[DEBATE] : Mbeki, Zuma and Xenophobia

[Sean Jacobs]

Am I correct to assume that Mbeki or Zuma has neither gone to Reiger  
Park, Alex, etc and in public consoled the victims of violence and  
relatives of murdered?! I saw the Pahad press conference coverage  
where he dodged the question...
Sean

------------------------------------------------------
Sean Jacobs
tintinyana at gmail.com

“Only intellectuals love poverty. Poor people love luxury” (from a  
Brazilian samba).

http://theleoafricanus.com/

On May 23, 2008, at 6:07 PM, debate-request at debate.kabissa.org wrote:

> Send DEBATE mailing list submissions to
> 	debate at debate.kabissa.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	debate-request at debate.kabissa.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	debate-owner at debate.kabissa.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of DEBATE digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. 	I am ashamed, I am angry; I am actually fucking pissed off
>      (mfleshman at aol.com)
>   2. Re:  Ayatollah Montazeri Decrees Baha'is 'Rightful Citizens
>      of Iran' (Dominic Tweedie)
>   3. Re:  Ayatollah Montazeri Decrees Baha'is 'Rightful Citizens
>      of Iran' (mfleshman at aol.com)
>   4.  House Passes Bill to Sue OPEC over Oil Prices (Yoshie Furuhashi)
>   5.  Non-OPEC Oil Output Growth Slows to a Trickle (Yoshie Furuhashi)
>   6.  Fwd: In Defense of Zimbabwe (Doug Henwood)
>   7.  WSJ: Energy Watchdog Warns of Oil-Production Crunch: IEA
>      Official Says Supplies May Plateau below Expected Demand
>      (Yoshie Furuhashi)
>
> From: mfleshman at aol.com
> Date: May 23, 2008 1:14:05 PM EDT
> To: debate at debate.kabissa.org
> Subject: [DEBATE] : I am ashamed, I am angry; I am actually fucking  
> pissed off
> Reply-To: "debate: SA discussion list " <debate at debate.kabissa.org>
>
>
> Does burning an alive human being constitute a crisis Thabo?
>
> I must say, the denialism and all-round quiet diplomacy we’ve  
> witnessed from our South African leader, the president, Thabo Mbeki,  
> is really paying off:
>
> Zimbabwe is in ruins, and it falling further off the face of this  
> earth. Excellent achievement, well done to the super-duo Thabo and  
> Robert!
>
> But more so, Zimbabweans and other foreign Africans are now being  
> hunted down in our very own country, to the extent that today, a mob  
> of looters:
>
>
> 1.        Beat some foreigner to the ground
> 2.        Laid a mattress over the kneeling man
> 3.        Set the mattress alight
> 4.        And let the man who is probably someone’s husband, father,  
> brother, nephew, and friend, burn
> 5.        Whilst laughing at him
> 6.        The police tried to save him, by
> 7.        Throwing the burning mattress off the victim
> 8.        And extinguishing the human fire with a fire extinguisher
> 9.        Leaving behind a kneeling statue of ash and burnt flesh
> 10.        A living human with 100% burn wounds
> 11.        A person who felt the process of being beaten and his own  
> flesh sizzling
> 12.        A man, with nothing left, no dignity, no life, no skin
> 13.        A man who died a couple of hours later
>
>
>
> I am ashamed to be associated with this image. I am ashamed that  
> there are people out there with no sense of humanity. I am ashamed,  
> I am angry; I am actually fucking pissed off! This image better be a  
> wake-up call to the South African government, to our very own  
> president, who has so far left his people in the lurch, and has left  
> those fleeing from his quiet diplomacy to burn in hell, literally!
>
> If you don’t understand where I’m coming from, please do yourself a  
> favour and click here ( http://multimedia.thetimes.co.za/photos/2008/05/flames-of-hate// 
>  ) to watch “Flames of Hate”.
