Skip to comments.
Bush told to plan for Chávez oil shock
Financial Times ^
| July 24 2006
| Andy Webb-Vidal
Posted on 07/24/2006 10:05:47 AM PDT by jmc1969
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
To: jmc1969
Whatsamatta, Hugo, are the Americans now boycotting Citgo getting to you?
Pat Robertson ain't so crazy, after all.
41
posted on
07/24/2006 10:39:52 AM PDT
by
Darnright
(http://www.irey.com/)
To: skr
I would guess he was"covered"by his DemonRat buddies.In other words,he could vote with other Republicans(REAL ONES),and it didn't matter!!
To: thegreatbeast
I would have thought that contingency plans would have been drawn up long ago.They were, at the same time as plans to secure our borders were drawn up.....
If they haven't, then someone hasn't done their job.
Well......................
43
posted on
07/24/2006 10:40:39 AM PDT
by
varon
(Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
To: Lunatic Fringe
"We should be drilling ANWR like a porn star. Tracy Lords would agree with you, which is why apparently she is a Republican contributor...if you believe opensecrets.org.
To: alloysteel
Petroleum is a fungible resource. When one source of supply is diverted to another point, then the other sources that had been selling competitively in the former market, simply step up their deliveries, with scarcely a hiccup in supply. Unless all oil producers acted in concert, it would be impossible to embargo delivery of petroleum to any given customer.Venezuela produces heavy (tar-like) (sour) crude. This crude can only be refined by specialized refineries. The way I understand it we are the perfect customer for Venezuela because of this. That not selling to USA will impact heavily on Venezuela because of lack of other customers for their heavy crude. Venezuela oil isn't as fungible as the sweet light crude such as Saudi Arabia produces
45
posted on
07/24/2006 10:42:47 AM PDT
by
dennisw
(Confucius say man who go through turnstile sideways going to Bangkok)
To: labard1
VZ is busy closing its Citgo franchises. They recently announced closings in several Midwestern states (and possibly Connecticut, IIRC).
46
posted on
07/24/2006 10:44:57 AM PDT
by
livius
To: ZULU
>a shorter border to defend
eh? how d'ya figure?
47
posted on
07/24/2006 10:52:51 AM PDT
by
rahbert
To: bandleader
Cannot say that I am surprised.
48
posted on
07/24/2006 10:58:22 AM PDT
by
skr
(We cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent.-- Ronald Reagan)
To: TChris
What a grandstanding putz. Just keep driving that price up ---- Moron.
To: ZULU
then we should take over Mexico...We can get their oil, their cheap labor, a shorter border to defend, and force them all to speak English and watch "Deparate Housewives" and survival shows on TV. I am vehemently opposed to Illegal Immigration, but I see no need to torture the Mexican people...
50
posted on
07/24/2006 11:05:30 AM PDT
by
AzSteven
To: rhombus
Let the drilling commence immediately. The ChiComs are taking our Florida oil since we don't seem to want it.
To: Mike Darancette
The ChiComs are taking our Florida oil since we don't seem to want it.Maybe they'll sail up the coast to the Kennedy compound and take the hot air too since we don't want that either. ;-)
52
posted on
07/24/2006 11:08:31 AM PDT
by
rhombus
To: IamConservative
Furthermore, refineries to process their slop are not laying around everywhere. In fact I believe China has exactly -0- refineries capable of processing their stuff. The USA on the other hand....
And yeah what he said. When supplies are inflexible, who cares where it comes from. Every drop not sold to the USA will open up inventory for whatever it's replacing.
To: alloysteel
Typically, this is true. However, the recent increase in oil prices (that is, from an average of 1.80 to an average of 3.00 in a couple of years) is the result of increased demand from India and China. That being the case, evidently the supply side is not able or willing to balance things out to maintain prices. If Ven. cuts back supply to us, we can expect prices to increase, unless we can offset their embargo by increasing our own supply.
This is one of the most critical reasons why we should have drilling and refinery set up in ANWR, the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of California, even we don't actually use these reserves. Having them on standby, if nothing else, would take this wild card away from hostiles and put it back in our hand.
54
posted on
07/24/2006 11:23:10 AM PDT
by
Ghost of Philip Marlowe
(Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
To: IamConservative
The short answer is that even though Chavez may hate the US and attempt some sort of short-term caitiff it cannot be sustained - i.e. in as much as there are very few countries with the types of refineries required to process the heavy - sour crude that Chavez has to sell.
Likewise the added shipping / transport costs to be incurred - if Chavez were to find other potential buyers - would make the price for this crude unacceptable on the world market
And most of all Chavez could not go very long without the oil income - thus he is stuck with the US as his only real market
55
posted on
07/24/2006 11:26:41 AM PDT
by
VRWCTexan
(History has a long memory - but still repeats itself)
To: Obadiah
Indeed we are. The envirowhackos and the left will block any and every effort to increase domestic production. Our "leaders" insist on regulation and taxation that drive prices up and up and up and restrict production. Our foreign suppliers can (and eventually will) use oil as a weapon (ala 1973 and 1979). And when prices once again spike to $4 or more per gallon of gas our "leaders" will whine and complain about evil oil companies, OPEC and anything else that will deflect attention from their own stupidity and incompetence.
1. Encourage domestic exploration and drilling.
2. Remove regulatory restrictions on refining.
3. Build nuclear plants.
4. Encourage development of alternative energy sources.
The market will handle consumption habits.
56
posted on
07/24/2006 11:30:33 AM PDT
by
scory
To: rahbert
The border from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico is much longer than the Isthmus of Tehauntepec (spelling?) at Mexico's southern tip. Check it out on a map of Mexico.
57
posted on
07/24/2006 11:37:28 AM PDT
by
ZULU
(Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
To: ZULU
The land border is shorter but the seacoast is waayy
longer.
Absorbing Mexico would gain us little more than another
New Mexico with crooked politicos and mostly dirtpoor
ill-educated peasants.
Better to absorb say, Taiwan or Singapore.
58
posted on
07/24/2006 11:41:45 AM PDT
by
rahbert
To: scory
Whole-heartedly concur, and that is why I am frustrated.
59
posted on
07/24/2006 12:07:41 PM PDT
by
Obadiah
(Liberals: Blazingly Stupid!)
To: Lunatic Fringe
We should be drilling ANWR like a porn star.Funniest line of the day.
60
posted on
07/24/2006 12:09:17 PM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(Islam is a perversion of faith, a lie against human spirit, an obscenity shouted in the face of G_d)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson