#Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Opec hints Brazil could be membership candidate

Opec has made progress in talks on expanding its membership and rising producer Brazil could be interested, according to secretary general Haitham al-Ghais.

Opec has held consultations with Mexico, Azerbaijan, Malaysia and Brunei, which are all members of the wider Opec+ alliance. But Brazil, which is not a member of Opec+, would be new.

Speaking at this week's Argus European Crude Conference, al-Ghais said Opec always has an "open door policy" and highlighted his recent visit to Brazil.

"Today Brazil has become one of the biggest exporters and they've stopped buying up crude. So the door is open," al Ghais said.

Continue reading.

[egnaroo]

OPEC+ cutting 2 million barrels a day despite Biden warning, what is the outlook for the global economy and looming crisis

OPEC+ cutting 2 million barrels a day despite Biden warning, what is the outlook for the global economy and looming crisis

According to interviews with about a dozen government officials and experts in Washington and the Gulf, the OPEC+ organization’s decision this week to cut oil production despite strong U.S. opposition has further strained already tense relations between President Joe Biden’s White House and Saudi Arabia’s royal family, once one of Washington’s staunchest Middle East allies. Many American…

[genuinelyshallow]

The KSA and the UAE are as much to blame as US and UK

To forget to boycott and talk about Saudi Arabia and Emirates part of this genocide on Gaza and attack on Yemen

As an Arab, I know that Arabs and Muslims bare unforgettable shame right now as we're unable to help Palestinians, Sudanese, and Yemenis.

And by 'We' I mean the people. The leaders are something else that I hope will burn in hell.

Arabic countries are among some of the worst dictatorships. We can scream and shout all we want, but no one will listen, and yet, I do feel unbearable guilt every day. But the guilt should not be distributed equally

Egypt has the border with Palestine and barely opens it. But Egypt is already on the verge of economic collapse and is billions of dollars in debt. The government can not move without the approval of the US. Not to say that they're right for not opening the borders, not at all. Yemen is even poorer than Egypt, and they had more courage than the entire world to stop Israeli ships! But I am saying that while Egypt is to blame, it's already in deep shit and more economic punishment will affect its people decades before it affects its dictators.

But Saudi Arabia and Emirates are two of the richest countries in the world! With enough oil that they have the US throat in their hands, and they're giving it a soothing massage.

And what did they do? Nothing. No, worse than nothing. The rockets that attacked Yemen flew over Emirates by their permission.

And with evidence from history we know they can single handedly stop this genocide.

In 1973, in the war between Egypt and Israel, USA tried to back Israel - like today - and King Faisal, the king of Saudi Arabia, basically told the USA,"Take one step towards Egypt and you will not see a drop of oil"

And he kept his promise.

Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec), led by King Faisal, announced an embargo on oil sales to America, Britain, Canada, Japan and the Netherlands in retaliation for their support of Israel.These cuts nearly quadrupled the price of oil from $2.90 a barrel before the embargo to $11.65 a barrel in January 1974.

And the US backed off. In a full-blown war. Not just one-sided genocide.

The UAE products are boycotted in Egypt under the knowledge that "Emirates are as much Zionists as The US"

And again and again, Arabs are not their leaders! Saudi and Emirati citizens are not their leaders, just like not all Americans are Biden or Trump.

But two insanely rich countries that can stop this genocide and don't? Their products should be boycotted, and their names should be dragged through the mud, just like the US and UK

[metamatar]

In 1975, civilian nuclear technology was part of a worldwide strategy to bring the Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries (OPEC) to heel. That body’s power seemed unprecedented, given that most of its countries were historically impoverished or “backward” peoples. [...]

Many developing countries did adopt nuclear technologies, often with crucial parts of their national infrastructures relying on American and European expertise, equipment, and fuel. Rather than seeing liberation from nature, such countries faced renewed forms of dependence. Iran certainly never gained reliable access to uranium and did not become the economic miracle envisioned by Ansari back in 1975. Instead of lifting up the poorer nations of the world, the global nuclear order seemed structured in ways reminiscent of the colonial era. The most heated debates within the IAEA pitted the nuclear weapons states against the so-called LDCs—less developed countries. The agency never became a storehouse for fission products. Instead, one of its primary functions was to monitor an arms control treaty—the Treaty 4 on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. By the end of the century, the IAEA was referred to as a “watchdog,” known for its cadre of inspectors. In 2003, IAEA inspections were crucial talking points in public debates about the invasion of Iraq by the United States [...] evidence gathered over the years by the agency created for the peaceful atom was being interpreted by the United States government as justification for military intervention. [...]

