Traders Blamed for Oil Spike, CFTC reversed previous findings

[Misthos]

Quote from TraderZones:


As it is, one day, there is going to be a tremendous breakthrough in solar or another alternative that is going to make oil an also ran. Whatever it is, is going to be considerably cheaper than oil, and not have the carbon footprint.

There is nothing that approaches oil's power. One barrel of oil gives us the equivalent of 25,000 hours of human labor. And it costs just dollars to extract. You can't push a cargo tanker across the Atlantic Ocean w/ wind or solar.... just can't. I don't see anything on the horizon that can replace oil for major uses... I'm not talking taking a trip to the supermarket, I'm talking shipping, airlines, tanks, heavy industrial equipment, large combines....

I also believe that we have reached Peak Oil. And we will be seeing the effects within a decade. Then things will get real interesting. You think we're in a crisis now... just wait for oil prices to start rising permanently. It will affect everything.

 

[ByLoSellHi]

Quote from Misthos:


I also believe that we have reached Peak Oil. And we will be seeing the effects within a decade. Then things will get real interesting. You think we're in a crisis now... just wait for oil prices to start rising permanently. It will affect everything.

I don't know if I agree or not, LONG TERM (I definitely don't agree near term), but have you read 'The Fourth Turning?'

It's highly supportive of your position, in addition to many of mine.

Some people call me pessimistic, but I swear I'm just a realist.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=171451

 

[Misthos]

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

I don't know if I agree or not, LONG TERM (I definitely don't agree near term), but have you read 'The Fourth Turning?'

It's highly supportive of your position, in addition to many of mine.

Some people call me pessimistic, but I swear I'm just a realist.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=171451

I haven't read it... but thanks for the link, I'll read it tonight.

Yeah, I don't like to consider myself a pessimist either - but a realist. And the reality that is coming our way will change everyone's life forever. People have no idea. Most can't juggle several concepts in their head at once, maybe that's why.

We've reached peak civilization.... The two things that created and influenced our current civilization, much of our technologies, our population explosion, and standard of living, are coming to an end.

What are those things? Cheap Oil and Cheap Credit. Within ten years, neither will be the same. Credit will rebound as it normally does after a generation or two. Oil - I just don't see such a cheap form of energy that will replace what we have now - in terms of both power and cost. The laws of thermodynamics have limits, you know?

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Kassz007:

On the topic of GS buying and storing oil on tankers:

Why shouldn't they be allowed to do this? If they are buying the oil, they should be able to do whatever they want with it. Put it on a spaceship and send it to the moon, who cares. They are gobbling up supply by doing this, so of course prices should rise. How is this different than anyone else who purchases oil and in turn consumes it? For all we know, GS is taking that oil supply and will sit on it for 5 years, effectively removing that oil from supply. Am I missing something here?

Your question is a good one. Is it possible that there are certain speculative activities that have the potential to be so disruptive to the economy that there is a proper role for government to step in and regulate? I'm not necessarily concluding anything here, but rather just raising the question.

I also thought ByLo's question for Sell'em was a good one. It might well be good for society in the long run if oil prices are allowed to rise, as that does encourage both conservation and development of new energy sources. It would not be inconsistent, however, to take that stand yet be in favor of Government oversight of energy futures speculation, as there are ways to achieve high prices other than by speculation, which has the great disadvantage of leading to price volatility. For example, another way to achieve higher prices would be to do what the Europeans have done. They tax petrol at a high rate and use to proceeds to subsidize more energy-efficient mass transit. That policy encourages conservation and spurs development of new energy sources without disruptive, rapid price swings.

I'm not taking a position here, but merely pointing out that there are several legitimate points of view on this issue. All should be heard.

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from Misthos:

You can't push a cargo tanker across the Atlantic Ocean w/ wind or solar.... just can't.

On the contrary. These are already starting to be used, and are expected to cut oil use 30-35%:

 

[piezoe]

Quote from TraderZones:

Seems a lot easier to keep it in the ground.

Oil is finite. The oil producers manage to keep shooting themselves in the foot, promising each other to cut production, then cheating on their quotas.

If they cut another 25% of production, OPEC could rule the world and get $100-$150 a barrel. Chindia is sopping up the excess, and the world won't be economically depressed forever.

As it is, one day, there is going to be a tremendous breakthrough in solar or another alternative that is going to make oil an also ran. Whatever it is, is going to be considerably cheaper than oil, and not have the carbon footprint.

It is amazing already that there is not a huge market in CNG vehicles in the USA, seeing how we are floating in Natural Gas and it creates a lot less CO2. Only the Honda Civic fields a credible alternative CNG vehicle. It is also only a matter of time before they add massive amounts of new discoveries in addition to the recent ones.

I am all for using natural gas in vehicles but it produces virtually the same amount of CO2 per equivalent amount of energy obtained as gasoline. Remember that you will have to burn virtually the same number of carbon atoms whether you're burning gasoline of methane to produce the same amount of energy.

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from piezoe:

I am all for using natural gas in vehicles but it produces virtually the same amount of CO2 per equivalent amount of energy obtained as gasoline. Remember that you will have to burn virtually the same number of carbon atoms whether you're burning gasoline of methane to produce the same amount of energy.

CO2 produces about 1/3 less CO2. IT also produces far less of other pollutants

 

[Kicking]

As a trader, you do not need any proof of this, it was obvious .
I suspect those who claimed it was demand were just talking their books as always, the vast majority of people in the business said it was demand. Crooks and people talking their books, tell me something new ...

 

[Misthos]

Quote from TraderZones:

On the contrary. These are already starting to be used, and are expected to cut oil use 30-35%:

I've seen this before, and that's cool as hell. And I admit 35% cost savings is huge, but nonetheless, you still use oil; this is merely an assist to a petroleum driven craft. But imagine Oil hitting 300 a barrel - yeah, the 35% savings helps, but the detriment of such high costs to the economy makes it look irrelevant.

This is a delay of consequences, not an improved/cheaper replacement to oil that will spare us the damage to our economy.

Cool technology though.

 

[ByLoSellHi]

Quote from Misthos:

I've seen this before, and that's cool as hell. And I admit 35% cost savings is huge, but nonetheless, you still use oil; this is merely an assist to a petroleum driven craft. But imagine Oil hitting 300 a barrel - yeah, the 35% savings helps, but the detriment of such high costs to the economy makes it look irrelevant.

This is a delay of consequences, not an improved/cheaper replacement to oil that will spare us the damage to our economy.

Cool technology though.

Well, if you have a fleet of 600 ships, it's like having 200+ of them requiring no fuel at all, based on the annual fuel savings.