Study Blames Speculation For Oil Pric...

Study Blames Speculation For Oil Price Hike

There are 60 comments on the NBC 30 Hartford story from Sep 10, 2008, titled Study Blames Speculation For Oil Price Hike. In it, NBC 30 Hartford reports that:

Speculation by large investors -- and not supply and demand for oil -- were a primary reason for the surge in oil prices during the first half of the year and the more recent price declines, an independent ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC 30 Hartford.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
YOOPER

Canton, MI

#44 Sep 11, 2008
Like we didn't know this. The oil spiked and gas prices went up immediately, eventhough the that oil hadn't even come close to hitting the gas pumps yet. Now oil is tanking, and yet prices remain high. Oil has gone down 32% and yet gas, in suburb Chicago, has gone down 3.7%.
RealityBased

East Aurora, NY

#45 Sep 11, 2008
WellWellWell08 wrote:
Nice... so here is the proof that the bush adminsitration and the republicans are a cult of liars and deceivers in this for one thing and one thing only...to get richer.
Personally everyone at the CFTC should be immediately fired and brought up on charges of treason. Sound a bit harsh? What they did is no different then breaking into my home and stealing cash from my wallet just so they can put it in their wallet. The only difference is they found a 'legal' way to rob my income.
Now lets see.-10,000 for the fanny mae scam,-10,000 for the oil speculation scam. Perfect...looks like I don't owe any taxes for 2008, I can't wait to file and withhold my 20,000 to make up all the ripping off of the american people. I would rather walk up to a homeless person and give them that 20,000 then let those in washington pad their pockets any further with my money.
As long as the GOP keeps the focus on "Traditional Values," and Karl Rove swift-boating tactics, they'll win. After all, Hilbillies don't know any better. How many times do these people have to be hit on the head until they realize it hurts?
RealityBased

East Aurora, NY

#46 Sep 11, 2008
wyojake wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a mistake in 85 or whatever to put energy of any kind on the commodities market, it spawned Enron and now this oil manipulation. Deregulation doesn't work.
It works, alright. Just not for most of us.
RealityBased

East Aurora, NY

#47 Sep 11, 2008
Danny wrote:
Oil prices suddenly slumped Tuesday, July 8, as predicted by DEBKA-Net-Weekly on June 27, under the impact of the secret American-Iranian talks embarked on last month to solve burning issues by diplomatic engagement. These high-level secret talks between the US and Iranian delegations, representing President George W. Bush and Iranian supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have yielded ad hoc understandings on controversial issues. One is an agreement not to allow the price of oil to rocket past $150 the barrel.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s exclusive Gulf and Iranian sources disclosed that the bilateral negotiations were deliberately masked by the war fever engineered by Washington in the form of a stream of leaks indicating that a US or Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear installations was imminent.
At the same time, neither nation has sheathed its military option. Those understandings are ad hoc and could well break down in the volatile climate generated by hard-line elements of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, which are dead against deals with Washington. The last in a string of belligerent statements issued by IRGC chiefs came from Ali Shirazy, senior Navy cleric, who said Tuesday, July 8: If the US attacks Iran,“we will immediately strike back at Tel Aviv. Our first target is Tel Aviv and only then will we attack US shipping in the Persian Gulf; their destruction will represent Iran’s crushing reprisal.” Behind the saber-rattling, however, DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s sources reported common ground was covered for three key objectives:
1. The American side was willing to refrain from military action against Iran before the end of the Bush presidency in January 2009, but could not promise Israel would not act unilaterally. In a bid to hold Israel’s hand, sources in Washington have been putting out semi-official comments that Israel is short of the intelligence and military capability for striking Iran without help.
2. Iran undertook to open the way for the US military to continue to go from strength to strength in fighting al Qaeda and the Sunni guerrilla insurgents in Iraq, to allow President Bush to claim his Iraq campaign had ended successfully before leaving the White House. DEBKAfile’s military sources report that Tehran ordered Iranian intelligence officers working undercover in Iraq to halt attacks on US troops by pro-Iranian militias, including Moqtada Sadr’s Mehdi Army. This has left US and Iraqi government force with free hands for large-scale operations against al Qaeda.
Iranian officers are also sharing useful intelligence on conditions in the field with American commanders.
3. In the background of the secret dialogue is the Bush administration’s ambition to help fellow-Republican Senator John McCain get elected to the White House.
DEBKAfile’s Iran experts comment that the revolutionary regime in Tehran has traditionally preferred a Republican over a Democrat in the White House since the days when its founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, helped Ronald Reagan defeat Jimmy Carter.
Some of these understandings are still work in progress, but the oil price ceiling of $150 was definitely agreed and resulted in the sharp fall in prices Tuesday, July 6 by $3.92 a barrel. Some traders attributed it to an ease in geopolitical tensions related to Iran’s nuclear program and a strengthening US dollar.
Interesting. Debka usually gets it right.
Jones

