Perhaps 60% of oil price is speculation

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
EnsGabe
Youngling
Posts: 54
Joined: 2006-07-10 09:49pm

Perhaps 60% of oil price is speculation

Post by EnsGabe »

F. William Engdahl wrote: ‘Perhaps 60% of today’s oil price is pure speculation’

Global Research, May 2, 2008


The price of crude oil today is not made according to any traditional relation of supply to demand. It’s controlled by an elaborate financial market system as well as by the four major Anglo-American oil companies. As much as 60% of today’s crude oil price is pure speculation driven by large trader banks and hedge funds. It has nothing to do with the convenient myths of Peak Oil. It has to do with control of oil and its price. How?

First, the crucial role of the international oil exchanges in London and New York is crucial to the game. Nymex in New York and the ICE Futures in London today control global benchmark oil prices which in turn set most of the freely traded oil cargo. They do so via oil futures contracts on two grades of crude oil—West Texas Intermediate and North Sea Brent.

A third rather new oil exchange, the Dubai Mercantile Exchange (DME), trading Dubai crude, is more or less a daughter of Nymex, with Nymex President, James Newsome, sitting on the board of DME and most key personnel British or American citizens.

Brent is used in spot and long-term contracts to value as much of crude oil produced in global oil markets each day. The Brent price is published by a private oil industry publication, Platt’s. Major oil producers including Russia and Nigeria use Brent as a benchmark for pricing the crude they produce. Brent is a key crude blend for the European market and, to some extent, for Asia.

WTI has historically been more of a US crude oil basket. Not only is it used as the basis for US-traded oil futures, but it's also a key benchmark for US production.


‘The tail that wags the dog’

All this is well and official. But how today’s oil prices are really determined is done by a process so opaque only a handful of major oil trading banks such as Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley have any idea who is buying and who selling oil futures or derivative contracts that set physical oil prices in this strange new world of “paper oil.”

With the development of unregulated international derivatives trading in oil futures over the past decade or more, the way has opened for the present speculative bubble in oil prices.
Since the advent of oil futures trading and the two major London and New York oil futures contracts, control of oil prices has left OPEC and gone to Wall Street. It is a classic case of the “tail that wags the dog.”

A June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report on “The Role of Market Speculation in rising oil and gas prices,” noted, “…there is substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased prices.”

What the Senate committee staff documented in the report was a gaping loophole in US Government regulation of oil derivatives trading so huge a herd of elephants could walk through it. That seems precisely what they have been doing in ramping oil prices through the roof in recent months.

The Senate report was ignored in the media and in the Congress.

The report pointed out that the Commodity Futures Trading Trading Commission, a financial futures regulator, had been mandated by Congress to ensure that prices on the futures market reflect the laws of supply and demand rather than manipulative practices or excessive speculation. The US Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) states, “Excessive speculation in any commodity under contracts of sale of such commodity for future delivery . . . causing sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in the price of such commodity, is an undue and unnecessary burden on interstate commerce in such commodity.”

Further, the CEA directs the CFTC to establish such trading limits “as the Commission finds are necessary to diminish, eliminate, or prevent such burden.” Where is the CFTC now that we need such limits?

They seem to have deliberately walked away from their mandated oversight responsibilities in the world’s most important traded commodity, oil.

Enron has the last laugh…

As that US Senate report noted:
US Senate wrote: “Until recently, US energy futures were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges within the United States, like the NYMEX, which are subject to extensive oversight by the CFTC, including ongoing monitoring to detect and prevent price manipulation or fraud. In recent years, however, there has been a tremendous growth in the trading of contracts that look and are structured just like futures contracts, but which are traded on unregulated OTC electronic markets. Because of their similarity to futures contracts they are often called “futures look-alikes.”

The only practical difference between futures look-alike contracts and futures contracts is that the look-alikes are traded in unregulated markets whereas futures are traded on regulated exchanges. The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic exchanges was exempted from CFTC oversight by a provision inserted at the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 in the waning hours of the 106th Congress.

