Posted on 05/19/2008 2:23:14 AM PDT by personalaccts
You're running out of oil - Bush
« Previous « PreviousNext » Next »View GalleryPRESIDENT George Bush yesterday told leaders of the oil-rich states of the Middle East that they must face up to a future without their precious hydrocarbons.
In a stark warning, he said their supplies were running out and urged them to reform and diversify their economies. The outgoing United States president told the World Economic Forum, meeting in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, that it was tiADVERTISEMENTme to "prepare for the economic changes ahead".
Mr Bush's family name is inextricably linked to the oil industry, and this was his strongest statement yet on the future of global supplies.
He told the conference: "The rising price of oil has brought great wealth to some in this region, but the supply of oil is limited, and nations like mine are aggressively developing alternatives to oil.
"Over time, as the world becomes less dependent on oil, nations in the Middle East will have to build more diverse and more dynamic economies."
Mr Bush also used his speech to call for more investment in people and "extending the reach of freedom", as well as urging other nations to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and to isolate Syria.
He particularly mentioned women's rights, saying they were key to building powerful economies. He cited Egypt as a model for the development of professional women, girls going to school in Afghanistan and women joining political parties in Iraq and Kuwait.
In an apparent criticism aimed at Saudi Arabia, he told the forum: "This is a matter of morality and of basic math. No nation that cuts off half its population from opportunities will be as productive or prosperous as it could be. Women are a formidable force, as I have seen in my own family and my own administration. As the nations of the Middle East open up their laws and their societies to women, they are learning the same thing."
The president's speech was made only days after he urged Saudi Arabia to increase oil production to ease prices at the pumps, as millions around the globe face increasing costs of filling up and even more grapple with rising food bills.
The future of Scotland's own North Sea oil supply is an issue for both politicians and consumers, who were given a taste of limited fuel shortages during the Grangemouth refinery dispute.
The US has turned dramatically towards biofuels, with Congress raising the federal requirement for using the oil alternative from 6.5 billion gallons last year to nine billion gallons this year. As a consequence, about a quarter of the American corn crop was used for biofuels last year, driving up the price of corn and, hence, also the price of food for millions of families.
Predictions of when the world's oil supplies will fall below global demand range from as early as the next decade, to as late as 2050. Mr Bush has been criticised throughout his term in office for not encouraging more energy alternatives in the US, and for allowing controversial drilling explorations for new fossil-fuel supplies in often environment-ally sensitive areas, such as Alaska.
Analysts warned last night that few in the Middle East, which has two-thirds of the world's oil reserves, are likely to heed Mr Bush. Many have already started diversifying their economies and do not like being preached to by someone so unpopular in the region.
Gerald Butt, editor of the authoritative Middle East Economic Survey, said: "The Gulf states have been trying to diversify their economies away from oil for years, so they'll say, 'This is like teaching your grandmother to suck eggs'.
"Arab states don't like being told what to do by outsiders, and especially by America, whose standing in the region is very low. Bush's comments will be dismissed as unwarranted interference."
Although he praised parts of the Arab world, commentators said Mr Bush had angered many with a speech at the Israel parliament last Thursday, in which he offered unflinching support for the Jewish state but mentioned the Palestinian dream of statehood only once.
Walid Khadduri, a Beirut-based consultant, pointed out that the Gulf states had already been investing windfall profits from high oil prices in major infrastructure projects, including education and housing, and in diversifying their industrial bases.
He said: "Bush's credibility is zero anyway. I really don't know anyone who follows what he says, especially after what has happened in Iraq and then his Knesset speech the other day."
The knock-on effect of rising fuel costs has led to increasing food prices and subsequent riots around the globe, as high prices hit some of the world's poorest.
There is now a desperate attempt to find oil from alternative sources to keep the supply flowing.
Potential sources in Canada would cost almost three times as much to produce as conventional crude oil because they have to be extracted from tar sands. Although the supply, in Alberta, is estimated to be second in size only to Saudi Arabian reserves, the production costs are unlikely to offer much relief for consumers.
While the Bush presidency has tried to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, it has yet to decrease fuel use, say critics.
While the UK produces about 0.3 per cent of the world's supply of oil and uses about 2 per cent, the US produces 2.5 per cent but uses 24 per cent.
Family dynasty is soaked in black gold
BOTH George H Bush and George W Bush will be remembered almost as much for their connections to oil as to the presidency.
Bush Snr owes his fortune to Texas crude, while his son also took posts in the industry before following in his father's footsteps into politics.
