Oil prices expected to soar in wake of killings

[True_Blue]

Oil prices are expected to surge - if only temporarily - when already jittery markets reopen globally on Monday after the weekend attack on oil industry personnel in Khobar, eastern Saudi Arabia.

Although Saudi Arabian oil supplies were not interrupted and Khobar, the Persian Gulf coast town, has no production, export or refining facilities, analysts said on Sunday that fears about the stability of the Saudi regime, the world's most important oil exporter, and further al-Qaeda-linked attacks will be deepened by the raid.

So concerned are markets about supply shortages that the recent Saudi pledge to raise production levels ahead of Thursday's meeting of Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries has done little to push prices below the recent $40 per barrel level.

"Now terrorist attacks are targeting one of the core points of the global oil system," said Antonio Merino, chief economist of Repsol YPF, the Spanish oil company. "This is especially relevant at a time when it is generally accepted that more Saudi oil is needed."

more....
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1085944387359&p=1012571727172

[HEyHEY]

1. More like; "Killings expected to soar in wake of oil prices"

sick world isn't it?

[nolabels]

2. I often thought $3.50 or $4.00 a gallon was way too cheap

Wait till it gets to about $6.00 or $7.00 Ruh roo :scared:

[Warpy]

3. Shoot, if it were just our cars, I wouldn't care how expensive

gasoline got. Most people use their cars when walking or biking would do them much more good. I'm decrepit enough not to be able to do either, but use an electric scooter for most short trips and light hauls. I also haven't put gas in my truck since the first of February.

The problem is that all fuel is getting expensive, as is everything made from petroleum, like fertilizers and plastics. Our food costs are set to skyrocket. Supermarket prices are up at least 10% across the board already, and we aint seen nothin' yet. The cost of delivering everything we use is going up and up, and that will drive the cost of goods up across the board. Those of us who are old enough to have been adults during the oil shocks and double digit inflation of the 70s know what's coming.

Meanwhile, the economy is still in the toilet, and people have been out of work for a very long time with no prospects in sight. Even WalMart is finding more applicants than jobs, and those jobs don't pay enough for most of us to keep body and soul together.

It's going to suck, folks. However, since the Dow has been propped up, I guess everything's coming up roses, right?

[nolabels]

4. The Price of Oil?...War

http://www.counterpunch.org/goldstein01082003.html
January 8, 2003
The Price of Oil?...War

By RITT GOLDSTEIN

As troops and equipment pour into the Gulf for a looming war with Iraq, United States military thinkers admit that "defence" means protecting the circumstances of "daily life" - and in the US daily life runs on cheap oil.

(snip)
The policy statement appeared in an article by Lieutenant-Colonel P. H. Liotta, professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College, one of a handful of present US national security gurus.

His article went on to advocate the use of military force "for more than simply protecting a nation and its people from traditional threat-based challenges". Colonel Liotta argued that defence meant protecting the US lifestyle, the circumstances of "daily life".

Reflecting the relationship between pronouncements by such policy gurus and Washington's actual policies, in the Journal of Homeland Security of August this year, Colonel Liotta said America "will practise pre-emption against those who seek to harm our vital interests and our way of life".

At the end of September President Bush unveiled a national security strategy of pre-emption.

And so the months preceding September 11 saw a shifting of the US military's focus. Publications of the US Army War College and the army General and Command Staff College argued that, when it came to oil and gas, "where US business goes, US national interests follow". They highlighted the energy wealth of Central Asia and its importance to America's "security". Oil and gas were on the military's agenda.
(snip)

[fedsron2us]

6. Lebensraum by another name

We know where this madness leads.

[Zhade]

16. Everyone should read that CP article.

Earlier, during the northern spring last year, Michael Klare, an international security expert and author of Resource Wars, said the military had increasingly come to "define resource security as their primary mission".

Over several months beginning in April last year a series of military and governmental policy documents was released that sought to legitimise the use of US military force in the pursuit of oil and gas.

Simultaneously, the energy task force of the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, was working to tackle a looming US oil crisis. Reflecting a shifting strategic policy, the influential Council on Foreign Relations urged that the Defence Department be included in Cheney's energy group.

Iraq wasn't just about oil - the entire "war on terrorism" is about oil!

And just how much of that oil is wasted on military ventures launched to procure oil? Where is the point of diminishing returns?

One of the few good things about Peak Oil may be that the war machine will grind to a halt when it runs out of oil. I mean, how many B1 bombers run on wind power or have solar panels?

[Skarbrowe]

5. You know what I did?

Yeah, I was around during the oil shock of the mid-70's. Unemployment skyrocketed. You know what I did? I joined the military to get work. Yep. And I had to wait 5 months to get in so many people were joining up. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Skarbrowe

[True_Blue]

8. Very true

Oil & fuels prices stand to drive everything in the U.S. economy in the foreseeable near term.

Since corporate America refuses to pay decent salaries (nearly all jobs created in 2004 are temp/retail/hospitality), look for Americans to lose their SUVs AND their homes in 2004 - 2005.

[Barkley]

14. Good Analysis!

I agree with you about the prices. Everything depends so much on gas and oil. And energy prices move together.

Sooner or later Greenspan will raise interest rates.

[Mountainman]

7. The moon came out tonight, oil prices expected to sore

Dogs found to have fleas, oil prices expected to sore.

Pope discovered praying to God, oil prices expected to sore.

Bears found to shit in the woods, oil prices expected to sore.

Many brides to be married in June, oil prices expected to sore.

[nolabels]

9. My pocket book is sore too

I hope * 's will be also when he gets to buy that one way ticket home (that's if he don't go to jail first :mad:)

http://www.boobooday.com/wgoeshome.html

[kymar57]

10. ROFL n/t

:wtf:

on edit: ref post 7

[leesa]

11. Right. It's not all corrupt oil mongers robbing us blind...just the

Muslim ones

[cliss]

12. The next few weeks ought to be very interesting.

I read recently that US consumers are burning through 9.3 million barrels PER DAY.

Saudi Arabia promised to try to bump production by another 2 million barrels, but it will probably not be enough to meet the INSANE demand from Americans.

And yes, the American driver will not be affected nearly as much as transportation companies, public transportation, airlines, farmers, landscapers, agriculture. I predict many farmers will be put out of business because of this.

So - hold on to your seats; the next few weeks should be a bumpy ride. Keep your gas tank filled, and try not to drive so much.

[Doosh]

13. screw that, I'm filling my car with Grey Goose tomorrow

[Pachamama]

15. No-just park your car and lets drink the Grey Goose...n/t

[nolabels]

17. Militants in Saudi attack escape

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/05/31/al_qaeda_attack_leaves_22_dead
Militants in Saudi attack escape
Ringleader in custody; death toll reaches 22

By Megan K. Stack, Los Angeles Times | May 31, 2004

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- After killing at least 22 civilians, most of them foreign, and trapping dozens of people in a 25-hour hostage standoff, three Islamist militants managed yesterday to steal a car, disappear into rush-hour traffic, and slip out of the grip of hundreds of Saudi commandos.
(snip)

[nolabels]

19. Saudi security forces 'allowed kidnappers to flee

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-1129544,,00.html

Saudi security forces 'allowed kidnappers to flee'
BY AGENCIES IN AL-KHOBAR, SAUDI ARABIA

Saudi security forces allowed some kidnappers in the bloody weekend attack on a residential compound to flee because they threatened to blow up the building, according to reports.

At least 22 people died in the attack, including a Briton whose body was dragged through the streets of the port city of al-Khobar.

One employee of the Oasis compound said today that a hostage heard the gunmen shouting that they would release their captives if the security forces let them go.

"The security forces refused at the beginning but then apparently relented," he said.

"There was a kind of a deal reached to let the hostages go free, though some hostages had already been killed." Nine hostages died after their throats were cut.
(snip)

On edit:In another one that seems to be getting quashed


British oil executive among dead
Press Association
Sunday May 30, 2004 12:13 PM

A British oil executive was one of 16 people killed in the Saudi Arabian terror attack which ended when security forces stormed the building where the gunmen were holding 50 people hostage.

Michael Hamilton died in the al Qaida-linked atrocity in the oil rich eastern city of Al Khobar.

The terrorists initially fired upon the offices of two oil companies before seeking refuge in a residential compound and taking hostages. Nine Saudis and seven foreigners died in the attacks, according to reports.
(snip)
There followed a shoot-out between Islamic militants and the Saudi authorities which led to several of the gunmen being arrested.
(snip)
I can only post 4 paragraphs so check here for other tidbits
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:Wifz66eBKrkJ:www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,1271,-4148922,00.html+Oil+executive+Michael+Hamilton&hl=en

And why maybe this matters some
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/31/1085855500353.html
Iron fist a bit soft in the head
Analysis by Brian Whitaker
June 1, 2004
(snip)
When asked how many arrests there had been, he gave three different answers and had to be prompted by an official before he could get it right.
(snip)
They are difficult to detect because they tend to work in small, unconnected cells, and they prefer death to arrest - ideally causing as many casualties as possible before they die.
(snip)
Since the Saudi economy relies heavily on foreign workers, attacking them, regardless of their religion, meshes neatly with the militants' strategic objectives.