The impact on market oversight has been substantial. NYMEX traders, for example, are required to keep records of all trades and report large trades to the CFTC. These Large Trader Reports, together with daily trading data providing price and volume information, are the CFTC’s primary tools to gauge the extent of speculation in the markets and to detect, prevent, and prosecute price manipulation. CFTC Chairman Reuben Jeffrey recently stated: “The Commission’s Large Trader information system is one of the cornerstones of our surveillance program and enables detection of concentrated and coordinated positions that might be used by one or more traders to attempt manipulation.”

In contrast to trades conducted on the NYMEX, traders on unregulated OTC electronic exchanges are not required to keep records or file Large Trader Reports with the CFTC, and these trades are exempt from routine CFTC oversight. In contrast to trades conducted on regulated futures exchanges, there is no limit on the number of contracts a speculator may hold on an unregulated OTC electronic exchange, no monitoring of trading by the exchange itself, and no reporting of the amount of outstanding contracts (“open interest”) at the end of each day.”
Then, apparently to make sure the way was opened really wide to potential market oil price manipulation, in January 2006, the Bush Administration’s CFTC permitted the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), the leading operator of electronic energy exchanges, to use its trading terminals in the United States for the trading of US crude oil futures on the ICE futures exchange in London – called “ICE Futures.”

Previously, the ICE Futures exchange in London had traded only in European energy commodities – Brent crude oil and United Kingdom natural gas. As a United Kingdom futures market, the ICE Futures exchange is regulated solely by the UK Financial Services Authority. In 1999, the London exchange obtained the CFTC’s permission to install computer terminals in the United States to permit traders in New York and other US cities to trade European energy commodities through the ICE exchange.

The CFTC opens the door

Then, in January 2006, ICE Futures in London began trading a futures contract for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil, a type of crude oil that is produced and delivered in the United States. ICE Futures also notified the CFTC that it would be permitting traders in the United States to use ICE terminals in the United States to trade its new WTI contract on the ICE Futures London exchange. ICE Futures as well allowed traders in the United States to trade US gasoline and heating oil futures on the ICE Futures exchange in London.

Despite the use by US traders of trading terminals within the United States to trade US oil, gasoline, and heating oil futures contracts, the CFTC has until today refused to assert any jurisdiction over the trading of these contracts.


Persons within the United States seeking to trade key US energy commodities – US crude oil, gasoline, and heating oil futures – are able to avoid all US market oversight or reporting requirements by routing their trades through the ICE Futures exchange in London instead of the NYMEX in New York.

Is that not elegant? The US Government energy futures regulator, CFTC opened the way to the present unregulated and highly opaque oil futures speculation. It may just be coincidence that the present CEO of NYMEX, James Newsome, who also sits on the Dubai Exchange, is a former chairman of the US CFTC. In Washington doors revolve quite smoothly between private and public posts.

A glance at the price for Brent and WTI futures prices since January 2006 indicates the remarkable correlation between skyrocketing oil prices and the unregulated trade in ICE oil futures in US markets. Keep in mind that ICE Futures in London is owned and controlled by a USA company based in Atlanta Georgia.

In January 2006 when the CFTC allowed the ICE Futures the gaping exception, oil prices were trading in the range of $59-60 a barrel. Today some two years later we see prices tapping $120 and trend upwards. This is not an OPEC problem, it is a US Government regulatory problem of malign neglect.
By not requiring the ICE to file daily reports of large trades of energy commodities, it is not able to detect and deter price manipulation. As the Senate report noted, “The CFTC's ability to detect and deter energy price manipulation is suffering from critical information gaps, because traders on OTC electronic exchanges and the London ICE Futures are currently exempt from CFTC reporting requirements. Large trader reporting is also essential to analyze the effect of speculation on energy prices.”

The report added, “ICE's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other evidence indicate that its over-the-counter electronic exchange performs a price discovery function -- and thereby affects US energy prices -- in the cash market for the energy commodities traded on that exchange.”

Hedge Funds and Banks driving oil prices

In the most recent sustained run-up in energy prices, large financial institutions, hedge funds, pension funds, and other investors have been pouring billions of dollars into the energy commodities markets to try to take advantage of price changes or hedge against them. Most of this additional investment has not come from producers or consumers of these commodities, but from speculators seeking to take advantage of these price changes. The CFTC defines a speculator as a person who “does not produce or use the commodity, but risks his or her own capital trading futures in that commodity in hopes of making a profit on price changes.”

