seeing any alternative fuel or hydro-electric buses anytime soon. I imagine the the Grand Tours will come to an end and you'll find many corps focusing on a particular coast for an extended amount of time. No more coast to coast tours and a centralized Championship located somewhere in the Midwest.

[81regiment]

OK, so they will have the capability of increasing production two, three or four years down the road. Great. What about increasing producton today, which they can easily do?

Here's the production history - from OPEC's 2004 Statistical Bulletin.

http://www.opec.org/library/Annual%20Stati...tin/asb2004.htm

1980 26.5 MMBD (million barrels per day)

1981 22.2

1982 18.7

1983 16.6

1984 15.9

1985 14.9

1986 17.6

1987 16.7

1988 18.8

1989 20.4

1990 22.0

1991 22.2

1992 23.8

1993 24.2

1994 24.6

1995 24.6

1996 24.8

1997 25.4

1998 27.7

1999 26.2

2000 27.7

2001 26.9

2002 24.3

2003 26.8

2004 29.6

So from 1993 to 2000, during Clinton's superb display of geopolitical chest thumping, OPEC production went from 24.2 MMBD to 27.7 MMBD, a difference of 3.5 MMBD. Over 8 years, this is .4375 MMBD.

During Bush, OPEC production has gone from 26.9 MMBD to 29.6 MMBD, a difference of 2.7 MMBD. Over 5 1/2 years, this is .4909 MMBD.

So....if you want to play this inane game of who wields influence...it ain't Clinton.

FYI, under Bush I, OPEC production went up 5 MMBD in the 4 year period from 1988 to 1992.

Facts are stubborn things.

Edited May 24, 2006 by 81regiment

[ChicagoFan]

I think it is just as crazy to say that big oil MUST charge the prices they do. They, by their own admission, are making record high profits, so, IMO, they do not HAVE to charge the prices that they are.

No, they don't HAVE to charge the prices they are but, come one, the oil companies are in business. The point of a business is to make a profit. If people are willing to pay $3 a gallon for gas, why wouldn't oil producers charge that much? They would be crazy not to.

[81regiment]

So, which part do you refute? The record high prices being charged? The record high profits that the oil companies themselves have reported? That the Clinton administration successfully convinced the middle east to increase production? That, in 2004 Bush had $35 million in oil and Cheney had $50 million?

Which fish would you like to fry?

David...let me repeat this again: I didn't bring Bush and Cheney into this. You did. You made the $85 million claim. Where did you get that information? Another poster quoted $100 million.

I left them out because they are inconsequential to the analysis.

If you wish to hold me to the standard of providing a source, I think I have demonstrated the ability to do just that.

Where's yours? If network news is your source...good Lord...