Dems Kill Chances for Energy Independence?

Topspin said:
your a dumb*&^ that's what i'm calling.
You work in finance and you don't understand supply and demand.
Read something other than move on. org
Click to expand...

I guess you know better than the IMF too.

http://www.researchrecap.com/index....-playing-significant-role-in-oil-price-surge/

The recent surge in oil prices cannot be explained by economic factors alone, meaning speculation has played a “significant role,” according to the International Monetary Fund.

In an analysis in its Regional Economic Outlook for the Middle East and Central Asia, the IMF says “The recent surge in the oil price (from $80 to over $100 a barrel) seems to go well beyond what would be indicated by the growth of the world economy.”


OPEC Chief
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/22/business/LA-FIN-Ecuador-OPEC.php
OPEC chief says he blames speculators for record oil prices


and it looks like our resident cajun knows more than The AP too

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-03-04-3374778987_x.htm

WASHINGTON — Market speculation on energy prices may have added as much as 10 percent to crude oil costs and the peak may be yet to come, a top Energy Department official said Tuesday. (back in March even)
 
LadyT said:
I'm calling bull$hit.

Every expert I've heard talk about this current $hit we're in says that the spike in oil is based on speculation and that the fundamentals aren't there to back it up which means this statement is full o $hit.
Click to expand...

Without question there is speculation built into the price. Fair value is closer to the $90 range right now. Which means about $40 per barrell is based on speculation of where prices will go. Stories like this further that speculation.... why? Because when you have idiots in both parties restricting future supply it means that oil/nat gas will take even longer to be brought to market. It also assures that more of the future oil supply will be in the hands of countries like China who are more than willing to drill off of our coasts. As is Mexico, Brazil etc....
 
LadyT said:
I guess you know better than the IMF too.

http://www.researchrecap.com/index....-playing-significant-role-in-oil-price-surge/

The recent surge in oil prices cannot be explained by economic factors alone, meaning speculation has played a “significant role,” according to the International Monetary Fund.

In an analysis in its Regional Economic Outlook for the Middle East and Central Asia, the IMF says “The recent surge in the oil price (from $80 to over $100 a barrel) seems to go well beyond what would be indicated by the growth of the world economy.”


OPEC Chief
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/22/business/LA-FIN-Ecuador-OPEC.php
OPEC chief says he blames speculators for record oil prices


and it looks like our resident cajun knows more than The AP too

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-03-04-3374778987_x.htm

WASHINGTON — Market speculation on energy prices may have added as much as 10 percent to crude oil costs and the peak may be yet to come, a top Energy Department official said Tuesday. (back in March even)
Click to expand...


Yeap and it was Phil Gramm that wrote the law which allowed the speculation to go underground so the people couldnt see it.
 
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000[/ame]


The CFMA has received criticism for the so-called "Enron Loophole," 7 U.S.C. §2(h)(3) and (g), which exempts most over-the-counter energy trades and trading on electronic energy commodity markets. The CFMA has received criticism for the so-called "Enron Loophole," 7 U.S.C. §2(h)(3) and (g), which exempts most over-the-counter energy trades and trading on electronic energy commodity markets. The "loophole" was drafted by Enron Lobbyists working with senator Phil Gramm [1] seeking a deregulated atmosphere for their new experiment, "Enron On-line"[citation needed].

The prohibition on single-stock futures and narrow-based indices that had been in effect until the passage of this act was known as the Shad-Johnson Accord because it was first announced in 1982, as part of a jurisdictional pact between John S.R. Shad, then chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Phil Johnson, then chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

The "loophole" was drafted by Enron Lobbyists working with senator Phil Gramm [1] seeking a deregulated atmosphere for their new experiment, "Enron On-line"[citation needed].
 
Last edited:
lady t not economic factors alone is far from mainly speculative.
Again show me a product that artificially has supply reduced by billions and not have the price go up. It's like creating an Iphone frenzy in oil. Thanks
 
Superfreak said:
Ok... and 15 billion barrels of oil at $135 per barrel equals.... over $2 trillion dollars that will be taken from the pockets of US consumers and given to a foreign country.

and yes, this estimate is in the mid range of the estimates. Thank you for providing an alternative.
Click to expand...

With all the FALSE BS ABOUT CARING ABOUT JOBS IN AMERICA. Dems are willing to piss trillions of dollars worth of jobs overseas. That part is not even remotely debatable.:clink:
 
Superfreak said:
Without question there is speculation built into the price. Fair value is closer to the $90 range right now. Which means about $40 per barrell is based on speculation of where prices will go. Stories like this further that speculation.... why? Because when you have idiots in both parties restricting future supply it means that oil/nat gas will take even longer to be brought to market. It also assures that more of the future oil supply will be in the hands of countries like China who are more than willing to drill off of our coasts. As is Mexico, Brazil etc....
Click to expand...

The answer is to mute speculators influence over the price. Simply putting more oil out there may be a temporary fix but speculators can drive up the prices over any decrease in price and increase in supply will make.
 
speculators can drive the price down just as fast. Get Obama to follow through with getting us out of Iraq and the price tumbles. Kill the speculators and it's a slow fall back to $70 oil.
 
LadyT said:
The answer is to mute speculators influence over the price. Simply putting more oil out there may be a temporary fix but speculators can drive up the prices over any decrease in price and increase in supply will make.
Click to expand...

Only if demand can be justified to increase at a faster pace than supply. Keep in mind, if we tap our own oil, it will also strengthen the dollar as it means that money stays in our economy and does not go to some mid east country/Canada/Mexico/China etc...

Speculators can make money on EITHER side of the market. They do not need to push it up as they can push it down as well. Why are the speculators currently bullish on the price of oil? Because future supply increases look bleak in comparison to future demand increases. So they are betting that oil continues up. Increase the future supply picture and they will be selling oil futures just as fast as they are currently buying them.

Tangent: One of the best oil speculators.... Southwest Airlines... saved their company billions by investing in oil futures, which keeps their prices down relative to their peers AND keeps them profitable.
 
According to United States Geological Survey, estimates that there are about 7 billion barrels of profitable oil in the 1002 Area of the ANWR. Thats just one small area.

Only 8% of ANWR would be considered for exploration. Only the 1.5 million acres or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. Although the oil will go to market many years down the road, it will still be a viable resource for the future.

Between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain. More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR.

http://www.fi.edu/guide/chandler/publicpolicy.html

Not forgetting to mention many area's of the Northern Slope that we already have access to... have minions of Natural Gas CF ... for some reason we are not getting it down here....
 
Topspin said:
lady t not economic factors alone is far from mainly speculative.
Again show me a product that artificially has supply reduced by billions and not have the price go up. It's like creating an Iphone frenzy in oil. Thanks
Click to expand...

Look meme, I never stated that supply has nothing to do with where prices are today. I do believe that most of the increase that you're seeing is based on speculation and not market conditions related to supply.
 
ib1yysguy said:
... and it would lower the price per barrel by about $1.50/100+

All this talk about opening up reserves is just an excuse by Republicans to take advantage of people's present unhappiness with gas prices to exploit national preserves for oil companies' gain. It will make almost no difference to you at the pump.
Click to expand...

well said.
 
wow what a shock blackpanther agrees with the looney left. No numers facts or business. Business is not to be trusted. There a bunch of cracker ass crackers.
 
blackascoal said:
well said.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... no, it was a completely moronic statement. "well said" too funny.

You are talking about $2 trillion dollars of oil that we would be giving to other countries to produce oil for us. $2 TRILLION. Let that sink in.

Give any basis of reasoning that it will only effect prices per barrell by only $1.50.

The shear stupidity of that is laughable.
 
LadyT said:
Look meme, I never stated that supply has nothing to do with where prices are today. I do believe that most of the increase that you're seeing is based on speculation and not market conditions related to supply.
Click to expand...

From the recent low of about $10 per barrell in 1999 till now, about 2/3 of the increase is due to supply and demand, about 1/3 (yes Dixie it does exist) from speculation. So no, "most" of the increase is NOT due to speculation. Though you will continue to see the speculation increase with every moronic decision to limit future energy supply that comes out of DC. Whether it be this one or the Reps denying subsidies to further expand alt energy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top