The large purchases of crude oil futures contracts by speculators have, in effect, created an additional demand for oil, driving up the price of oil for future delivery in the same manner that additional demand for contracts for the delivery of a physical barrel today drives up the price for oil on the spot market. As far as the market is concerned, the demand for a barrel of oil that results from the purchase of a futures contract by a speculator is just as real as the demand for a barrel that results from the purchase of a futures contract by a refiner or other user of petroleum.

Perhaps 60% of oil prices today pure speculation

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley today are the two leading energy trading firms in the United States. Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase are major players and fund numerous hedge funds as well who speculate.

In June 2006, oil traded in futures markets at some $60 a barrel and the Senate investigation estimated that some $25 of that was due to pure financial speculation. One analyst estimated in August 2005 that US oil inventory levels suggested WTI crude prices should be around $25 a barrel, and not $60.

That would mean today that at least $50 to $60 or more of today’s $115 a barrel price is due to pure hedge fund and financial institution speculation. However, given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months amid the explosive rise in oil futures prices traded on Nymex and ICE exchanges in New York and London it is more likely that as much as 60% of the today oil price is pure speculation. No one knows officially except the tiny handful of energy trading banks in New York and London and they certainly aren’t talking.

By purchasing large numbers of futures contracts, and thereby pushing up futures
prices to even higher levels than current prices, speculators have provided a financial incentive for oil companies to buy even more oil and place it in storage. A refiner will purchase extra oil today, even if it costs $115 per barrel, if the futures price is even higher.
As a result, over the past two years crude oil inventories have been steadily growing, resulting in US crude oil inventories that are now higher than at any time in the previous eight years. The large influx of speculative investment into oil futures has led to a situation where we have both high supplies of crude oil and high crude oil prices.
Compelling evidence also suggests that the oft-cited geopolitical, economic, and natural factors do not explain the recent rise in energy prices can be seen in the actual data on crude oil supply and demand. Although demand has significantly increased over the past few years, so have supplies.
Over the past couple of years global crude oil production has increased along with the increases in demand; in fact, during this period global supplies have exceeded demand, according to the US Department of Energy. The US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently forecast that in the next few years global surplus production capacity will continue to grow to between 3 and 5 million barrels per day by 2010, thereby “substantially thickening the surplus capacity cushion.”

Dollar and oil link

A common speculation strategy amid a declining USA economy and a falling US dollar is for speculators and ordinary investment funds desperate for more profitable investments amid the US securitization disaster, to take futures positions selling the dollar “short” and oil “long.”

For huge US or EU pension funds or banks desperate to get profits following the collapse in earnings since August 2007 and the US real estate crisis, oil is one of the best ways to get huge speculative gains. The backdrop that supports the current oil price bubble is continued unrest in the Middle East, in Sudan, in Venezuela and Pakistan and firm oil demand in China and most of the world outside the US. Speculators trade on rumor, not fact.

In turn, once major oil companies and refiners in North America and EU countries begin to hoard oil, supplies appear even tighter lending background support to present prices.
Because the over-the-counter (OTC) and London ICE Futures energy markets are unregulated, there are no precise or reliable figures as to the total dollar value of recent spending on investments in energy commodities, but the estimates are consistently in the range of tens of billions of dollars.

The increased speculative interest in commodities is also seen in the increasing popularity of commodity index funds, which are funds whose price is tied to the price of a basket of various commodity futures. Goldman Sachs estimates that pension funds and mutual funds have invested a total of approximately $85 billion in commodity index funds, and that investments in its own index, the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (GSCI), has tripled over the past few years. Notable is the fact that the US Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, is former Chairman of Goldman Sachs.
Link