Focusing only on arms control glosses over the domestic politics of nuclear programs, particularly the role of high technology as symbols of state power and legitimacy. But it also does not square with what scholars of the Cold War have been pointing out for decades—that governments, especially the United States, deployed science and technology as diplomatic tools, to achieve feats of prestige, to shape business arrangements, to conduct clandestine surveillance, or to bind countries together with technical assistance programs. Poorer countries’ dreams of modernization, of using advanced technology to escape hunger, poverty, and the constraints of nature—these were the stock-in-trade of US diplomacy. Why, then, should we imagine that the promises connected to peaceful uses of atomic energy were any less saturated with geopolitical maneuvers and manipulation? [...]

American officials in the late 1940s and early 1950s were very worried that commercial nuclear power would siphon off supplies of uranium and monazite needed for the weapons arsenal. So they explicitly played down the possibility of electricity generation from atomic energy and instead played up the importance of radioisotopes for medicine and agriculture—because such radioisotopes were byproducts of the US weapons arsenal and did not compete with it. The kinds of technologies promoted in the developing world by the United States, the USSR, and Europeans thus seemed neocolonial, keeping the former colonies as sites of resource extraction—a fact noticed, and resented, by government officials in India, Brazil, and elsewhere. Mutation plant breeding, irradiation for insect control or food sterilization, and radioisotope studies in fertilizer—these were oriented toward food and export commodities and public health, problems indistinguishable from those of the colonial era. These were not the same kinds of technologies embraced by the global North, which focused on electricity generation through nuclear reactors, often as a hedge against the rising political power of petroleum-producing states in the Middle East. By the mid-1960s and 1970s, the United States and Europe did offer nuclear reactors even to some of the most politically volatile nations, as part of an effort to ensure access to oil. Convincing petroleum suppliers of their dire future need for nuclear reactors was part of a strategy to regain geopolitical leverage. Despite the moniker “peaceful atom,” these technologies were often bundled in trade deals with fighter jets, tanks, and other military hardware [...]

By the close of the century, two competing environmental narratives were plainly in use. One was critical of atomic energy, drawing on scientific disputes about the public health effects of radiation, the experience of nuclear accidents such as Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986), or the egregious stories of public health injustice—including negligence in protecting uranium miners or the wanton destruction and contamination of indigenous peoples’ homelands. In contrast was the narrative favored by most governments, depicting nuclear technology in a messianic role, promising not only abundant food, water, and electricity, but also an end to atmospheric pollution and climate change. [...]

As other scholars have noted, the IAEA tried to maintain a reputation of being primarily a technical body, devoid of politics. But it had numerous political uses. For example, it was a forum for intelligence gathering, as routinely noted by American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) documents. It also outmaneuvered the World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization in the early 1960s and was able to assert an authoritative voice playing down public health dangers from atomic energy. Further, it provided a vehicle for countries to stay engaged in atomic energy affairs even if they did not sign on to the non-proliferation treaty—India, Pakistan, and Israel most notably. It provided apartheid-era South Africa with a means of participating in international affairs when other bodies ousted it because of its blatantly racist policies. By the same token, it gave the Americans and Europeans political cover for continuing to engage with South Africa, an important uranium supplier.

Introduction to The Wretched Atom, Jacob Hamlin

[ptseti]

WHY DOES AFRICA LET OUTSIDERS PRICE OUR RESOURCES?

According to South African economist Nthabiseng Moleko, Africans are not fixing the price of our resources, and as a result, we remain excluded from the economy.

Colonial powers structured African economies around extracting raw materials for export to manufacture finished products in places like Europe. Then, we imported those goods at high costs. This continues to this day, making Africa vulnerable to global price fluctuations. While we don’t like the term ‘sub-Saharan,’ the World Bank’s 2022 report showed that ‘sub-Saharan Africa’ exported $133.5 billion in raw materials in 2021 alone. Meanwhile, it imports more than $469 billion worth of goods.

However, during a debate at Nelson Mandela University (@mandelauniversity on IG, @mandelauni on X), Moleko (@drnthabimoleko on IG, X and TikTok) raised the example of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), comprised of oil-exporting countries that coordinate and unify the petroleum policies of its member countries. OPEC’s decisions impact the global economy.

Video credit: Nelson Mandela University (YouTube)

[beardedmrbean]

MEXICO CITY — In a small town in Mexico’s western state of Michoacán, members of a criminal group forced residents to pay for high-cost internet service — or face death.

