Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Countdown to $200 oil (7) - Saudis announce oil production increases - again

by Jerome a Paris Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:26:18 AM EST

Saudi Arabia has announced, once again, that it was increasing production:


Saudi Arabia confirmed it would pump 9.7m barrels a day next month, an increase of 200,000 and the highest level in nearly 30 years, as it repeated its standard offer of extra barrels if customers demanded them.

The kingdom also reiterated its promise to expand production capacity, noting that it expects to achieve 12.5m b/d next year and could add an additional 2.5m barrels - if needed - after that with a massive investment programme.

And of course, we can believe them! They've delivered on all similar promises in the past, right?



Saudi Arabia's oil production reaches 10.8 mln bpd

RIYADH, July 31 [2007] (Xinhua) -- Saudi Arabia's crude oil production capacity has reached 10.8 million barrels per day (bpd), the country's state oil company Saudi Aramco announced Monday.

(...)

Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil producer and exporter and plans to raise its production capacity to 12.5 million bpd in 2009.


SAUDI ARABIA READY TO BOOST CRUDE OIL OUTPUT

Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, announced August 11 [2004] that it was ready to increase the Kingdom's crude oil production to help reduce and stabilize high oil prices. The Kingdom estimated that it could increase production by 1.3 million barrels of oil per day (BPD) if necessary.

"The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in collaboration with the other OPEC member countries, endeavors to ensure the stability of the international oil market and prevent oil prices from escalating in a way that may negatively affect the world economy or oil demand," said Ali Al-Naimi, Saudi Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources, in a statement released to the Saudi Press Agency.  

Naimi noted Saudi Arabia already increased oil production during the past three months to meet the growing demand.  The increases amounted to over one million barrels per day, bringing to over 9.3 million barrels per day.


Bush fails to persuade Saudis to cut oil price

[26 April 2005]

While the talks were taking place, a Saudi spokesman outlined a plan to the media that would involve spending $US50 billion ($64 billion) to increase production capacity to 12.5 million barrels a day by 2009 and to 15 million barrels a day in the subsequent decade. The Saudis currently produce 9.5 million barrels a day.

The National Security Adviser, Steve Hadley, welcomed the announcement, saying that when the Saudis increased their production capacity, this was bound to have a "positive effect on oil prices".


Saudi Plan to Boost Output Opposed by Some in OPEC

Sept. 11 [2007] (Bloomberg) -- A Saudi Arabian-backed plan to temper high oil prices by raising oil production at today's OPEC meeting in Vienna is meeting resistance from Venezuela, Algeria and Libya.

Oil prices above $77 a barrel are a burden to consuming nations, prompting some Persian Gulf producers to discuss raising OPEC quotas by at least 500,000 barrels a day at the meeting today. The group's biggest producer, Saudi Arabia, proposed an increase, Iraq's oil minister said before the talks started.

So we see that the Saudis seem to be regularly announcing or promising production increases to supply the market - and yet always seem to have production around 9.5 mb/d after such increases (I'll explain the higher numbers in a sec).

And it's no wonder: that's where their production has been for the past several years (graph from a 2006 Econobrowser post)

If you're wondering how it's possible to announce increases every other year, and still produce the same, it's simple: there are production decreases along the way.

But more interestngly, the Saudis like to play on the easy confusion between different numbers. The graph below, prepared by Euan Mearns of the Oil Drum (and most recently posted by him here) explains this:

There are really two different numbers: one is what is traditionally called "oil": it's the blue bit above, and it's also called C+C (for crude and condensate, condensate, to simplify being the oil found in gas fields). The other (in yellow above) is what is called "liquids": it includes oil and a number of other liquids that look like oil, including NGL (natural gas liquids: other oil-like liquids found in gas production) and many others - biofuels are included in that number in those countries that produce them, for instance).

Saudis repeatedly maintain the confusion between the two numbers. The 12.5mb/d capacity that they have repeatedly promising for 2009 (which by the way means that today's suggestions that they will reach that level are nothing new) refers to all liquids, for instance, not just to oil. With overall liquids production above 10.5mb/d already, that means that either they have much less spare capacity than they claim, or that the increases in overall capacity by the end of the year will be insignificant.

An added twist to that is noted by David Cohen over at ASPO-USA is that the Saudis are currently making no efforts to supply the market with their existing available capacity, by refusing to compensate potential buyers for the lower quality (full of sulfur) of that crude:


Saudi Arabia is offering greater volumes of Arab Light (33.4° API, Sulfur 1.77%) and Arab Extra-light (37.2° API, Sulfur 1.15%) in the June/July production hike. Arab Light crude is called "sour" because of its high sulfur content. Refiners who can process this oil will take it only if Saudi Arabia lowers the asking price. US refiners see extra Saudi oil offer [as] too pricey tells the story (Reuters, June 16, 2008).