>
>
>
>
> From: "Dominic Tweedie" <dominic.tweedie at gmail.com>
> Date: May 23, 2008 1:56:11 PM EDT
> To: "debate: SA discussion list" <debate at debate.kabissa.org>
> Subject: Re: [DEBATE] : Ayatollah Montazeri Decrees Baha'is  
> 'Rightful Citizens of Iran'
> Reply-To: "debate: SA discussion list " <debate at debate.kabissa.org>
>
>
> Such a legalisation would be good news for Iran but disastrous for the
> Baha'is. Their deeply mediocre religion relies upon its outcast  
> status for
> most of its tatty mystique. This is a religion of accountants. Not
> bourgeois, and lacking even the imagination to be petty-bourgeois,
> this a religion of the apparatchiks of the bourgeois state and the  
> middling
> functionaries of its corporations. It is a religion of silly quants,  
> who
> bicker and shun, exclude and ingratiate, and fawn upon their nine-man
> composite Pope, throned in Israel. The Baha'is stand in relation to  
> Islam
> roughly as the Mormons stand in relation to the Catholic Church. If  
> their
> petty whackiness was not so unpleasantly arrogant, it would be merely
> ridiculous. As it is, it lacks even the saving grace of absurdity.
>
>
>
> 2008/5/23 Yoshie Furuhashi <critical.montages at gmail.com>:
>
>> FWIW:
>>
>> <
>> http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/sadegh/reaction-ayatollah-montazeri-decrees-bahais-rightful-citizens-iran
>>>
>> Reaction: Ayatollah Montazeri Decrees Baha'is 'Rightful Citizens of  
>> Iran'
>> sadegh
>> by sadegh
>> 22-May-2008
>>
>> Grand Ayatollah Montazeri has recognized that members of the Baha'i
>> faith are 'rightful citizens of Iran' in an unprecedented move by a
>> member of the traditional Iranian ulema or clergy. His statement is
>>
>
>
>
>
> From: mfleshman at aol.com
> Date: May 23, 2008 4:27:17 PM EDT
> To: debate at debate.kabissa.org
> Subject: Re: [DEBATE] : Ayatollah Montazeri Decrees Baha'is  
> 'Rightful Citizens of Iran'
> Reply-To: "debate: SA discussion list " <debate at debate.kabissa.org>
>
>
> Such a legalisation would be good news for?socialism but disastrous  
> for the
> SACP. Their deeply mediocre?party relies upon its outcast status for
> most of its tatty mystique. This is a?communism of sycophants. Not
> revolutionary, and having?only the imagination to be petty, as  
> Dominic has?again demonstrated.
> This a communism of the apparatchiks of the?ANC and the middling
> functionaries of its Zuma wing. It is a?communism of silly quants, who
> bicker and shun, exclude and ingratiate, and fawn upon their Central  
> Committee
> throned in the past. The SACP?stands in relation to transformation  
> roughly as the Mormons
> stand in relation to the Catholic Church. If their petty whackiness  
> was not so unpleasantly arrogant,
> it would be merely ridiculous. As it is, it lacks even the saving  
> grace of absurdity.?