The weekend attacks will reverberate far beyond Saudi Arabia's borders - particularly in Washington, where rising oil prices could become a factor in the presidential election.
(snip)

[nolabels]

18. Massive Manhunt Underway in Saudi Arabia

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=8D4EF385-66FE-4434-80CD8082D4724E87

Massive Manhunt Underway in Saudi Arabia
Greg LaMotte
Cairo
31 May 2004, 10:20 UTC

A massive manhunt is under way in Saudi Arabia for three men who Saudi officials say killed 22 people after taking dozens of foreigners hostage at the offices of major Western oil firms in the eastern Saudi city of Khobar.

Three suspected members of the terror group al-Qaida managed to escape Sunday following a hostage standoff that began Saturday at the offices of the Al-Khobar Petroleum Center building, located about 400 kilometers northeast of the Saudi Arabian capital, Riyadh.

The standoff ended Sunday when Saudi commandos stormed the complex, but not before 22 civilians, most of them foreign, were killed and more than two dozen others were wounded.

A total of about 50 people were being held hostage and about 240 other people in the building were safely evacuated. Several state security officers were also believed killed during the attack.
(snip)

on edit found this story

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=5300379
Fear Factor Grips Oil Markets
Mon May 31, 2004 07:18 AM ET
By Tanya Pang

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Oil prices may be jolted higher on Tuesday when key markets reopen from a long holiday weekend that saw the second attack in less than a month on Saudi Arabia, the world's top crude exporter.

Analysts doubt U.S. crude prices will break new ground above the recent 21-year peak at $41.85 a barrel but say the attack in the oil hub of Khobar serves as a sharp reminder of the vulnerability of already stretched global supplies.

"This raises the fear factor. This incident is an escalation since the last attack in Yanbu. This is a bigger oil center and more people were killed," said Tony Nunan, manager of risk management at Mitsubishi Corp in Tokyo.
(snip)

[ColdWarZoomie]

20. I'm Confused

Didn't our Fearless Leader say that we were invading Iraq to BRING stability to the region?

[nolabels]

21. VERY stable

Just look at it! Straight up, isn't it just lovely :crazy:

http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040529-114056-3110r.htm
Ghauri V missile test fire a success

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistan successfully test fired a medium-range nuclear-capable missile yesterday, a week after a new prime minister took office in nuclear-armed rival and neighbor India.
Senior officials indicated the test of the new version of the Ghauri V missile — a day after the fifth anniversary of the country's first nuclear test

(snip)
The test comes days after Mr. Jamali visited Pakistan's nuclear weapons facility, where he was told that scientists have completed work to test fire Pakistan's longest-range missile, called the Ghauri III, which will have a range of 2,175 miles. A test is expected next month.
Pakistan became a declared nuclear power on May 28, 1998, when it conducted underground nuclear tests in response to earlier tests carried out by India. The two countries have a history of bitter relations and have fought three wars since independence from Britain in 1947.
(snip)

[nolabels]

22. Scary plans to raise and keep oil prices high

Some are saying permanently

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/columnists/story.html?id=0195b40f-c18b-4176-aa53-c78ac006d25chttp://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/columnists/story.html?id=0195b40f-c18b-4176-aa53-c78ac006d25c
Scary plans to raise and keep oil prices high

Terence Corcoran
Financial Post

Tuesday, June 01, 2004

The terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia are giving new life to the idea that the world is heading into an era of permanently high oil prices. A "factor of fear" has already supposedly driven prices up by $8 a barrel, Qatar's oil minister said yesterday. Other alleged causes of the recent run-up in crude oil prices include supply shortages, rising demand from China, environmental bottlenecks, Iraq and global instability, accelerating world growth and monetary inflation created by Alan Greenspan. And then there's the oil and gas depletion scare, based on the theory that the world is running out of oil and we might as well face the facts. Oil at $80 a barrel is just around the corner.

All this is bad enough. As the oil price issue gathers political momentum, more and more voices can be heard arguing that since oil is going up anyway, maybe we should make high oil prices a permanent reality. Why wait when we can have high oil prices immediately? If $80 oil is on the horizon, then why not just impose a tax or something and get it up there right away. It's a politically catchy idea, especially given the large number of rent-seekers all too eager to cash in on high oil prices.

You can practically hear the mental turbines whirring away inside the heads of people in the business of building wind power, nuclear, ethanol, hydrogen fuel cell and other industries. If we can't make money competing against market price oil at $30 a barrel or less, we can easily cash in on a competitive advantage created by government.

The Globe and Mail reports that officials from four federal departments --Industry, Transport, Environment and Natural Resources -- have just produced proposals aimed at cutting carbon emissions. One plan is to raise gasoline taxes by between 5 and 20 cents a litre. The emissions-cutting objective would be accompanied by other incentives to prompt consumers to use less fuel and automakers to boost alternative-energy vehicles
(snip)