LyrArc Article Gist
How China by not buying oil can keep oil prices low. China's reserves are full and even during April to June 18 during closure of Hormuz did not use oil stocks. It appears that China simply cut the use of oil, increased renewable energy and used coal supplies. This has relieved pressure on oil prices. The US by increasing supplies and countries like China, India, Germany reducing their oil use will help prices of oil remain low in July 2026 compared to the surge to $125 during the first time Hormuz was closed in April-May 2026.

LyrArc Article Gist
This article has several information links for different groups. One to "Putin and Russian oil policy"- consolidating into state hands all the major oil properties by buying the privately held company holdings such as BP-TNK's Kovykta gas field. A link to remarks to the New York Times in an interview by Medvedev, deputy CEO of Gazprom. And a separate link to "How Russians see Themselves and the World around them." The other link is in comments by Surkov, Mr. Putin's deputy chief of staff at a news conference and Putin's remarks in pre-8 Summit television interviews. Content Links 1. Link To the group "How Russians See Themselves and the World." In remarks at a news conference, Vladislav Surkov, Putin's deputy chief of staff referred to Russia's desire to keep its national sovereignty in terms of how it manages its oil resources in Russian interest. Russia did not want to have to respond to western demands for access to its oil resources and oil and gas pipelines. Surkov pointed out that Russia was a free nation among other free nations and did not want to be controlled by outside interests. Putin in pre-summit television interviews had an interesting view of the criticism of Russian oil policy and its consolidation of oil resources into state hands, as well as the centralization of powers and putting media into state hands, and its new stance in foreign affairs. He told this to the French channel TF1: Putin suggested old views of Russia stemmed from outdated cold-war competition, and misguided colonial-era arrogance. If we go back 100 years and look through the newspapers, we see what arguments the colonial powers of that time used to justify their involvement in Africa and Asia. They justified their involvement with statements that is was about playing a civilizing role, the white man's burden, the need to civilize these people, Putin told TF1. All you have to do is change the words "civilizing" to "democratization" and then we see the application almost to a word of what the newspapers were saying in 1900 to day's world. These are the arguments one hears from our peers in the U.S. and Europe on democratization and democratic freedoms. This is remarkable statement in revealing how the post Berlin Wall 90's experience with democracy has soured Russians view of democracy. And the peculiar way Putin and other Russians see the western exhortations for openness, transparency, freedoms, self interested, motivated by gains for western economic interests, and disregarding Russian interests such as national pride, economic-higher energy prices to sustain growth, national sovereignty. The NYT article can be seen in the context of a strategy article in Foreign Affairs, July/August 2006, "Russia Leaves the West," by Dmitri Trenin. Trenin says the U.S. and Europe want a weak Russia that they can exploit and manipulate, which means Russia needs to assert itself and its own interests just like the U.S. and China. The idea presented by Deputy Director of Carnegie Moscow Center, echoes Putin's own suspicion of western interests and their "colonial era arrogance". Trenin's view is of a fundamental shift in Western-Russian relations: the United States and Europe could protest this change in Russia's foreign policy all they want but it will not matter. For Trenin the U.S. and Europe had to agree that the terms of the Western-Russian interaction, set after the collapse of the Soviet Union's collapse, was now fundamentally changed. 2. The second link is with the "Putinand Russian Oil Policy" group. It provides details about the Kovytkta field owned by BP-TNK and what is happening there. Alastair Ferguson, director of BP-TNK's gas operations describes the situation in a interview with NYT at his Moscow offices. Ferguson says it makes sense to do what Russia is doing if you are the Russian government. By letting BP-TKN build its own pipeline Russia would lose influence over gas prices. According to Gazprom allowing private companies to ship gas independently would drive down gas prices. And Ferguson says this gas field is huge and supplies going to China and rest of Asia could lower prices of liquefied natural gas in California. Medvedev, Gazprom's deputy CEO was also interviewed in his Moscow offices. Gazprom and the government would answer the question about export sales, not BP-TNK. Medvedev's view is that this is a technical question for Gazprom and Russia to decide and has little to do with the G-8....

LyrArc Article Gist
It makes for good political rhetoric, but in reality the flow of money goes both ways. A lot of investments are made by American companies overseas. This time the flow of oil money because of high oil prices, from the USA and Europe to the Middle East is being recycled back to the USA in the form of investments in the US through small equity stakes in companies and more so through purchases of capital equipment and services to build Saudi infrastructure projects. The $500 billion investment plan over several years in Saudi Arabia is to build everything from new cities, aluminium plants, electricity generation plants and chemicals and plastics plants. The fears and rhetoric are overblown, as the USA also invests overseas with holdings according to the Treasury department of $6 trillion of foreign stock and debt. The acceleration of foreign investment in the US is to be seen in the numbers, as the dollar gets weaker, and its more advantageous for Canadians and Euuropeans to invest here. Last year $414 billion of foreign investors money went into buying stakes in American companies and building factories and purchasing stock, according to Thomson Financial. Thats up 90% from 2006 and represented one fourth of all announced deals. This year in just 2 weeks foreign investors poured $22.6 billion in just the first 2 weeks of January, and that represents one half of all deals. Shows how quickly the picture is changing. One way of looking at it is that Americans buy a lot of foreign goods and the money Americans use to pay for a lot of imports is now being returned to the USA in the form of foreign investments. Note that foreign investment is desirable because it brings new ideas and technology and new management methods to the host country from other countries. These foreign investors in many cases are able to make these investments overseas because they are good at what they do, having them in the host country benefits the host country and shakes up competition in the particular industry in the host country that is receiving the investment. This is why economies once relatively unfavorable to foreign investors like Japan and S. Korea are now passionately seeking foreign investment to make their economies thrive through the exchange and inflow of new ideas and ways of doing things. The same can be and is true for the USA. The other aspect is that most of the investment is still from countries like Canada, Germany, Japan, S. Korea which are big free trade partners of the USA. Manufacturing investment is heavily skewed to European and Japanese companies. Foreign multinational investment (Sony, Toyota etc) grew to $43.3 billion in 2007 from $39.2 billion in 2006 according to OCO Monitor, and will accelerate significantly as companies like VW and other German companies find it cheaper to build in the USA and shift more manufacturing here. To get an idea why the rhetoric is overblown Canada spent the most in buying American companies, $65 billion in 2007, according to Thomson Financial. Russia spent $572 million and India $3.3 billion. How will this improve the chances of the USA making it out of this recession? Five million American work for foreign companies in the USA. Of these one third are manufacturing jobs. These jobs pay about 30% more than jobs in American owned companies. Figures from Treasury Department. There will be more of these jobs as companies like VW build plants here. Roubini Economics estimates that an infusion of about $300-400 billion is needed for the USA to overcome the effects of the current mortgage and credit crisis. $414 billion was invested in the USA by foreign investors according to Thomson Financial in 2007, going up from something like $200 billion in 2006. If this pace continues becasue of some of the same underlying reasons as the weaker dollar, stronger economies overseas, then $200 billion additional investments this year would add that much to a stimulus package of $150 billion by one estimate, to provide a boost of somewhere around $350 billion. In the range of the needed boost. Companies like IBM and GE which have significant investments in India and China and investments in software or infrastructure industries that are growing rapidly or Caterpillar with growth in construction overseas, may keep growing through this downturn. This recession may hit selectively and differently, not be a complete hit to the USA economy, and could prevent it from going beyond 2009 with recovery in 2010. ...