>
> Let alone of humility.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dominic Tweedie <dominic.tweedie at gmail.com>
> To: debate: SA discussion list <debate at debate.kabissa.org>
> Sent: Fri, 23 May 2008 1:56 pm
> Subject: Re: [DEBATE] : Ayatollah Montazeri Decrees Baha'is  
> 'Rightful Citizens of Iran'
>
>
>
> Such a legalisation would be good news for Iran but disastrous for the
> Baha'is. Their deeply mediocre religion relies upon its outcast  
> status for
> most of its tatty mystique. This is a religion of accountants. Not
> bourgeois, and lacking even the imagination to be petty-bourgeois,
> this a religion of the apparatchiks of the bourgeois state and the  
> middling
> functionaries of its corporations. It is a religion of silly quants,  
> who
> bicker and shun, exclude and ingratiate, and fawn upon their nine-man
> composite Pope, throned in Israel. The Baha'is stand in relation to  
> Islam
> roughly as the Mormons stand in relation to the Catholic Church. If  
> their
> petty whackiness was not so unpleasantly arrogant, it would be merely
> ridiculous. As it is, it lacks even the saving grace of absurdity.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" <critical.montages at gmail.com>
> Date: May 23, 2008 5:06:24 PM EDT
> To: "debate: SA discussion list" <debate at debate.kabissa.org>
> Cc: John Mage <jmage at panix.com>, John Bellamy Foster <jfoster at uoregon.edu 
> >
> Subject: [DEBATE] : House Passes Bill to Sue OPEC over Oil Prices
> Reply-To: "debate: SA discussion list " <debate at debate.kabissa.org>
>
>
> Wow, this is an extraordinary foolish bill! -- Yoshie
>
> <http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSWAT00953020080520>
> House passes bill to sue OPEC over oil prices
> Tue May 20, 2008 2:27pm EDT
>
> By Tom Doggett
>
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives overwhelmingly
> approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue
> OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set
> crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.
>
> The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia,
> Iran and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies
> must follow.
>
> The measure passed in a 324-84 vote, a big enough margin to override a
> presidential veto.
>
> The legislation also creates a Justice Department task force to
> aggressively investigate gasoline price gouging and energy market
> manipulation.
>
> "This bill guarantees that oil prices will reflect supply and demand
> economic rules, instead of wildly speculative and perhaps illegal
> activities," said Democratic Rep. Steve Kagen of Wisconsin, who
> sponsored the legislation.
>
> The lawmaker said Americans "are at the mercy" of OPEC for how much
> they pay for gasoline, which this week hit a record average of $3.79 a
> gallon.
>
> The White House opposes the bill, saying that targeting OPEC
> investment in the United States as a source for damage awards "would
> likely spur retaliatory action against American interests in those
> countries and lead to a reduction in oil available to U.S. refiners."
>
> The administration said less oil going to refineries would limit
> available gasoline supplies and raise fuel prices.
>
> Foreign investment in U.S. oil infrastructure has declined in the last
> decade. But the state-owned oil companies of several OPEC nations are
> owners of U.S. refineries, and those investments could be affected if
> the legislation becomes law, said Arlington, Virginia-based FBR
> Capital Markets Corp.
>
> The bill also requires the Government Accountability Office to
> carryout a study on the effects of prior oil company mergers on energy
> prices.
>
> The Senate would still have to approve the House measure.
>
> The Senate previously approved similar legislation as part of a broad
> energy bill. However, the OPEC-suing provision was removed after White
> House opposition in order to get the underlying energy legislation
> signed into law.
>
> (Editing by Christian Wiessner)
>
> -- 
> Yoshie
> <http://montages.blogspot.com/>
>
>
>
>
> From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" <critical.montages at gmail.com>
> Date: May 23, 2008 5:17:13 PM EDT
> To: "debate: SA discussion list" <debate at debate.kabissa.org>
> Subject: [DEBATE] : Non-OPEC Oil Output Growth Slows to a Trickle
> Reply-To: "debate: SA discussion list " <debate at debate.kabissa.org>
>
>
> <http://uk.reuters.com/article/businessIndustry/idUKL2388100920080523>
> Non-OPEC oil output growth slows to a trickle
> Fri May 23, 2008 5:16pm BST
>
> By Jane Merriman
>
> LONDON (Reuters) - Oil production from countries outside OPEC is
> stagnating despite a more than sixfold rise in oil prices since 2002,
> driven partly by the failure of non-OPEC producers to deliver a lot
> more oil.
>
> A Reuters survey of 12 analysts put the consensus forecast for
> non-OPEC oil supply in 2008 at 49.56 million barrels per day (bpd),
> down from 50.36 million bpd estimated in the previous poll in March.
