quote:

Not surprising you haven't heard about this Joe. It is apparently being kept out of most the media news sources for some strange reason.

Oh I know, and like I said it was a brief mention and I was in heavy traffic in a torrential downpour so I didn't pick up on any specifics.

anyway thanks for the info

edit: i'm stupid tired and didn't realize you posted the info already sorry dude ( I skimmed too much)

quote:

and crude oil prices are up because 70% of the oil market have been and are being controlled by oil future speculaters from banks and mutual funds limiting the market and driving the price way way up.

No, oil is up because oil production has been pretty flat for the last 3 years, whilst the world economy has been booming.

The Commodities Futures Trading Commission recently released their interim report on speculation on oil. They concluded that oil prices movements were explained by fundamental supply and demand, rather than speculation. From the report:

quote:

The Task Force’s preliminary assessment is that current oil prices and the increase in oil prices between January 2003 and June 2008 are largely due to fundamental supply and demand factors. During this same period, activity on the crude oil futures market – as measured by the number of contracts outstanding, trading activity, and the number of traders – has increased significantly. While these increases broadly coincided with the run-up in crude oil prices, the Task Force’s preliminary analysis to date does not support the proposition that speculative activity has systematically driven changes in oil prices.

quote:

The imbalance between scarce supply and growing demand, and expectations that this imbalance will persist in the future, have led to upward pressure on oil prices and greater market reactions to any actual or perceived disruptions in available supply. Under such tight market conditions, it is often the case that only large price increases can re-establish equilibrium between supply and demand. Consequently, large or rapid movements in oil prices are not inconsistent with the fundamentals of supply and demand; such price movements, by themselves, do not indicate that prices have become divorced from fundamentals. Moreover, if speculative positions, rather than fundamentals, were pushing prices upward, then inventories would be expected to rise. To date, there is no evidence of such an accumulation; in fact, known inventory levels actually have declined.

quote:

The Task Force’s preliminary analysis also suggests that changes in the positions of swap dealers and non-commercial traders most often followed price changes. This result does not support the hypothesis that the activity of these groups is driving prices higher. The Task Force has found that the activity of market participants often described as “speculators” has not resulted in systematic changes in price over the last five and a half years.

They included a handy little graph that shows, in a single picture, exactly why oil prices have soared:


Oil production should have risen in line with growth. It hasn't. That's required a very large rise in prices to reduce demand to keep supply/consumption in balance.

(picture is hosted at www.theoildrum.com but the full report is available at http://www.cftc.gov/stellent/groups/public/@newsroom/do...rtoncrudeoil0708.pdf )

quote:

hop let me ask you a obvious question. If oil refining is right where it should be with plenty of supply as you say what has driven up prices so much then? After all it's a demand driven market isn't it?

There's a lot of demand for oil, not enough to go around. That pushes the price up. There is actually plenty of refinery capacity at the moment.

It's purely down to a shortage of oil, not refined product.

The EIA maintains a chart showing the costs of the ingredients and processes involved in producing gasoline. For June 2008 the figures were:

Average cost gallon gasoline - $4.05

of which
Crude oil - $3.03
Taxes - $0.40
Refining - $0.34
Distribution and retail - $0.28

The refiners are taking just 34c to cover their costs and profit. With energy prices so high, that's a remarkably low refining percentage.

quote:

You might want to add to your spin version of the truth that the demand is down right now for oil and gas and the refining has been cut back because the huge price increases have driven people to drive much much less.

I believe you ahh..forgot that little small detail.

No, that's actually the function of high prices. Look at it this way, with oil at $120 a barrel or more, the world is using all the oil that's produced. If the oil price was lower, more would be used, but that would mean we would be using more than was being produced, and that is obviously unsustainable.

High prices reduce demand to keep the market balanced.

But refineries aren't quiet in the US just because of the price hike this year. They have been pretty quiet since spring 2007, when there were refinery shortages. But that's pretty much down to Katrina and the effect it had on repair schedules.

Bottom line is gasoline is expensive because oil is expensive, and oil is expensive because not enough is being produced. It's nothing to do with refineries.

quote:

A shortage of refineries frequently has been blamed by politicians for the sharp price spikes in gasoline, as was the case last week by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., during debate on a Senate energy bill.

"The fact is that Americans are paying more at the pump because we do not have the domestic capacity to refine the fuels consumers demand," Inhofe complained as he tried unsuccessfully to get into the bill a proposal to ease permitting and environmental rules for refineries.

