They're at it again - U.S. oil corporations are getting the assistance of our military to help increase their revenues to cover the cost of Y2K repairs. They were hurting last year when the price per barrel was very low, so now they are making up for it. The stocks shot right up after the first airstrike Feb. 28, and now that they bombed more to further reduce the supply, stocks will shoot up again. Buy oil stocks first thing Monday morning! The only problem is that the cost at the pumps will continue to rise, probably to over $1.70 per gallon within a month.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9904/03/iraq.attack.01/

The media is playing up the story of the refinery fires being responsible for price increases, but the truth is a bit more sinister.

-- @ (@@@.@), April 03, 1999

Answers

a Care to elaborate. What have I missed? Thanks

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), April 03, 1999.

Mike,

Let me put it this way - Why would our military want to destroy oil pipelines?

-- @ (@@@.@), April 03, 1999.

I thought there was a glut of oil. The OPEC agreement to cut production was not a result of a shortage. Nor was the shutdown of many independants in the US a result of a shortage. The gov just bought a lot of oil to stockpile to try and keep these independants viable. Once these wells are capped it is very expensive to re-open them. The stock prices have already risen quite a bit and I would be leary of chasing them at this point. It seems I am now paying about what I was paying for gas at this level of oil prices a year or more ago. Anyway, after y2k I belive that the price of gas will rise to $3+ per gallon. Isn't it a little sinister to attribute the pipeline bombing to the gov helping the oil industry? I know, I know..go ahead and set me straight!

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), April 03, 1999.

You didn't answer the question.

-- @ (@@@.@), April 03, 1999.

"Iraq's state-run media claimed"

Have we heard anything from OUR media on this? Maybe they're having their own Y2K fix problems, or maybe an unrelated accident. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 03, 1999.

The idea is to ensure that Saddam is held in check on one front while Billy Jeff starts another war. Oil is the money of Iraq.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), April 03, 1999.

But they are only permitted to sell the oil in exchange for food, medicine, etc. We keep destroying all of their military capability, so what good would oil or money be to them?

You are right that there has been an oil glut and these companies weren't making as much as they wanted to last year. They finally got OPEC to agree to cut the supply back so that the price per barrel would eventually increase, but that isn't happening fast enough, and it is hard for us to enforce.

It is my belief that these airstrikes are primarily intended to benefit the oil corporations, and were in fact covertly designed for that purpose. Oil companies are the hugest and most powerful businesses in the world, and when they need something, they will make it happen. Looking back on the Gulf War, I now question whether Iraq was really that much of a threat. It could be mostly a charade for these corporations to get what they want, complete control of oil resources throughout the world.

Our taxes are being used to make corporations wealthier and more powerful, not to mention the increasing gas prices we will pay as a result of this. I say it is high time to start using solar/electrical power and let these corporations die!

-- @ (@@@.@), April 03, 1999.

"I say it is high time to start using solar/electrical power and let these corporations die!"

Damn @, I can't argue with this! Good for the planet also.

But are we there yet? What would it take to recharge a battery powered car, for example? Don't get me wrong, this is a great idea. But, are we there yet? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 03, 1999.

Sysman,

I believe we are there, and have been for some time. The technology is simple and we could have started to change over 10 or 20 years ago, but it appears that a lot of political power is being used to constrain us from doing so, because it is expensive for industries to change. But for personal use, I urge people to buy those solar panels and electric cars. It may be a substantial investment now, but think of all the money you'll save in the long run. Once these things start to be mass produced the price will come way down. Just like VCRs, when they came out they were $1000, now you can get better ones for $100. Y2K is the perfect opportunity to make the change and if we don't do it our atmosphere is toast. I don't see any reason why we can't switch, it's just that people don't like to change old habits.

-- @ (@@@.@), April 04, 1999.

I hear ya @. Believe me, I'm all for it, solar, wind-mill, etc. But you did hit on 2 points, political power, and industries. I really can't comment on the politics, well, I could, but this is a public forum... But industry is a big power hit. I think we'll always need the "big bad power companies" to feed industry, they just need so much.

"But for personal use" - I agree 101%! We should have looked at the environment long ago. This could be a really good "excuse" to do something about it. I wish I could say that I did. We took the easy way out, and got a Generac 6500XL to hold us off. However, this is only a short-term solution. Solar is on our radar, and once we feel that we are "good to go", it WILL be on top of the list.

I still need more info as far as what it takes to "recharge a car". Think I'll track down Mr. Cook next time I see him... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 04, 1999.

By reducing the amount of oil flow the exchange for food and medical supplies will be somewhat curtailed. I imagine that this is intended to cause some destabilization in Iraq and cause Saddam plenty of headaches. Maybe someone will become irritated enough to remove him. I can easily see this as our gov thinking. The fact that it has not worked before is irrelevant. I have also been thinking of your hypothesis and i believe there is validity to your idea. When gov purposes and corporate purposes coincide, that can be a powerful incentive. I noticed in a news report that some executives of Conoco were in Saudi Arabia in the last couple of days. Meeting

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), April 04, 1999.

A clueless post. The oil company I work for lost over a billion dollars last year. The government does its best to ensure that doing business is incredibly difficult and then stands idly by while an industry essential to national security crashes almost overnight. These are publicly traded companies. John Q. Public can get rich with them if it's all that controlled and easy. PLEASE!

-- James (b@b.com), April 04, 1999.

Is this too simplistic? Oil prices have increased dramatically because those at the top see the possibility of most everything coming to a halt l/l/00 and are raking in their profits now. My understanding is that it's impossible to replace the embedded chips down in the ocean under the off-shore pumping stations, for one thing. And, will the ocean bound, computerized oil tankers keep going? And will the computerized gas pumps deliver oil into our cars? Is it not all a domino effect? Is there anyone there in cyberspace that can explain all this in a simplified way to this great granny? Someone in the industry who knows the beginning from the end? Thanks!

-- Holly Allen (Holly3325@juno.com), April 04, 1999.

Holly...sounds of silence.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), April 04, 1999.

Mike:

To clarify your post. That Conoco executives were in Riyadh meeting with Minister Al Naimi is part of a developing story that started some months back, when Prince Abdullah mentioned met in Washington with representatives from eight American oil companies. The talks were aimed at exploring possibilities for investment in the Kingdom's gas sector and infrastrucure (upstream oil is still off limits at this time). Other oil executives have visited recently, like Texaco and Arco. Saudi Arabia's long term plan is to grab some a larger share of the finite oil investment capital in the world, and deny it to other regions like the Caspian and offshore West Africa.

On the first part of your post, that our govt's handling of Iraq is boneheaded in the extreme..... well, who can argue with that? You can start with the appointment of April Glaspie as ambassador, and work your way down the spiral from there.

-- Morgan (morgan96@netscape.net), April 04, 1999.