It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Administration serving Big Oil over US interests

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 20 2004 @ 10:06 AM
There are many who refused to believe that an administration filled with former/recent energy industry executives would tip the scales in the industry's favor. They scapegoated everything but them throughout the Californian brown outs, even though profits went through the roof. They still say that there was no manipulation.

Now, we have historic highs being hit at the pump going into vacation season. And just as Bush came out & gave Rumsfield "his heartfelt thanks for a super job" after the released information on the prison torture scandal, he now comes to table to say that it's Congress who must pass his "energy bill" so that gas prices can be remedied.
If you haven't learned yet, when this president says " I won't play politics with this", it means that severe partisan politics & special interests serving is about to be served up!!
Heres what I mean:
As prices at the pump have soared, so have profits at California's top five oil companies, according to a study by a Los Angeles consumer group. The study by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) compared oil company profit reports and gasoline prices over the last two years. The five companies included in the study -- Shell, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Chevron Texaco and BP -- refine 90 percent of California's gasoline, controlling the majority of its gas stations, the group said. The group found that in 2003, an average 35 percent increase in gas prices pumped up average company profits nearly tenfold - by 926 percent.
Simultaneous to the release of this information, Bush said on Wednesday he would not release strategic oil stocks to curb record gasoline prices while he was waging war on [of] terror and accused Democrats of playing politics on energy.
"The idea of emptying the Strategic Petroleum Reserve ... would put America in a dangerous position in the war on terror," Bush told reporters after a after a Cabinet meeting.
That just doesn'tt seem logical: Supply & Demand dictate the price in any market. Bush has given OPEC stellar business by growing the Strategic Oil Reserve to it's current record state of 660 Million Barrels. He's already given them a open ended invoice by saying he wants that at 700 Billion Barrels by early next year. Think about that for a second: you're a manager trying to leverage a vendor on a better price - do you guarantee them business or do you hold out the cash flow until a decent price is worked out? In other words, suppliers can manipulate supply, but "demanders" can manipulate demand.....why is that not being done?
We, as Kerry has said, can divert millions of barrels from going into the SOR and put that into the marketplace. We won't "endanger" ourselves - particularly, should cataclysmic events occur, we have Iraqi production to be emphasized for our consumption if need be.

So ask yourself, particularly with OPEC announcing a production reduction: Is this administration negotiating in our best interests?

On that energy bill: Drilling in ANWAR won't have any significant amount of oil reaching US consumers for 10 years , as quoted by oil industry executives.
Bush also failed to mention that the Energy bill saw a bipartisan defeat - many Republicans saw it for the crap that it was and voted against it.

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 10:25 AM
I don't understand why Bush won't stop buying oil either.

I mean if he wants to ignore the Dems advice about realeasing some to stablize prices, that's fine.

But quit jacking up the damn price by stockpiling it! I mean just stop buying it for a damn month. It's at record highs and he's still spending MY TAX MONEY to fill something like 20 million barrels a day. A DAY!

If this isn't price fixing what is? I mean seriously, what is?

He's artificially creating demand that never existed before...jacking the price through the roof. Those who say "you can't blame Bush for the price of gas" are freaking delusional.

Somebody take that drunken sailors credit card away!

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 10:29 AM
After all that has happened, I am truly amazed that thing still has supporters. Simple minds...

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 10:47 AM
I'm pro-Bush and I will put another slant on this. Gas prices will affect how many people go out to vote, and who they vote for in Nov. It seems logical that people in charge of getting Bush re-elected are deeply concerned about gas prices. Why would Bush stock pile oil in a time of war and uncertainty?
Why would he, knowing that it will hurt his reelection, continue to stockpile oil?
If it was purely about big oil's money, then wouldn't it make sense to get Bush reelected, so that they could squeeze the populace for more cash for another 4 years?
If it is all a Bush ploy, are gas prices are higher in other countries and if so why don't other countries cry foul?