Ah, the fountains of truth: politicians.

Go to the EIA and they will show you how much the refiners take, now and all the way back to January 2000. There have been spikes, and indeed there usually is in spring with the changeover in gasoline blends. But look at this year, and explain how the record low margins for refiners are pushing up prices.

quote:

This spring, refiners, hampered by outages, could not keep up with demand and imports were down because of greater fuel demand in Europe and elsewhere. Despite stable _ even sometimes declining _ oil prices, gasoline prices soared to record levels and remain well above $3 a gallon.

Ah, I see, the story is old. It's from 2007. There was a spike in spring 2007, in fact the largest spring spike this decade.

But the answer to spikes is a: reduce the number of mandated gasoline blends, that work to hamper competition in the marketplace, and b: insist on a larger stockpile of gasoline.

Building extra refineries, at $5 billion plus each, only to have them sit idle 9 months of the year, is a way to increase prices, not cut them. Excess refinery capacity has to be paid for, and I doubt Sen Inhofe is going to offer to pay out of his pocket.

quote:

Only last year, the Energy Department was told that refiners, reaping big profits and anticipating growing demand, were looking at boosting their refining capacity by more than 1.6 million barrels a day, a roughly 10 percent increase. That would be enough to produce an additional 37 million gallons of gasoline daily.

But oil companies already have scaled those expansion plans back by nearly 40 percent. More cancelations are expected if Congress passes legislation now before the Senate calling for 15 billion gallons of ethanol use annually by 2015 and more than double that by 2022, say industry and government officials.

In other words they are taking a logical decision. They expect falling demand, and people want them to build extra capacity? Wouldn't that be like GM saying they expect car sales to fall 20%, so they are going to build 5 new factories?

quote:

It wasn't a long discussion and I was focused on traffic, but isn't some politician proposing to do away with these guys?

Oh yes, politicians have got a lot of answers. They'll sue OPEC and make them pump more oil, stop the speculators, make the oil industry build more refineries, produce more ethanol, empty the strategic petroleum reserve and tax the oil companies more.

Anything rather than face the fact world oil demand now exceeds production.

Here's that graph from the CFTC again:


That's why oil is expensive, nothing to do with speculators. For a variety of reasons oil production has stagnated for the last 3 years, at a time when booming economies have meant much more oil is required.

The oil price will remain high until that gap is closed, either by greatly increased production or greatly reduced demand. Of course, if the gap gets even larger, the price will continue to rise.

A big reason oil prices are up is that the US dollar is a piece of garbage.

If you hate capitalism so much, send us a postcard from Communist Vietnam sometime.

quote:

The Task Force’s preliminary analysis also suggests that changes in the positions of swap dealers and non-commercial traders most often followed price changes. This result does not support the hypothesis that the activity of these groups is driving prices higher. The Task Force has found that the activity of market participants often described as “speculators” has not resulted in systematic changes in price over the last five and a half years.

actually hop it says is "suggests" which is a personal opinion that changes in the positions of swap dealers and non-commercial traders most often followed price changes"

You did read these numbers didn't you?

>Speculators have increased their share of oil futures contracts on the Nymex to 71 percent this year, up from 37 percent in 2000, according to figures released by Stupak's office. At the same time contracts held by traditional oil users have fallen to less than 30 percent from over 60 percent. <

I have one nifty little article in Fortune magazine july 21 2008 about a oil speculator under investgation now for major market tampering. It's called "The man who lost 6 billion dollars"

Brian Hunter the former head trader for Amaranth.

surprisingly it is from U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. I guess investigation into natural gas price fixing isn't quite as embarrassing as gasoline futures fortunately.. I personally think it is more of a case of "see we are doing our job here.!"

I would copy the srticle and print it here but don't have a copier on this computer.

Here is something about it..

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Charges Hedge Fund Amaranth and its Former Head Energy Trader, Brian Hunter, with Attempted Manipulation of the Price of Natural Gas Futures


Complaint Also Alleges That Amaranth Advisors L.L.C. Tried to Cover Up the Conduct by Making False Statements to the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)
Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced today the filing of a civil enforcement action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Amaranth Advisors, L.L.C., Amaranth Advisors (Calgary) ULC (collectively “Amaranth”), and Brian Hunter, alleging that defendants engaged in a scheme of price manipulation that violated the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (the Act). Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants intentionally and unlawfully attempted to manipulate the price of natural gas futures contracts on the NYMEX on February 24 and April 26, 2006. The CFTC is seeking permanent injunctive relief, an award of civil penalties, and other remedial and ancillary relief as is necessary.

“This case demonstrates the Commission’s ongoing vigilance to punish those who attempt to compromise the integrity of the futures markets,” said CFTC Acting Chairman Walter Lukken. “The CFTC continues in its unwavering determination to ensure that the futures markets operate in an open and competitive manner free from price distortions.”

“The CFTC stands ready to enforce the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act against those who attempt to manipulate U.S. futures and commodity prices. The filing today sends an important message to market participants that such conduct will be met with appropriate sanctions,” CFTC Commissioner Michael Dunn added.

February 24, 2006 was the last day of trading (“expiry day”) for the March 2006 NYMEX natural gas futures contract and April 26, 2006 was the expiry day of the May 2006 NYMEX natural gas futures contract. The settlement price of each NYMEX natural gas futures contract is determined by the volume weighted average of trades executed from 2:00-2:30 p.m. (the “closing range”) on the expiry day of such contracts.

The Complaint alleges that, for each of the expiry days at issue, the defendants acquired more than 3,000 NYMEX natural gas futures contracts in advance of the closing range, which they planned to, and for the most part did, sell during the closing range. The Complaint also alleges that defendants held large short natural gas financially-settled swaps positions, primarily held on the IntercontinentalExchange (ICE). The settlement price of the ICE swaps is based on the NYMEX natural gas futures settlement price determined by trading done during the closing range on expiry day. The Complaint alleges that defendants intended to lower the prices of the NYMEX natural gas futures contracts to benefit defendants’ larger swaps positions on ICE and elsewhere.

The Complaint also alleges that, in violation of the Act, and in response to an inquiry from NYMEX about the April 26, 2006 trading, Amaranth Advisors L.L.C. made false statements to NYMEX to cover up defendants’ attempted manipulation. For more detail on the allegations, please see the attached excerpts from the Amaranth Complaint.

The Commission wishes to thank the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New York Mercantile Exchange for their assistance with this investigation. Of particular note is the CFTC’s coordination with the FERC on this matter, per the agencies’ Memorandum of Understanding.

The following CFTC staff members are responsible for this matter: Michael C. McLaughlin, Elizabeth C. Brennan, David Oakland, Linda Y. Peng, Karin N. Roth, W. Derek Shakabpa, David W. MacGregor, Michael Penick, Manal Sultan, Lenel Hickson, Jr., Stephen J. Obie, and Vincent McGonagle.

Last Updated: July 31, 2007

Hop similiar market minipulation has been going on for years in all kinds of commodities. Enron is a nice little example don't you think. maybe you don't believe that one either though. Then you have the banking industry and the forclosre mess. The opening up of these markets to rampant speculation has driven many comodities to new records. Think oil is any different? Hardly..

IMO "The Commodities Futures Trading Commission is trying to put a nice made up little semi-rational sounding story on the fact they have let the ball totally slip on oil futures market minipulation.

What else can they say? We f-up big time! There is little or no control of the oil futures market and that is why prices have gone sky high from rampent speculation we didn't bother to curb. Would you admit that?

The report is esentially letting the commission which is responsible for this major blunder investgate themselves..

found this nice article for anyone interested,,

Stop the Oil Speculators


Stop the Oil Speculators
What factors are causing the zooming price of crude oil, gasoline and heating products? What is going to be done about it?

Don’t rely on the White House—with Bush and Cheney marinated in oil—or the Congress—which has hearings that grill oil executives who know that nothing is going to happen on Capitol Hill either.

Last week the price of crude oil reached about $130 a barrel after spiking to $140 briefly. The immediate cause? Guesses by oil man T. Boone Pickens and Goldman Sachs that the price could go to $150 and $200 a barrel respectivly in the near future. They were referring to what can be called the hoopla pricing party on the New York Mercantile Exchange. (NYMEX)

Meanwhile, consumers, workers and small businesses are suffering with the price of gasoline at $4 a gallon and diesel at $4.50 a gallon. Suffering but not protesting, except for a few demonstrations by independent truckers.

A consumer and small business revolt could be politically powerful. But what would they revolt to achieve? Their government is paralyzed and is unable to indicate any action if oil goes up to $200 or $400 a barrel. Washington, D.C. is leaving people defenseless and drawing no marker for when it will take action.

Oil was at $50 a barrel in January 2007, then $75 a barrel in August 2007. Now at $130 or so a barrel, it is clear that oil pricing is speculative activity, having very little to do with physical supply and demand. An essential product—petroleum—is set by speculators operating on rumor, greed, and fear of wild predictions.

Over the time since early 2007, U.S. demand for petroleum has fallen by 1 percent and world demand has risen by 1.3 percent. Supplies of crude are so plentiful, according to the Wall Street Journal, “traders of physical crude oil say their market is suffering from too much supply, not too little.”

Iran, for instance, is storing 25 million barrels of heavy, sour crude oil because, in the words of Hossein Kazempour Ardebili, Iran’s oil governor, “there are simply no buyers because the market has more than enough oil.”

Mike Wittner, head of oil research at Societe Generale in London agrees. “There’s various signals out there saying for right now, the markets are well supplied with crude.”

Historically, oil has been afflicted with the control of monopolists. From the late nineteenth century days of John D. Rockefeller, and his Standard Oil monopoly, to the emergence of the “Seven Sisters” oligopoly, made up of Standard Oil, Shell, BP, Texaco, Mobil, Gulf and Socal, to the rise of OPEC representing the major producing countries, the “free market” price of oil has been a mirage. Despite the breakup of the Standard Oil company by the government’s trustbusters about 100 years ago, selling cartels and buying oligopolies kept reasserting themselves.

In an ironic twist, the major price determinant has moved from OPEC (having only 40% of the world production) and the oil companies to the speculators in the commodities markets. What goes on in the essentially unregulated New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)—without Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) enforced margin requirements, and, unlike your personal purchases, untaxed—is now the place that leads to your skyrocketing gasoline bills. OPEC and the Big Oil companies reap the benefits and say that it’s not their doing, but that of the speculators. Gives new meaning to “passing the buck.”

Deborah Fineman, president of Mitchell Supreme Fuel Co. in Orange, New Jersey, summed up the scene: “Energy markets have been dictated for too long by hedge funds and speculators, who artificially manipulate the numbers for their own benefit. The current market isn’t based on the sound principles of supply and demand but it is being rigged by companies and speculators who are jacking up prices for their own greed.”

Harry C. Johnson, former banker who worked for many years inside Big Oil and ran his own small oil company in Oklahoma, blames the CFTC, the Department of Energy, the Administration, and Congress, as “asleep at the switch on an issue that is probably costing U.S. consumers $1 billion per day.”

He cites “some industry experts, who profit greatly from the high price of crude, and have stated openly that the worldwide economic price of crude, absent speculators, would be around $50 to $60 per barrel.

Imagine, our government is letting your price for gasoline and home heating oil be determined by a gambling casino on Wall Street called NYMEX. The people need regulatory protection from speculators and an excess profits tax on Big Oil.

In addition, a sane government would see the present price crises as an opportunity to expand our passenger and freight railroad capacity and technology.

A sane government would drop all subsidies and tax loopholes for Big Oil’s huge profits and other fossil fuels and promote a national mission to solarize our economy to achieve major savings from energy conservation technology, retrofitting buildings, and upgrading efficiency standards for motor vehicles, home appliances, industrial engines and electric generating plants.

Those are the permanent ways to achieve energy independence, reduce our trade deficit, create good jobs that can’t be exported and protect the environmental health of people and nature.

Those are the reforms and advances that a muscular consumer, worker and small business revolt can focus on in the coming weeks.

What say you, America?

and this nice piece..

Oil speculators 'riding roughshod' over OPEC, say analysts
Mar 6, 2008

VIENNA, March 6, 2008 (AFP) — OPEC's move to keep oil output unchanged was a message to the market that crude supplies are sufficient, a view not shared by speculators who pushed the price of crude to fresh record highs on Thursday, analysts said.

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which produces 40 percent of the world's oil, decided at an output policy meeting on Wednesday in Vienna to maintain its daily crude production target of 29.67 million barrels.

Following the decision, the price of New York crude rose to new all-time highs, reaching more than 105 dollars per barrel on Thursday.

"Prices surged in the fallout from what was an absolute hysterical reaction to OPEC's decision" and news that US crude inventories had fallen last week, said the Schork Report, which provides analysis of energy markets.

"Thus, when OPEC tells us the (oil supply and demand) fundamentals have decoupled from prices and the speculators are running roughshod over the futures market, they have a point," it added.

OPEC on Wednesday blamed the high cost of crude on speculative buying as investors sought a haven amid a weak dollar and high inflation.

"You get the feeling that even if OPEC had announced a production increase the market was still going to move higher," said the Schork Report.

"So let this be a lesson (to OPEC). When you tell the market you lost control of the pricing mechanism, then the market is going to assume that mechanism in your place," it added.

OPEC, which comprises 13 member countries including Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest producer of crude, said in a statement Wednesday that the market was "well-supplied, with current commercial oil stocks standing above their five-year average".

But US President George W. Bush was said to be "disappointed" that the cartel chose not to increase output.

"He is disappointed that they decided not to increase production," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Bush "does not think it's a good idea for their biggest customers, such as the United States, to have an economic slowdown, in part because of high gas (gasoline or petrol) prices.

"We know that there is high global demand and there is tighter supply. So what we would like is to see an increase in supply from OPEC," Perino added.

The price of oil has doubled since the start of 2007, driven in large part by soaring demand for crude from emerging economic powers China and India.

Speculators have latched onto this, as well as diplomatic friction or unrest affecting oil producing countries such as Iran and Nigeria.

"The fundamentals are still miles away from providing a clear justification for the current price level," Petromatrix analyst Olivier Jakob said following OPEC's latest output decision.

The International Energy Agency, an official energy watchdog for oil-consuming countries, criticised the cartel's move to leave its production unchanged and urged OPEC to take note of high crude prices.

"The decision by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries to leave output unchanged may allow crude stocks to rebuild ... but high prices are sending a strong signal that the market thinks it is not enough," IEA said in a statement.

The Paris-based organisation added: "We may need more oil before the summer and therefore urge OPEC countries to listen to market signals."
Hosted by Copyright © 2008 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

This little article IMO says a lot about the speclative driven oil market..

How the heck would oil prices hit $100 a barrel? Because oil speculators really, really want it to. The Wall Street Journal's Matt Chambers has a concise summary today, noting that futures options betting on $100 oil before the end of the year far outnumber contracts betting on a mere $80. Key excerpts:

"The large number of options held to buy crude at $100 a barrel could also act as a pull on prices toward that level. ...

"As of Thursday, there were nearly three times as many options held to buy the December crude-oil-futures contract at
$100 a barrel as there were to sell the contract at $80, according to Nymex data. Friday data weren't available.

"Concentrations of bets on options at certain levels can act as a magnet for crude-oil prices as the options-expiration date approaches, as big traders try to push futures prices to levels where their options positions become profitable. Options on the December contract expire Nov. 13."

Oil prices are down around $86 a barrel today, along with the Dow and other economic indicators. But if oil speculators, including oil companies themselves, have anything to say about it, $100 a barrel obviously is still on the table.

http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=8342&topicId=8059

quote:

actually hop it says is "suggests" which is a personal opinion that changes in the positions of swap dealers and non-commercial traders most often followed price changes"

This is a government task force report, not a "personal opinion".

The same conclusion has also been reached by the two main energy monitoring organisations in the west, the EIA and IEA. Both have said that the oil price is driven by fundamental supply and demand issues, not speculation.

I've never seen any of the speculation fans answer why, if oil prices have been inflated artificially, oil stockpiles have not increased.

quote:

You did read these numbers didn't you?

>Speculators have increased their share of oil futures contracts on the Nymex to 71 percent this year, up from 37 percent in 2000, according to figures released by Stupak's office. At the same time contracts held by traditional oil users have fallen to less than 30 percent from over 60 percent. <

Nobody is denying there's speculation on oil. But there is no evidence that is changing the price, and plenty of evidence it isn't.

There's a lot of speculation on which horse will win a race, too, but no one suggests the more money placed on a horse, the faster it will run.

quote:

The Complaint alleges that, for each of the expiry days at issue, the defendants acquired more than 3,000 NYMEX natural gas futures contracts in advance of the closing range, which they planned to, and for the most part did, sell during the closing range. The Complaint also alleges that defendants held large short natural gas financially-settled swaps positions, primarily held on the IntercontinentalExchange (ICE). The settlement price of the ICE swaps is based on the NYMEX natural gas futures settlement price determined by trading done during the closing range on expiry day. The Complaint alleges that defendants intended to lower the prices of the NYMEX natural gas futures contracts to benefit defendants’ larger swaps positions on ICE and elsewhere.

So a failed attempt to drive down natural gas prices for a day is evidence that speculators have been increasing the price of oil for years?

quote:

Hop similiar market minipulation has been going on for years in all kinds of commodities. Enron is a nice little example don't you think. maybe you don't believe that one either though.

The Enron scam worked very differently. Firstly they had control over some electricity production, secondly they were operating in a market that was partly government controlled. They were able to manipulate the market because the price the power companies sold power to consumers at was capped by the government, but the price the generators generators charged was not.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report concluded that Enron's manipulations were only possible because of the government control over the market.

Oil is very different. It's not a commodity regulated by aq state government, it's traded on exchanges all over the world.

quote:

The report is esentially letting the commission which is responsible for this major blunder investgate themselves..

It's the same conclusion the EIA and IEA both reached. They aren't financial watchdogs, they study international energy.

quote:

Nobody is denying there's speculation on oil. But there is no evidence that is changing the price, and plenty of evidence it isn't.

There's a lot of speculation on which horse will win a race, too, but no one suggests the more money placed on a horse, the faster it will run.

You know I see all your conclusions and your data and then I see this..

Wall Street Lobbies to Protect Speculative Oil Trades

In a pair of lengthy and sometimes testy closed-door sessions in the Senate last week, executives from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, two of Wall Street's largest investment banks, made the case that their multibillion-dollar investments in energy contracts have not led to higher oil prices. Rather, they told Democratic staff members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the trades allow international markets to operate efficiently and that the run-up in oil prices results not from speculation but from actual imbalances of supply and demand.

But the executives were met with skepticism and occasional hostility. "Spare us your lecture about supply and demand," one of the Democratic aides said, abruptly cutting off one of the executives, according to a staff member in the room.

Another aide at the meetings warned the executives that no matter what arguments they muster, it would be hard to prevent Congress from acting. Referring to a vote earlier this year to impose new mileage standards on automobile makers, the aide said, "At 90 bucks a barrel, Congress rolled the autos for the first time in 30 years -- is it too much to think that Congress will impose more restrictions on you if oil goes to $150 dollars a barrel?"

Goldman and Morgan declined to comment about the meetings.

Separately, lobbyists for the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) and other financial entities such as hedge funds roamed through congressional office buildings this month and, in the Senate, left behind short policy statements that defended the current state of regulation. "Blaming speculation for the increase in energy prices is to confuse causation and correlation," one of the documents said.

But time is running short. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the federal agency that regulates oil trading, has drawn the increasing ire of lawmakers for exempting financial firms from rules that limit speculative buying, a prerogative usually reserved for airlines and trucking companies that need to lock in future fuel costs. The CFTC has also waived regulations on U.S. investors who trade commodities on some overseas markets, allowing them to accumulate large quantities of the future oil supply by making purchases on lightly regulated foreign exchanges.


Under pressure from lawmakers, the CFTC and its British counterpart agreed Tuesday to impose new limits on the trading of the United States' benchmark oil contract on a London exchange. Such trading of West Texas intermediate oil contracts has been occurring beyond the purview of U.S. regulators on the London platform, the Intercontinental Exchange.

The move did not go far enough to satisfy some Democrats who criticized the CFTC for abdicating the job of policing overseas oil traders to the Intercontinental Exchange.

Until recently, Congress had been reluctant to intervene in the energy futures markets, and the lobbying by financial entities has been a major reason. "We have known since 2001 that there were problems here, but we've run up against people on Wall Street who don't want to be helpful in policing the market," said Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), one of several lawmakers frustrated by the effectiveness of the financial lobby.


I believe I will draw my further conclusions in sept the same as the trading commission is.

Thanks for pushing me into looking into this further, It is quite interesting . Especially when the Saudi's own oil analysts say speculators are driving this market..

It looks like the next election will come down to a choice of personal priorities: Do you want affordable gas or do you want to keep your guns!! (LOL)

quote:

Originally posted by stalkervision:
found this article kind if interesting outlaw...

...

What utter rubbish..

Keeping in mind that the article you quoted is from March of 2006...

It's not rubbish, it's simple economics. Building a greenfield refinery will be in the 15-20 billion dollar range. Upgrading operating sites to reach the production goals makes use of existing facilities such as telecom, instrumentation, control rooms, domestic supply and treatment services, emergency services, utility systems (plant air, instrument air, steam, nitrogen, cooling water, potable water, power recovery, etc.), engineering, maintenance, loading/unloading, warehousing, available labor, potential new labor, and hundreds of others.

Furthermore, simply having space doesn't do much for you if there is no nearby labor force and/or municipal facilities available. Obviously I can't say if that is a factor in any of Bush's offered sites but I can guarantee you that if it was a profitable way to increase production then engineering would already be started.

--Outlaw.