Commentators have accused Bush jnr's drive to war in Iraq as merely a quest for oil, with potentially billions of dollars in profit to be made from opening up the country's oil reserves – if Iraq was ever stable.
George Bush Snr, who was president from 1989 to 1993, became a millionaire off the oil industry by the age of 40 in Texas. He started the Bush-Overby Oil Development company in 1951 and co-founded the Zapata Petroleum Corporation two years later. He served as the firm's president from 1954 to 1964. He then entered politics.
After gaining an MBA from Harvard University, Bush Jnr worked in the family oil businesses.
He became a senior partner and chief executive officer of Arbusto Energy, Spectrum 7 and Harken Energy.
Arbusto Energy obtained financing early on from James Bath, a close Bush family friend and in 1979 the sole US business representative of Salem bin Laden, head of the wealthy Saudi family and brother of Osama bin Laden.
The full article contains 1127 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.Page 1 of 1
Last Updated: 18 May 2008 9:54 PM
Bush has a point as should be quite obvious. At least 40% of the Saudi national income goes to support the 7000+ members of the royal family who live in decadent luxury.
For all the trillions of dollars of oil wealth they've received since the 1930s, they haven't founded even one respected university, hospital, or tech research center. They spend an enormous amount of their oil revenue funding world Wahabbi madrasses and mosques which are finally being recognized as intolerant of the dhimmis and highly terrorist-prone.
They need to start breeding superior lines of camels because when their oil money runs out they'll go back to being 8th century camel jockeys. They have squandered all their great opportunities to rise above their little petty tribal intrigues, and Ismael's children have amounted to nothing.
They supply oil. We supply food. The answer should be obvious. The great Arab Street is already rioting in Egypt over bread prices. Suckers. WE are not going to starve. Starvation brings rulers down. Deal with it.
"You're running out of oil - Bush (but give us what you have)"
didn't match the title at the source and had to be changed.
"unknown" was not the name of the writers, and that also had to be changed.
We're trying to reduce the number of threads we have to pull. That's why we're reminding everyone to not alter titles, sources, writers' names and dates. Just use what they have at the source. Thanks.
I’ll agree with you, Dubai is the only Arabic country (tiny as it is) to be using their current oil wealth to plan for their future.
Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamini said the same thing at an international conference he sponsored and hosted at the University of Petroleum and Minerals in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Only he said it in 1973. He also predicted that the mid eastern Arab countries would run out of oil in twenty years. That would have occurred in 1993.
I am not sure what point President Bush is attempting to make in this case.
Yeah! What you said!
Bush Jnr?Who he?
Saudis in particular, and Arabs in general, are too wasted on oil wealth to prepare in any way for the train-wreck that’s about to hit them.
Even trade-based economies like the UAE (Dubai) are going to face hard times because a huge portion of the trade owes to the massive consumption appetites of wealthy Arabs. When that money source dries, ships will have fewer reasons to dock in the Arabian peninsula.
On the plus side, less money for Jihadis and Wahabbi mosques. The Arabs better stock up on guns and ammo. Tribalism is about to get down from the air-conditioned offices, to the tents on sand.
I pray for these poor fools. And for us.
Bush had a lot of good points to make here.
“then says your oil is running out”
Where does he say this? I’ll I saw in the article was him telling them they need to diversify due to alternative fuel.
Yes, Bush makes a lot of good points....except for the fact he knows they are running out of oil and still refuses to increase domestic drilling in conjunction with development of alternative energy sources in the US....Mmm, it must mean him, his cohorts in the congress/senate, their families, and their allies in the Oil Co. want that price to go as high as it can so they get bigger dividends, higher profits, increased stock values....before it runs out.
“They supply oil. We supply food. The answer should be obvious.”
LET THEM EAT OIL!!!!
“urged them to reform and diversify their economies”
Ummmm, like Iran?
In my humble opinion, President Bush is talking more about Democracy and a ‘trickle down economy’ than he is about oil. What he’s saying is that its time for the oil money to be invested in Middle Eastern economies in a way that all citizens share in the wealth and can choose to diversify their economies. Right now Royalty and Despots control the power and oil money in those regions and the citizens do not share in the wealth that the oil money brings. Hence they don’t have a stake in moving their economies to be less dependant on oil income.
From camels to camels in six generations. This should make like MUCH easier for the Israeli’s though, if there are any left.
Hasn’t it only been a few days since Bush groveled to his Saudi lords, begging them to turn up the flow of oil? And didn’t they basically tell him to go pound sand?
And now this? Sounds like sour grape whining to me.