The problem sounds much more complicated than to just make the US oil companies money for the next few months.
Also, continued high fuel prices put a damper on the economy growing, which is also bad for Bush.


[Edited on 5/20/2004 by Variable]

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Variable
I'm pro-Bush and I will put another slant on this. Gas prices will affect how many people go out to vote, and who they vote for in Nov. [Edited on 5/20/2004 by Variable]

People can walk, ride a bike, ride a bus, carpool, etc. If people go and get in their car to go to the store, they can get in their car to go to vote. That's not a good slant.

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 10:57 AM
You know, as time goes on, and I watch how the US military handles some things, I am beginning to believe that it might be about oil. Which is a shame, because if this was all handled correctly, this war would be much more in our interests.
I am for this war, but not for oil, I had a lot of hope that the gov was doing this for the right, and true American reasons, to help and assist, to rid the world of tyranny and oppresion in its worst forms. I am begining to see that its not at all how it could of been/should be.

I think there is still hope, I think that with the right leadership, we might be able to repair a lot of the damage we have done. But as it stands now, we are sure messing up bigtime.

Let me explain a little on how I think it should of been done vs how it is being done, and why I think some people might very well be correct.

When we invaded Afghanistan, we did the right thing, we rid that region of the Taliban, and destroyed the Al quada(sp) camps, but we stopped short of our promise. We then pretty much left to fight in Iraq when we should of flooded Afghanistan with aid and medicine and helped them to rebuild thier infrastructer.
We are still there sort of, but not in the numbers we should be. I think everyone knows that in order to win a war, you gotta use overwhelming force and keep troops in the region to ensure stability.

Iraq, again, the same thing, we should be there in mass force. In order to keep control until something stable is in place you have to ensure security. We arnt there in the numbers we should be. Its still an ongoing thing, and we are rebuilding somewhat, but could do a much better job.

Now, the war on Terrorism, which does now involve Iraq, but in the beginning really didnt have anything to do with it IMO.

This is a war for the minds and hearts of people, or it should be, sadly, its doing the opposite, and all I hear from the gov is ignorant answers.

Instead of winning thier hearts and minds, we are giving them reason to want to hate us more, this is a failure. The abuse scandle going on is a perfect example. THIS IS NOT AMERICAN. We dont torcher. We should be upholding the geneva convetion. This is just one of many examples that are coming to surface, and none of this seems to be in our national interest.

We had plenty of reasons to invade Iraq, not just WMDs, they have been shooting at our planes ever since Gulf war one. But now I question what is the true motive behind Bush's reasons.

If he truely wanted to win the hearts and minds of the people, he would of gone about all of this differently once we were in place in Iraq. You dont beat prisoners, you dont shoot wedding parties, you don't do a lot of things we seem to be doing. This is all wrong!
War is hell, dont get me wrong, but either he is totally careless and doesnt think (which is my first thought) or he is after oil and wants to stir up another world war, which is something I am starting to believe.

Either way, come the election, I am going to do the only thing I can, and vote for someone else, the only person who can get him out of the whitehouse. Part of me thinks some strange maybe it wont matter, maybe the election will be rigged (again).

These are just my thoughts, personal opinions on the current administration. I have no faith in Bush what-so-ever, but I do have faith in my country, and do have faith in mankind. And I have faith that there is still a chance to fix the wrongs, and do the right thing.

This is part of what I think needs to be done:
1: Get that man out of the whitehouse.
2:Tripple the size of our troops in Iraq and force security until we can get a stable gov in there.
3:Send MASS AID to Afghanistan, send more troops(though I realize this is almost impossible at the current time, we should of done this first)
4:Get VERY SERIOUSLY involved again in the Middle East peace proccess. Stand up to Israel and tell them that we will cut funding unless they stop making things worse, I understand that they are in a very tough situation, but they are the ones who need to stand down in order to get something done, thats reality.

A lot of things we could have/should have done, now we need to stop screwing around and start doing the RIGHT thing, the American thing, not the BUSH thing.

