Dems Kill Chances for Energy Independence?

You know .. you have to wonder about those we send to DC ... who these people are..., where they come from...and what their true motives are. How in the hell can you sit there and Vote against the expansion of energy resources.. in any way shape or form!! Be it drilling, Nuclear or Alt. We are in a period of time where we are getting 65 to 70 % of our energy needs from foriegn sources... this is completely unacceptable and a serious threat to our National Security.

3 years ago I asked a question of those who participate in these forums or the other one... is it time for the Next President to make his/her central issue ...energy? ... most of you said no, its not time yet. What do you think now?
 
Superfreak said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about 1999. I was referring to the last few months of record highs.
 
klaatu said:
You know .. you have to wonder about those we send to DC ... who these people are..., where they come from...and what their true motives are. How in the hell can you sit there and Vote against the expansion of energy resources.. in any way shape or form!! Be it drilling, Nuclear or Alt. We are in a period of time where we are getting 65 to 70 % of our energy needs from foriegn sources... this is completely unacceptable and a serious threat to our National Security.

3 years ago I asked a question of those who participate in these forums or the other one... is it time for the Next President to make his/her central issue ...energy? ... most of you said no, its not time yet. What do you think now?
Click to expand...

It was time ten years ago. It most certainly should be a top issue as it involves not only national security but the strength of the dollar and the economy in general. Every percent of energy consumption that we get from foreign sources is US dollars and jobs going somewhere else. EACH percent makes a difference.
 
LadyT said:
I didn't say anything about 1999. I was referring to the last few months of record highs.
Click to expand...

My point was that speculation has been in the pricing since the run in oil started in 1999. That did not change. Demand outlooks continue to show escalation in consumption that outpace new supply outlooks. That is going to put the speculators in a long term bullish trend. If you knew today that oil prices were very likely to hit $200 in a year and current oil was at $90, you would be willing to lock in prices at $130 barrell. Yes, this pushes up spot prices faster than normal.... the only thing that is going to change the bullish nature of speculation is an increase in the supply outlook for oil (or an increase in the alt energy supply outlook).

Even if you increase margin rates, you are still going to have investors pumping money into oil futures contracts if they see such a spike coming in oil prices.
 
Nearly all of the witnesses agreed that speculation has artificially boosted the price of oil.

"Excessive speculation on energy trading facilities is the fuel that is driving this runaway train in crude oil prices today," said Gerry Ramm, president of Inland Oil Company.

Others tried to quantify the scope that speculation has had on crude costs.

"We're paying, some believe, as high as a 50% premium to the pockets of speculators that are operating in markets that are completely unpoliced," said Michael Greenburger, a University of Maryland professor and former CFTC official. "At least 70% of the US crude oil market is driven by speculators and not people with commercial interests."

Mark Cooper, director of research at consumer rights organization Consumer Federation of America, said $40 of oil's current price is "baloney" and can be chalked up to speculation, though Soros called that an exaggeration.
 
Topspin said:
how bout you stop being a moron
Click to expand...

How about you take your own advice.

This is why conservatives are so stupid. They only look at band-aiding problems. Yes. prices will temporarily be bought down, however speculation and an eventual diminishing supplies will drive the prices right up. We can't control supplies, however strong international over sight on oil markets and food trading would benefit consumers greatly and it something I'm willing to look at.

Additionally we need to be focused on fuel alternatives as well to offset the drop in supplies.
 
Bandaid approach, what community college did you go to and how the fuck did you ever get up to loan processor being that financially stupid?
 
LadyT said:
How about you take your own advice.

This is why conservatives are so stupid. They only look at band-aiding problems. Yes. prices will temporarily be bought down, however speculation and an eventual diminishing supplies will drive the prices right up. We can't control supplies, however strong international over sight on oil markets and food trading would benefit consumers greatly and it something I'm willing to look at.

Additionally we need to be focused on fuel alternatives as well to offset the drop in supplies.
Click to expand...

Actually, the entire point of this thread is that we CAN indeed control supply if we tap into oil reserves throughout the country as well as off our coasts. As for food "trading", I assume you are talking about grain futures.... speculation exists in every security. Every stock. Every bond. Every option. Every futures contract. Speculation can be bullish OR bearish. Attempting to minimize speculation through regulation is not going to work.

You can make it harder (ie... raising margin requirements) but the money will STILL flow into these contracts based on the current bull/bear sentiment. As long as sentiment on grain, nat gas, oil is bullish the prices will climb on speculation. The more the world believes future demand will outstrip supply, the more speculation their will be on just how high future prices will be. Which will create greater volatility in pricing.... and a wider spread between actual value and speculative value.

As for your last paragraph. No doubt. I agree 100%. We absolutely MUST push hard to increase production of alt energy sources. The Reps are idiots for blocking that alt energy bill.
 
Topspin said:
Bandaid approach, what community college did you go to and how the *&^k did you ever get up to loan processor being that financially stupid?
Click to expand...

LOL. I don't know why I like you so much. you really are a d!ckhead.

but yes. a band-aid approach. Opening up drilling in Alaska is not a permanent solution. but I wouldn't expect an inbred cajun to understand the concept of permanent solutions.
 
I posted another thread about switchgrass ethanol taking 10yrs. No shock that a dumb twit shoeaholic from Jersey has no fucking clue.
 
Superfreak said:
I keep hearing this, what is it that you want in the "light of day"? The number of contracts being bought and sold?
Click to expand...


Solution: Close the Enron loophole
Some suggested closing the "Enron loophole" as a possible solution to the speculation problem. The loophole, which was codified in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, allows oil futures to be traded electronically in unregulated markets outside of the jurisdiction of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

"Americans may be surprised to learn that the oil futures markets were substantially deregulated by the CFTC staff decisions that were made behind closed doors," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. "Now this London and Dubai loophole is keeping important U.S. energy trading in the dark and without proper light ... it can give manipulators free rein in energy markets."

As part of the recently-passed Farm Bill, Congress attempted to close that loophole, but Greenburger said language did not go far enough. He said the Farm Bill placed the burden on the public to prove a trade needs regulation rather than placing the onus on the trader to prove it does not need regulation. Greenburger said Congress should return the language of the original bill "this afternoon," saying that overnight it would bring the price of crude oil by 25%.

Greenburger also suggested that Congress impose increased margins for oil traders and regulate hedge fund owners' public speculation on oil prices.

"I find it highly ironic that when you control the price of oil, you can speculate it will go up to $150," he said.

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley hedge funds own large amounts of oil futures, and have both recently said the price oil could go up to $150 or even $200 this year.
 
LadyT said:
LOL. I don't know why I like you so much. you really are a d!ckhead.

but yes. a band-aid approach. Opening up drilling in Alaska is not a permanent solution. but I wouldn't expect an inbred cajun to understand the concept of permanent solutions.
Click to expand...

No, it is not permanent. But EVERY source should be used. ANWAR is only about 10% of current estimates of untapped oil in the US. But it is a huge source of nat gas. As Damo mentioned, it has enough nat gas to last us for at least 50 years.

Add in the rest of domestic and offshore sources and you keep a good chunk of cash IN the US rather than sending it out. $2 trillion alone from ANWAR oil. That is not chump change.

But as you said, any use of domestic sources HAS to be coupled with expansion of alt energy supply as well.
 
Desh said:
Solution: Close the Enron loophole
Some suggested closing the "Enron loophole" as a possible solution to the speculation problem. The loophole, which was codified in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, allows oil futures to be traded electronically in unregulated markets outside of the jurisdiction of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

"Americans may be surprised to learn that the oil futures markets were substantially deregulated by the CFTC staff decisions that were made behind closed doors," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. "Now this London and Dubai loophole is keeping important U.S. energy trading in the dark and without proper light ... it can give manipulators free rein in energy markets."

As part of the recently-passed Farm Bill, Congress attempted to close that loophole, but Greenburger said language did not go far enough. He said the Farm Bill placed the burden on the public to prove a trade needs regulation rather than placing the onus on the trader to prove it does not need regulation. Greenburger said Congress should return the language of the original bill "this afternoon," saying that overnight it would bring the price of crude oil by 25%.

Greenburger also suggested that Congress impose increased margins for oil traders and regulate hedge fund owners' public speculation on oil prices.

"I find it highly ironic that when you control the price of oil, you can speculate it will go up to $150," he said.

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley hedge funds own large amounts of oil futures, and have both recently said the price oil could go up to $150 or even $200 this year.
Click to expand...


Ok... I do agree that the investment banks should disclose their firm positions (meaning for all hedge funds AND other clients) when they issue their projections on prices. Especially those bastards at Morgan Stanley who can't seem to stop making predictions. They just gave their prediction on oil prices a week or so ago that oil would hit $150 and then today they come out with another analyst with a recommendation to "sell energy".

As for increased margins, that may give a slight deterence as it will reduce profitability of the trade, but if demand is expected to outstrip supply the trades will still go through, they will just have to keep higher dollars confined to margin to maintain their positions. I don't think this will have a dramatic effect on speculation.

A change in the supply/demand dynamic would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top