That's been my Dad's theory of why we're dependent on oil from the ME all along. He believes it's been a strategic decision from the get-go to use up all of the ME's oil. Once they don't have oil, they're completely irrelevant.
And, President Bush is right. By the time Saudi / ME oil runs out, we'll be running on our own alternative fuels. We won't need them.
Good. I hope they make a killing!
(Sell it on DU)
Just out of curiosity....Do you believe there is a conflict in allowing those who regulate an industry (elected officals)have ownership in that industry regulate? If so, why?
And, President Bush is right. By the time Saudi / ME oil runs out, we'll be running on our own alternative fuels. We won't need them.
Leonardo Maugheri (the former head of AGIP...the Italian national oil company) says that we got heavily involved with Middle Eastern oil nations because, after WWII we were no longer able to supply the free world enough oil to prosper. During WWII the USA provided oil to all of the Allies, but after the war Germany, Italy, France and Japan were added to our list of countries to take care of. The Cold War was just beginning and the Soviet Union had more oil than they needed. The Soviets were expanding into Eastern Europe and there was fear they would also spread through all of Asia. Russia had plenty of oil to provide to a country once they took them over so, the people "weren't left out in the cold" when the USSR took them over. So, Western powers agreed to let the Seven Sisters expand into the Middle East. Unfortunately, in the late 1960's, that policy was hurt by the Arab vs. Israel conflicts (like the Six Day War). Ever since, we have had to walk the fine line between needing ME countries for their oil and supporting Israel. You might want to read Maugheri's book, "The Age of Oil". It will give you a different perspective.
In regards to us running our own alternative fuels anytime soon...don't count on it. It has taken us 80 years to build our carbon based energy infrastructure. Its simply impossible to transition that to alternatives quickly. Remember it takes a lot of oil, coal and natural gas to build nuclear power plants, windmills, solar installations, and new refineries for alternatives.
In the meantime, look for the Middle Eastern powers to forge closer relations with countries like China and India. Those countries NEED Middle Eastern oil and aren't going to tell the Middle East leaders how to run their countries.
I find most of the regulations on industry rediculous and counter productive to begin with. So no, I don’t have a problem with elected oficials owning oil stocks or oil companies for that matter.
The only career that should ever be considered as a disqualification for congress/president is attorney.If an individual has ever passed the bar, they should be suspect as to their purpose and intention.
And they know that. Which is why they've been busy exporting their excess population to Europe and the US as fast as they can, so that by the time that happens, they will be in a position to control us locally.
Per the CIA factbook, the US has a net migration rate of 2.92 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2.92 migrants come in for every 1000 of existing population). Saudi has a net migration rate of -6.86 migrant(s)/1,000 population (ie, people are moving out of Saudi to the West) and a birthrate that is double ours (ie, their population is growing even with all the emigration). Pakistan and the rest of the Muslim world -- same deal.
By the time the Middle East is out of oil, the Muslims will demographically own the West
There is many a good reason for industry regulation and the need for antitrust laws. Antitrust law attempts to prohibit practices that restrict free trading and competition. It attempts to ban abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anticompetitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position, like cartels, where cartel members may agree on such matters as price fixing, total industry output, price gouging. Regulation attempts to diminish the practice of transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process. These laws are to protect the electorate from these practice, the electorate who are to be represented by the Senate/Congress/President. Therefore, ownership by those (our elected officials) in an industry (oil) they are to regulate leads to corruption, fraud, collusion, unnatural manipulation of price and profit, by not regulating the industry, by not mandating antitrust laws are practiced, laws that could/should diminish activities to manipulate price/profit by the oil cartels. It seems those in such a position can join the industry in manipulating the industry to produce profits to their benefit. They can turn a blind eye in enacting law, opening up drilling, allowing additional refineries to be built in lieu of the status quo...Our elected officials secure greater tax revenue, our elected officials and family who own stock get greater dividend pay outs and greater stock value, the industry plays the status quo and profit margins on higher priced oil per gallon allows for greater profits...Everyone is happy, including you it seems, except for those who are being shafted at the pump and tend to understand why. I wish I could convince you how that should concern you, but there is little doubt my efforts would be wasted.
However, the rest of the Middle East is in real trouble.
Find a substitute for oil. Make it cheaper while you’re at it.
LOL
First thing that comes to mind is nerve damaged almonds.
Also known as numb nuts.
Sounds like Bush is trying to drive the price of oil even higher. I really do question his motives. This kind of public statement does NOTHING to help us.
Tourism? That’s amazing if nobody can get there except by walking, which is what it will be post-oil.