"They [the Saudis] can offer all the oil they want. The fact is they want too much for it. There's cheaper oil out there right now," said a trader with an independent U.S. oil refiner.

Saudi official selling prices for the United States currently list Arab Light ARL-OSP-N at a nearly $3 per barrel premium to comparable U.S. domestic crude grades like Mars MRS- -- even before the cost of shipping oil from Saudi Arabia is taken into account.

Traders said they would be willing to increase purchases of Saudi crude, if prices were lowered.

Asian refiners like China's Sinopec, who are operating at a loss, are "choosy" about the the oil they buy in order to keep their costs down (Reuters, June 16, 2008). Many "simple" refiners in Asia would prefer a crude mix that includes more medium or heavy oil, not the pricey Arab light Saudi Arabia is offering. They also want these lower quality grades at a reasonable price.


Although margins for processing the kingdom's heavier grades have plummeted, Aramco has also cut the discounts it offers on these grades to their lowest levels this decade, while keeping prices of its lighter grades at relatively high levels. [emphasis added]

In addition to keeping oil off the market in 2007, the Saudis have raised prices on all of their crude grades beyond what the refining market can currently bear.

So, in short:

  • Saudi Arabia is promising the oil (and/or production capacity) it has been promising again and again over the past 5 years;
  • they are claiming to have spare capacity when numbers suggest that it is much lower than they claim, and made up mostly of "sour" crude that refiners might be interested in (if they can actually process it) only with deep discounts that the Saudis won't offer - so it's smallish, inconvenient spare capacity created by, effectively, offering it for sale at a price significantly higher than current market prices;
  • they keep on playing with the various oil qualities to announce numbers that are not comparable to one another - but which they nevertheless proceed to compare in their announcements -  not surprisingly enough, to make things look better than they are.

Dave Cohen makes an interesting comparison to the Texas Railway Commission in the 70s - go read it. He notes that the point where a cartel lets its members produce flat out is the moment when it becomes impotent to control the market. We seem to be at that point with OPEC today.

Which makes Bodman's announcement today all the more worrisome:


U.S. energy sec: more oil needed to tame price

Producers must pump more to ease the pain felt in the United States and elsewhere from record fuel prices, U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said on Saturday.

He blamed tight supplies for fuelling a rally which lifted oil close to $140 a barrel this week, sparking protests across Asia and Europe.

(...)

Bodman said prices would soar higher if more oil was not forthcoming.

"In the absence of any additional crude supply, for every one percent of crude demand, we will expect a 20 percent increase in price in order to balance the market."

This has been my theme for a while, but here it is, in stark terms: when supply is constrained and demand growing, market balance must be achieved through demand destruction; with a commodity as precious and necessary as oil, demand destruction is hard to get, and requires massive price hikes.

And things are even worse that Bodman notes: the problem is not just the lack of additional crude supply, but the actual drop in exports as oil producers, which are all, unsurprisingly, enjoying huge economic booms, consume more of the stuff themselves - volumes that are directly taken out of the markets and not subject to price mechanisms.

See this table (from this post by westexas over at the Oil Drum), showing the main exporters, and their export volumes:

Production is stagnant, and exports are actually shrinking rapidly.

So not only the Saudis are blowing smoke when they repeatedly announce production increases, but their exports are actually been going down quite significantly lately.

Display:
What's the source for these export numbers?

The numbers for Canada look seriously of from US DOE numbers, do your numbers reflect crude sent to the US for refining or some other similar issue?

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 at 06:57:52 PM EST
Conflating capacity with actual production is a bit unfair.  If they've only got 9.5 MMBD of demand that's all they've got regardless of capacity to produce.

It's also interesting that refiners are saying they can get other, cheaper crudes.  That and the shape of the futures price curve tells me there's neither a shortage nor a surplus of crude.  The huge discount on Arab Heavy (-$13-15 for the US market) tells me that while the US refineries are operating at only 85-88% of capacity, they cannot profitably refine the heavier oils.  All the upgrading capacity is full so adding more AH into the mix just means more residual fuels coming out the bottom and less on spec gasoline and low sulfur mid distillates which are where the money is.

This statement also gives me pause:

So not only the Saudis are blowing smoke when they repeatedly announce production increases, but their exports are actually been going down quite significantly lately.

They also export a large amount of finished products (gasoline, diesel, jet, naphtha) and have been moving to become chemicals exporters (plastics etc).  Is there really less hydrocarbon going out over the border or have they just moved further up the food chain with their vertical integration?  I've no idea what the answer is, but it's a better question than simply focusing on crude oil.

