Divided OPEC meets for summit

In a gaffe late Friday, a private meeting of ministers from the 12 members of the cartel was mistakenly broadcast to journalists, revealing a spat between Saudi Arabia and anti-US members Iran and Venezuela about the waning US currency.

Journalists witnessed Iran request that the final declaration to be issued by OPEC leaders at the end of the summit on Sunday express the concern of member states about the falling US currency and its impact on oil revenues.

Reacting to the proposal, which was backed by Venezuela, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal warned against mentioning the US currency.

“There are media people outside waiting to catch this point and they will add to it (exaggerate) and we may find that the dollar collapses,” Prince Saud said.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Economics, Politics, Economy, Energy, Natural Resources

12 comments on “Divided OPEC meets for summit

  1. plainsheretic says:

    It will do us good to walk more.

  2. Rocks says:

    [blockquote] Chavez believes that oil should be priced between 80 and 100 dollars a barrel, and that OPEC must find a way to compensate the world’s poorest countries for the high prices.[/blockquote]

    Is anyone supposed to believe that they will do this?
    These leaders do not even adequately compensate their OWN countries. The same with the environment.
    Go ahead and switch to Euros. Let the EU deal with their jobs leaving because their currency is too strong. Maybe if prices rise enough here jobs will actually return, and I mean real jobs.
    It’s never going to happen. Only an idiot would stop taking the currency of the world’s largest economy.

  3. Jeffersonian says:

    [blockquote]It will do us good to walk more. [/blockquote]

    Actually, it won’t. Walking is less efficient than driving, and the food you need to replenish the energy to, say, walk to the post office or grocery store requires the burning of more hydrocarbons than if you took the car.

  4. Br_er Rabbit says:

    Jeffersonian, do you have a reference or link on that? I find it incredible that transporting a human to the store burns more energy than transporting a human plus two tons of plastic and steel.

  5. Wilfred says:

    Let us not confuse the burning of hydrocarbons with the burning of carbohydrates.

  6. Jeffersonian says:

    Let me try to find that link…I read it a couple of months ago. It’s not a matter of hydrocarbons vs carbohydrates, but of the energy needed to grow, process and transport foodstuffs to the market. When you walk to the market, the amount of food needed to replace the calories burned in the walk actually causes more hydrocarbons to be burned than if you drove to the grocery store.

    I’ll find the link and post it.

  7. Jeffersonian says:

    [url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece]Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’[/url]

  8. Jeffersonian says:

    I need to correct myself….it’s in carbon emissions, not fuel consumption. Though I’m guessing there’s a strong correlation.

  9. Br_er Rabbit says:

    Thanks, Jeffersonian. Following up on that article, we can expect the EPA to issue standards for breath-carbon emissions, and look forward to carrying around portable catalytic converters strapped to our breathing orifices.

  10. Jeffersonian says:

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but methane is moreso. That means the EPA will more likely be interested in your other end, if it can nudge the IRS out of the way long enough.

  11. libraryjim says:

    Plus how many of us live within walking distance of any store other than an overpriced Gas station/inconvenience store? To get anywhere and be able to bring back the needed groceries, one needs to use a car.

    However, the secret is to carefully plan the trip so that you take LESS trips per month, so you stock up on the food items you use more often, especially dry and canned foods. Make lists, etc.

    Now, on the subject of OPEC, yeah, like they have anyone’s interests at heart other than their own. When was the last time they tried price fixing? Was it under Reagan? Didn’t we threaten to NOT buy from them?

    If we were serious about getting out from under OPEC, we would open up ANWR, green-light more refineries, and seriously explore alternate forms of energy — opening up the competition to the private sector rather than just corporate entities, and take the oil commodities out of the ‘futures market’ — allowing it to be market driven rather than speculation driven.

  12. Br_er Rabbit says:

    One free pass to the Laffin’ Place for Jeffersonian.