Traders Blamed for Oil Spike, CFTC reversed previous findings

[Misthos]

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

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.

It is... but look at the big picture, when oil goes to $300 a barrel, and if demand is still the same as today or worse, those 200 extra ships are giving us a marginal savings - at 300 a barrel, we would still be worse off than we are today without all those ships.

It's just a question of when oil goes to $300 a barrel - or some other incredibly high figure.

 

[indahook]

Quote from 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 ...

Yup.

As always is the ultra spin to benefit the politico de jour.

As the CFTC will find specs excessive participation are the affect, they should find that easy credit from the fed and lack of oversight in OTC markets are the cause.

Government is the root of the problem. And they want us to think otherwise.

 

[timcar]

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?

Seriously is this not the “PLOT” of all James Bond(007) movies ever made?

What happens if the price of Oil collapses during that 5 year plan?

 

[piezoe]

Quote from TraderZones:

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

You may be correct, though i am quite surprised. When i checked the heats of combustion per carbon atom for various straight-chain, branch chain, and cyclic hydrocarbons i was surprised to find that methane does produce about 1/4 more energy per its lone carbon than an average of the other hydrocarbons per carbon. The difference between 1/4 and 1/3 might well be due to differences in the heats of vaporization for methane and ordinary liquid petrol.

Obviously you will get one molecule of CO2 per carbon for both methane and petrol. My assumption of needing to burn nearly the same number of carbon atoms per mile regardless of whether the fuel is liquid or gaseous hydrocarbon is, however, apparently wrong.

One more good reason why we should give serious consideration to replacing gasoline with methane in the U.S.!

 

[achilles28]

Quote from indahook:



As the CFTC will find specs excessive participation are the affect, they should find that easy credit from the fed and lack of oversight in OTC markets are the cause.

Government is the root of the problem. And they want us to think otherwise.

Spot On.

 

[SplitFire]

Is the CFTC gonna screw small oil traders with higher margins
Requirements or another type of limits?

Not about limits to the big boys only anymore,the talks are about all
players..