Sometimes I wonder if its all not just to late, but I will never give up hope, never never never.

[Edited on 20-5-2004 by Darkblade71]

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 11:24 AM

Apply trickle down theory to votes: in that sceanrio, having the companies is more important than the people , who can be spun like tops. Look how the nation was manipulated ( from false terror warnings-no reporting of major events/malfeseance- propaganda on Iraq's capabilities ) into attacking Iraq.

Bush, by virtue of occupying the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world ( a 2nd emergency piggy bank for US oil needs)& hoarding millions of barrels over what we need in a crisis, is most definetly to blame.

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 11:28 AM
I'm noticing a disturbing trend with Democrats, when the going gets tough, they, like thier good buddy: the UN, bail-arse, or much like Clintonian politiks, they want to tap the Strategic Petroleum/Oil Reserves. What a bunch of weak-knee'd folks.

BT writes up some elaborate twisting story to justify tapping such said Reserves by blaming Bush and administration, when he simply could have said that he thinks the US should tap/use the Strategic Oil Reserves. Go figure...

BT, it is not necessary to tap such Reserves. What, you got an SUV and hate paying that $35-40 every four to six days to fill that monster up? What, your paying too much for gas, yet the rest of the world is virtually paying nearly double what we in the US pay? Dude, you ever thought that some of the reasons that this administration doesn't want to tap the Reserves is twofold, we are at war, and are still trying to fill it back up from when that McDonald's freak Clinton tapped it?

Tapping the Reserves, when we do not necessarily need to, will amount to us falling further into the pit. We are not in a true, real national oil emergency, and if, by chance, things do get worse after we have nearly drained those Reserves, then what BT? What will the Democrats contend, scream, and demand then, huh? Again, things may seem bad, and may be the worst they have been in awhile or ever, but this is not a national oil emergency and the US will deal with it. Get rid of those gas guzzling mobiles is a good start. Guess what is still currently the most sought after vehicle in the US, BT.....the SUV. BT, doesn't KERRY have a number of SUV's? Dude, people need to take some responsibility and do their part and make an effort. Yeah, lets tap the Reserves so that those still buying and already having those gas guzzling cows won't feel so threatened when they decide to fill up those monsterious gas tanks.....once or twice a week....yeah, that will work....tap the Reserves!!

IMHO, this is the time that the US needs to invest more into alternative sources, while we are under the strain and pain of this current situation! But no....nah, those typical weak-knee'd reactions come into play. Almost makes me wonder if you and others that advocate tapping the Strategic Reserves get those knee-jerks each and everytime that you near a gas station?


[Edited on 20-5-2004 by Seekerof]

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 01:31 PM

You're fast becoming "Affirmed Reactionary" with a link search capability!

I like the long winded post to decry my "long winded" post that was suppose to be stating my "Democrat" desire about tapping the SOR. I also like the circa 1940's ode to rugged individualism & biting the bullet through tough times.

Entertaining, but wrong.

I don't want the reserves tapped; if you look, and read it this time
, I want us to stop over filling them.
We've got to & surpassed where the SOR was after Clinton's release of 30M barrels. It's at a record high.
What serves our domestic saftey better: expensive oil or cheaper oil? Which gives us greater buying power over the provisional items built in to terror interdiction? A budget is a budget - those patrols have to stop sooner ( you've got payroll & other such real world items to be concerned with ) because of hitting that wall.

There is no reason to tap the reserves. There is a reason to stop artifically raising demand so your oil company cronys can reap 900% profits.

Simple stuff without the ideology blinders ( hint: look at the Republicans favoring the same thing).

[Edited on 20-5-2004 by Bout Time]

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 07:05 PM
In that event BT, and to my slight embarressment, I must and will offer my apologies for mis-interpreting what you were indicating.

