Marita Noon: Oil At $200 a Barrel — Not Likely

OPEC prediction of $200 a-barrel-oil ignores market realities—or maybe not

OPEC’s Secretary General Abdulla al-Badri made headlines when he announced that the oil price may have bottomed out—indeed, we had four straight days of increase—and predicted “you will see more than $200 when it comes to future oil prices.”

Al-Badri makes a strong argument. In the current reduced-oil-price environment, we see oil companies cut back on budgets, curtail exploration, and pull in rigs—as in many places it costs more to get the oil out of the ground than the present sales price. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reports: “the number of rigs drilling in the U.S. has sunk to a three-year low.” Reuters states: “The rig count is down 29 percent from its October peak … a clear sign of the pressure that tumbling crude prices have put on oil producers.”

In today’s market for crude oil, a reduction in the number of drilling rigs in the U.S. does not mean overall production declines. It only means less future production, Tim Snyder, an energy economist with Lubbock, Texas, based Pro Petroleum Inc., who analyzes trends to help his company, and others, make educated decisions and manage risk, told me: “We anticipate a decrease in ‘new’ production in the U.S. as exploration and production companies reallocate capital expenditures and reduce drilling exposure.”

Economics 101 tells us that less supply results in higher prices. Addressing the recent up-tick in prices, Yahoo News says: “Investors bet supplies would tighten in the long term because major oil companies were scaling back investments and drilling to cope with falling prices.

Al-Badri extrapolates this scenario out to a future of $200 a-barrel oil.

What he apparently misses is that as soon as prices increase, activity in the oil industry will pick back up. Snyder says: “Once prices reach the $70-75 per barrel range, the more complex drilling solutions begin to become attractive and we will see new production increasing; putting downward pressure on prices all over again.

There are plenty of smaller companies that can be very nimble. The equipment they have pulled and the employees whose jobs they cut can get back in the field quickly—in fact, they must. Every day that equipment sits on a lot, they are losing money. The trained talent wants to be working.

Yes, it will take some time to get the bigger projects up and running again and to build the needed infrastructure, but as prices climb, more and more production will come back online—bringing balance to the markets.

When prices are high, human ingenuity comes in and finds a solution—which is how the technologies of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing combined to unleash America’s new era of energy abundance and helped lower prices worldwide.

Maybe al-Badri’s comments were designed to talk the markets up—after all, several OPEC countries’ economies are grim due to the drop in oil prices. For example, oil-rich Venezuela is facing default and is rationing food. Business Insider reports: “The country is broke … in large part because oil prices are so low. And now … its economic crisis is leading to a health crisis”—a pack of 36 condoms costs about $750. Both Venezuela and Iran have called “for OPEC’s cooperation in stabilizing oil prices,” but Saudi Arabia—OPECs biggest producing member—is maintaining its current output.

Al-Badri is not stupid. He has held several high-ranking positions in his native Libya, starting in 1990 as Minister for Oil. He was appointed Secretary General for OPEC in 2007. His January 26 $200-a-barrel prediction focuses on the future production losses that will result from the industry pulling back—which, as outlined above, are not likely to result in $200 oil.

Snyder believes al-Badri may be signaling something bigger: “The only way for prices to reach the level mentioned is for there to be a decline in available supply through a disruption in production or a break in the supply chain.”

Libya, al-Bardi’s homeland, has the largest oil reserves in Africa. It, according to the WSJ, “helped trigger the world-wide rout in oil prices” when it “surprised the world with a sudden burst of new oil” last summer. However, as Reuters points out: “Libya is in the middle of a struggle between two governments and parliaments allied to armed factions fighting for legitimacy and territory.” In the WSJ, Richard Mallinson, an analyst at London-based consultancy Energy Aspects explains: “There was an implicit agreement between the different factions to avoid disrupting oil production. Now the parties have realized that controlling oil means power.” As a result of the fighting, “Libyan oil output has fallen to about 325,000 barrels a day in January from nearly 900,000 barrels a day in October.”

The situation in Libya is deteriorating and western oil companies are pulling out. Then, on Sunday, security guards at the last functioning export port, that used to export 120,000 barrels a day, went on strike because their salaries were not being paid—which closed the port and lowers Libya’s oil output to less than 300,000 barrels a day.

Libya does have one remaining port open, but it is used to supply the Zawiya refinery with crude rather than for export. Reuters states: “All other ports and most oilfields have shut down due to fighting nearby or pipeline blockages by rival factions.”

Snyder posits: “Maybe al-Badri is telling the world that, left unattended, the rapid increase in terrorist activity seen lately could be the only thing to lead to the $200 level in crude oil—which will have catastrophic results.”

With Jordan’s accelerated air strikes, and the United Arab Emirates rejoining the fight against ISIS, added to the already troubled situation in Libya, a major supply disruption becomes extremely plausible.

Maybe al-Badri is right—though not for the reasons he outlined. Maybe he knows more than his simplistic explanation revealed. If he is, if he does, the U.S. is going to need every drop of oil found within our borders, including the Arctic resources that President Obama just proposed be permanently put off limits.

With the current low oil prices, we can easily think that we have too much oil already—after all, last week’s sudden price drop came after the release of official data remain a factor and, if al-Badri is correct, America’s energy abundance can provide us with energy security and global stability—not to mention the economic benefit of supplying our allies with oil and refined-petroleum products. Suddenly, the Keystone pipeline’s critical role becomes perfectly clear.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column.

Leery Of Keery

It pains me to see representatives of the US make fools of themselves, but Obama’s administration has packed-in more Silly Sallies than its share.  John Kerry as Secretary of State has busted the harness (if there ever was one) broken the reins of diplomacy and demonstrated how weak he truly is. Weak, except for promises to deliver bucks and armaments to potential enemies, i.e. Egypt for one, in the middle-east and surrounding area.

Believe it or not, it looks like some members of Obama’s administration are catching up to his wild and wily ways. Read the excerpt of a CBS report and then follow the link after the excerpt to understand the consternation.

WASHINGTON (AP) — In four months as secretary of state, John Kerry has certainly promised great things. Now he has to deliver.

In the Middle East, he has raised hopes his solo diplomatic effort can produce a historic breakthrough ending six decades of Arab-Israeli conflict.

He has pledged to bring Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government to heel and to work with Russia to end Syria’s civil war.

He has suggested rolling back U.S. missile defense in the Pacific if China can help rid North Korea of nuclear weapons. He has hinted at possible one-on-one talks between the U.S. and the reclusive North Korean leader Kim Jong Un if it would help.

Since succeeding Hillary Rodham Clinton as America’s top diplomat, Kerry has issued several as yet undelivered — and perhaps undeliverable — pledges to allies and rivals alike, proving a source of concern for Obama’s policy team. It is trying to rein in Kerry somewhat, according to officials, which is difficult considering Kerry has spent almost half his tenure so far in the air or on the road, from where his most dissonant policy statements have come.

The White House quickly distanced itself from both Kerry’s North Korea remarks and has now, since President Barack Obama’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Northern Ireland this past week, seen up close the strength of Moscow’s resistance to Kerry’s Syria strategy.

All the officials interviewed for this story spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to evaluate Kerry’s performance publicly.

Reporting for work at the State Department in February, the former Democratic senator from Massachusetts quickly outlined his ambitions.

Clinton still harbored thoughts of a second potential presidential run when she arrived at the department. But aides say Kerry, a 69-year-old Vietnam veteran, is giving himself completely to a job that in many ways is the climax of his political career and the realization of a lifelong dream after years as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Now he wants to tackle head-on the world’s thorniest foreign policy conundrums.

 Eerily Leery Of Kerry

Benghazi Timeline & Benghazi Report

The following information was sent to us by High Plains Patriots.  We appreciate receiving it and we post it without comment.  If you have trouble reading the timeline try a left click or clicks to enlarge the document.  Please read the report  at the pdf link found after Timeline and any related articles which are linked below:

Here are the comments from Carolyn Spence of High Plains Patriots:

It is a very sad, sad thing to read the House report on Benghazi.  This is the report of an ongoing Congressional investigation across five House Committees concerning the events surrounding the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya.
The consolidated timeline begins on page 39.  It’s hard to read without tears and will make those who love America sad.  Sad because of the losses.  Even sadder at the  very plain evidence that the losses were a waste and did not have to happen.  And grief stricken for the loss of our national identity as ones who protect our own, and save our own, even at the risk of our own welfare.  That is not the case with those who have taken over our nation.  Read the report and weep and then rise up to work to see this wrong made right.


From Obama: An Answer Or A Diversion

You be the judge on the POTUS answering skills as it involves the death of Americans in Libya.Readers will want to click on the links in the story below in order to see much more of what Obama has said and to follow breaking stories by a FoxNews reporter.

ABC Hypes Obama ‘Coming Out Swinging’ Over Libya, Ignores Tough Fox Question on Responsibility

Published: 11/15/2012 12:53 PM ET
  • Print This Article

The journalists at ABC News on Wednesday and Thursday hyped the President for “coming out swinging” and showing “presidential anger” by defending his United Nations Ambassador, Susan Rice, over Libya. These World News and Good Morning America reporters downplayed the issue of what the Obama White House knew and when.

During the November 14 White House press conference, Fox News’ Ed Henry spoke of the families of the four Americans who died during the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya. He directly pressed, “…[They] have been waiting for more than two months. So I would like for you to address the families, if you can. On 9/11, as Commander-in-Chief, did you issue any orders to try to protect their lives?”  [MP3 audio here.]

Instead of highlighting this angle, World News anchor Diane Sawyer began her program by exclaiming “…[Barack Obama] came out swinging in defense of one member of his team and ABC’s Jonathan Karl was right there in that room asking questions.”

Karl, ABC’s representative at the White House, was one of two reporters to ask about Libya. His question played up a fight between Obama and Senator John McCain:

Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham both said today that they want to have Watergate-style hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and said that if you nominate Susan Rice to be Secretary of State, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination. As Senator Graham said, he simply doesn’t trust Ambassador Rice after what she said about Benghazi. I’d like your reaction to that. And would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that?

A decent query, but not one that gets to the facts over what happened and when in Libya.

On Wednesday night, Karl touted, “There was a real flash of presidential anger on the topic of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.”

At the very end of his segment, the reporter did allow that Senator Lindsey Graham told the President in a statement: “Don’t think for one minute that I don’t hold you responsible.”

Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin has repeatedly highlighted the discrepancies between what the White House has claimed and what facts on the ground seem to suggest:

After more than nine weeks of trying to reconcile their story line with that of the State Department and the CIA, the Pentagon finally released its time line of the Libya terror attack during a Friday afternoon, off-camera briefing with an official who could only be quoted anonymously.

However, while the Petraeus resignation has since dominated attention in Washington, an examination of the military’s version of events reveals a number of discrepancies and gaps worth closer scrutiny.

On Thursday’s Good Morning America, George Stephanopoulos cheered the President for being “very forceful in defending Ambassador Rice.” Martha Raddatz deemed it a “very strong defense.”

She helpfully pointed out, “Of course, it was the intelligence community that briefed Susan Rice before she went out on all the Sunday shows saying this might have started because of protests, George.”

Stephanopoulos insisted Rice was “working on CIA talking points.” Like Karl, neither journalist focused on the facts in the way that Henry did.

A transcript of the November 14 World News segment can be found below:


DIANE SAWYER: Tonight, drawing the line. The President weighs in on your taxes, the Petraeus scandal and issues a blazing challenge to those criticizing his UN ambassador on Benghazi.

BARACK OBAMA: They want to go after somebody? They should go after me.


DIANE SAWYER: We begin with the President. Eight days after his re-election, energized and diving straight into the headlines. At his first press conference today, he talked about the scandal that took down the head of the CIA, the looming fiscal crisis that could raise taxes for everyone on January 1st and then, he came out swinging in defense of one member of his team and ABC’s Jonathan Karl was right there in that room asking questions. Jon?

JON KARL: Diane, this was a confident President today, eager to lay out his agenda for the coming months, but first, he had to face questions on that scandal that has shaken his national security team. In his first comments on the sex scandal that brought down his CIA director, the President said Petraeus failed to meet his own standards, but he also praised him.

BARACK OBAMA: We are safer because of the work that Dave Petraeus has done. And my main hope right now is that this ends up being a single side note on what has otherwise been an extraordinary career.

KARL: He also addressed the central question : Did the scandal put national security at risk?

OBAMA: I have no evidence at this point, from what I’ve seen, that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had a nag impact on your national security.

KARL: On those high steaks talks over the looming budget crisis, the President took a hard line on his bottom line. Any deficit deal must include tax increases on the wealthy.

OBAMA: More voters agreed with me on this issue than voted for me. So, we’ve got a clear majority of the American people who recognize if we’re going to be serious about deficit reduction, we’re got to do it in a balanced way.

KARL: There was a real flash of presidential anger on the topic of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Earlier today, Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham lashed Out at Susan rice, the leading candidate to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, because she initially suggested that the attack was a protest.

LINDSEY GRAHAM: Why would Susan Rice not get our vote? I don’t trust her.

KARL: We put that to the President. Senator Graham said he simply doesn’t trust Ambassador Rice after what she said about Benghazi.

OBAMA: If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. But for them to go after the U.N. Ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi? And to besmirch her reputation? It’s outrageous.

KARL: In a blistering response to that, Senator Graham issued a statement a short while ago, directly to the President, saying, quote, “don’t think for one minute that I don’t hold you responsible. I think you failed as a commander in chief before, during and after the attack.” In other words, Diane, this battle is just beginning.

— Scott Whitlock is the senior news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.


Related articles

Copyrights and the Fair Use Doctrine does not claim any copyright ownership to the websites or other links on this website. – The only purposes for featuring these websites on are (a) to expand the collective human knowledge base by sharing important information, and (b) to enhance our country by highlighting important issues. We believe we are doing this in the spirit of the copyright owners’ original public upload, which was made to a major global video-sharing website, and which was enabled for embedding on external websites such as

If you own the copyright reflected on this website, and would like us to remove it, please email us.

17 USC 107 ? FAIR USE DOCTRINE: Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or photo records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include?

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.



Sowell: Libya and Lies

This cartoon comes from Butch Stackpole along with the excerpt from a Thomas Sowell article found after the cartoon.

The following is an excerpt from an article by Thomas Sowell published on

It was a little much when President Barack Obama said that he was “offended” by the suggestion that his administration would try to deceive the public about what happened in Benghazi. What has this man not deceived the public about?

Remember his pledge to cut the deficit in half in his first term in office? This was followed by the first trillion dollar deficit ever, under any President of the United States — followed by trillion dollar deficits in every year of the Obama administration.

Remember his pledge to have a “transparent” government that would post its legislative proposals on the Internet several days before Congress was to vote on them, so that everybody would know what was happening? This was followed by an ObamaCare bill so huge and passed so fast that even members of Congress did not have time to read it.

Remember his claims that previous administrations had arrogantly interfered in the internal affairs of other nations — and then his demands that Israel stop building settlements and give away land outside its 1967 borders, as a precondition to peace talks with the Palestinians, on whom there were no preconditions?

As for what happened in Libya, the Obama administration says that there is an “investigation” under way. An “on-going investigation” sounds so much better than “stonewalling” to get past election day. But you can bet the rent money that this “investigation” will not be completed before election day. And whatever the investigation says after the election will be irrelevant.

Follow this link for the rest of the article: Libya & Lies   Be sure to access any related articles found below:

English: President Barack Obama speaks from th...

English: President Barack Obama speaks from the on the U.S. military action in Libya. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

Now One Courageous Journalist Is Mopping The Floor With Obama’s Bubbles

Not only the above, but she is bursting his bubble-headed idea that all Americans are gullible, and like a pelican, have let everything fishy slide down their gullet. This courageous  person has faced adversity in the worst possible way .. now she is trying to uncover Obama’s lies about the Taliban being subdued.  We should honor Lara Logan for her honor.

Please access the video link found below and read any related articles posted at the bottom after the video:

Watch The Uncovered Truth

Nation Of Islam’s Farrakhan Tries To Toss President Under The Bus

Flag of the Nation of Islam. The flag is under...

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 -2011

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

Is this leader of America’s Nation of Islam sincere, or is he safeguarding his pot of gold under the rainbow?  We believe the latter, but you are invited to view and hear AND make up your mind on his latest attack on the President, which emanates from the United States’ participating in armed action against that model of democracy known as Libya.  Here the video brought to you by WVOM Chicago, and host Cliff Kelley, who cheer-leads while Farrakhan harangues.

You’ll find additional links posted below.

Perhaps The Worm Will Turn

UN Security Council Chamber in New York.

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 -2011

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

The United Nations has finally decided to act toward quelling a mad dictator according to a story from Reuters , UK Edition with Maria Golovnina and Patrick Worsnip reporting.  The story was filed on Thursday, 3/17/11 at 11:21 PM GMT.  With the time difference between our time and Libya‘s action could have started and reports of or on the action could start coming in soon.  The first paragraph of the story reads:

The United Nations authorised military action to curb Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi on Thursday, hours after he threatened to storm the rebel bastion of Benghazi overnight, showing “no mercy, no pity.”