I actually don’t believe the Mideast and Mexico is running out of oil. What the problem is that they have nationalized their oil companies and state run oil companies are not risk takers.
Most of the new oil fields are found by small independent oil companies.
Think ANWAR, the Alaskan North slope. There are oil seeps on the beaches in many places, and all the seismic work previously done showed greater oil reserves than Prudhoe Bay, and it's even ranked in the Saudi Arabian Ghawar oil field class. Ghawar's reservoirs are now in the water injection stage to flush out the remaining retrievable oil reserves, but ANWAR hasn't even been touched. Why?
Understand that if the U.S. put up biding sales today for all those offshore lots off of the northern Alaskan coastline, it would still take AT LEAST 5 years to see any oil coming through the pipeline from the oil fields. There's an enormous amount of necessary - and in that geographical location - HIGHLY expensive infrastructure to get the oil drilled and sent to the refineries. But the reserves are known to be such from previous work that every major Western oil company would bid billions to win drilling rights on the ANWAR lots. But it isn't an option, ANWAR remains off limits.
The ANWR is on Federal Land. Prudhoe is on State Land. That's why.
I KNOW that the Feds have the legal rights to drilling lots past the Alaskan state offshore limits. My point is that the Feds show no signs of even considering leasing auctions when the estimated oil reserves there by any and all accounts should get the Feds to start holding auctions for their offshore lots. That's how it's done, it's a bidding war between oil companies that can afford to bid, when and if the Feds put it all for auction.
It’s over. Best see if your bicycle is ready. Get a spare set of tires if you haven’t yet because bicycle tires don’t last and will only get more expensive.
Tires, my foot. I'm out to corner the old style light bulb market before they're all gone, and only the crappy new light bulbs are available.
Did you forget the sarcasm tag or did you think you were posting over at the D.U.
Bush has pushed for drilling in ANWAR etc. less regulations and so-forth as have many republicans.
Are you saying the Dem's are in cahoots with big oil?
If this was sarcasm apologies in advance, if not............
"Bush has pushed for drilling in ANWAR etc. less regulations and so-forth as have many republicans."
...It seems not nearly hard enough. Show me more then an occasional bill, but one or two bills introduced with an aggressive plan of opening up Alaska for drilling? Show me the show me Bush lobbying, screaming for same. Show me the President, Senators, Congressmen imploring the electorate to lobby and scream for same....You know where it is, no where....A lot of lip service. The status quo is how they like it...stock holders, many consisting of the elected government & family, getting nice dividends, building stock equity, government getting nice tax revenue, the oil companies making record profits....ahhh, no one has a problem with a system that takes care of its own. You tell me to post at DU while you ignore the reality of the situation...so long as we allow elected government officials to own equity in an industry they are to regulate you will see basically nothing done so long as money continues to flow into their pockets and into the company they own. If you think otherwise you are being naive.
Can you provide a link which shows which politicians own oil stocks and how much?
Did the Republicans who passed the bill screwup and risk not only damaging their portfolio but pissing off big oil?
Bush could scream, cry whatever the Dem's will never allow drilling in ANWAR and off the coast(s) until we are in a near national crisis.
The environmentalists and the Libs are whom blocked drilling and continue to do so.
Oh, and while were at it if you think owning oil stocks are making people rich why don't you go buy some?
Oh, and while were at it if you think owning oil stocks are making people rich why don't you go buy some?
My Bro purchased same and they have exploded in value over the last two years. He needs the money more then I do. As stated in prior posts from people who ask me the same questions...I do not own oil stock as I am not a hypocrite who wants ownership in an industry that could end up destroying the US economy. Obviously, if I owned the stocks I would have no right to complain. BTW, don't hold your breath on any meaningful attempts for the repubs or the Dems to try and gain the country's support for drilling. As has been the past efforts...just lip service...nothing more.
Well actually I did, it's full of opinions and no real facts other than campaign contributions (from oil companies) of which many industries give equally large amounts of money.
Not on one search could I find which one's own shares in oil.
BTW glad you don't need the money.
I did not say I did not need the money, just he needed it more.
A couple years back I remember finding a list on google of Senators who have oil stock ownership...ran about 35% having ownership themselves, or family members having ownership. If you included pension funds/401Ks it was about 70%. It was a disturbing read and came from a fairly conservative website. I knew I should have kept that site saved. Oh well, such is life. Just do not expect anyone in Washington to really do anything to get drilling increased, build refineries. While environmentalists have pushed that special interest, it is my thought it works nicely with keeping profits/dividends flowing to family and friends as well, and keeping their stocks valuable. Why topple the apple cart?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.