>
> The poll points to supply growth from producers outside the
> Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries of 0.67 percent in
> 2008 versus 2007, which compares with growth of about 1.4 percent
> estimated in the previous poll.
>
> Annual non-OPEC supply growth in 2008 is averaging 680,000 bpd,
> according to the International Energy Agency's latest Oil Market
> Report.
>
> But biofuels contributed 425,000 bpd of this total, making non-OPEC
> oil growth just 255,000 bpd.
>
> "Non-OPEC production will continue to struggle to grow in the next few
> years, and the growth in non-conventional fuels, which account for
> almost 90 percent of our estimated non-OPEC supply this year, is not
> going to help," said Giovanni Serio, energy analyst at Goldman Sachs.
>
> Poor non-OPEC growth has played a part in driving oil to record peaks
> above $130 a barrel.
>
> More oil is needed to satisfy fast-growing demand from emerging
> markets such as the Middle East, China and India.
>
> With the exceptions of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and
> Kuwait, OPEC is pumping almost as much as it can.
>
> Outside the producer group, Russia, the world's second biggest
> exporter, has failed to deliver expected output growth and supply from
> other producers outside OPEC such as Mexico have proved disappointing.
>
> New projects will eventually come on stream, such as in Brazil and the
> Caspian, but these will take time, analysts say.
>
> SOARING COSTS
>
> The cost of exploration and development of new oil projects has soared
> and other obstacles such as tax and politics, as well as lack of
> investment by big international oil companies have contributed to
> non-OPEC's sluggish performance.
>
> Mature production areas such as the North Sea are seeing more rapid  
> declines.
>
> "On the one hand you have low production figures from a variety of
> established producers," said Costanza Jacazio, analyst at Barclays
> Capital.
>
> "On top of that we have very low figures from Russia for the year so
> far. We are forecasting a contraction of 30,000 bpd in Russia for
> 2008."
>
> Credit Suisse analysts see non-OPEC supply as flat or negative through
> 2012 or longer.
>
> "Non-OPEC has not been refilling the production hopper with new
> projects at a fast enough rate, and we are now likely to see a
> 2010-2015 'doughnut hole' emerge in non-OPEC production," they said in
> a research note.
>
> Russian production fell to 9.28 million bpd in year-to-date 2008 from
> 9.37 million bpd in the same period last year, according to JP Morgan
> estimates.
>
> Societe Generale estimated that Russian production was down 100,000
> bpd year-on-year in the first quarter 2008.
>
> "Top executives from Russian oil companies have warned that Russian
> output may be peaking or hitting a plateau already, with no more gains
> expected," the French bank said. "Massive investments are need to
> stave off further declines."
>
> Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has pledged tax breaks to new
> oil provinces to help revive output growth.
>
> "The risks to non-OPEC production are substantial," said Julian Lee,
> economist at the Centre for Global Energy Studies. "Should Russia's
> oil output continue to decline, it means that rising production in
> Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan would act only to offset Russian production
> losses, leaving overall FSU unchanged.
>
> On the demand side of the equation, high oil prices are starting to
> have an impact, but not quickly enough.
>
> "While demand estimates are still falling back, they have in no way
> outpaced the rate of decline in non-OPEC supply forecasts," Citi group
> said in a research note.
>
> "In the absence of supply growth, demand shrinkage is perhaps the  
> only answer."
>
> The following table is a list of non-OPEC and Former Soviet Union
> (FSU) oil production forecasts in millions of barrels per day.
>
> Non-OPEC supply FSU supply
>
> 2008 vs 2007 2008 vs 2007 Barclays Capital 49.3 49.3 12.78 12.57
>
> CGES 49.5 49.6 12.92 12.70 Credit Suisse 50.0 49.5 --------------
> Deutsche Bank 50.43 49.77 13.08 12.75
>
> EIA 49.74 49.17 12.85 12.61 Goldman Sachs 50.2 49.7 13.1 12.8
>
> IEA 50.36 50.15 13.07 12.77 JP Morgan 47.7 47.8 --------------- Lehman
> Bros 50.1 49.6 13.3 12.8
>
> OPEC 50.18 49.43 12.89 12.52 Societe Generale 50.1 49.7 --------------
>
> UBS 47.1 47.0 12.9 12.7 AVERAGE
>
> 49.56 49.23 12.98 12.69
>
> - The estimates represent the recently published forecasts.
>
> - Estimates from JP Morgan and UBS do not include processing gains.
>
> - NOTE: Differences and totals may show a small variation due to  
> rounding.
>
> (Reporting by Jane Merriman; editing by James Jukwey)
>
> -- 
> Yoshie
> <http://montages.blogspot.com/>
>
>
>
>
> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> Date: May 23, 2008 6:02:42 PM EDT
> To: "debate: SA debate" <debate at debate.kabissa.org>
> Subject: [DEBATE] : Fwd: In Defense of Zimbabwe
> Reply-To: "debate: SA discussion list " <debate at debate.kabissa.org>
>
>
> This is the sort of stuff about Zimbabwe that's floating around the  
> radio station where I do my show, WBAI.
>
>> From: Omowale Clay <omowaleclay56 at hotmail.com>
>> Date: May 23, 2008 5:47:30 PM EDT
>> To: <dhenwood at panix.com>
>> Cc: <hamanaka at optonline.net>
>> Subject: In Defense of Zimbabwe
>>
>> I saw sheila hamanaka's response to your critique on the difference  
>> between what's happening in Venezulea vs. Zimbabwe and I thought I  
>> would make another point to you. From what and from where do you  
>> acertain the fact that President Mugabe did not or has not abidded  
>> by the democratic process that he and the other leadership in ZANU- 
>> PF in fact led the Zimbabwean people to bring about. The compromise  
>> that was reached at Lancaster House agreement for the liberation of  
>> Zimbabwe was not his wish but a compromise. The number of elections  
>> since independence have been free, fair and followed by the gov't.  
>> In the referendum on the changes to the constitution in 2000 failed  
>> the gov't abbided by that decision. When the gov't won enough votes  
>> to amend the constitution it did. Unforutnately Zimbabwe does not  
>> have oil - one of the greatest currencies in international trade  
>> these days. Therefore, is more affected by the economic terrorism  
>> of the West. However your view that the Mugabe  - "arrests,  
>> tortures, and kills his critics, and (the) opposition is  
>> criminalized" - is based on what reality and from where. You  
>> yourself cannot deny that the propaganda on Zimbabwe is "off the  
>> hook". After all, who are you going to believe Zimbabwe or the West  
>> lying eyes :).
>> FAN
>> --- Doug Henwood <DHENWOOD at PANIX.COM> wrote:
>>
>> On May 23, 2008, at 9:45 AM, FAN wrote:
>>
>> Yet as a result of the growing tide of popular resistance to
>> Mugabe's devastating – Western
>> formulated – land reform policies, in 2002, no doubt as a last
>> ditch attempt to maintain his
>> fading grasp on power, Mugabe shirked his post-colonial neoliberal
>> 'advisors.' Consequently, most
>> likely owing to his straying from the Washington Consensus, Mugabe
>> (and Zimbabwe) is being
>> punished by the international community, and imperial democracy
>> manipulators are now seizing this
>> opportunity to destroy the last vestiges of the popular people
>> power movement that liberated
>> Rhodesia from colonialism. This 'transitional' process of course
>> involves facilitating the ouster
>> of Mugabe and ensuring his replacement with a Western-backed
>> neoliberal alternative, that is, the
>> Movement for Democratic Change.