Your point is noted and message recieved.


posted on May, 21 2004 @ 08:03 AM
Do you agree about pushing back with the tool of controlling demand? As per Republican McCain & Luger?

posted on May, 21 2004 @ 08:31 AM
Pleople is forgetting that while we pay more for gas, bush and cheney are making big profits from the gas prices they are what is call big Oilmans in this country even mis Rice is making a killing. Mis Condy Rice use to work for the old bush while she sat at the chevron borad of directors in 1990, She also have a tanker name after her name. This administration has ties with the chevron oil industry and the dream of the Chevron is to control oil from the coast of africa call the niger delta to Iraq. Chevron does busisnes in 6 continents and 25 countries and their greedy hands are set for the iraqui oil with the help of contracts done by this administration.

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 09:25 AM
I guess this is related. From Drudge: Halliburton Billing US for Shipping "Sailboat Fuel"

Hate to start a whole new thread to remind everyone what we already know....the CheneyBurton Presidency is a criminal endeavor. More like Piracy than a Presidency.

A subsidiary of Halliburton drove empty flatbed trucks across Iraq more than 100 times as their drivers and soldier guards them dodged bullets, bricks and homemade bombs, billing the U.S. each time.

Twelve current and former truckers who regularly made the 300-mile run from Camp Cedar in southern Iraq to Camp Anaconda near Baghdad said that they risked their lives driving empty trucks while their employer, Kellogg Brown and Root, billed the government for hauling what they derisively called "sailboat fuel."

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 09:38 AM
The notion of not having the strategic oil reserve at its full capacity of 700 million barrels is senseless, filling it to capacity is imparative, using it to lower fuel prices is reckless, and whining about the fact that Anwar will take an estimated 10 years to affect the market is useless as it should have been tapped years ago.

Information mixed with editorialism, but in no way connecting the problem to this administraion. Nothing more than the usual, blaming Bush for your hangnail.

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The notion of not having the strategic oil reserve at its full capacity of 700 million barrels is senseless, filling it to capacity is imparative...

That's fine TC, but ever heard of Buying low and selling high?

Telling OPEC right off the bat, here's my plan and keep it coming...isn't exactly "jawboning" them with any savvy. It's ensuring a seller's market.

Where's the tragedy in laying off the demand during peak months? Is "staying the course" always more important than common sense?

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 07:26 PM
The strategic oil supply has nothing to do with economic strategery (Sorry, couldn't resist the use of the word!), but all about tactics. If we were cut off from the energy/lubricant source, we'd be screwed during wartime.

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 08:02 PM
The oil price hike is not because of supply shortage, its because of lack of refinery capacity in the US and terrorism fears in the M.E.

The reason gasoline is so much cheaper in the USA is because they are taxed per gallon wheras in the EU we are taxed per Euro.

I still think the West and particularly the USA should get a grip and just pay what it costs for their fuel. The Middle East isn't a charitable organisation yet they have the decency to at least try to keep the price at levels that benefit the economies of the rich. Also oil isn't going to get any cheaper because production is going to start declining and consumption is trying to increase not to mention that new production that is coming online now is from more expensive sources.

If OPEC so chose they could just decide to stop supplying oil to anyone. They are not obliged to sell it to anyone. Basically if a few OPEC countries got together they could dictate their wishes to the world. Ah yes but then certain countries would invade in the name of ridding the world of evil dictators. Its not like Iraq was invaded because they were encouraging a move to oil being priced in Euros hmmmmmm.

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 02:22 PM
I believe the opec is showing the world that when it comes to oil production they are in charge and this is a very good wake up call the US and other big spenders of oil to start looking for better ways to find other energy sources.

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 02:32 PM
But you know...if the President's administration had strong ties to peanut farming, none of this would even matter. The cost of oil would be like the price of tea in China.

Unless Skippy and JIF suddenly started making a 1000% profit increase off a giant pile of taxpayer bought peanuts in Texas, then it'd be a no brainer. Arrest the bum.

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 02:38 PM
I see your point, Maybe if Kerry wins we will find and energy source of hines ketchup.

new topics

top topics


log in