“It's about the American People”

Since: Jun 07

Flushing, NY

#48 Sep 11, 2008
TN Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
No you are the one who is delusional and baseless. I believe it's about a 75% speculation,%25% demand problem. Speculation isn't the only reason why prices went up, but it has a lot more to do with it then supply.
Also, what "rapid decrease" are you referring too? Gas over the last few months dropped about 35 cents to 45 cents a gallon. Considering that just 8-10 years ago gas was about $1-$.25 a gallon, I wouldn't call that momentary dip in price a "rapid decrease." Especially when you consider that after it's momentary drop it has stabilized again at roughly $3.50 a gallon.
Drilling for more oil in the US is going to be like putting a band-aid on a hatchet wound. It would take billions of dollars to get the off shore rigs up and running and anywhere from 5-10 years or more for us to see any oil from that. On top of THAT, we have no guarantees that US oil companies will even refine that oil and sell it to us. We get a lot of oil through the Alaskan Pipeline right now and most (if not all) of that crude is sold to Japan and Asia to refine and use. What guarantees do we have if we let the big oil companies drill that we will ever see ANY relief as a result?
Also... does anyone have any projections on how much oil we are supposed to magically get from this off shore drilling? All the crude that we drill for now and get through Alaska only accounts for about 5-7% of our national usage, so it would have to be a hell of a lot for us to see any monetary relief at the pumps.
Again, speculation on oil shares isn't the entire problem, but it IS a large part of it.
What we need to do is pour money into research for hydrogen fuel cell technology and start putting those cars out on the market over the next 10-25 years. You want to hurt the terrorists? Stop buying their oil. We get most of our oil though Saudi Arabia, and if you think they don't hate us and fund terrorists then you have your head in the sand.
Drilling for more oil at this point isn't the future, its the past and we need to move away from our dependance on oil as quickly as possible. Not only will that help us in the long run, but it will deliver a crippling blow to the countries that support terrorists.
Hydrogen was considered extremely dangerous for use on a car for hundred years.
Hydrogen leakage and it explosion with air was the reason that Hydrogen can be used for hydrogen bomb but not for cars that are not supposed to explode and kill hundreds people.
No insurance company will ever ensure the use of hydrogen in cars when any accident will cause many fatalities.
Clearly bad news for the liberals who keep fighting oil with their lies about global warming.
Nancy Pelosi s worst fear

Ashburn, VA

#49 Sep 11, 2008
Danny wrote:
Great story!! Notice also how retail gasoline prices are falling JUST BEFORE THE NOVEMBER ELECTION CYCLE in the same exact way they fell before the November 2004 Presidential Elction cycle as well. Do we REALLY need any more proof that Bush and Cheney get on the phone to their oil business associates and tell them to 'loosen things up a bit' in the months before the Election? It's just as plain and obvious the markets are being DELIBERATTLY MANIPULATED to benefit John 'The Manchurian Candidate' Mccain as is the nose on your face people....
The price of oil dropped when George Bush publicly announced that the U.S. would break the Democratic Party's strangulation of oil drilling and would begin drilling offshore.
Liberal speculators

Ashburn, VA

#50 Sep 11, 2008
Evil Meanies wrote:
<quoted text>How many of the price speculators were foreign enemies and clever liberals who wanted to drive up oil prices and sour the economy before the elections? Even multibillionaire, Bill Gates, was getting into the oil market. How much did ultra liberal, George Soros, invest to drive prices up? Evil forces have no conscience for the little people. Powerful rich liberals have larger goals, like political manipulation.
Bill Gates has had a vendetta against the U.S. government and the Republicans ever since Microsoft was prosecuted for heavyhanded violation of anti trust laws and was found guilty of operating as a monopoly and driving smaller competitors out of the market. Gates is also seeking revenge on the European Union for proscuting him for the very same thing. George Soros has vowed to spend one billion dollars of his vast personal fortune to defeat the Republicans and to establish total gun control in America.

“i hope we can change this!”

Since: Aug 08

usa

#51 Sep 11, 2008
Eron wrote:
Jake, windfall profit taxes aren't going to hurt the oil companies. They are just going to pass that cost of doing buisness on to the consumer.
It's very basic. Companies that create goods and services and make money create jobs. Companies that are taxed to the nth degree cut jobs.
btw, when was the last time you worked for a poor person,[if your self employed it may feel that way:)]?
<quoted text>
Apparently Jake is still "all abuzz" over the success of Jimmy Carter's windfall tax. Either that, or Jake is just buzzed!