>>
>> However in Venezuela's case, when Chavez was elected president in
>> 1998, capitalist elites (both
>> within and outside of Venezuela) vigorously opposed his presidency,
>> and shortly thereafter with
>> the aid of the National Endowment for Democracy in 2002 they
>> organized a coup to remove him from
>> power. As fate would have it this temporary coup was quickly
>> reversed by a massive show of people
>> power, and in January 2005, after ongoing public displays of
>> popular support against ongoing
>> capitalist attacks on Chavez's presidency, "Chavez declared his
>> political program to be
>> socialist". Consequently, it is important to remember that while
>> the government's of both Mugabe
>> and Chavez are being targeted for regime change, they clearly
>> present themselves as very different
>> thorns in the US government's side.
>
> [my comment that provoked this - DH]
>
>> Chavez has repeatedly won elections, and when he lost the
>> constitutional referendum, he accepted the results. He doesn't
>> arrest, torture, or kill critics, and the opposition can express
>> itself freely. Mugabe lost an election, refuses to recognize the
>> verdict, and arrests, tortures, and kills his critics, and opposition
>> is criminalized. Aside from that, I can see the similarities.
>>
>> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
> From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" <critical.montages at gmail.com>
> Date: May 23, 2008 6:07:00 PM EDT
> To: "debate: SA discussion list" <debate at debate.kabissa.org>
> Subject: [DEBATE] : WSJ: Energy Watchdog Warns of Oil-Production  
> Crunch: IEA Official Says Supplies May Plateau below Expected Demand
> Reply-To: "debate: SA discussion list " <debate at debate.kabissa.org>
>
>
> Higher oil prices appear to be driving US politicians, especially
> Democrats, crazy, making them do foolish things like passing a bill to
> sue OPEC (324 to 84).  But you know what, invading Iraq or suing OPEC
> doesn't bring more oil fields online or bring down oil prices -- only
> investment on the supply side and conservation on the demand side can
> (or else higher oil prices will help bring about far-reaching
> recessions and bring down demand and prices . . . painfully).
> Strangely, however, not only current higher oil prices but even an
> increasing fear of a failure to produce enough oil to meet the growing
> world demand for it (due to rising energy consumption in the South)
> doesn't appear to motivate them to do rational things at all, such as
> lifting sanctions on major oil producer nations, like my dear Islamic
> Republic of Iran.  The capitalist relations of production and
> consumption -- especially an insatiable greed for geopolitical power
> to which they give rise in the minds of the US power elite whose
> military force exists to defend them -- are clearly serving as fetters
> on the ability of humanity to develop a more intelligent mode of
> production and consumption of energy, but this integument is not
> automatically burst asunder, nor are there forces that are seeking to
> do so. -- Yoshie
>
> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121139527250011387.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news 
> >
> Energy Watchdog Warns
> Of Oil-Production Crunch
> IEA Official Says Supplies
> May Plateau Below
> Expected Demand
> By NEIL KING JR. and PETER FRITSCH
> May 22, 2008; Page A1
>
> The world's premier energy monitor is preparing a sharp downward
> revision of its oil-supply forecast, a shift that reflects deepening
> pessimism over whether oil companies can keep abreast of booming
> demand.
>
> The Paris-based International Energy Agency is in the middle of its
> first attempt to comprehensively assess the condition of the world's
> top 400 oil fields. Its findings won't be released until November, but
> the bottom line is already clear: Future crude supplies could be far
> tighter than previously thought.
>
> [Graphic] Energy Gap:
> <http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-AL683B_Oilfi_20080521205231.gif 
> >
>
> A pessimistic supply outlook from the IEA could further rattle an oil
> market that already has seen crude prices rocket over $130 a barrel,
> double what they were a year ago. U.S. benchmark crude broke a record
> for the fourth day in a row, rising 3.3% Wednesday to close at $133.17
> a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
>
> For several years, the IEA has predicted that supplies of crude and
> other liquid fuels will arc gently upward to keep pace with rising
> demand, topping 116 million barrels a day by 2030, up from around 87
> million barrels a day currently. Now, the agency is worried that aging
> oil fields and diminished investment mean that companies could
> struggle to surpass 100 million barrels a day over the next two
> decades.
>
> The decision to rigorously survey supply -- instead of just demand, as
> in the past -- reflects an increasing fear within the agency and
> elsewhere that oil-producing regions aren't on track to meet future
> needs.
>
> "The oil investments required may be much, much higher than what
> people assume," said Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist and the
> leader of the study, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.
> "This is a dangerous situation."
>
> The agency's forecasts are widely followed by the industry, Wall
> Street and the big oil-consuming countries that fund its work.
> Phil Flynn of Alaron Trading on the disappearance of Gulf coast crude
> oil and its knock-on effects. MarketWatch's Steve Gelsi reports.
>
> The IEA monitors energy markets for the world's 26 most-advanced
> economies, including the U.S., Japan and all of Europe. It acts as a
> counterweight in the market to the views of the Organization of
> Petroleum Exporting Countries. The IEA's endorsement of a crimped
> supply scenario likely will be interpreted by the cartel as yet
> another call to pump more oil -- a call it will have a difficult time
> answering. Last week, the Saudis gave President Bush a lukewarm
> response to his plea for more oil, saying they were already adding
> 300,000 barrels a day to the market, an announcement that did nothing
> to cool prices.
>
> At the same time, the IEA's conclusions likely will be seized on by
> advocates of expanded drilling in prohibited areas like the U.S. outer
> continental shelf or the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.
>
> The IEA, employing a team of 25 analysts, is trying to shed light on
> some of the industry's best-kept secrets by assessing the health of
> major fields scattered from Venezuela and Mexico to Saudi Arabia,
> Kuwait and Iraq. The fields supply over two-thirds of daily world
> production.
>
> The findings won't be definitive. Big producers including Venezuela,
> Iran and China aren't cooperating, and others like Saudi Arabia
> typically treat the detailed production data of individual fields as
> closely guarded state secrets, so it's not clear how specific their
> contributions will be. To try to compensate, the IEA will use computer
> modeling to make estimates. It will also collect information gathered
> by IHS Inc., a major data and analysis provider based in Colorado, as
> well as the U.S. Geologic Survey, a smattering of oil and oil-service
> companies, and national petroleum councils.
>
> Supply-Side Gloom
>
> But the direction of the IEA's work echoes the gathering supply-side
> gloom articulated by some Big Oil executives in recent months. A
> growing number of people in the industry are endorsing a version of
> the "peak-oil" theory: that oil production will plateau in coming
> years, as suppliers fail to replace depleted fields with enough fresh
> ones to boost overall output. All of that has prompted numerous upward
> revisions to long-term oil-price forecasts on Wall Street.
>
> [Output Chart]
> <http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-AL682_OILFIE_20080521185242.gif 
> >
>
> Goldman Sachs grabbed headlines recently with a forecast saying that
> oil could top $140 a barrel this summer and could average $200 a
> barrel next year. Prices that high would add to the inflationary
> pressures weighing on the world economy and to the woes of
> fuel-sensitive industries such as airlines and autos.
>
> The IEA's study marks a big change in the agency's efforts to peer
> into the future. In the past, the IEA focused mainly on assessing
> future demand, and then looked at how much non-OPEC countries were
> likely to produce to meet that demand. Any gap, it was assumed, would
> then be met by big OPEC producers such as Saudi Arabia, Iran or
> Kuwait.
>
> But the IEA's pessimism over future supplies has been building for
> some time. Last summer, the agency warned that OPEC's spare capacity
> could shrink "to minimal levels by 2012." In November, it said its
> analysis of projects known to be in the works suggested that the world
> could face a shortfall by 2015 of as much as 12.5 million barrels a
> day, unless there was a sharp drop in expected demand. The current IEA
> work aims to tally the range of investments and projects under way to
> boost production from the fields in question to get a clearer sense of
> what to expect in production flows.
>
> "This is very important, because the IEA is treated as the world's
> only serious independent guardian of energy data and forecasts," says
> Edward Morse, chief energy economist at Lehman Brothers. Examining the
> state of the world's big oil fields could prod their owners into
> unaccustomed transparency, he says.
