To: Maurice Winn who wrote (2159 ) 1/23/2001 6:54:31 PM From: Maurice Winn Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12229 *** Sheik Yamani gets it right *** Well, well, well! [As they say in the oil industry], Sheik Yamani was reported in the NZ Herald today, 24 January 2001, page E4. The article says: <...While reminiscing about the era of great oil diplomacy in the '70s and his dealings with former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, he makes an extraordinary claim: "I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies were in real trouble at that time - they had borrowed a lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them." He says he was convinced of this by the attitude of the Shah of Iran, who in one crucial day in 1974 moved from the Saudi view, that a hike would be dangerous to Opec because it would alienate the US, to advocating higer prices. "King Faisal sent me to the Shah of Iran, who said: 'Why are you against the increase in the price of oil? That is what they want. Ask Kenry Kissinger - he is the one who wants a higher price'." Sheik Yamani contends that proof of his long-held belief has recently emerged in the minutes of a secret meeting on a Swedish island, where British and US officials determined to orchestrate a 400 per cent increase in the oil price. These insights come as US-Opec relations once again return to the spotlight; President George W Bush last week warned Opec of the implications of a price rise. ... Last year, he [Ed: Sheik Yamani] said that oil prices were destined to crash in the long term and the world would never use up the last drop of oil, because it would not need to. "The Stone Age did not come to an end because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will not come to an end because we have a lack of oil." > Readers of older Mq rants will be familiar with my theme along the same lines and claims that the USA sought a war with Iraq partly to cut the supply of oil and cause a price rise. North Slope, Texan, North Sea and other high-cost crude oil can be hugely undercut by Saudi Arabian and other very low-cost crude oil. People are no doubt familiar with the trap the USA ambassador laid with Saddam Hussein before the Kuwait invasion. She claimed the USA wasn't interested in neighbourhood squabbles between Iraq and Kuwait, which Iraq took as a green light from their erstwhile anti-Iran buddy. I recall while the war was being prepared and Saddam occupied Kuwait, he was concerned that if Iraq withdrew, the sanctions [oil export restrictions] wouldn't be lifted. I was a bit surprised at the time because it seemed obvious that they would be. But of course, Saddam was right and there was never any intention to lift sanctions. Iraq was to be used [very cruelly and cynically given the 'oil for essential supplies' deals] as a lever to maintain crude oil prices in the 'right zone'. George W Bush is a fully paid-up member of the Texan dove shooters and oil merchants guilds. So we can expect the 'oil card' to be played heavily. USA consumers [and voters] come a distant second-best to his oil buddies. So you SUV drivers should NOT expect any relief on your 'fill 'er up' costs any time soon. Saudi Arabia will be persuaded that it would NOT be good to do what should be done, which is to cut all the nonsense and set loose the good old anti-trust, anti-monopoly, anti-collusion, anti-price-fixing, anti-anti-competitive ideas, [which get people so upset about $ill Gates, whose software prices have a trivial impact on their lives compared with the cost of their daily dose of gasoline and heating oil]. The USA government at the highest levels has complicity in ripping off the USA motorists and oil users in the interests of oil-producing good 'ole boys. The USA is prepared to have wars to avoid low oil prices. Sheik Yamani knows what's up! Previously I'd only guessed, based on the facts of what happened and who's interests could explain those weird events. Now we have somebody who actually KNOWS! There were very few people who would oppose the higher prices. Only the voices of long term economic sanity would oppose them [and the end users = the dumb voters who wouldn't have a clue what's going on]. Californians are today paying for this exercise in greed and stupidity with blackouts and high electricity prices combined with shortages. We also have a reason for the perplexing and odd halt of the troops on the road to Baghdad. They were unopposed and there was little popular support for Saddam, who could very easily have been deposed and arrested. Previously I'd thought that perhaps President Bush and co worried that he actually had a Scud loaded up with a nuclear warhead which in a last act of obliteration and suicide, he would fire it at Tel Aviv. Israel would of course have converted Iraq back to desert with their nuclear retaliation. That was perhaps what gave pause to the USA. But maybe more importantly [to them] was the fact that if Saddam was deposed and Iraq converted to a happy Middle East democracy, there would be no excuse to stop oil exports, and all that would mean to the oil price. Hence, "Whoa Boys!! Looks a bit dodgy up the road to Baghdad. Let's give up, accept Saddam staying there, and retreat to Kuwait. We can take potshots at him, have no-fly zones and stuff like that. He can have his palaces, his people can starve and we can have good oil prices - [Ed...meaning higher ones]". Mqurice PS: The oil companies needed higher oil prices because of huge debts. Well, 3G bidders need low interest rates because of huge debts. I hereby predict Alan Green$pan lowers interest rates further.