Smells like we have an upgrading shortage, no real crude shortage, and insufficient excess capacity to make financial investors become sellers instead of buyers.  Not to mention every time Saudi makes 200 MBD extra available, 100+ is lost in Nigeria or elsewhere to unrest.

by HiD on Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 at 10:22:37 PM EST

Conflating capacity with actual production is a bit unfair.

It seems that the Saudis are implicitly conflating the two.  I am not real clear where Jerome has done that.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 at 11:52:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the Saudi and American elites know what they are doing. All oil (and credit) woes were predictable and predicted by them, and they are making the best of that... for themselves, exclusively.

Even maximal profit is not too important, they may reckon. Gaining certain dominant power will do just fine.

by das monde on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 08:47:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
  • I agree that conflating capacity and production (and mixing up different products) is confusing: and that's what I'm saying the Saudis are doing, to some extent;

  • the point about the Saudis moving toward exports of refined products and petrochemicals (and other "oil-rich" products like energy-intensive metals) is a very real one, which would require more detailed investigation;

  • your point about the issue being refinery upgrades is also spot on in my view: to some extent, this is reflected in my point about the Saudis pushing for a higher price by refusing to discount their poorer grades.


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 03:21:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
discounting AH.  Just not enough to make it work for a mediocre refinery.  Saudi see no reason to line refiner's pockets with "their" money by pricing to fuel oil economics.  Even so, $13/bbl discount is pretty huge.

People don't realize just how much money was spent to make Ultra low sulfur diesel.  It was huge.  Trying to just ram AH into the refining system is just not doable in the modern world where you can't just burn any old shit.  

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 05:23:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
to make it worthwhile for refineries, given, as you note, their current production requirements.

So: still too expensive.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:12:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
as you well know.

Would you install a wind turbine if there was a user who could only profitably buy the power at 2 cts/kwhr?  If not, why would you expect the Saudis to price AH at WTI - $30 just so fuel oil could replace nat gas in thermal power plants at the margin and thereby trash the price of the rest of the bbls?

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:44:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why would you expect the Saudis to price AH at WTI-$30 just so fuel oil could replace nat gas in thermal power plants at the margin and thereby trash the price of the rest of the bbls?
Are there other sellers (other than the Saudis) of Arab Heavy or similar, who sell it more cheaply?
by Ralph on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 11:00:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maya from Mexico is similar.  Some California Heavies are as bad.  Iranian Heavy is more like Arab Medium.

No idea how those are pricing, but the domestic bbls will be owned by the oil cos who will always use their own bbls first.  Gotta put them somewhere.  Mexico probably has their Maya sales termed up (sales for a year committed both ways with prices floating off the market).  Saudi has customers with contracts but they are more flexible about nominations with reasonable limits.  I'm no expert here and it's been a long time since I sat next to the crude traders.  Things may be different now.

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:09:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
HiD:
Smells like we have an upgrading shortage, no real crude shortage,

Ummm....so why do we have crude at this level then?

Just paid a heating oil bill...ouch....!!!!

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 05:17:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
because you bought the fuel anyway regardless of the price.  Until there is true price elasticity, the market can bid up oil and just hand it off to the ultimate consumer with no risk of loss.

There's a small surplus available, but the Saudis are not going to produce bbls just to sell down the market.  Nor are the Iranians.  Who would?  Everyone else is wide open and stocks are not building

The WTI market is flat to contango (<.8% for 6 months) into winter.  That says a well balanced mkt to me.

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 05:31:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
maxed out on their light grades which do have some possibility of substituting for the light sweet grades that could be used to sell down WTI and Brent.  Nigeria's political mess is a huge impact on the light sweet market.  Their shut in production is bigger than either the BFO production or WTI.  And this oil could be slotted into the currently idled US refinery capacity profitably.
by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 05:37:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
HiD:
the market can bid up oil and just hand it off to the ultimate consumer with no risk of loss.

Hang on.

Who is "the market" here?

You are making my point that it is not the consumers but the intermediaries (who are implicitly "the market" you refer to) who are "bidding up" (aka "acceptable manipulation" ?) the market to max out their profits.

I know that's the way that a market run by intermediaries for intermediaries is, but I don't believe - particularly in a Peer to Peer era - it's the way the market needs to be...

It's only a cartel of consumers can fix the problem, of course.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 05:52:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Chris, there's only so much oil to go around.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 05:57:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru. I know that.

And HiD is saying - as I read him - that while there may be a shortage of sweet crudes (which can be refined profitably), there is no general shortage of crudes.

