One of the oldest rules of retail 101 is that you buy cheap and sell as high as possible, that is how you create profit. Add to that the simple rule that you spend less than you earn and that will make you rich on the side. These rules are not new, they were old when the crusades started (ca.1095).
So when the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61188579) gives us ‘Oil prices have soared. Why won’t Opec bring them down?’ The setting of the American governmental license plate came to mind (Dee-You-Age). We get to see “Opec+ could also lower prices by putting more oil onto the market, which is what major importers like the US and UK want it to do.” Yes, and tarmac is made with liquorice. Opec+ has a good deal, there is a need for oil and they can set the price. The nations relying on oil have done pretty much ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to appease Saudi Arabia. We see the two largest suppliers (Russia and Saudi Arabia) but even though the US is not in that group, how much oil do they produce?
And then we get “US President Joe Biden has repeatedly appealed to Saudi Arabia to increase its oil output, but to no avail. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson also asked Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to increase production. He too was rebuffed.” In this the first part was that the US played a stupid game.
- A journalist no one gives a fuck about goes missing and for weeks the gossip and speculations start, even the United Nations get involved with shoddy documentation (as I personally see it). Realism tells us that something happened. Yet no one and I say again no one produced clear evidence. None gave any clear evidence of what had happened and Turkey who was playing the Iranian game made things worse. The United Nation document had issues, several players were not held to account, but that did not matter, they all got to attack the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
- The Houthi attacks and again the Iranian factor in this was openly ignored by the media. The non Arabic nations were not informed on houthi attacks with Iranian support on Saudi civilian targets. Coalition events were exaggerated, Houthi attacks were trivialised.
- Saudi and SAMI needs were stopped and Saudi defence settings were halted. Now, the west can do that, they are allowed to. Yet in that, the Saudi’s have absolutely no need to increase production, do they? If the west was so clear on their needs, they would have increased non-oil options two decades ago, but that did not really happen, did it?
Three clear events that are now biting the hands of the US and the UK, Saudi Arabia is willing to look after its friends, but these two have not really shown to be friends, have they?
And in all this Russia is enjoying what is happening, because they do not have to do anything else but watch the cost of living in the US, UK and EU to rise to almost impossible levels. A stage we never wanted and perhaps those tea ladies from the CAAT are now in a stage where they can afford the tea, but they can no longer afford the cookies. There is an opposing side to almost everything and the simple truth of protesting without understanding what was going on is now taking its toll. But the CAAT had its limelight shots in the newspapers. It is lovely to see those pictures, just too bad that the price of that limelight ended up costing some people billions and under those conditions the UK can pretty much kiss their cheaper oil goodbye.
In all this, I wonder what the CIA did last month, what they offered the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, because the current administration has pretty much destroyed whatever options they had. As I see it, by the rules of Retail 101, the US has only one option, to open whatever weapon sales it can get without restrictions and with a full service package. I reckon that alone is required to lower the oil prices by 10%, they need a lot more, but as such the players will have to offer more and they need to realise that the loud words of ‘no oil’ and ‘end petrol needs’ were merely that, words. It will happen, there is no doubt in my mind, but I doubt I will be alive to see those days, I reckon kids who were born after 2000 will have a decent chance to see the end of a petrol based economy whilst they are still alive. I doubt that it will happen before that. In this, the entire stage of the BBC article was to some degree needed, but they should have given the people a slightly better information ring. Like the interactions of OPEC and airlines. You see over the last 15 years we added a total of 41000 additional flights a day, why? There is also a lack of the American numbers, how much oil do they produce and why can they not produce more? Two simple elements in this equation missing, why is that?