As reasonable as this article seems to a layman, I read up up bit on this Engdahl guy, and it turns out he's a bit of a loon. He believes that oil is not produced from fossils, but from some unknown source at the earth's core. He also believes that the oil crisis in the '70s was a scam perpetuated by the elites in the US and Britain. In light of his other nonsense, it's clear that this article is probably way out there, but I don't know enough about future trading to be able to talk about how nonsensical it is.
The Monarch: "Anyone wanna explain to me why my coccoon is charred?"
24: "Because you told us to blow it up"
The Monarch: "And why it is sideways?"
21: "We were following orders! You can't yell at us for following orders."
24: "Or kill us for following orders."
User avatar
cosmicalstorm
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: 2008-02-14 09:35am

Post by cosmicalstorm »

I've been trying to wrap my mind around this specualtion business for months but im simply to stupid to understand it.
Couldn't they institute a global ban on oil-speculation seeing how it is hurting every economy on the entire planet?
I know it's probably a retarded question so dont flame me.
User avatar
CaptainZoidberg
Padawan Learner
Posts: 497
Joined: 2008-05-24 12:05pm
Location: Worcester Polytechnic
Contact:

Post by CaptainZoidberg »

Even if the price is caused by speculation, that speculation is driven by an understanding that oil will eventually peak, so it's not like we can just magically make it $50 a gallon and expect everything to be okay.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

I posted something similar about agricultural prices a while ago, but that time it was from a reputable business newspaper, not some loon.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=123049

The underlying principle is the same: if you allow rampant unchecked speculation on commodities, then you will inevitably allow speculators to drive up the price of those commodities. In theory, if the market is large enough, the effect of these price shocks is limited, but that only holds water if the size of the shocks themselves does not grow to the point that it becomes significant relative to the underlying size of the market.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

CaptainZoidberg wrote:Even if the price is caused by speculation, that speculation is driven by an understanding that oil will eventually peak, so it's not like we can just magically make it $50 a gallon and expect everything to be okay.
Ah, no. Speculation is sometimes driven by underlying market fundamentals, but most of it is driven by trend watching. People literally have computer models which monitor price trends and attempt to jump on bandwagons and then time their jump off. It need not have anything to do with fundamentals.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

cosmicalstorm wrote:I've been trying to wrap my mind around this specualtion business for months but im simply to stupid to understand it.
Couldn't they institute a global ban on oil-speculation seeing how it is hurting every economy on the entire planet?
I know it's probably a retarded question so dont flame me.
The commodities markets are intended to simplify trading and smooth out abnormalities inside an industry. The real problem is allowing people outside the industry in question to bid on those commodities, because they never had any intention of using them: they're just trying to make money by deliberately increasing the size of price swings and then timing their jumps on and off the bandwagon. What they should do is outlaw commodities trading by the hedge funds and other large institutional financial organizations. If you want to buy oil futures, you should actually be in the oil industry.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Post by MKSheppard »

Ah yes, Speculation. IIRC isn't the amount of oil sucked up by speculation equal to what china is consuming now?

Basically, speculation is nothing inherently evil; it was originally set up to allow farmers to "lock in" a price for their food products, so that even if the price of wheat collapsed, they wouldn't lose everything. Of course, if the price of wheat explodes; you will still be locked IIRC into the price you set; but that's a small price to pay for not having to foreclose in bad years....
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

MKSheppard wrote:Ah yes, Speculation. IIRC isn't the amount of oil sucked up by speculation equal to what china is consuming now?

Basically, speculation is nothing inherently evil; it was originally set up to allow farmers to "lock in" a price for their food products, so that even if the price of wheat collapsed, they wouldn't lose everything. Of course, if the price of wheat explodes; you will still be locked IIRC into the price you set; but that's a small price to pay for not having to foreclose in bad years....
That's why the commodities exchange was created: for the benefit of people working in the industry. Outsider speculation is still bad.

PS. The poster boy for outsider speculation was Enron. They started with a pipeline so they were part of the "energy industry", but they quickly moved to start trading energy commodities that they had nothing to do with.
Last edited by Darth Wong on 2008-06-10 12:43pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

I'm skeptical on 60% being speculation, but you literally can't drop as much money into the commodities and futures markets as people have without triggering bubbles. Couple that with 'Ho ho, we know about Peak, we'll make a killing' investments, and you've got a recipe for madness. And this is before we apply the fundamentals.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8709
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Post by Starglider »

Darth Wong wrote:People literally have computer models which monitor price trends and attempt to jump on bandwagons and then time their jump off. It need not have anything to do with fundamentals.
Indeed; I've worked on these, it's an extremely lucrative area, and it's actually quite sad how it sucks up many of the best minds in computer science (and stats and applied maths in general for that matter), who otherwise could've been making useful products or advancing science.
User avatar
The Kernel
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7438
Joined: 2003-09-17 02:31am
Location: Kweh?!

Post by The Kernel »

Darth Wong wrote: PS. The poster boy for outsider speculation was Enron. They started with a pipeline so they were part of the "energy industry", but they quickly moved to start trading energy commodities that they had nothing to do with.
Actually that isn't the case.

Enron did mostly gas and electricity trading (I won't bring up their laughable attempt at broadband trading) and they owned both a gas pipeline AND a medium sized utility that they acquired when they bought Portland General. Actually the entire reason they bought Portland General was because they wanted to trade in California, something they couldn't do unless they owned a utility with access in California.
User avatar
Straha
Lord of the Spam
Posts: 8198
Joined: 2002-07-21 11:59pm
Location: NYC

Post by Straha »

SirNitram wrote:I'm skeptical on 60% being speculation, but you literally can't drop as much money into the commodities and futures markets as people have without triggering bubbles. Couple that with 'Ho ho, we know about Peak, we'll make a killing' investments, and you've got a recipe for madness. And this is before we apply the fundamentals.
It's a matter of how you look at it. What really changed in the market, according to the article, was when Oil started to be traded on unregulated markets. One could easilly make the argument that the current price of oil is its true value and that oil was undervalued until recently by regulation designed to keep the price of oil low.
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic

'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Straha wrote:
SirNitram wrote:I'm skeptical on 60% being speculation, but you literally can't drop as much money into the commodities and futures markets as people have without triggering bubbles. Couple that with 'Ho ho, we know about Peak, we'll make a killing' investments, and you've got a recipe for madness. And this is before we apply the fundamentals.
It's a matter of how you look at it. What really changed in the market, according to the article, was when Oil started to be traded on unregulated markets. One could easilly make the argument that the current price of oil is its true value and that oil was undervalued until recently by regulation designed to keep the price of oil low.
Really? Based on what, the say-so that regulation is tantamount to price-fixing? Deregulated markets caused the Housing boom/bust.. Was that just houses approaching their true value?
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Yes, speculation. It certainly can't be because supply and demand aren't being met and nations are bidding up the price.

Ah, economists. If it's not speculation or the falling dollar, then it's MEND threatening to do what they always do in Nigeria, or some schmuck on CNBC telling porky pies.

Remember, these same people were predicting $30 oil again and similar stupid projections.
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Yes, speculation. It certainly can't be because supply and demand aren't being met and nations are bidding up the price.
It is precisely because we're hitting the limit that the speculation is a noticable factor. If the amount of oil availiable levels out or declines, and the amount of money being poured into that sector of the commodities markets increases, you get price inflation unconnected to the fundamentals. Drop an extra 50% in without raising the amount of oil, oil leaps 50%.

Of course, let's pretend it can't be more than one factor at work. That's so much simpler and paints and smoother timeline, without an inevitable cycle of mini boom/busts along the oil price.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
cosmicalstorm
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: 2008-02-14 09:35am

Post by cosmicalstorm »

I regularly come across people in real life and at various forums predicting that the oilprice will be lowered to between $40-$100/barrel in a near future, is that just wishful thinking or is there a possibility that this will happen?
User avatar
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14804
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm

Post by aerius »

cosmicalstorm wrote:I regularly come across people in real life and at various forums predicting that the oilprice will be lowered to between $40-$100/barrel in a near future, is that just wishful thinking or is there a possibility that this will happen?
Barring an economic downturn which makes the Great Depression look like a picnic, it ain't happening. Either that or everyone deciding to go back to the gold standard.
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

cosmicalstorm wrote:I regularly come across people in real life and at various forums predicting that the oilprice will be lowered to between $40-$100/barrel in a near future, is that just wishful thinking or is there a possibility that this will happen?
40-100? Very bloody unlikely. My personal guess is we'll see it yo-yo up and down up to $10 at a time, while still increasing overall. The reason? Speculation bubbles on top of the peak.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

The Kernel wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:PS. The poster boy for outsider speculation was Enron. They started with a pipeline so they were part of the "energy industry", but they quickly moved to start trading energy commodities that they had nothing to do with.
Actually that isn't the case.