So why is the crude price this high? Because producers AND intermediaries have an interest in it being "bid up", that's why.

Is it consumers "bidding it up"? You tell me.

If it were the case that the major oil Corporations which produce and refine oil were service providers (getting a proportional fee or service charge) - rather than elements in a supply chain of transactions - then the market would look rather different.

Indeed, I think that the market is trending in the direction of service provision anyway as producers become more and more reluctant to sell "Equity" in their production.

Moreover, the short termism inherent in the financing system has starved the market of necessary investment - particularly in refining, which is where the bottlenecks are.

 

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:21:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The refining industry spent billions gearing up for low sulfur products in th e 90's.  They just didn't invest in a great chunk of surplus capacity like they did in the late 70's early 80's (by mistake) killing their profitability for nearly 20 years.  World refining capacity has steadily grown.  Just not quite as fast as demand.

Even now there are dozens of projects on the books with US refiners struggling to make a profit.  Are they obligated to build as much capacity as is required to keep margins at bare minimum so you can have cheap fuel?  ho ho ho, pull the other one.

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:36:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If they haven't overinvested in refining capacity, why are crack spreads so low?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 07:08:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
demand is flat to down in the US on gasoline.  My gut is the rest of the world is maxing diesel and dumping the byproduct gasoline in the US market.  Gas cracks are bad.  Diesel cracks are huge.
by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:28:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course the oil industry is not a short term industry.

The short termism is that of the financial sector and the levels of returns demanded by the "private" sector for investment.

Refineries, pipelines, storage and other similar infrastructure are essentially utilities, as are airlines in many areas.

If push comes to shove and they all go bust, do you see governments not stepping in?

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 07:32:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, refineries are not utilities though if you'd offered them PUC regulation with guaranteed margins and cover on their stranded assets about 1990, many would have jumped at it.  They were getting crushed with nil return on investment and regulatory demands to invest billions in clean fuels.

That's a problem with the thinking of some on the left.  They believe refiners should just be there to cover their needs without recognizing there's a two way street implicit in that bargain.  You can't have cheap and steady.

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:31:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The final consumer doesn't "bid" on price but on volume. Given a price, he decides how much to buy.

The price is "offered" by the distributors of refined products.

The distributors buy from refiners (unless they are vertically integrated, but still, if the market price is high enough you may decide to sell your refined products wholesale rather than distribute them yourself). So you can say that there is bidding amond distributors to buy from the refiners.

The refiners bid among themselves for crude. We're told the refiners' high bid for  Arab Heavy is lower than Saudi Arabia's asking price. This means that the refiners don't feel they can raise their asking price for refined products, which means that there isn't an unreasonable profit margin being made between refiners and distributors.

So, where are the profit margins? It appears the profit margins are mostly going to the producers.

OPEC can no longer push prices downward by increasing production, but they can push prices higher by withwolding it. They appear to be doing just that with Arab Heavy: asking for a price the refiners won't bear because the market for refined products also won't bear the resulting retail price.

Now, unlike in the 1970's when OPEC's stated reason to withhold production was political (the Yom Kippur war), in this instance the reason is economic. And who can fault them? If they know their balck gold is running out they should husband it, not sell it cheap to Whitey.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:41:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru:
This means that the refiners don't feel they can raise their asking price for refined products, which means that there isn't an unreasonable profit margin being made between refiners and distributors.
Well, maybe that means they are already fleecing the distributors, but since HiD claims refiners are not making a lot of money (and Starvid brings up the "narrow crack spreads"), it would seem the refiners' margins are in fact not huge.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 09:43:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
More like infinitesmal.

Check the development of the shares of the two big refiners Tesoro and Valero.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 11:03:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't cry too much for them.  And their situation is very different from an Asian refiner designed for max diesel.

NYMEX heat   July 3.8, Dec 3.95/gallon
NYMEX gas    July 3.45 Dec 3.3/gallon
WTI             136.8      137.1/bbl

Heat cracks are    $23/bbl prompt and $29 for winter.  That's plenty!  
gas is lower    $8/ $1.5

That's the problem for US refiners designed for max mogas like Valero and Tesoro.        

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:24:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Eh, I should have known...

The people at the Preem/Scanraff in Lysekil invested huge $$$ in equipment to turn Russian heavy/sour into sulfur-free diesel. They are swimming in money now.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 10:49:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ChrisCook:
Moreover, the short termism inherent in the financing system has starved the market of necessary investment - particularly in refining, which is where the bottlenecks are.
Suppose you want to build a refinery for heavy, sour crudes.

How much would that cost, how long would it take to build, and what would be its lifetime?

Suppose, also, that you believe in the current price climate a lot of the demand for liquid fuels is going to shift to electricity from other sources on a scale of 5 to 10 years.

It might be that it doesn't make sense to invest in a heavy sour refinery because by the time you'd expect to be recouping your investment, the demand for the refined product just isn't there. We may not be in that situation yet, but it's a scenario I'd like to see developed, because it might mean that the underinvestment in heavy sour refining capacity in the 1980's/90's might be an irreversible, frozen historical accident.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:53:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
bingo

US refiners still remember a decade+ of pain from the wild eyed expansions of the late 70's/early 80s.  Yet there are still billions of dollars of projects in the works.  Conoco even has ads on TV bragging about doubling the size of their already large Lake Charles refinery.

I'd guess a modern 250 MBD refinery is at least $5 billion bucks.  Would take you 3-5 years from getting permits to go to have it up and running.

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:26:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ChrisCook:

while there may be a shortage of sweet crudes (which can be refined profitably), there is no general shortage of crudes.

So why is the crude price this high? Because producers AND intermediaries have an interest in it being "bid up", that's why.

The light, sweet crude is expensive because there's a shortage of it, and heavy sour crudes can't be refined profitably so the fact that they're not scarce is irrelevant.

It might be profitable to refine it if you were willing to pay even more for your heating oil...

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:56:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are part of the market.  They establish a price and you pay it.  They offer higher, you pay it.  They offer still higher, you pay it.  

WHEN DO YOU STOP and stick them with the oil?

Buy an electric heater or a heat pump!  That costs even more?  Then keep paying whatever they want for the oil.
The intermediaries can only sell oil in a circle for so long.  At some point a real buyer has to appear to actually use the damn stuff.  And they do.  And keep paying with only a modicum of whining.

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:31:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Francois in Paris has argued that $140/bbl is already expensive enough that alternative energy infrastructure is economical... The problem is the capital investment needed. So, if it would take 10 years for the private vehicle fleet to switch to electric, we can expect 10 years of overpriced oil. Same for home heating. But that doesn't mean speculation is responsible for the overpricing. It does mean there is money to be made speculating in a market that will stay tight for at least 5 years.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:46:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So who's the player with the short sighted lack of investment now?

I hear your point and I expect oil will wave down in the next 3-5 years as investment in alternatives and conservation kick in.  However, with 1 billion Chinese and another billion Indians still living in 1750 for all intents, there's so much room to grow oil may never really retrace.

agree 100%.  Speculation has had input in making the price move much faster to where it was going anyway.  Always money to be made in reading the tea leaves and making the market move on YOUR timetable.

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:13:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I completely agree that there's no reason to expect oil prices to go down even if Western demand switches to renewables because of 1) strong demand from China and India; 2) likely post-peak fossil carbon production.

But there's no fundamental reason for the price to be higher than $150 - it might stabilize at that level on the argument that at that level alternative energy infrastructure becomes profitable.

2 years abowe $100 and the long-term expectations will set in and change the game.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 04:55:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm afraid they're going to have to go even higher, and for a longer period, to set expectations.  Right now, people are still fully expecting prices to go back down eventually.  Prices are fighting against decades of stupidity here.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 07:39:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you only need 2 years of 5-year oil futures above $100 to change business expectations, and that's what really matters for new investment in physical plant (since we are so well schooled in the principles of classical economics that we don't allow the State to do the investment).

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 07:44:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wind power needs 15 years of prices higher than a certain threshhold to be profitable - so, unless you have specific incentives, you need the certainty that oil prices will be above, say, 80$/bl for the next 15 years ,not just 5, to invest. High likelihood is not enough in that case, because if it drops below you riks losing your project to the banks.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 08:03:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
markets are us they have no clue where oil will go:



In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 08:05:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How much above $80 do they need to be for 15 years? There are too dimensions here, premium and time.

For instance, suppose the break-even price is $50, so $80 for 15 years is $30 over break-even for 15 years. Could you get away with $90 over the threshold for 5 years? That would be $140 for 5 years, which you can now perfectly hedge in the forward market.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 08:20:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
but electricity prices follow gas prices with a lag, and gas prices follow oil prices with a lag (and with quite independent short term variations).

And as wind grows, it pulls marginal prices down, thus threatening its own viability. Thus, as I noted before, it's likely that wind will need feed-in tariffs even as fuel prices are very high...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 04:08:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, as a matter of pure Keynesian trade policy, it is only common sense to pull wind off the margin and into the baseline.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 06:14:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
HiD:
WHEN DO YOU STOP and stick them with the oil?

You stop when you can no longer afford it, or it becomes "economic" to do something else.

In my case it would be to get the rent reduced (unlikely - but exactly the same dynamics of "rent maximisation" apply), or go and live somewhere else with lower heating costs.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 07:15:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Or you could start a buyer cartel. If you could make your cartel big enough - good luck with that, although it's a nice idea - you could move up to the intermediary stage and start having an effect on prices.

The 'consumers decide the market' bullshit is intellectually offensive. In almost every case that matters, markets are inherently assymetrical. Consumers have a choice to pay, or not pay, but they have no ability to negotiate prices directly, or to push for infrastructure alternatives.

And this is exactly how 'the markets' like it. Real consumer leverage is their worst nightmare, and they'll do almost anything to make sure it doesn't happen.

You could argue that wouldn't make a difference here, because in the case of a demand strike, the producers could always afford to sit it out, because they have an effective monopoly on an essential resource.

Which is true - but since OPEC isn't a monolith, it's hard to imagine that some suppliers might not decide to cut profits in return for sales, and prices would drift downwards.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 07:31:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... the default market in the marginalist economics tradition is the competitive auction market, so a competitive auction market can be assumed by default in a discussion without requiring a defense, but any other market requires defense.

Almost no product markets are competitive auction markets ... on the one hand, most competitive markets monopolistically competitive fixprice markets, not standardized product competitive flexprice markets ... and on the other hand, the largest value added in the economy is sold into oligopolistic markets.

So if the default was "normal", it would be an oligopolistic fixprice market, and to treat a market as a competitive auction market, you would have to justify that it does, in fact, differ from the norm in those specific ways.

OTOH, with a competitive auction market, Marginal Costs add up to a Supply Curve that is, by virtue of the infinite elasticity of firm demand, independent of market demand ... so you can talk about demand shifts and supply shifts and pretend that they can be independent things, where in 95%+ of all markets in the world, any change in demand elasticity a shift in the traditional Marshallian supply schedule, and a supply shift to a different part of the demand schedule with a different elasticity implies a further shift in supply.

So the default case is what's easiest to talk about with the traditional toolkit, not what's normal.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 09:48:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's look at this:
the default case is what's easiest to talk about with the traditional toolkit, not what's normal.
the default market in the marginalist economics tradition is the competitive auction market, so a competitive auction market can be assumed by default in a discussion without requiring a defense, but any other market requires defense.
Garbage in, garbage out.

However, this explains why economists attempt to convince politicians to turn everything into competitive auction markets. Energy liberalisation, emissions trading, anyone?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 09:51:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, as far as I can work out, emissions trading was invented by Goldman Sachs as a new market for them to skim commission off...
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 11:24:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actual emissions trading, perhaps, but the theoretical concept has been in the literature for a while ... while the purpose of the marginalist economic tradition in the hands of your Goldman Sach's of the world is mostly to rationalize a public benefit for the accumulation of wealth, if it can be used to give posh sounding cover for a new financial product, that's good too.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 01:08:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
most of OPEC cannot stand up to a buyer's strike and I disagree that consumers don't have a choice.

The quickest way to half the cost of oil is to use half as much.  Lose the big car, insulate your house.  Get a heat pump.  Car pool.

Of course Joe Blogs can't negotiate with Saudi Aramco, but he can stop feeding demand into the system.

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:15:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course Joe Blogs can't negotiate with Saudi Aramco, but he can stop feeding demand into the system.

Reminds me of what Mexicans say about cocaine, heroine and marijuana-toking Americans.

... all progress depends on the unreasonable mensch.
(apologies to G.B. Shaw)

by marco on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 09:09:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and they're right.  No demand, no supply.
by HiD on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 02:13:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What are you paying a heating oil bill in June for?  Surely it's not still cold over there.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 07:40:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Drew J Jones:
What are you paying a heating oil bill in June for?  

Well, actually it's kerosene, and it's where we get our hot water from. The last 500 litres we had on 20 March cost us £268.29. This lot costs us £332.06 and should last us til September/October.

If this level keeps up, we will definitely have to look at moving, cos 500 litres lasts under a month with the heating running at comfortable levels in our winter - this is a COLD house with thick stone walls which take a lot of warming up. When Solveig moved in about five years ago it was well under £100.00 per 500 litres..

Drew J Jones:

Surely it's not still cold over there.

Well, when I got back to Edinburgh on Saturday it was 9 degrees, pissing it down, and howling through the windows from the East....

Brrr....

It's nicer now, about 16 degrees air temperature, and warm in the sun.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 08:20:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This lot costs us £332.06 and should last us til September/October.

Holy Jebus.  That's about what I spend on all utilities for the whole year.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 08:35:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yup.

And that's without talking about filling the car with petrol....

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 09:58:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Doesn't Edinburgh have a subway system, or is it inadequate?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 10:05:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Chris actually lives in Linlithgow.

Edinburgh has an adequate bus system.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 10:07:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Damn, that's when I would think about putting foam and stucco on the outside of the stone and holding onto that heat a while longer after heating up the stones.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 09:55:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Stucco in Edinburgh's weather?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 10:01:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What ... they don't have waterproof cement in Europe? You got to put something on top of the foam, it looks terrible otherwise, and especially in Edinburgh's weather would need replacing on a regular basis without a hard protective outer layer.

Originally the foam base was put on underneath the stucco because when stucco was used in places where it was not always hot and dry, the stucco would crack from the expansion and contraction.

It was only after doing it that they discovered the side effect in terms of cutting energy bills.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 10:30:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
and perhaps this is entirely coincidental, and perhaps not, but this 200,000 bbl figure is just about exactly the same amount as was taken offline this past week in Nigeria as a result of the militant/pirate/criminal (call them what you will) attack on Shell's Bonga offshore facility, to say nothing of the new attack on a major Chevron pipeline.  Approximately a million barrels per day are "shut in" as the result of various attacks and restrictions in Nigeria, a figure far larger than any possible short-term production increase from the Saudis.
by The Maven on Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 at 11:12:11 PM EST

Aramco sets Khursaniyah date

Saudi Aramco is set to bring the Khursaniyah oilfield project - capable of pumping 500,000 barrels per day - on stream in August, Amin Nasser, the senior vice president of exploration and producution at the Saudi Arabian company, said today.

The Khursaniyah project involves production facilities for the onshore Abu Hadriya, Fadhili and Khursaniyah fields near Jubail Industrial City in the Eastern Province,.

Last month, an Aramco official told Reuters large parts of the project were ready. Saudi Aramco had planned to bring Khursaniyah online in December last year.

So next month's production increase is just the (delayed) expansion that's been announced over and over again...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 07:12:38 AM EST
So it's just repeated bullshitting.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 07:50:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This was brilliant, Jerome.  Answered a lot of questions I had.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 07:41:34 AM EST
Bodman said prices would soar higher if more oil was not forthcoming.

"In the absence of any additional crude supply, for every one percent of crude demand, we will expect a 20 percent increase in price in order to balance the market."

Well, if that's true, then can we not, please, throw out the scapegoating of speculators that seems to have suddenly polluted all discussion of energy in America right now?  Because that points pretty clearly to an almost-perfectly inelastic supply curve.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 07:55:04 AM EST
that American consumers (just like European consumers) don't really like to be blamed for the predictable consequences of their spending habits...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 09:43:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
will jump at any opportunity to find a scapegoat, ie to not take the blame.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 09:44:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
that American consumers (just like European consumers) don't really like to be blamed for the predictable consequences of their spending habits

So I guess my platform of "Eat It, You Slobs" isn't going to fly when I launch my run for the presidency.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 09:48:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't you have to be 35 to run?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 09:52:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but surely we'll still be dealing with the same crap a decade from now.  This is America, after all.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 10:03:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Drew J. Jones:
can we not, please, throw out the scapegoating of speculators that seems to have suddenly polluted all discussion of energy in America right now?
Everyone is jumping on that "blame the specultors" bandwagon now -- and this is only the prelude to a mad hunt for a scapegoat to take people's anger out on.

Blame it on "Big oil" or "speculators" or "the Arabs" or "Iran" or "the Israelis" or "Bush" or "Congress" or "the Democrats" or "International Bankers" or "China" or "Russia" or... almost anyone.

Eventually one or more of those will become THE target, no doubt providing an excuse for a great deal of truly nasty mischief, whether domestic, foreign or (most likely) both.

by Ralph on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 11:37:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Um, I'm 110% certain "the Israelis" will not be the target for scapegoating.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 11:53:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Um, I'm 110% certain "the Israelis" will not be the target for scapegoating.

Well, not in the US, or Europe. Actually doubt they will elsewhere. However, I did see a piece from either Malaysia or Indonesia a couple months ago blaming financial speculation by the "Soros', Goldmans', and Rubins".

by MarekNYC on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 12:48:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, okay, the conspiracy crowd might blame Israel, because, as you know, it's not a proper conspiracy theory if The Jews(TM) aren't in charge.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 02:50:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One thing that doesn't get mentioned much is all the other chemical products extracted from various types of crude - plastics especially. I've read (but I know nuttin') that for some types of crude only a fifth by volume goes into fuels such as 'petrol'.

Demand for plastics is something we can do something about rapidly, without heavy impact on infrastructure. Woodfibre technology has made huge advances over the past decades.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 09:06:09 AM EST
pretty small beer actually.

USA uses roughly 20 MMBD of oil.  less than 20% is assigned to "other oils"

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_sndw_dcus_nus_w.htm

scroll to the last table.

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:37:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Jerome:
I linked to this essay of yours at economist Mark Thoma's blog, perhaps you want to take a look at the discussion over there. The thread is based upon Krugman's latest blog entry.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/06/speculative-non.html


Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:47:18 PM EST
Yes, I saw you did.

I think you are unfair to Krugman when you seem to imply that he failed to see that producing countries may be hoarding. I remember him writing that, based on the lack of major increase in inventory, any hoarding had to be done by the producer. Which isn't what people mean when they talk about speculation.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 05:33:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
(which is even too much for the WSJ, apparently)


How can we convince Saudi Arabia to pump more oil when it reaps the profits of pumping less?

The Saudis never tire of asserting that their role as "guarantor" of oil stability is reason enough to get protection by Western armies against ayatollahs and Iraqis. Yet, they cannot be imposed upon to pump more when the very health of those Western economies teeters under quintupling oil prices.

In addition to oil industry knowledge that Saudi Arabia can immediately increase production by 20 percent, it can keep on doing so into the foreseeable future. The country sits atop the world's largest proven reserves of oil, conservatively estimated at 500 billion barrels. Only Iraq's reserves come close to that in the Gulf region and the Iraqis, amidst war and chaos, are indeed producing all they can and plan to up it.

By contrast the Saudis, along with Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, who are so-called allies, are literally holding oil back. Twice this year, Saudi Arabia delivered a royal nyet to President Bush's pleas for more oil on behalf of American consumers whose tax dollars -- and soldiers -- were deployed to rescue those allies from Saddam Hussein's claws. Bush, too, was told by King Abdullah to take a walk.

To be sure, a proper working of world economies depends on the laws of supply and demand, but this is not a crisis of too much demand. It is one of holding oil back under the active leadership of friendly Saudi Arabia and OPEC, with the full complicity of such foes as Iran and Venezuela.

(...)

A follow-up can be delivered in inimitable Bush style like: "Hey King, time to fork it out. You've got it. We need it. What do you not understand?"

In a famous historic deal struck just after World War II on an American destroyer, President Roosevelt and King Abdulaziz al-Saud pledged America would help the Saudis find and produce their oil and protect them in return for fair and secure supplies. The meeting is recorded in abundant grainy documentaries and numerous official documents.

America and the West have kept their end of that deal for 60 years. Neocons might argue it is time for payback. Crazy as they can be sometimes, they may argue to some sympathy that the health of world economies, indeed world order, demands cheaper oil. One sure way of doing this is by invading and occupying Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, the mother of all oil reserves.



In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 05:51:10 AM EST
Jerome a Paris:
America and the West have kept their end of that deal for 60 years. Neocons might argue it is time for payback. Crazy as they can be sometimes, they may argue to some sympathy that the health of world economies, indeed world order, demands cheaper oil. One sure way of doing this is by invading and occupying Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, the mother of all oil reserves.
Right, invade an occupy Iraq, Iran and the Shia-majority Eastern Province. Since having Western-friendly Sunni autocrats didn't work in Iraq and Arabia, cut the middleman.

Holy shit, these people are insane.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 05:58:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
By the way, Fahrenheit 9/11 provides the narrative munition to bring American liberals on board this new neocon project.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 07:26:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Come on.  You don't really think we'd attack a country that was actually involved in 9/11, do you?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 07:27:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Even the neocons know better than to attack Mecca and Medina... Or even have American troops in Saudi Arabia (that was one of the consequences of 9/11: the removal of US troops).

So, it might make some sense to use an Iraqi Shia puppet government to launch a proxy war to "liberate our Shia brethren". Too bad Iran is the enemy, they're Shia too.

So, it might make some sense to first take on iran, replace its regime with a friendly Shia leadership, and then use the two Shia puppet governments of Iran and Iraq to take on Saudi Arabia.

Sounds like a plan the neocons would support?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 07:33:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nah, never gonna happen.  The Saudis are bff with the Bushies.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 07:37:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Bushies are on their way out and Obama is unifying the Corporate party.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 07:38:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, you haven't been reading the news recently from the states, I see.  We've already got our first anti-Obama smear book on the way, written by the same guy who wrote the anti-Kerry one.  They've already resurrected the creator of the Willie Horton ads to try to make Obama a Muslim terrorist.

The Corporatists seem more than happy to take their shots at Obama.  Rest assured there's plenty more where those came from.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 07:42:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]