After these threats, residents made monthly extortion payments while simultaneously reporting the situation to authorities.

After months of investigations, officials raided three properties, finding evidence such as antennas, internet repeater equipment and connections, which were handed over to the prosecutor's office.

While it may sound surprising for Mexico's drug cartels to be involved in internet service, those who follow the criminal groups' activities aren't at all surprised.

"Drug cartels have diversified their operations since their inception," security analyst David Saucedo said. "Many of them started as criminal organizations whose main activity wasn’t drug trafficking."

Some gangs were involved in, for example, fuel theft, others were involved in vehicle theft and others specialized in robbing public transportation, Saucedo said.

“Criminal groups that joined drug trafficking already had these other activities beforehand.”

Besides the billions of dollars cartels make from the drug trafficking industry, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says the most powerful drug cartels, Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation (CJNG), are involved in many illegal ventures that result in profits.

“The Sinaloa Cartel is most closely identified with drug trafficking but is also engaged in extortion, the theft of petroleum and ores, weapons trafficking, migrant smuggling, and prostitution,” the 2024 National Drug Threat Assessment states.

CJNG directs the theft of fuel from pipelines, extorts agave and avocado farmers, migrants and prison officials, and taxes migrant smugglers, the report said.

"The portfolio is extensive. However, while drug trafficking is the most profitable activity, it has a longer recovery time for the investment compared to other ... criminal activities, which yield almost immediate profit," Saucedo said.

From cartels calling older Americans to offer timeshares in Mexico, leading to the loss of nearly $40 million, to cartel-backed smugglers reaping growing profits in the trafficking of migrants across the U.S-Mexico border, their criminal range is extensive.

Here are some ways where the cartels have extended their reach:

Fuel theft

Fuel theft, known as huachicoleo in Mexico, is a highly profitable activity for organized crime groups. In the first nine months of 2022, Mexico's state-owned oil company, Pemex, lost $730 million from illegal pipeline taps.

Cartels in Mexico have developed a sophisticated approach to fuel theft, which involves corruption, precision and violence.

This includes tactics such as bribing Pemex employees and local officials for information, drilling precise illegal taps into pipelines, and using modified tanker trucks to transport stolen fuel for distribution in black market networks.

Several cartels are involved in this criminal activity. For instance, the Santa Rosa de Lima Cartel, led by Jose Antonio Yepez, also known as El Marro, established its dominance through fuel theft before entering into drug trafficking.

Additionally, CJNG and the Gulf Cartel are also linked to fuel theft, which supports their criminal activities.

Avocados

Mexico's multibillion-dollar avocado industry, which continues to break records for exports every year, has also been one of the main targets for drug cartels.

Avocados are known as “green gold” in Mexico, and the country has become the world’s largest producer of the popular fruit.

But as growers’ fortunes have risen, they have faced increasing threats from drug cartels seeking a share of the profits.

In Michoacán, the only state authorized to export the fruit to the U.S., CJNG and local gangs demand payments from farmers, often referred to as "protection fees."

These fees can range from $135 to $500 per hectare monthly, depending on the size of the farm and the level of perceived threat.

The extortion process begins with cartels identifying and targeting profitable farms. Armed cartel members then approach the farmers, issuing threats of violence or property damage if the farmers refuse to comply.

In February 2022, the U.S. suspended avocado imports from Mexico after a U.S. official received a death threat while working in Uruapan.

The imports resumed a week later following new safety measures applied by Mexico’s government in the region.

Two years later, locals say the situation hasn’t changed much, and avocado growers continue to deal with criminal organizations in the area.

Tortillas

The average Mexican consumes about 70 kilograms of tortillas annually, according to the Mexican Agriculture Ministry. It is a staple in Mexican cuisine, which is why cartels have decided to profit from it.

Extortion from cartels affects nearly 20,000 tortillerías, directly impacting the prices paid by Mexicans.

According to the National Tortilla Council, in an interview with The Washington Post, out of more than 130,000 tortillerías in the country, between 14 to 15% percent suffer from extortion.

Homero López García, the organization's president, told El Sol de México that establishments must pay between $135 and $190 weekly to multiple criminal groups to continue operating.

"Well, look, nothing surprises me anymore," Saucedo, the security analyst, said about cartels extorting tortillerías. "Perhaps it's a somewhat insensitive and cynical posture from me, but the truth is that I remain open to all possibilities in this regard."

Chicken

In a video posted on social media two days before Christmas 2023, an armed group was seen arriving at a poultry shop in Toluca, Mexico, kidnapping four workers and putting them into a white van.

The Mexico state prosecutor's office said the victims were retailers who were forced to buy chicken in some establishments. Likewise, they had to pay a fee of $2.50 per kilo in exchange for not getting killed by the Familia Michoacana cartel.

Authorities said as a result of their efforts to combat extortion, the criminal groups La Familia Michoacana and CJNG lost over $43 million from threatening poultry and egg vendors in municipalities of the Toluca Valley and the southern part of the state.

The state prosecutor's office said in 2023 alone, they received 4,010 complaints for this crime, of which they determined that only one in four was made in person, with the rest being indirect through phone calls, social media, and emails.

Three months later, the four workers kidnapped in December were found alive, and four perpetrators were detained, but those behind the abductions remain on the loose and the extortion of poultry vendors continues, officials said.

'Piso' fee

"They were asking me for $600 monthly for cobro de piso; we reported it, and we had to close for a month," Guillermo, a businessman in downtown Mexico City, told local media, recalling the extortion from the cartel.

The cobro de piso, which is the fee cartels charge business owners in exchange for "protection," has been the main problem for merchants in Mexico City.

"The first group of affected businesses are restaurants, followed by convenience stores in second place, and then jewelry stores in third place," said Jose de Jesus Rodriguez, president of Mexico City’s Chamber of Commerce.

In the past few years, extortions have been on the rise. Depending on the areas, some establishments would receive calls, emails, or in-person visits from armed men asking for the cartel's fee.

"They have tried several times, it's through calls," restaurant owner Israel Zavala told Mexican media. "The trust in the authorities isn't very high; complaints have been filed, but they don't proceed."

Analyst Saucedo said the problem with the metrics is that we have never had access to their accounting books.

“We will never have the total amount of the taxable fee because many do not report it to the authorities.”

In Mexico City, there are many criminal organizations involved in activities such as drug dealing, but also charging extortion fees to small business owners like tortilla shops, street vendors, and taxi drivers.

"Since Mexico City is a densely populated area, and we have a very large informal economy, many people are unfortunately susceptible to paying protection money. Consequently, it is a profitable activity for the local mafias," Saucedo said.

 "Besides paying an official tax to come to work, you have to pay another one to them," Angel Campos, a vendor at a street market in Mexico City, said.

[antidrumpfs]

How Joe Biden 'broke OPEC' and rewrote the rules for oil trading

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, has had massive influence over American politics for six decades. President Biden’s "incredible" oil market trading has broken this influence. Dan Dicker joins Chris Hayes to discuss how Biden got ahead in oil production and what that means for the transition to clean energy.

[qqueenofhades]

gas prices are about to go thru the damn ROOF. fuck opec and their blatant attempt to fix the midterms for the gop 🤬🤬🤬

Quick context for everyone: OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), along with their associated group, OPEC+, just agreed to cut oil production by 2 million barrels a day starting in November. As OPEC is largely run and principally influenced by the Saudis, and Russia is a key member of OPEC+, it does indeed look very much as if this announcement, coming barely a month before the midterms, is a clear attempt to negatively influence gas prices in the US and thus push for a more Republican turnout.

Indeed, ask yourself why the Saudis and Russia, two authoritarian dictatorships with open ties to Trump, would want to weaken the Democrats and push for the installation of a similar right-wing authoritarian party in the US, as they (especially Russia) have been trying to do all along. Because this cut won't take place until right around the midterms itself, it's possible that this is intended to scare gas prices up in anticipation, rather than actually reflecting in the supply. OPEC is a cartel run by authoritarian countries (as the "oil curse" tends to be incompatible with democratic structures, and this has been egged on wholeheartedly by the US in the past). So yes, if for some reason you should encounter this talking point in the wild ("gas prices are going up again, it must be Biden's fault, WAH WAH TIME TO THROW AWAY DEMOCRACY!"), please hasten to explain why, exactly, it is in fact happening.

[darkmaga-retard]

Marking the inevitable demise of the world’s most important cartel.

Doomberg

Sep 03, 2024

“We don't have a monopoly. We have market share. There's a difference.” – Steve Ballmer

On November 27, 2014, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) gathered in Vienna, Austria, for one of its regular meetings. The outcome of this one would prove momentous. Although Brent crude had traded comfortably above $100 a barrel for most of the prior few years, a booming US shale sector had caused prices to dip to the high $70s as attendees arrived. Led by Saudi Arabia, OPEC made the fateful decision to engage in a price war with American producers, a move that shocked market observers: 

“The stated belief from some OPEC members at that time was that this would cause a dip in oil prices, and that would put a lot of the marginal shale oil producers out of business. Instead, oil prices plummeted, some shale oil producers went out of business, but the strategy indeed cost OPEC at least a trillion dollars of lost revenue as most shale producers held on. In late 2016 the cartel waved the white flag, abandoning this strategy and returning to making production cuts to boost prices. That strategy persists to this day.”

OPEC grossly underestimated both the willingness and the capacity of US shale companies to incinerate shareholder capital in the name of growth. Even as oil prices ground lower—eventually bottoming out in the upper-$20s in January of 2016, well below the estimated marginal cost of production for most shale upstarts—US production climbed inexorably higher. The few companies that did file for bankruptcy either kept producing or sold assets to others that could, using the courts as a shield to recapitalize in the hopes of exploiting firmer prices in the future.

[kp777]

By Jessica Corbett

Common Dreams

May 7, 2024

The Groundwork Collaborative's leader also said that "the Department of Justice should criminally prosecute Scott Sheffield," the former Pioneer CEO whom the FTC blocked from joining ExxonMobil's board.

Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens on Tuesday responded to U.S. government allegations of fossil fuel industry price fixing with calls for federal prosecution and congressional action to return money to the American public.

"Americans have been working harder and harder to cover rising energy costs, with the understanding that supply chain snags and geopolitical forces were keeping prices high," Owens said. "Now the Federal Trade Commission has uncovered the real source behind the price at the pump: collusion."

"The Department of Justice should criminally prosecute Scott Sheffield and Congress should tax back the industry's windfall profits and issue every American a refund," she added, referring to Pioneer Natural Resources' founder and longtime CEO.

Owens' statement came after members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) declined to contest ExxonMobil's controversial $64.5 billion acquisition of Pioneer—which was completed Friday—but approved a consent order barring Sheffield from serving on Exxon's board of directors or as an adviser to the fossil fuel giant.

"This complaint is a wake-up call about the dangerous consolidation of Big Oil's economic and political power."

The FTC voted 3-2 to accept the order and place related documents on the record for public comment. Citing communications including in-person meetings, public statements, text messages, and WhatsApp conversations, a commission complaint accuses Sheffield of trying to collude with the representatives of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and OPEC+.

"Mr. Sheffield's past conduct makes it crystal clear that he should be nowhere near Exxon's boardroom. American consumers shouldn't pay unfair prices at the pump simply to pad a corporate executive's pocketbook," said Kyle Mach, deputy director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition. "The FTC will remain vigilant in its enforcement efforts to protect competition in these vital markets."

Pioneer toldFortune that the company and its founder "believe that the FTC's complaint reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the U.S. and global oil markets and misreads the nature and intent of Mr. Sheffield's actions," but neither party would take "any steps to prevent the merger from closing."

ExxonMobil "learned of the FTC's allegations regarding Sheffield from the agency and said in a statement that they are 'entirely inconsistent with how we do business,'" according to Fortune. "Exxon has agreed to the terms of the consent decree," which also "prohibits the oil giant from appointing any Pioneer employee or director to its board for five years."

Still, since the FTC's allegations were initially reported by The Wall Street Journal last week and then confirmed with the complaint's release, demands for additional action by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Congress have mounted.

Cassidy DiPaola, Fossil Free Media's director of communications, on Monday called the complaint "explosive" and said that Democrats "must respond with bold action to hold this rogue industry accountable," including:

Aggressive congressional and DOJ investigations into the full extent of Big Oil's price fixing;

A windfall profits tax to claw back ill-gotten gains; and

End taxpayer subsidies for oil and gas.

"But accountability is just the first step. This complaint is a wake-up call about the dangerous consolidation of Big Oil's economic and political power. We can't let them use megamergers to entrench their control and crush clean energy competition," she stressed. "Ultimately, this is about the future we choose: One where we remain at the mercy of Big Oil's greed and destruction, or one where clean, democratically controlled energy powers our communities. It's time to make the right choice."

In response to the Journal's reporting, Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, similarly said that "Congress must immediately hold hearings on Big Oil's alleged collusion with OPEC to raise gasoline prices for Americans."

"Congress must not only investigate Pioneer's alleged role in conspiring with OPEC, but whether there existed a broader conspiracy by U.S. oil companies to collude with OPEC nations," he argued. "Big Oil must be held accountable for any conspiracy by or among American oil companies and OPEC members."

The reporting was notably published on the same day as the U.S. Senate Budget Committee's hearing about a nearly three-year investigation into fossil fuel companies and trade groups' decadeslong "campaign of deception and distraction," which has evolved from denying the planet-heating impact of their products to pretending to be part of the solution to the climate emergency.

"The joint report and documents we discovered show how, time and again, the biggest oil and gas corporations say one thing for the purposes of public consumption but do something completely different to protect their profits," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, testified during the hearing. "Company officials will admit the terrifying reality of their business model behind closed doors but say something entirely different, false, and soothing to the public."

[antizionistrussophile64]

April 16, 2008

Russian President Vladimir Putin writes on the guestbook at Libyan leader Moamer Gadhafi's destroyed residence in Tripoli. The house was destroyed by a US-led air raid in 1986. Putin arrived in Libya for a 24-hour visit expected to be dominated by talks over energy contracts and arms sales. Putin was immediately taken to Bab Azizia Palace, a sprawling complex where Kadhafi usually pitches his tent when in Tripoli. Putin is visiting the country at Gadhafi's invitation -- one of the Russian leader's final formal trips before he steps down on May 7. Arms sales to Tripoli and the clearing of Soviet-era debt may also be touched on during their talks, according to Russian government sources. The visit comes as Russia is trying to coordinate policy with other gas producing states, notably Algeria, and is promoting plans for an organization of gas producers similar to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), of which Libya is a member.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Brazil Never To Be Full Member Of OPEC+, Only Observer

Brazil will never join the OPEC+ group of oil-producing nations as a full member and instead only seeks to participate as an observer, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said on Sunday.

Lula’s remarks to reporters at the U.N. COP28 climate summit in Dubai clarified his statements a day earlier that Brazil would “participate” in OPEC+.

“Brazil should join OPEC+, it could be an observer,” Lula said on Sunday. “Brazil will never be a full member of OPEC, because we don’t want to be. What we want is to influence.”

Environmentalists in Brazil and abroad have criticized Lula’s administration for pitching itself as a climate leader thanks to its success in reining in deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, while still moving ahead with plans to drill massive offshore oil finds.

Continue reading.

[alhasyirhumam]

Taring Saudi

Raja Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud memutuskan untuk melakukan embargo minyak terhadap Amerika Serikat, Kanada, Inggris, Belanda dan Jepang. Negara-negara yg diembargo ini adalah negara-negara yg mendukung Zionis Israel pada perang Yom Kippur tahun 1973. Keputusan ini pun diikuti oleh negara-negara produsen minyak yg lainnya karena pada saat itu, Raja Faisal juga adalah ketua Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

Tak ayal, embargo ini mengakibatkan krisis energi dan krisis ekonomi di negara-negara yg mengalami pembatasan pasokan minyak. Di Amerika Serikat, harga minyak naik 3 kali lipatnya dan stoknya pun sangat sedikit. Sektor industri dan manufaktur terganggu. Sektor-sektor lainnya pun demikian juga. Hal tersebut tentunya berimbas pada kenaikan komoditas lainnya. Krisis ekonomi pun melanda. Barat pun mengiba.

“Kalianlah yg tak bisa hidup tanpa minyak. Asal kalian tahu, kami berasal dari gurun pasir. Dan nenek moyang kami hidup dengan kurma dan susu. Dengan mudahnya kami bisa hidup seperti itu lagi,” kata Raja Faisal kepada Henry Kissinger, Menteri Luar Negeri AS.

Amerika Serikat kemudian mengadakan perundingan untuk pelepasan militer Israel. Dan, Maret 1974 embargo minyak pun dicabut.

Keberanian Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud bukan saat itu saja. Saat ia masih menjabat sebagai Menteri Luar Negeri, tahun 1947 di Sidang Umum PBB, beliau menyampaikan secara terbuka dukungannya terhadap Palestina dan tidak mengakui Zionis Israel:

“Namun kini, bangsa Arab mengharapkan penarikan agresi kelompok minoritas politik, yakni Zionis. Kelompok tersebut adalah sebuah kelompok yg tidak mewakili orang-orang Yahudi di dunia.

Kelompok tersebut adalah kelompok politis, bukan agamis. Sebuah kelompok yg cara dan metodenya tak berbeda sama sekali dari Nazi.”

3 tahun setelah ia menggantikan Raja Saud bin Abdulaziz menjadi Raja Kerajaan Arab Saudi, pada tahun 1967 Raja Faisal mengirimkan 20.000 orang pasukannya ke Palestina untuk membantu peejuangan kemerdekaan Palestina pada Perang Enam Hari.

Sikapnya yg tetap konsisten membela Palestina bahkan jauh sebelum menjadi Raja menjadikannya dijuluki sebagai Advokat Internasional untuk Hak Palestina.

Qaddarullah, pada tanggal 25 Maret 1975 beliau wafat dibunuh keponakannya sendiri: Pangeran Faisal bin Musaid bin Abdulaziz Al Saud yg baru saja kembali dari ‘studi’-nya di Amerika Serikat. Ia ditembak di kepalanya pada sebuah acara di mana beliau menyambut para keponakannya yg datang ke istana.

Wafatnya Sang Pembela Palestina ini pun banyak mengubah kebijakan luar negeri banyak negara-negara di jazirah Arab sana hingga sekarang.

Source:

[workersolidarity]

Photo: NY Times

🇩🇿🇦🇴🇨🇬🇬🇶🇬🇦🇮🇷🇮🇶🇰🇼🇱🇾🇳🇬🇸🇦🇦🇪🇻🇪

[🇦🇿🇧🇭🇧🇳🇰🇿🇲🇾🇲🇽🇴🇲🇷🇺🇸🇸🇸🇩]

⛽🛢️OPEC+ ANNOUNCES OIL PRODUCTION CUT EXTENSION THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR

In separate statements on Wednesday, Saudi Arabia and Russia both announced the extension of OPEC+ production cuts through the end of the year.

The Saudi Ministry of Energy announced they would continue to cut oil output by 1 million barrels per day, as per the policy instituted July 2023.

Together, the months of November and December will see the production of approximately 9 million barrels per day.

"this additional voluntary cut comes to reinforce the precautionary efforts made by the OPEC Plus countries," the statement read.

The Saudi Ministry of Energy agreed to revisit the policy of production cuts in one month's time.

At the same time in a separate statement, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said Russia would "continue additional voluntary supply cuts of 300,000 barrels per day from its exports to global markets, which has gone into implementation in September and October 2023."

Novak said the policy would be revisited in one month's time to see if further production cuts are necessary, or whether the Russian Federation will increase production at that time.

Deputy Prime Minister Novak further said the production cuts "reinforce the precautionary efforts made by OPEC Plus countries with the aim of supporting the stability and balance of oil markets."

OPEC+ is the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and comprises 13 members plus 10 more countries which voluntarily follow OPEC policies.

OPEC+ announced last October they cut oil output by a collective 2% from global demand from last November through the end of 2023. OPEC+ later agreed to extend production cuts through 2024.

Global oil prices have risen especially sharply since Russia and Saudi Arabia announced further cuts in July, with oil trading at $76 a barrel at the time. And although the US and its allies have been flooding markets with oil reserves since cuts were first announced in October 2022, those reserves are now largely empty and prices have risen once more, now trading at $89 per barrel.

#source

#source2

#source3

[awesome-casuallyfamouscollector]

The announcement came after hourslong negotiations at an OPEC+ meeting — the grouping of the 13-member Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), headed by Saudi Arabia, and the group's 10 partners, led by Russia.

The meeting was closely watched as a tough one, with Russia seen as wanting to maintain production levels, and Saudi Arabia seeking to push prices(..)

P.S. This is another good reason to replace ICE vehicles with electric ones...

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna on Wednesday urged the Biden administration to cut off sales of weaponry and crucial plane parts to Saudi Arabia as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries—a cartel led by the Saudis—agreed to slash oil production in a bid to prop up falling prices, a move that could inflict more pain on American consumers.

"President Biden should make it clear that we will stop supplying the Saudis with weapons and air parts if they fleece the American people and strengthen [Russian President Vladimir] Putin by making drastic production cuts," Khanna (D-Calif.) told The Washington Post in an interview as OPEC members met in Vienna.

"They need us far more than we need them," Khanna added.

The Biden White House launched a pressure campaign earlier this week in a last-ditch bid to stop OPEC from cutting supply, characterizing such a move as a "hostile act."

But the administration's efforts failed. On Wednesday, OPEC members agreed to slash their combined production by two million barrels a day, the largest supply cut since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020.

Saudi Arabia is the second-largest oil producer in the world behind the U.S., and the Biden administration has sought cooperation from the kingdom's murderous leaders as Russia's war on Ukraine continues to rattle global energy markets, elevating prices for consumers. While not a formal OPEC member, Russia—the world's third-largest oil producer—often works with the international cartel.

In July, U.S. President Joe Biden held a widely condemned meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to discuss the global oil supply, among other issues.

The White House has warned an OPEC production cut could reverse the large and consistent declines in U.S. gas prices over the past several months, just in time for the pivotal midterm elections. Expectations of a production cut have already driven oil prices up significantly in recent days.

"We've been clear that energy supply should meet demand to support economic growth and lower prices for consumers around the world and we will continue to talk with our partners about that," White House National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson said in a statement Tuesday.

Khanna, a progressive seen by some as a future presidential candidate, is a longtime critic of the Saudi regime—particularly its devastating assault on Yemen. He has been pushing the White House in recent days to respond forcefully to any OPEC production cut.

"It's outrageous. The Saudis need to be dealt with harshly," Khanna told CNN in an interview earlier this week. "They are a third-rate power. We are the most powerful country in the world. I don't know why we kowtow to them."

"They are not our allies," the California Democrat added. "They are hurting the American people. And we need to be tough with them. The President needs to make it clear we will cut off their supply. We could ground their air force in a day."

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday called for an end to U.S. military aid to Saudi Arabia after the kingdom and other major oil-producing nations agreed to slash output by two million barrels a day, a move that could significantly drive up gas prices worldwide as a global recession looms.

In a social media post, Sanders (I-Vt.) denounced the Saudi-led OPEC cartel over its "blatant attempt to increase gas prices at the pump," which he said "cannot stand."

"We must end OPEC's illegal price-fixing cartel, eliminate military assistance to Saudi Arabia, and move aggressively to renewable energy," the Senator added.

Sanders was one of several members of the U.S. Democratic caucus who responded with outrage to OPEC and Russia's decision, which is set to take effect in November as the midterm elections kick off.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) announced Wednesday that he will be reintroducing legislation instructing U.S. officials to "initiate dispute proceedings" against OPEC members at the World Trade Organization for violating the body's price-manipulation rules.

"As we build our clean energy future, we must stand up to the oil-soaked global cartel that seeks to abuse its power to raise prices and boost their profits," Markey said in a statement. "Today's OPEC announcement is a reminder that as long as the United States is dependent on foreign oil and on domestic oil that is priced on a global market, the supply and cost of the energy Americans use to operate our cars, heat our homes, and power our economy is reliant on decisions made by and for hostile fossil-fueled regimes."

"We must hold OPEC and its allies accountable for colluding to hike energy prices on working families," Markey added, "and we must accelerate our transition to clean energy to free ourselves from their profiteering, colluding grip once and for all."

Reps. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.), Sean Casten (D-Ill.), and Susan Wild (D-Pa.), meanwhile, unveiled legislation that would require the removal of U.S. troops and missile defense systems from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), another OPEC member.

"Saudi Arabia and the UAE's drastic cut in oil production, despite President Biden's overtures to both countries in recent months, is a hostile act against the United States and a clear signal that they have chosen to side with Russia in its war against Ukraine," the House Democrats said in a joint statement Wednesday.

"Both countries have long relied on an American military presence in the Gulf to protect their security and oil fields," the trio added. "We see no reason why American troops and contractors should continue to provide this service to countries that are actively working against us."

The Biden White House has thus far indicated that it is considering a number of policy responses to "reduce OPEC's control over energy prices"—signaling a possible revival of NOPEC legislation—but the administration hasn't specifically said it would target U.S. military assistance to the Saudis.

According to a recent study by the Government Accountability Office, the Pentagon delivered at least $54.6 billion of military aid to Saudi Arabia and the UAE between fiscal years 2015 and 2021, support that included missiles, helicopters, and bombs.

The U.S. has also spent hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years refueling Saudi and UAE jets as they attacked Yemen, sparking a humanitarian catastrophe that continues in the present.

Despite the President's campaign pledge to make the kingdom a "pariah" over its assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, the Biden administration has continued to approve massive weapons sales to the Saudis, including a multibillion-dollar sale of missiles in August. A month earlier, Reuters reported that the Biden administration was considering lifting its ban on "offensive" weapons sales to the Saudis.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) has been vocally pressing the Biden administration to halt U.S. military support for Saudi Arabia in response to OPEC's coming production cut, blasting the petrostate as a "third-rate power" that is "hurting the American people."

On Wednesday, Khanna co-authored an op-ed calling for an end to "missile and weapons system sales Saudi so desperately needs."

"By siding with Russia in hiking oil prices and sabotaging our economy," Khanna and two others wrote, "the Saudis have really outfoxed themselves this time—it was a time for choosing, and they picked the wrong side."