WikiLeaks: Saudis often warned U.S. about oil speculators

[one...two...tree 2,762]

WASHINGTON — When oil prices hit a record $147 a barrel in July 2008, the Bush administration leaned on Saudi Arabia to pump more crude in hopes that a flood of new crude would drive the price down. The Saudis complied, but not before warning that oil already was plentiful and that Wall Street speculation, not a shortage of oil, was driving up prices.

Saudi Oil Minister Ali al Naimi even told U.S. Ambassador Ford Fraker that the kingdom would have difficulty finding customers for the additional crude, according to an account laid out in a confidential State Department cable dated Sept. 28, 2008,

"Saudi Arabia can't just put crude out on the market," the cable quotes Naimi as saying. Instead, Naimi suggested, "speculators bore significant responsibility for the sharp increase in oil prices in the last few years," according to the cable.

What role Wall Street investors play in the high cost of oil is a hotly debated topic in Washington. Despite weak demand, the price of a barrel of crude oil surged more than 25 percent in the past year, reaching a peak of $113 May 2 before falling back to a range of $95 to $100 a barrel.

The Obama administration, the Bush administration before it and Congress have been slow to take steps to rein in speculators. On Tuesday, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a U.S. regulatory agency, charged a group of financial firms with manipulating the price of oil in 2008. But the commission hasn't enacted a proposal to limit the percentage of oil contracts a financial company can hold, while Congress remains focused primarily on big oil companies, threatening in hearings last week to eliminate their tax breaks because of the $38 billion in first-quarter profits the top six U.S. companies earned.

The Saudis, however, have struck a steady theme for years that something should be done to curb the influence of banks and hedge funds that are speculating on the price of oil, according to diplomatic cables made available to McClatchy by the WikiLeaks website.

The cables show that the subject of speculation has been raised in working group meetings between U.S. and Saudi officials, in one-on-one meetings with American diplomats and at least once with President George W. Bush himself.

The Saudi concerns about speculation have a particular sheen of credibility. Saudi Arabia is the world's largest exporter of oil, serving dozens of clients in addition to the United States. As such, it carefully tracks the trends that drive oil prices, which send it billions of additional dollars with every increase.

But in the cables, Saudi officials explain that they have two primary concerns about artificially high crude prices: that they'll dampen the long-term demand for oil and that the wide price swings typical of commodity speculation make it difficult for them to plan future oil field development. After that $147 a barrel peak in 2008, for example, prices plunged to $33 a barrel as the global financial crisis rocked the world. That was a stunning change in less than half a year.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/25/114759/wikileaks-saudis-often-warned.html#ixzz1NSujcdnY

[Saddle Bronc 124]

-------------Sarky on ------------------

Oh wow, yet another "open secret" gleaned from Wikileaks.

------------ Sarky off -----------------

[웃 910]

Oil should be fixed at $18 a barrel

[Vi-Jay 218]

Does rising oil prices + rising gas prices + regulation help the "Green Economy"?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Does rising oil prices + rising gas prices + regulation help the "Green Economy"?

What line of work do you do?

[Vi-Jay 218]

What line of work do you do?

Why do you ask?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why do you ask?

Look. If you want people to actually engage you like other members here, stop acting like a troll. I didn't ask you for your social security number or your address, I simply asked you what line of work you do. The FBI won't storm your home. Good grief.

[웃 910]

Look. If you want people to actually engage you like other members here, stop acting like a troll. I didn't ask you for your social security number or your address, I simply asked you what line of work you do. The FBI won't storm your home. Good grief.

[Vi-Jay 218]

Look. If you want people to actually engage you like other members here, stop acting like a troll. I didn't ask you for your social security number or your address, I simply asked you what line of work you do. The FBI won't storm your home. Good grief.

I'm not sure how to react to your comment.

Thus far, I am content with my P&R activity.

Is there some type of orientation I need to attend?

'Cause, I don't know what "actually engage like other members" entails.

Is there some type of perk or incentive plan I need to be posting for?

I certainly like perks and incentives.

I'm posting my POV just like anybody else?

Please describe how I am "acting like a troll"?

___________

I read the article.

I thought, hmmmm, I can see a trail back to late 90's.

IMO, Production cost is the main inhibitor of Green Economy growth. Therefore, rising cost of fossil fuels and cap/trade regulation will make investments in "Green" more palatable.

I asked a valid question. You simply asked what I do for a living. I simply asked why you asked. You resort to peer pressure tactics attempting to wring an answer out of me instead of simply clarifying your motivation.

You are creeping me? That's very creepy. A creepy DFH.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Playtime Trolls

Playtime trolls are relatively easy to spot, but they may not be apparent to the naive user. There isn't a single set of characteristics that applies to playtime trolls, but you can look for some or all of the following signs:

• a lack of buy-in to the list philosophy or values
• generally low level of activity, with sudden spurts of interaction - or perhaps a new persona that has strong opinions on controversial subjects
• a mixture of friendly posts with a confrontational style of interaction
• the use of provocative language and sweeping generalisations about certain topics or categories of people
• a lack of in-depth understanding of the topic
• a lack of personal information
• a lack of a genuinely unique perspective on the topic
• a lack of humour
• restarting topics that have already been done
• use of language that encourages the dialogue to enter topics that are controversial and likely to upset some team members
• the use of an attention-seeking gimmick (e.g.: "I was once exploited by an XYZ")
• they follow up their own articles if the group doesn't respond to their posts
• inconsistencies in the style and nature of the post and any proclaimed information (e.g.: claiming to be a child but writing with an adult style; claiming to be adult, but writing with a childish grammatical construction).

[웃 910]

Please describe how I am "acting like a troll"?

Can you answer the question of what line of work you do? Medical? Law? Computers? Business? Stay-at-home dad? Retired? Just give a clue

[Vi-Jay 218]

Can you answer the question of what line of work you do? Medical? Law? Computers? Business? Stay-at-home dad? Retired? Just give a clue

I don't mind answering but, I think it is pretty obvious that WBAR is bullying me.

I don't understand why it is pertinent.

I haven't asked any VJ memeber that question.

I think that question is somewhat / perhaps discriminatory.

Is this the internet or the local Rotary?

Please..Why is it pertinent?

[Vi-Jay 218]

Playtime Trolls

Playtime trolls are relatively easy to spot, but they may not be apparent to the naive user. There isn't a single set of characteristics that applies to playtime trolls, but you can look for some or all of the following signs:

• a lack of buy-in to the list philosophy or values
• generally low level of activity, with sudden spurts of interaction - or perhaps a new persona that has strong opinions on controversial subjects
• a mixture of friendly posts with a confrontational style of interaction
• the use of provocative language and sweeping generalisations about certain topics or categories of people
• a lack of in-depth understanding of the topic
• a lack of personal information
• a lack of a genuinely unique perspective on the topic
• a lack of humour
• restarting topics that have already been done
• use of language that encourages the dialogue to enter topics that are controversial and likely to upset some team members
• the use of an attention-seeking gimmick (e.g.: "I was once exploited by an XYZ")
• they follow up their own articles if the group doesn't respond to their posts
• inconsistencies in the style and nature of the post and any proclaimed information (e.g.: claiming to be a child but writing with an adult style; claiming to be adult, but writing with a childish grammatical construction).

You really take this whole thing very very seriously huh?

It's just the internet. It's a P&R forum. It's a public forum.

What I do for a living has no bearing and you are trying to discriminate.

I think you need to get out in the sun more often.

Can you answer the question of what line of work you do? Medical? Law? Computers? Business? Stay-at-home dad? Retired? Just give a clue

Please..Why is it pertinent?

[natty bumppo 289]

aren't you the independently wealthy one ?

the one who makes money the old fashioned way ... inherited ..

[^_^ 5,021]

Please..Why is it pertinent?

It's not. But we're all very curious.