Enron did mostly gas and electricity trading (I won't bring up their laughable attempt at broadband trading) and they owned both a gas pipeline AND a medium sized utility that they acquired when they bought Portland General. Actually the entire reason they bought Portland General was because they wanted to trade in California, something they couldn't do unless they owned a utility with access in California.
Yeah, but they were just acting as middlemen. They were neither producer or distributor.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Yes, speculation. It certainly can't be because supply and demand aren't being met and nations are bidding up the price.
Precisely what mechanism do you believe is nullifying the mechanism of speculation driving up prices, since the speculation itself is occurring but you seem to believe it has no effect on price?
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

SirNitram wrote: It is precisely because we're hitting the limit that the speculation is a noticable factor. If the amount of oil availiable levels out or declines, and the amount of money being poured into that sector of the commodities markets increases, you get price inflation unconnected to the fundamentals. Drop an extra 50% in without raising the amount of oil, oil leaps 50%.

Of course, let's pretend it can't be more than one factor at work. That's so much simpler and paints and smoother timeline, without an inevitable cycle of mini boom/busts along the oil price.
I never said speculation didn't happen, I was laughing at this "60% of the price must be speculation" bullshit. There will always be speculation and other factors playing into the price, but the simple fact of the matter is that the fundamentals, as the IEA's latest OMR shows, are the reason for the price exploding so much. You will get speculators, naturally, just in this instance they've been keeping the price lower than it should be what with these busts followed by booms increasing the moving average ceiling.

Actually, I may as well post a little sobering post I just put elsewhere as a thought exercise:
Valdemar wrote:Going by what someone over at the PO.com forums found out about oil prices, I've done a little back-of-the-envelope calculation for what this projection could mean.

The underlying trend is explained:
I've found a strange coincidence (or not a coincidence) in the last two run ups......

When oil hit $135.09 the 200 dma was 95.06
135.09/95.06= 1.421 x the 200dma

When oil hit $139.12 the 200 dma was 97.88
139.12/97.88= 1.421 x the 200dma again!!

1.421 x the 200 dma is recurring... I think 1.421 x the 200dma will be a rising ceiling until there is widespread panic over something... hurricane, war with Iran, Saudi past peak admission, or widespread undeniable shortages...

In my new opinion we'll go down to just below $130 then run up to about $145, then run down to about $134 and run up to break $150 in about 6 weeks.

If my theory holds the 200 dma will have to be $105.55 to allow oil at $150 (105.55x 1.421= 150) At the rate it's rising that will be about 6 weeks........

Let's see if I finally get something right.........

Oh and I made the blue line the 40 day moving average in the chart below. Look how it appears to be the floor!! The red line is the 200 dma.

Looking at the chart below with the 40dma as the floor and 1.421 percentage as the ceiling, you have to admit technical analysis can be pretty amazing and make things look orderly atleast after the fact
This would lead to a doubling in price around every 15 months or so. This working was based off subscription services data from StockCharts.com.

So, assuming the dollar and pound remain reasonably stable and this trend holds, further, assuming $139/bbl. oil translates to 130p derv, then the predictions are as follows:

By December, 2008 the price of oil will be $200 and the price of derv will be around £1.87/l.

March, 2010 will see the price of oil at $400 and the price of derv at £3.74.

June, 2011 gives us oil at $800 with derv around £7.48.

So by the time of the London Olympics, you could be buying diesel at £15-a-litre. For my rather small 30 litre tank, that's a total fill-up cost of £450.

Obviously this is very simplistic and assumes a lot of stability in the variables with no hurricanes, war or other geo-political factors affecting the price. The trend also has to hold and not be affected by demand destruction or subsidies, but it serves as a good indicator of just how fast things can deteriorate given the price is getting a shorter doubling time now.

