JEDDAH — Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel Al-Jubeir has said Saudi Arabia will boost oil production only in case of a supply shortage in the market.

Speaking to the media early Saturday, Al-Jubeir said the decisions on production will be made in coordination with members of OPEC and OPEC+ group.

“The market will continue to determine oil output,” he said, adding that in the absence of any supply shortage, Saudi Arabia will not increase production.

Al-Jubeir’s statement came after US President Joe Biden told a press conference in Jeddah on Friday that he would do all that he could to bring more oil to the market and his country.

In a joint statement, the two countries reaffirmed their commitment to a stable global energy market. The US welcomed Saudi Arabia's commitment to support global oil markets balancing for sustained economic growth.

Both sides decided to consult regularly on global energy markets in the near- and long-term, as well as work together as strategic partners in climate and energy transition initiatives, recognizing Saudi Arabia's leading role in the future of energy.

Zar neće sad Arapi povećati 3x proizvodnju?

Neće jer su već sada na malo manje od 11 a sad idu na 13 milijuna barela na dan.

24Live tweeted that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had agreed to boost production by about 4 million barrels a day to 13 million barrels during a speech at the opening of a summit with Arab leaders

..to je gotova stvar ameri su gazde..

Po ovome i više od 3x...

https://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-a ... its-2022-7

To bi bilo povećanje za 4 milijuna barela (sa 9 na 13).

Meni je najsmešnije od svega što Hameri plaćaju gorivo duplo jeftinije od Evropljana i opet im skupo i idu da se ulizuju talibančinama da povećaju proizvodnju. Dok Evropljani kao svaka poslušna kučka glume moral i principijelnost i pucaju svom energetskom sektoru u glavu.

Ja ga nisam uopće skužio. Pojma nemam šta je rekao. Zajebao i Papu i Brisel u birokratskom govoru koji ništa ne kaže.
"Zapadni" mass mediji se dosta opekli sa naftom i plinom pa preveli na pesimističnu varijantu.

Rejecting oil and gas is ‘road to hell’ for US, big bank CEO warns
Jamie Dimon has warned that rejecting any future fossil fuel energy projects would spell doom for the US

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon explicitly rejected Democratic congresswoman Rashida Tlaib’s demand that his bank swear off financing future oil and gas projects, arguing that the move would send the country into a death spiral during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Wednesday.

Tlaib reminded Dimon that JPMorgan, along with the six other largest banks in the US, had committed to wind down their emissions from “lending and investment activities” in order to “align with pathways to net-zero in 2050.” The only way to get there, she claimed, was to veto all fossil fuel projects going forward.

“Please answer with a simple yes or no: does your bank have any policy against funding new oil and gas projects?” the Minnesota representative asked.
“Absolutely not – and that would be the road to hell for America,” Dimon retorted.

Tlaib called on student loan debt holders to pull their deposits in retaliation, referencing Dimon’s opposition to President Joe Biden’s controversial student loan forgiveness plan, which he had called “badly done” earlier in the six-hour marathon hearing. She claimed that the bank executive was not just failing to help “relieve” these customers by canceling their debts – he does not “care about working-class people and front-line communities like ours that are facing huge amounts of high rates of asthma, respiratory issues, and so much more.”

Three other CEOs present at the hearing followed Dimon’s lead, refusing to close the door on their oil and gas lending businesses, but added that they were also investing in renewable energy projects.

This was not enough for Tlaib, who declared: “We are living through a climate crisis today and a commitment to net zero requires a commitment to ending fossil fuel financing.”

“At the end we’re going to pay the cost of the public health impact,” she warned.

While mainstream climate science holds that averting the worst effects of climate change requires keeping global temperature under 1.5 degrees Celsius above ‘pre-industrial’ levels, ‘net zero’ is criticized for implying that merely offsetting emissions can keep the temperature down, allowing the producers of those emissions to continue business as usual so long as they pay their dues to the climate authorities.