Gaddafi followed the above with  words that may have an real meaning or they could be nonsensical Libyan.  Whatever they might actually be,  they appear to be “fast-acting” verbs (I jest, but he did say.)

“We will come, zenga, zenga. House by house, room by room,” he said in a radio address to the eastern city.

According to Reuters, there were fireworks and celebrations in the streets of Benghazi when the rebels heard of the United Nation’s action:

The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution endorsing a no-fly zone to halt government troops now around 100 km (60 miles) from Benghazi. It also authorised “all necessary measures” — code for military action — to protect civilians against Gaddafi’s forces.

But time was clearly running short for the city that has been the heart of Libya’s revolution.

The UN Security Council vote did not surprise as far as the count for and against the approved action.  As is usually the case: Russia, China, and Germany abstained, which in our eyes is tantamount to a NO vote:

Ten of the Council’s 15 member states voted in favour of the resolution, with Russia, China and Germany among the five that abstained. There were no votes against the resolution, which was co-sponsored by France, Britain, Lebanon and the United States.

Hours have now passed since the resolution and we expect action by UN participants very soon.  The complete story along with 29 images can be found if you click right here. Be sure to look below for other related links.

Let Us Twiddle Our Thumbs

Muammar Qaddafi, the Libyan chief of state, at...

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 -2011

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

We have citizens of  Libya and other African and  Mid-East people asking for the help of the NATO allies and others.  Thus far, we  can barely pay lip service to any possibility of saving lives of people fighting to be free and then perhaps become members of a democracy.  We can plan to plan and we can lament what might be or what could be, but we can’t get off out collective butts and install a no-fly zone or zones.  We found reason enough in Kosovo and Iraq and NATO seems none the worse for the action.

Certainly we are over extended with deployments of armed forces units in Afghanistan, Iraq and more than one or two other spots or areas we have managed to join with or without the commitment of others.  Now it is time to do something besides saying that it might be the wrong action or we still have our options open and ready.  We need commitment, but we don’t have to mire ourselves in the sands of Libya or any other desert country.  The fighters in Libya and other countries in the area need only to be shown that we are able and willing to give them some respite from the terrible devastation which rains down upon them from the bombs, artillery shells and mortar rounds sent by Qaddafi and other dictators in the area.

Maybe I am completely wrong and there is no good reason to help the citizens which I have mentioned above.  I have said and my friends have said, maybe we just need to butt out of the business  of freedom fighters.  If we can’t hold to a credo and a solid set of values … maybe we need to drop down to the second-rate nation Russia and China tells us we’ve become.

There will be more to see from links found below.

Mr. Farrackhan: Man With A Bad Plan

Muammar Qaddafi, the Libyan chief of state, at...

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2011)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

Mr. Farrackhan, one of the recognized advocates for Jew-bashing in the United States has spoken again.  He warns us that the Jews are trying to force us to become involved in Libya’s present conflict.  This report comes from  TheJerusalem Post in an article by Lahov Nakov.  We start with this quote from the article:

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan said on Tuesday that Jews and Zionists are “trying to push the US into war” and that “Zionists dominate the US government and banks.”

Farrakhan, 77, made the comments at the Nation of Islam’s annual meeting near Chicago.

Farrakhan said his comments on Jews were meant “to pull the cover off Satan.”

President Obama,” Farrakhan said, “if you allow the Zionists to push you, to mount a military offensive against Gaddafi and you go in and kill him and his sons, as you did with Saddam Hussein and his sons… I’m warning you this is a Libyan problem, let the Libyans solve their problem among themselves.”

Farrakhan called Muammar Gaddafi “my brother and my friend.”

Current Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan

Image via Wikipedia

Mr. Farrackhan, as he is wont to do time and again, continues with his tirade and strives to insure those to whom he is preaching, that he is not stupid (his words.)  Others may choose to believe him … or not, but I’ll pass on his attempt to raise his rhetoric above the cesspool.  He also forgets that it was NOT President Obama that was the responsible party for the killing of Saddam Hussein or either of his warped sons.

Here is more from the article with links that expand on his foolishness.  Check for links below.