Since: Jul 07

United States

#52 Sep 11, 2008
carey529 wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently Jake is still "all abuzz" over the success of Jimmy Carter's windfall tax. Either that, or Jake is just buzzed!
guess as usual you you take the parts you want and distort them. No actually I think we will come up with a better idea this time instead of being like the Republicans and trying the same old tired unworkable shit time and time and time again until the system collapses. Ready to talk issues yet? No? Because you have no issues to talk about just failures in policy and decisions across the board for 19 years. Anything productive to add? Any new ideas for your party? Didn't think so - they don't encourage creative thought just blind conformity and obedience. Get a life.
YOOPER

Canton, MI

#53 Sep 11, 2008
wyojake wrote:
<quoted text>
guess as usual you you take the parts you want and distort them. No actually I think we will come up with a better idea this time instead of being like the Republicans and trying the same old tired unworkable shit time and time and time again until the system collapses. Ready to talk issues yet? No? Because you have no issues to talk about just failures in policy and decisions across the board for 19 years. Anything productive to add? Any new ideas for your party? Didn't think so - they don't encourage creative thought just blind conformity and obedience. Get a life.
Ok. I'll bite. How do you propose to get the price of gas down...now.

“Here we go!”

Since: Feb 07

Tampa, FL

#54 Sep 11, 2008
Jake and I prolly agree on more than we disagree on, carey. I have never heard or seen (on this forum) that Jake has said either way how he thinks about Carter.

And I envy him living in the mountains!!!:)
carey529 wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently Jake is still "all abuzz" over the success of Jimmy Carter's windfall tax. Either that, or Jake is just buzzed!

“Concerned in Tennessee”

Since: Dec 07

Knoxville, TN

#55 Sep 15, 2008
Jones wrote:
<quoted text>Hydrogen was considered extremely dangerous for use on a car for hundred years.
Hydrogen leakage and it explosion with air was the reason that Hydrogen can be used for hydrogen bomb but not for cars that are not supposed to explode and kill hundreds people.
No insurance company will ever ensure the use of hydrogen in cars when any accident will cause many fatalities.
Clearly bad news for the liberals who keep fighting oil with their lies about global warming.
Wrong, wrong and WRONG. I don't know where you get your information, but hydrogen fuel cell cars show no signs of "exploding." They aren't filled with volatile gas like the Hindenburg. They haven’t BEEN considered for the “last hundred years” because the technology has only been feasible in the last decade. They aren't even combustible. The energy from hydrogen fuel cells comes from the electricity that is created chemically during electrolysis.

There are many many fuel cell vehicles on the road already. They are in use in public buses in California, and public buses in several cities in Canadian cities as well. For that matter, several auto makers have already released hydrogen fuel cell cars or hydrogen fuel cell prototype cars in limited numbers.

Case in point:

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

They use electric motors, have 100mph avg top speeds, and have ZERO toxic emissions.

I don't mean to be offensive, but seriously, you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you are talking about when you say they explode and that no insurance company will insure them.

They ARE going to replace gasoline combustion engines, its just a matter of when, not if. The last hurdle for them is becoming more cost effective to produce, and the biggest thing will be the switch over to gas stations being able to refuel them.

NASA has been using the electricity stored in hydrogen fuel cell packs to power everything electrical in the space shuttles for the last 20 years!

Seriously man... read up on it a bit, you have no idea what you are talking about here.

“Concerned in Tennessee”

Since: Dec 07

Knoxville, TN

#56 Sep 15, 2008
By the way, for me at least, it has jack-all to do with "Global Warming." For me it has everything to do with a cheap, clean, renewable source of energy that we can fuel our vehicles with. At its most basic level, it only takes rudimentary equipment and a little electricity to extract hydrogen from water, and water is the most abundant resource on the face of the planet.

You have to ask yourself though how it would ever be in "big oils" interest for us to switch over to something like that that they cannot justify charging big bucks for. THAT is the biggest thing holding hydrogen fuel cell technology back from the general public. Greed.

Since: Jul 07

Schuylkill Haven, PA

#57 Sep 15, 2008
YOOPER wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. I'll bite. How do you propose to get the price of gas down...now.
How about requirements that 95% of all oil from federal leases be sold in the US only. Stop 375 million barrels being exported right now. Pass laws against remarketing aka Enron deals - threaten any of the above and you would see a change in attitude of the oil companies - passed or not. Threaten to repeal production tax credits since profits don't justify the subsidy. More ideas? Increased lease fees - termination of all leases not drilled in the last 10 years and back on the block for bidding by anyone but the former lease holder. These people really aren't your friends as much as rapists who have been allowed to do violence against you so long you are starting to like it. Time to regulate these sick fucks.

“Here we go!”

Since: Feb 07

Tampa, FL

#58 Sep 15, 2008
Actually those are good ideas, however, I don't believe they are 'regulatory' practices. They actually make a lot of sense. They penalize for non production for the most part.
wyojake wrote:
<quoted text>
How about requirements that 95% of all oil from federal leases be sold in the US only. Stop 375 million barrels being exported right now. Pass laws against remarketing aka Enron deals - threaten any of the above and you would see a change in attitude of the oil companies - passed or not. Threaten to repeal production tax credits since profits don't justify the subsidy. More ideas? Increased lease fees - termination of all leases not drilled in the last 10 years and back on the block for bidding by anyone but the former lease holder. These people really aren't your friends as much as rapists who have been allowed to do violence against you so long you are starting to like it. Time to regulate these sick fucks.
YOOPER

Canton, MI

#59 Sep 16, 2008
wyojake wrote:
<quoted text>
How about requirements that 95% of all oil from federal leases be sold in the US only. Stop 375 million barrels being exported right now. Pass laws against remarketing aka Enron deals - threaten any of the above and you would see a change in attitude of the oil companies - passed or not. Threaten to repeal production tax credits since profits don't justify the subsidy. More ideas? Increased lease fees - termination of all leases not drilled in the last 10 years and back on the block for bidding by anyone but the former lease holder. These people really aren't your friends as much as rapists who have been allowed to do violence against you so long you are starting to like it. Time to regulate these sick fucks.
what world are you living in?

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#60 Sep 16, 2008
YOOPER wrote:
<quoted text>
what world are you living in?
I can't quite get, from you taciturn response, whether you are arguing that these suggestions are wrong or that you live in the 'everything sucks and can't be fixed' depresiverse.
YOOPER

Canton, MI

#61 Sep 16, 2008
J Barrett Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't quite get, from you taciturn response, whether you are arguing that these suggestions are wrong or that you live in the 'everything sucks and can't be fixed' depresiverse.
Never said they weren't good responses but pinch yourself and then you'll wake up and find that in the real world, it will never happen. Are you going to actually make oil companies not sell there oil overseas? Shall we ban the meaning of free trade. If I have a business, you're going to tell me who I can sell my product to. I hate paying these freekin high gas prices but get real. It just ain't gonna happen!!!

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#62 Sep 16, 2008
YOOPER wrote:
<quoted text>
Never said they weren't good responses but pinch yourself and then you'll wake up and find that in the real world, it will never happen. Are you going to actually make oil companies not sell there oil overseas? Shall we ban the meaning of free trade. If I have a business, you're going to tell me who I can sell my product to. I hate paying these freekin high gas prices but get real. It just ain't gonna happen!!!
Since we can, in fact, outlaw the sales of good to other countries for the purposes of American Security (computers, military equipment, some industrial equipment), it might be possible to limit overseas oil sale to whatever surplus was refined over and above American needs in the name of national security.

Naah... that'd make too much sense.
YOOPER

Canton, MI

#63 Sep 17, 2008
J Barrett Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>
Since we can, in fact, outlaw the sales of good to other countries for the purposes of American Security (computers, military equipment, some industrial equipment), it might be possible to limit overseas oil sale to whatever surplus was refined over and above American needs in the name of national security.
Naah... that'd make too much sense.
National security changes things. Ok. I didn't want to go this route but I guess I have to. Why are people up in arms about Big oil selling what they get overseas anyway. What difference does it make. If big oil sells it here or sells it overseas, it's the same damn thing. The money from the oil stays here. If they sell it here, that's less to import. If they sell it overseas, that's more to import. But "they" sold it, so that money stays here. Whether refinery's buy it here or overseas, it costs the same (the going rate of $91.00 at present). I don't get it. If we keep it here then that's less that we buy from, say the Saudi's. But then the Saudi's sell it to whoever we were going to sell it to. I see no difference.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Maria Cantwell Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sen. Schumer helps fight city's homeless problem Apr '16 Chucks False Charity 1
News Senate passes energy bill with overwhelming bip... Apr '16 Go Blue Forever 1
News Hillary campaigns in Everett: Presidential cand... Mar '16 NAFTAclinton 1
News Forest Service likely to get more money to figh... Jan '16 billiesamolesrer 3
News Congress Lifted the Crude Oil Export Ban, Which... Dec '15 Ritual Habitual 1
News What Washington state's wildfires tell us about... (Sep '15) Sep '15 Sterkfontein Swar... 6
News As wildfires rage and budgets dwindle, more fed... (Aug '15) Aug '15 Sterkfontein Swar... 3
More from around the web