>
> Some critics of the IEA, while praising its new study, say a revision
> in the agency's long-term forecasting is long overdue. The agency has
> failed to anticipate many of the big energy developments in recent
> years, such as the surge in Chinese demand in 2004 and this year's
> skyrocketing prices. "The IEA is always conflicted by political
> pressures," says Chris Skrebowski, a London-based oil analyst who
> keeps his own database on big petroleum projects and is pessimistic
> about supply. "In this case I think they want to make as
> incontrovertible as possible the fact that we are facing a real
> crunch."
>
> U.S. Forecasts
>
> The U.S. Energy Department's own forecasting shop, the Energy
> Information Administration, has long stuck to the same demand-driven
> methodology as the IEA, assuming that supply will keep up with the
> world's growing hunger for oil. But the U.S. agency also has embarked
> on its own supply study, which it hopes to complete this summer. Like
> the IEA, its preliminary findings are somewhat gloomy: They suggest
> daily output of conventional crude oil alone, now about 73 million
> barrels, will plateau at 84 million barrels, and that it will take a
> significant uptick in production of nonconventional fuels such as
> ethanol to push global fuel supplies over 100 million barrels a day by
> 2030.
>
> "We are optimistic in terms of resource availability, but wary about
> whether the investments get made in the right places and at a pace
> that will bring on supply to meet demand," says Guy Caruso, the U.S.
> agency's administrator.
>
> In Paris, analysts at IEA also fret that a lack of investment in many
> OPEC countries, combined with a diminished incentive to ramp up
> output, casts serious doubt over how much the cartel will expand its
> production in the future. The big OPEC producers have been raking in
> record profits, creating a disincentive in many countries to sink more
> billions into increased oil production.
>
> Meanwhile, politics and other forces are delaying projects that could
> bring more oil on-stream. Continued fighting in Iraq has stymied
> efforts to revive aging fields, while international sanctions on Iran
> have kept investments there from moving forward. Rebel attacks in
> Nigeria and political turmoil in Venezuela have cut into both
> countries' output. Big non-OPEC producers such as Mexico and Russia,
> which have either barred or sidelined international operators, are
> seeing production slump. The U.S., with a legal moratorium barring
> exploration in 85% of its offshore waters, is struggling to keep its
> output steady.
>
> The IEA study will try to answer one question that bedevils those
> trying to forecast future prices and the supply-demand balance: How
> rapidly are the world's top fields declining? The rates at which their
> production dwindles over time are a much-debated barometer of the
> health of the world's oil patch.
>
> Depletion Rate
>
> A study released earlier this year by the Cambridge Energy Research
> Associates, a consulting firm and unit of IHS, concluded that the
> depletion rate of the world's 811 biggest fields is around 4.5% a
> year. At that rate, oil companies have to make huge investments just
> to keep overall production steady. Others say the depletion rate could
> be higher.
>
> "We are of the opinion that the public isn't aware of the role of the
> decline rate of existing fields in the energy supply balance, and that
> this rate will accelerate in the future," says the IEA's Mr. Birol.
>
> Some analysts, however, contend that scarcity isn't the issue -- only
> access to reserves and investment in tapping them. "We know there is
> plenty of oil and gas resource in the world," says Pete Stark, vice
> president for industry relations at IHS. He says the difficulties of
> supply aren't buried in oil fields, but are "above ground."
>
> Mr. Morse at Lehman Brothers notes that there are plenty of questions
> about supply yet to be answered. "However confident the IEA may be
> about the data it has, they know nothing about the resources we've yet
> to discover in the deep waters or in the arctic," he says.
>
> Write to Neil King Jr. at neil.king at wsj.com and Peter Fritsch at
> peter.fritsch at wsj.com
> -- 
> Yoshie
> <http://montages.blogspot.com/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DEBATE mailing list
> DEBATE at debate.kabissa.org
> http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate