It seems our friend to the south is at it again. Apparently upset that he could not just grab Exxon/Mobil oil assets he is now threatening the US – again.

Questions for the debate:
How serious is the threat?
How should we respond if he tries to cut us off?
Should we consider actions against CITCO if he does cut us off?

Questions for the debate:
How serious is the threat?
How should we respond if he tries to cut us off?
Should we consider actions against CITCO if he does cut us off?
well here is the crux of the dispute to me

exactly who has the right to determine taxes levied by a country, that country or the world bank? or exxon?

How serious is the threat?

I think it's pretty much just more bluster from Chavez. Cutting off oil supplies to the US would hurt Venezuela more than it would the US. From this article in the Jamaica Observer (how's that for a source sports fans?) we get the following......




How should we respond if he tries to cut us off?

Not really too much we could do. He wants to hasten wrecking his economy, let him.


Should we consider actions against CITCO if he does cut us off?

No, other than if the court orders their assets seized, that order should be enforced. If Chavez cuts off the oil that CITCO sells, they're out of business here anyway. By the way, I already boycott them and never buy gas from the local 7-11 which still sells CITCO.



Nationalization of an industry is "taxes"? I guess that's one way of looking at it, but when it involves international agreements (contracts) that have been violated, it moves to the courts in the respective countries under contract laws. If the courts find that Chavez violated an international contract with Exxon, they have the right to order re-dress for that violation. Seizing the assets of Venezuela to satisfy that judgement is perfectly within the rights of the court. Think of it as a court-ordered "tax rebate" if you wish.



Aquilla

SOLUTION:

Let’s move to a Hydrogen and Electric car industry!


1) ) Take the $10,000,000,000.00 per year in oil
subsidies and start developing a Hydrogen/electric
car industry. (New US Jobs and R&D $ for US Schools)

2) Break the backs of the Oil companies that
Are breaking the backs of Americans!

3) Keep all the money that goes over seas for foreign Oil in America!!

4) We will have less pollution!

5) We won’t fall behind the rest of the world in
new/clean technology!

6) We will end or slow the US $’s going to terrorist supporting group/people.

7) We can sell clean energy to the rest of the world(China, India ect...).

from the statement I quoted in the cited source they placed it as a tax. If so, that is a clever way to out fox the the thieves. I remember one of my first business lessons in court, I had a license with a company for a invention, they decided to stop paying me. In meeting with the judge with my attorney before the formal case he reminded me the law is in essence any contract can be canceled even if they signed on the dotted line. I then settled for 5 cents on the buck.

remember the Arab nations did something similar about 50 years ago.

remember the first arab oil embargo under Nixon, that caused prices to increase significantly. then there was a second that caused lines in the USA big time.




While I was finishing engineering school I was working as an intern with the DOE as Reagan took office. Ronnie told the idiots out there to keep the government out of everything. So he, the intellectual midget virtually stopped all funding Carter put in place to make us NOT dependent on oil. Ronnie said let the corporations like the oil companies find new energy sources. What a complete idiot, what oil company wants us not dependent on their daily does of their drug. we can thank reagen and the republicans for our lack of energy independence. Still to this day republicans love the reagan cheer, was it oh no I think the government is coming, ie Hate government.

Ya right – what you fail to mention is the dramatic drop in oil prices that made the alternatives look very expensive. And lets be honest – Bill Clinton did squat to reverse the trend – Bush has done far more.

The real question is not the past but the future – when the price drops do we go back to sleep or move ahead?

I remember Reagan running on the premise of hate government before he took office. Carter did not back off his commitment.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflati..._comparison.htm



And no; alternatives become more and more attractive as they are found via research. then mass production. Since I live in nevada you can see a system made by the Spanish that is being installed in Boulder City. this system is obvious to me and in mass production the cost could drop significantly. these should have been developed years ago. But again Reagan came into office telling americans government is bad. shame he has no clue how we got on the moon or how in essence from what I have read nearly every medical advancement has come from government research in universities and so on. then they move to companies once the concept is promising. reagan was just an idiot, that people to this day believe.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2008/2008-02-24-095.asp



thus you ask why Clinton could not do anything about it, well we saw the medical industry spend in a year what it cost to run for the presidency to stop health care reform. Again the focus on that ozzie and herriete ads was the reagan doctrine, government is to be hated by you americans.

Bush has done more for Enron and exxon et al than any other president...

Hmm, I wonder what the interest of Chavez is. If he cuts oild sales to the US, he won't have much of an influence on the US at all anymore. It is because of this current position that he's powerful. Cutting oil would be like cutting off his influence and power altogether.

I'm curious to see how other nations would react. I 'm thinking of two groups: oil and gas exporters that are allies of Venezuela and oil importers.

Oil exporters could back up Venezuala and flex their muscles - i.e. raise the price of the barrel ($114 today) to cause harm to the USA and other nations just to gain more power and influence. Venezuela can't do much on its own, but along with Russia, Iran and others in Africa, they can cause a tidal wave against the West.

Oil importers that are competitors of the USA, like Europe, Japan, China and India for instance could find the situation arranging if Chavez diverts the oil towards them at better prices rather than to the USA.

It's chilling to remember the oil embargo imposed by Saudi King Faisal in 1973. We in the USA have such short memories! If common sense had prevailed then way back in the early seventies, the embargo would have ignited a massive investment by the USA in domestic oil and gas deposits, alternative energy sources, the design and manufacture of much more efficient automobile engines, etc. Our situation is worse now than ever! Why haven't we learned that we cannot make our security dependent on so-called friendly nations. Sometime, on some radio station I heard a guest actually utter the following during an interview: "Does the speaker not know that our close and loyal friends, the Saudis, would make sure America has adequate oil supplies?" It makes me laugh now to remember his statement! I just wish I could remember who uttered it and when. Chavez is another in a line of oil producing countries who can't look farther than their noses. When will we get our act together or will we ever?

Because we have very short memories and our Politicians get “contributions” for the money they bring in over a short period of time. Too many of the fools in Congress of both parties can see past this to the big picture. We have been talking about “energy independence” since the 60s and are further away today then we were then.

And then of course we have the “environmentalist” lobby that has successfully stopped most oil drilling and all nuclear power. We are nor 30-40 years behind countries like Japan and France.

Disgusting.

TEd- I will concede on the issue of Nuclear or other forms of alternative energy that may be used, being taken out by the very real problems of nuclear waste- what to do with it anyway?

However- all the driling you want to do in the US doesn't even cover a fraction of what we need- and

very important question

How do you go about keeping US oil in the US? Do we nationalize it? after all- right now, all of our oil is freely traded on the open market, meaning the US has no laws keeping "US" oil in the US-

you do realize that it isn't the US goverment buying the oil for the US consumer-right? That it is oil companies, such, as, oh, exxon that didn't really drill much last year- but made gazzillions trading oil and distributing it and all that capitalist stuff.

So- um, where exactly do you think this gazzillons of barrels of oil that we need to run this country is going to be drilled there Mr Oil field engineer? - do you really advocate nationalizing all our oil fields, like, um Mr Chavez?

Exxon and Mobil and all those corrupt folks buy up all that nice Venezuela oil- not the congress nor the US goverment at all.

Your comments on this issue are either overly brief on details on how you expect to really replace the oil that won't be sold to US markets- most likely going to Europe, China or India- because, um, they need it too- remember- it is the guy with the oil that is in the drivers seat here.

What are we going to do- insist he stop selling to America?

How serious is the threat?

Not very serious. Venezuela, along with the other short-sighted fools in OPEC, are cashing in on global demand, which will continue to increase this year despite higher prices. OPEC is actually supplying more oil this year than last and prices are higher despite the fact that US demand is slowing.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html



Commodities speculators are the real culprits here, not OPEC or Bush or even the generally dastardly Chavez.


How should we respond if he tries to cut us off?

The global market mechanism precludes his laughable attempt. He doesn't sell directly to us and if he embargos those that do, he'd be out of business.

Should we consider actions against CITCO if he does cut us off?

It won't happen.

As a side note, the only OPEC country with any significant surplus capacity is Saudi Arabia.

IN some ways- you are right Amlord- but Chavez does have people, some smart ones I am sure, with some knowledge of the oil market (say, a bit more than those that think domestic oil production could ever alleviate any of our oil price problems ) - and they WILL know who buys what. All they have to do is to sell to either a semi-govermental subsidized Euro country, or even easier- sign a direct sale oil agreement to any of the big asian consumers- say, oh, china?

Regardless, prices are NOT EVER going to go significantly down to where we start paying under 3 bucks a gallon, and within a year, 4 bucks a gallon. It will just continue to go up, and quickly.

Chavez, even with his silly policies- is in the driver's seat here, and there is no way to really harm him in this- he has what we want, and we have precious little he needs.

I think you are going to see this flexing of economic muscles more and more by non-aligned second and third world countries, especially in the face of American imperialism and or horrible foriegn policies. Who wants to do business with a bully- we are not the only customer in town you know!

There is not a darn thing one we can do about it domestically- nothing. Even ramping up "Alternative technology" like there is no tomorow will take a decade or more, even if we start full bore on this tomorow- to start reversing the peak oil trend and it's harmful economic effects on our country- we just jumped on the ball too late.

One bright spot is the natural gas pipeline being thrown about politically here in Alaska and nationally right now- this will send some relief to the average US citizen- especially since it looks like Transcanada will be building the pipeline, and will be terminating right in Mid-west America- looks so far like it is slated for the middle american markets. This could hafe a HUGE offset in heating and energy prices for much of the US. Our natural gas deposits are FAR FAR FAR larger than our oil deposits, and we are just starting to get a handle on how huge it really is!

Rumor mill up here, not something you find on the web or in the news right now- but amongst the plethora of oil company insiders up here- is the new lease sale up in the Beaufort sea , but quite a bit west of Prudhoe- has found another monstrous super- deposit of natural gas. Preliminary drill, sonic and other testing from the Geo-physical institute in UAF is pretty exciting news for the short to mid-term forecasts for energy needs for the US is quite good.

It is too bad the presidential candidates haven't had this one cross thier radar- it really is quite good for the entire US- not just Alaska- and, on top of that- there are NO enviromental concerns with it's extraction- it is already ready to have that done- just need to build a liquifying plant and pipeline and start shipping to thirsty US energy companies.

In alaska- with the promised spur line- we are looking at an over 50% reduction in heat bills for our state. It has been projected that energy costs will drop about 30% if the pipeline goes through to the "lower 48" for all customers of that pipeline.

However, we can do nothing, not even if every single oil field that is even speculated to have oil in it, thier dreamiest projections, won't even make a dent in US consumption, much as we Alaskan's wish it were so- we all stand to profit here if that were true- but it just isn't reality, unfortunately.

Chavez may be corrupt, but he does know where his bread is buttered, and knows how to manipulate his markets, because Venezuela is such a big producer, and, between Canada and Mexico- is usually our BIGGEST supplier of petroleum products.

Don't kid yourself Amlord- he could hurt us bad with virtually no risk to himself- that is the nature of supply and demand- we have more demand than the world can supply us- and he has a surplus of supply, making him a net exporter of oil.

That puts him squarely in the drivers seat on this issue.

A significant fraction – and at 116/barrel those billions of barrels are lots of $$$. And since drilling has been illegal we don’t even know how many billions of barrels are out there.



It’s a world market that currently has limited supply. By definition an increase in the supply lowers the price – regardless of where the oil is sold. And it decreases our deficits damit. The “market” has a perceived supply problem right now.

“Supply
An important contributor to price increases has been the slow down in oil supply growth, which has continued since oil production surpassed new discoveries in 1980. The fact that global oil production will decline at some point, leading to lower supply is the main long-term fundamental cause of rising prices.[18] This is because there is a limited amount of fossil fuel, and the remaining accessible supply is consumed more rapidly each year. Increasingly, remaining reserves become more technically difficult to extract and therefore more expensive. Eventually, reserves will only be economically feasible to extract at high prices.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price_inc...es_of_2004-2006


You need to take an economics course or stay out of this type of discussion.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/AOMC/Overview.html

So you are saying if we just stick oil derricks in every back yard and wilderness in America- it will keep us from being dependent on foriegn oil? OR< if not every single place that the oil companies feel like sticking a platform- how far are you willing to go to extract every barrel of oil from America?

You are familiar with the term, "peak oil" correct?

Ted- as we get any interuption in the GLOBAL oil market- we have a hiccup in prices- and the hiccup stays consistantly higher each time- there is no trend DOWN in prices- you agree? Well, that means the seller can be a little more picky to whom he sells too, when he nationalizes the oil.

Just like, if you are so big on domestic production- you skirted the question- are you willing to nationalize US oil in order to keep the oil in the US?

Don't get me wrong Ted, I am all for responsiblie drilling in just about anywhere but residential nieghborhoos- I understand it can be responsibly extracted. Not so good in transportation most of the time- but it can be cleanly extracted.

But I also know it is unrealistic to even contemplate a domestic production level that alleviates ANY of the price and supply issues.

China recently tried to take over Chevron- you do remember that don't you?

China would like nothing more than to get a steady and regular supply at global prices from Chavez.

Do you disagree with this?

Do you disagree with the idea that the emerging second world is forcing us to peak oil much faster than formerly thought?

Do you reject the idea of Peak oil?

Your graph does nothing to answer any of these questions- except that ability of the GLOBAL market, no matter the political mechinations, to continue it's rise, and demand increasing faster than new fields can be brought on line- even when everyone wants it to get started.

There are promising finds, from what I have done a cursory scan of, in the gulf of mexico and off the coast of brazil.

Those deep water projects, even if every piece of technology is in place, and we get started tomorow, and the field holds as much as projections- it will be YEARS before they are on line- more like decades.

The problem with deep water drilling is transportation as well- very easy to have a spill and wipe out whole ecosystems as well. Ecosystems driving the global climate on a massive scale.

Those considerations can not be just dismissed, because Exxon used to brag for years about thier superior clean up readiness in the Prince Willian sound- but it turns out, they had massive budget cuts, and all the promises were empty- and they still haven't paid for that yet.

Of course I am, I wouldn't post if I thought otherwise.



Upon what do you base this "analysis"? The short term price of crude oil is not being driven by the supply-demand curve, but by speculators.




Chavez is far from "in the driver's seat". More accurately, he is riding the current wave of oil prices and has no control over the direction they are taking.



Wrong again. The economics of the current situation has made processing of kerogen (oil shale) viable. The long term production cost of this source of fuel is in the $25-30 a barrel range. It is being produced in Canada and more limitedly in the United States as we speak. Current oil prices are simply not sustainable and will decline significantly when the world economy goes into worldwide recession.

Shell Oil predicts that it can produce oil profitably from oil shale for around $25 per barrel, or less than 1/4 of the current price. It could make a killing selling it at $80 a barrel (how does $4 billion in profit PER DAY sound if they can pump out a million barrels per day?)

Although vast quantities of oil shale (1.5 trillion barrels of synthetic oil could be produced, or about 200 years worth of current US consumption) are located in the remote Green River area, environmental groups are sure to raise havoc if they were extensively developed. The pollution from the mining itself as well as the large quantities of water needed to process the kerogen will not sit well with green groups.

So, all is not lost. The future is still in our hands. Oil prices do not need to remain so high. We simply need to decide if we want to act or not.

Okay- that was what I asked- how far are you willing to go for lower oil prices? Are you willing to strip mine the earth for every last piece of energy. It is not realistic in any but fascist regimes or war of survival.

Besides, Amlord- how long do you think it would take to ramp up full scale production and "polluting"- as you yourself put it?

You and many others claim the high oil prices are due to speculation- and there is no doubt that is true, but, do you seriously expect to see a drop in gas prices back to even below 3 dollars a gallon when the "speculators" stop speculating? - Do you forsee ANY significant price drops in crude in the next 5-10 years?

Then- why are speculators so hot on oil? Could it be that they see peak oil, and want to get in on it early perhaps?

Maybe they have asked the same questions- do you see it really going DOWN in price anytime soon?

Do you deny that countries with mega-populations like India, China etc etc ramping up industrial production etc- and thier demands growing exponentially- do you figure there may be an underlying reason that the price is going up and why people speculate?

CR, its not just oil, all commodities are breaking records and reaching new highs. Unless there was a peak oil revelation within the last couple months, its unlikely such foresight is contributing to the run-up in oil.

Ah, so you see a major drop in oil prices in the near future do you?

Depends on interest rates.

Okay- everything being ideal. Do you see a barrel of oil going down to 60bucks a barrel?

Do you see it dropping below a 100 dollars a barrel, and staying there for oh, 3 years?

How serious is the threat?

Not very. They need the money from selling it to us more than we need the oil. We currently import about 1 Million BBD from Venezuela. They are our fourth largest foreign supplier. However, we also currently have about 700 Million Barrels of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So, we can not buy Venezuelan oil for about 2 years before we miss anything. Think Venezuela can do without the money for 2 years? Doubtful.
From Energy Information Administration


How should we respond if he tries to cut us off?

First, see if Saudi Arabia or other countries will make up the difference. Put pressure on other potential buyers to also seek other suppliers. Finally, draw down the SPR slightly if need be. Step up programs to spur domestic production (no effect short term, but is needed anyway and will send a message that we're in it for the long haul). He'll say Uncle before we will.

Should we consider actions against CITGO if he does cut us off?

Why bother. Chavez, in cutting off the oil, will have already cut off their supply. CITGO is a subsidiary of PDVSA, so Chavez would just be cutting off his nose to spite his face. Even if they were to get crude to refine, I suspect there would be a grass roots boycott of their product. Heck, we stopped eating French fries...and they weren't even French.

Ask those bitter people in Pennsylvania whether or not they would strip mine Utah for cheaper gas prices. Of course, it might not be strip mining, that's only done in (ironically) Venezuela and Canada. There are several potential ways to extract the oil in situ or in the ground, without mining it at all.

But to answer the question: every decision has costs. We need to decide whether lower energy prices and an end to foreign oil dependence would be worth the cost of doing it.



What does this mean? Do you even know what peak oil is? Speculators are not only driving the price of oil through the roof, they are driving the price of every commodity good there as well. It all can be explained if you understand that risk free interest rates (T bills) are delivering a NEGATIVE interest rate. If you buy T bills right now, you will have less money when you cash them in. So why would anyone do that? If you can buy a durable commodity, it is much better, since they will at least hold their value. Have you heard the "buy gold" commercials that are everywhere? This is just one aspect of the commodity rush. It makes more sense to buy commodities right now than it does to buy T bills.

Of course, this has caused a bubble. With the world economy slowing down, demand will fall and there is bound to be a crash or at the very least a correction of 20-30%. I am not denying that demand for oil is high, but that is not the only reason that oil prices continue to rise, especially when oil production is at an all time high and demand is flat from last year.



Yep. As soon as the Fed raises interest rates.

My point is this- we keep saying "oh, it is artificially high, it is speculators"- well, there is an underlying reason there is speculation- correct?

They know something pretty fundamental- there is no "bottoming out correction" coming from oil- we have not reached peak oil yet as a reality- but speculators feel it is very close- so they are speculating on that underlying fundamental idea- that even with new oil fields and new sources are coming on line- they are not coming on line as fast as emerging economies are ramping up thier demands.

Hobbes- strategic oil reserves- how much of that did GW release of those reserves in his presidency again?

Okay Amlord- do you seriously feel that the bottom is going to fall out of oil prices? IF so- good luck with all that.

There may be some folks making noises on that- but they are not putting thier money where thier public comments are- right now, it is pretty much understood in the oil industry that we are not going to see a major fall in price per barrel anytime soon- and they are speculating based on that perception- of course, markets being markets- experts on both sides have lost everything betting on this or that-

but I don't forsee us EVER going back to cheap, affordable petroleum products, not in my lifetime anyway- unless some new technology comes along and makes oil obsolete.

Amlord- first time you have to live within a few miles of a tank farm of a major oil concern- your whole take on "NIMBY" types will be different.

Valdez is one of the most beautiful and was prestine places on earth- now- in Valdez- you look for an apartment based on how far away you are from the benzene fumes. Not cool.

You put a transportation facility like the one in Valdez near a major residential center- you will have a lot of folks quickly deciding one price is too high to offset the other.

Amlord- I have nothing against oil or it's exploration, use or transportation. But I am also a realist, and understand how high that price can be- I don't think you do.

Not to mention, how corrupt the oil industry itself is- they have so much money and influence, they break the law with impunity, bribing and changing laws as they see fit, across the board.

The entire republican delegation, and two years worth of republican leadership in our state houses are either under investigation or in jail, and about 10 more to go yet.

A very high price to pay- selling you soul for oil.

And "speculators" understand that if there is enough oil today- it probably won't be tomorow.

The very fact of the lengths we are starting to be willing to go, formerly "financially unfeasible" fields are becoming very feasible all of a sudden.

The interest rates and petroleum reserves are not going to save us from high oil prices.

And Chavez has plenty of willing customers willing to take his oil.

If you don't think so, look at the lengths the US had to go to in order to stop Chevron from being a Chinese company.

I don't believe we are at peak oil - however, I feel we are so close to it, that speculators are feeling it already.


I am curious Amlord- what do you think the "true" value of the price per barrel of oil is? When you say price reduction- if you are talking a dollar or two per barrel- that would be a cop out- small fluctuations in the market are to be expected- but to really be signficant, we are going to have to go below 80 bucks a barrel to see a real reduction in all the areas affected by high oil prices- do you forsee it going that far below a hundred bucks a barrel- and STAYING there for a while.

Anything else renders the argument that it is a purely speculative market- "over exuberance" moot. It would be proof in the pudding that speculation is based on demand increasing faster than supply can increase.


Hobbes- I am also curious about the strategic reserves issue- do you forsee any future prez releasing enough of that oil in order to alleviate prices in the mid-term? Yes- we have two years of reserve- but it is traditionally seen as a last minute need in case of war or global upheavel, and they release it based on economic considerations with the idea that the reserves can be easily replaced - I dont' think any prez in the future is going to be feeling that way anytime soon.

No, not for price relief, that is not its purpose. As you state, it is there for a buffer for disruptions in supply caused by unforeseen events, such as war. So, for the debate here, were Chavez to 'cut us off', I think they would open it up. In fact, it was specifically created to keep OPEC countries from holding us hostage due to threats to disrupt our supply.

Okay- I was just making sure we were on the same page- let us go with a very realistic scenario. Chavez makes good on his threat to cut off US oil sales, and he does this by entering into some kind of direct market to market agreement with China to accomplish this- very realistic in most oil folks I know opinions- so, what happens to global pricing, and how does that affect US policies?

The true value is what the buyer is willing to buy it at and what the seller is willing to sell it at. The market price. Believe me, oil sellers do not want the price as high as it is. Of course, they will take the "winfall profits" they are currently getting, but they know it is unsustainable. Unfortunately, they can't up production to satisfy the need for excess inventories and they certainly cannot control the global commodities markets. New sources of petroleum will cure the former problem, but not the latter one.

Again, I do think the price will drop below 80 bucks a barrel*. Not today or tomorrow, but as soon as the commodity buzz wears off and the global demand drops as third world countries cut their demand for petroleum in response to a global economic slowdown.


Demand decreases by the amount Chavez is selling directly to China. Meanwhile global demand falls by the amount China is buying from Chavez directly. The net result: no change whatsoever, except that the Chinese will demand at least as good of a price they would get on the open market and Chavez would probably demand at least the price he could get on the open market. Again, no change. The price would be fixed to the global price.

*EDIT: fixed typo.

Okay- fair enough Amlord- I am betting it NEVER falls below 90 bucks a barrel again, and even if it does, it will not be for more than a couple months.

The only caveat I see to that statement is once again- does the Alaskan gas pipeline happen? It is the super wildcard in this equation, because it will alleviate SOO much domestic demand. All of the combined oil in Alaska, even those projected in ANWR and in the beaufort sea, don't equate to just getting the natural gas, already tapped, out of prudhoe. The oil companies have always blocked this by a variety of methods (it isn't the enviromentalists man! ) - so that they don't get forced to open up those natural gas reserves.

They do have a legitimate concern that, because the natural gas field is so large, that it will deflate natural gas and oil prices- which will harm thier bottom lines.

But the oil companies have been bribing, buying out and blocking this for nearly 20 years, pretty much owning the majority republican leaders for about 6 years in the republican party- the election of Sarah Palin was a watershed moment- as it was a clear decision by alaskan residents to clean up the republican party up here- but we are still dealing with thier legacy, and I don't think it will be within 10 years that we get that gas to market- and by then, we may have truly passed the peak oil point.

But I am going with the oil companies on this one- I think you have seen all the 80 bucks per barrel oil you will see for your lifetime, and even if you do, the dip would be very momentary- and would be back to where it is now before a year is out.

I think much of the non-oil producing world thinks there is more supply than there really is.

How serious is the threat?
Not very. Amlord nailed it that he can't prevent other countries from turning right around and selling it to us.

How should we respond if he tries to cut us off?
We should respond by passing the Columbia Free Trade act now. A geographic free trade alliance between as many North and South American democracies as possible is key to our economic future; and therefore military future, so that we can compete with all dictatorships long term.

Should we consider actions against CITCO if he does cut us off?
We should boycott CITCO anyway.