Gazprom sure thinks this is the time of parabolic price rises.
EDIT:
Darth Wong wrote: Precisely what mechanism do you believe is nullifying the mechanism of speculation driving up prices, since the speculation itself is occurring but you seem to believe it has no effect on price?
Nothing is nullifying speculation, but the fundamentals have provided us with a clear and ever rising floor that proves this 60% speculation bullshit is a load of hot air. As these same talking heads on CNBC repeatedly parrot the dollar is to blame, when the price of oil goes up 16% in 48 hours and the dollar falls a whopping 1%. You just need to look at what's going on to see that they can't come out and admit "Yeah, we're not pumping enough for everyone. Get bidding!" which is precisely what is going on.
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
SirNitram wrote: It is precisely because we're hitting the limit that the speculation is a noticable factor. If the amount of oil availiable levels out or declines, and the amount of money being poured into that sector of the commodities markets increases, you get price inflation unconnected to the fundamentals. Drop an extra 50% in without raising the amount of oil, oil leaps 50%.

Of course, let's pretend it can't be more than one factor at work. That's so much simpler and paints and smoother timeline, without an inevitable cycle of mini boom/busts along the oil price.
I never said speculation didn't happen, I was laughing at this "60% of the price must be speculation" bullshit.
Oh, I agree there, and therefore am a bit of an idiot. I do have to ask two questions:

1) What's 'dma' stand for?

2) How does the collapsing dollar affect your calculations? I've seen it taken as a matter of faith that a falling dollar spike the price(Makes sense; the printing press introduces more money to the market same way as the commodity spike did), but do you have any solid guesses?
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Nothing is nullifying speculation, but the fundamentals have provided us with a clear and ever rising floor that proves this 60% speculation bullshit is a load of hot air. As these same talking heads on CNBC repeatedly parrot the dollar is to blame, when the price of oil goes up 16% in 48 hours and the dollar falls a whopping 1%. You just need to look at what's going on to see that they can't come out and admit "Yeah, we're not pumping enough for everyone. Get bidding!" which is precisely what is going on.
And when that happens, do you believe that the demand for oil has gone up 16% in 48 hours?
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

BTW, why is it not 'speculation" when you call it "bidding" instead?
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Darth Wong wrote: And when that happens, do you believe that the demand for oil has gone up 16% in 48 hours?
No, but we are experiencing the true cost beginning to arise thanks to the exports decreasing or other issues on the word stage e.g. the Grangemouth shutdown or hits on pipelines in foreign exporter states.

Such rises in a short time are not sustained, since we saw the price break all records, then fall back about $15. However, as less and less oil along with lower EROEI crude comes to market, the price will go up to maintain the current supply contracts. It would be unfair to point to any single day increase and say it was all down to speculation or bad news producing a bearish report in the financial press. In the end, though, the price has been going up consistently since around 2005 (the year light sweet reached peak and all liquids hit a plateaux) and is now accelerating since the last quarter of 2007 because of net exports declining at an ever faster rate and news of expected capacity increases not coming on-stream soon, or at all, sinks in.
Darth Wong wrote:BTW, why is it not 'speculation" when you call it "bidding" instead?
Speculation tends to happen when the fundamentals don't support such increases, that is, you will get a bubble that will burst, like with property and the dotcoms, that will leave everyone sore who didn't sell at the peak. For oil, people need to take delivery of this crude and keep supply and demand in equilibrium (or else have demand destruction as can be seen in various Third World nations over the last year or hoarding, which isn't happening either: global inventories are dropping) which inevitably means oil as a non-fungible commodity goes up and maintains these levels. If it were a bubble from speculation, then prices would eventually crash back to the levels that the market supports. As this isn't happening, the "bidding" up is the constant increasing in price to allow for delivery of oil to market. If the price didn't go up with international bidding, then supply and demand would breakdown.

As we can see, the poorer states are being outbid for the oil now, but that oil is now "worth" that price in the contract, not because some private equity group wanted to play the field.
Last edited by Admiral Valdemar on 2008-06-10 02:30pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply