(Xinhua) -- Over 50,000 individuals have applied for accreditation as local observers for Zimbabwe's presidential election run-off set for June 27 while the government said on Tuesday it would cut the number by 80 percent.
Who needs observers? Result is already known ...
Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Patrick Chinamasa told a media briefing that the government would ask organizations that applied to reduce the number of observers for each institution to allow for a smooth running of the election. At least 10,000 observers would be adequate, Chinamasa said, adding that this was likely to tally with the number of polling stations to be set up for the crucial poll.
In the March 29 harmonized elections, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission set up 9,158 polling stations countrywide. 'Given the situation, it is clear that our electoral system cannot accommodate that number without disturbing the smooth flow of the electoral system,' he said.
The minister added that the government would also take the opportunity to screen the local observers. 'We want to be clear and sure that they are independent,' he said. 'Observation can only be conferred to those who are neutral, who have no preconceived views about the situation they are going to observe.'
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
The World Council of Churches (WCC) on Wednesday called for United Nations action to put an end to 'atrocities' committed by the Zimbabwe authorities in advance of June 27 run-off presidential elections.
How, exactly?
In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, WCC General Secretary Samuel Kobia of Kenya said his organisation was 'dismayed at news of the brutality meted out by police and other government forces' in Zimbabwe. Kobia said the WCC, which groups Protestant and Orthodox churches representing more than 560 million Christians in over 110 countries, 'calls for an end to atrocities in Zimbabwe'.
'Harassment, beatings, arrests and ransacking of property have already extended into the churches as well as agencies of civil society,' the WCC letter declared. 'Where the Mugabe government fails in its responsibility to protect the Zimbabwean people, the international community must assume that burden; in this endeavour, the United Nations should assume a leading role,' Kobia said.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
When the papers are full of reports like that immolation of an opposition politician's wife, could Reuters man up and stop dropping scare quotes around perfectly accurate descriptive words like atrocity?
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
06/19/2008 8:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I believe this is also known as "The blind leading the blind"...
#4
Mugabe's narrow ass is covered with WCC lipstick.
See what happened to the real first black prime minister of Zimbabwe. Name of Abel Muzorewa, a Methodist bishop.
Even the US Methodists didn't think he was marxist enough.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
06/19/2008 13:30 Comments ||
Top||
#5
United Nations action
There's an oxymoron for you.
Posted by: Matt ||
06/19/2008 14:55 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"could Reuters man up and stop dropping scare quotes around perfectly accurate descriptive words like atrocity?"
No.
Particularly the "man up" part.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/19/2008 16:24 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"I hope the UN hurries their lunch...I lost my ass last election cycle."
-Cunegonde's servant
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga Wednesday condemned action against opposition politicians in Zimbabwe in advance of that country's June 27 presidential run-off election. Mr. Odinga called for the dispatch of an international peacekeeping force to Zimbabwe.
Sure. Look at all the good they've done Somalia and Congo.
Send in the mighty Uruguayans!
The Bush administration has said it would support the holding of the run-off as scheduled, as long as Zimbabwe's opposition leaders are still ready to participate.
But Prime Minister Odinga is taking a much harsher line, saying that Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has made a sham of the proceedings, and that a Bosnia-style international force should be sent to Zimbabwe so that free elections can 'eventually' be held.
Both Rice and the Kenyan leader spoke to reporters about Zimbabwe as they began a set of talks here in Mr. Odinga's first Washington visit since the resolution of Kenya's post-election political crisis earlier this year.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
theyve done a fair amount of good in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and, IIUC, Ivory Coast. I suspect, given the particular situation on the ground in Zimbabwe, they might well be a good idea. Esp if the alternative is leaving Mugabe in power.
#2
The difference in those countries was that a blood-letting had taken place, or there was already a transition in progress, or it was got to early enough.
Zimbabwe will be difficult, if not impossible at this point, as a peacekeeping operation. It's too late to be a pre-emptive action. For all their talk, Zim's neighbors are and will remain passive about dealing with a fellow African 'revolutionary', so there won't be any local support. There hasn't been the usual African massacre-for-all (yet); there's plenty of arms, ammo, and 'war veterans'.
Any UN force inserted is going to be iffy given the political situations. The French dealt with the Ivory Coast because of their interest in it. The British were in Liberia and Sierra Leone, but it really is debatable whether they would participate with more than a token force. Same with Australia, et al. The other options are ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States), the AU or the stock Third-World-supplied UN forces. These are severely lacking in transport and logistics. And we've seen how well that's being played with Sudan.
The wild cards would be China and Pakistan. The latter has provided contract advisors (and pilots) to Mugabe's forces. And given China's interest in the country (and their long-standing support of ZANU-PF), it'd be like inviting the proverbial fox to a hen-fest.
Nope. If Mugabe and ZANU-PF are listening to their advisors, it'll stay at a slow simmer. Just hot enough to keep the diplomats yelping, but just low key enough to achieve their (and their patron's) objectives.
Folk musicians from the south-east of Benin played for dignitaries at the 10th summit of the Community of Sahelo-Saharan states, known as CEN-SAD, but it was Muammar Gaddafi who was the star of the event.
Speaking through a French translator, the Libyan president railed against other African organizations including the continent-wide African Union, saying it was not accomplishing anything. He said the decisions of the African Union had no effect. He also said there were too many smaller regional African organizations, saying this allowed outsiders to divide and control the continent. He also said summits just made it possible for African leaders to go to fancy hotels, while civil strife continued unabated.
During his speech, he also lashed out against the French-proposed Mediterranean Union to link Europe with six countries of North Africa, saying this too would divide Africa.
CEN-SAD, which was created in 1998, has its headquarters in Tripoli. The Libyan leader said it is the only successful African organization.
The main theme of the summit was tackling food security, but Beninese commentator Eguedji Gaston says this was overshadowed by whatever the Libyan leader was saying.
He says it seems it was a summit to make leaders "more comfortable in their plush seats." He says the Libyan leader likes CEN-SAD because he is in control.
Gaston believes President Gaddafi lost some of the limelight when he sorted out his problems with the United States, so he has turned to African unity under his leadership as a new pursuit. He says money that is sent from Libya helps African countries build new buildings, but that Africa needs more than buildings.
A Cotonou journalist, Ehoumi Guy Constant, was even angrier, accusing the Libyan president of creating more divisions. "I know that this summit in Cotonou is of no use. Because, I do not know why people are used to create summit, to create organizations, instead of staying in unity. We know that we have AU [African Union]," said Constant. "People are supposed to back it and do everything in order to have only one union together to go forward in all the negotiations."
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
(Bloomberg) -- U.K. lawmakers ratified the European Union's new governing treaty, sparking opposition claims that Britain is trying to pressure Ireland into holding a new referendum. The Lisbon treaty bill cleared its final reading in the House of Lords, meaning it passes into law. The upper chamber of Parliament also rejected by 33 votes a motion to delay ratification until later this year.
The decision means that 19 of the EU's 27 countries have cleared the treaty, which is intended to streamline how the bloc is run and would establish a European president and foreign minister. Irish voters rejected the agreement in a referendum last week. With the British among the most hostile to the treaty, the opposition Conservative Party accused the government of trying to ``bully'' Ireland into rerunning the ballot.
``By closing off our options this afternoon, we help those who wish to do so put pressure on Ireland,'' Lord Charles Leach, whose Conservative Party had urged the government to declare the treaty dead after the Irish rejection, said during debate today.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown travels to Brussels tomorrow to discuss the future of the treaty with other EU leaders.
While the Lords' vote is a technical victory for Brown, it pits him against public opinion, which is skeptical both of the treaty and the EU in general. Only 14 percent of British voters agreed with the statement that ``the government should carry on and ratify the Lisbon Treaty,'' according to a poll by YouGov Plc published yesterday.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If the European Union is to become one country, then France and/or England should give up their permanent seat on the UN Security council, and all of Europe should have only one in the General Assembly.
Of course, the EUrocrats won't do that.
And oh, by the way, if any other countries are stupid enough to allow the hoi polloi to vote on the treaty, they had better be sure ahead of time that the peasants will approve it.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
06/19/2008 0:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
If this were Texas, while he is out of town, his mansion would burn to the ground. Then again, lots of lords, lots of mansions, lots of people with no spine. I wonder what the Brit soldiers think when they go home.
Former Cuban President Fidel Castro's appearance in a televised video on Tuesday night put to rest the latest rumors of his imminent demise and suggested he still plays a significant role in Cuba's government.
Castro, 81, looked vigorous as he chatted with his close ally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and his brother, Cuban President Raul Castro, in a sun-dappled garden in the first public images of the ailing former leader since mid-January.
The man who took power in a 1959 revolution and led Cuba for 49 years has not been seen in public since undergoing intestinal surgery in July 2006, but has surfaced sporadically in videos and photographs shown in the island's state-run media.
Even though he writes occasional newspaper columns and the government has said he remains involved in policy-making, Fidel Castro's five-month absence from public view had fed speculation that his health problems, of which little has been disclosed, were worsening and the end was near.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Former Cuban President Fidel Castro's appearance in a televised video on Tuesday..
Gunmen have killed the police administrative director in the violent Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez, the latest high-profile killing in Mexico's drug war, police said on Wednesday. Silvia Molina was shot outside her house on Monday night by suspected drug hitmen, the first public official in Ciudad Juarez's city police force to be targeted.
'She was shot 10 times as she was parking her car,' a police spokesman said. Molina's body was found with a message signed by suspected drug hitmen who said they were working for Mexico's most wanted man, Joaquin 'Shorty' Guzman.
Molina's administrative team and the director of the city police academy resigned on Tuesday in protest at her murder, temporarily leaving the city police force without officials to pay salaries and deal with accounting issues.
About 460 people have been killed in Ciudad Juarez this year -- the greatest concentration of drug killings in the country. Guzman's drug gangs from northwestern Sinaloa state are battling the local Juarez cartel for control of smuggling routes to the United States. Ciudad Juarez is across the border from El Paso, Texas.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Russian investigators yesterday charged four men in connection with the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya, adding that the preliminary inquiry into her death was now over. They said they had charged three men with involvement in the killing of Politkovskaya, who was shot dead outside her Moscow apartment in October 2006, and an officer from the Federal Security Service (FSB) - Russia's post-KGB spy agency - with extortion and abuse of office. All four have been in prison since August.
The investigators have apparently been unable to identify who ordered Politkovskaya's killing. Officials have publicly accused a Chechen, Rustam Makhmudov, 34, as being the hit man. He has eluded arrest, with investigators saying he may have fled abroad. Two of those charged yesterday are Makhmudov's brothers - Dzhabrail and Ibragim, also from Chechnya. The third suspect, Sergei Khadzhikurbanov, is a police officer.
The fourth man, Pavel Ryaguzov, a lieutenant colonel in the FSB, was charged in relation to other crimes. Officials have previously accused him of supplying the killers with Politkovskaya's address and other details. Yesterday Politkovskaya's colleagues at Novaya Gazeta, the small liberal newspaper where she worked, said they were sceptical that the investigation had got to the bottom of her murder. 'Only part of the case is over,' the paper's chief editor, Sergei Sokolov, said. 'We need to wait for a court case until we can judge anyone's guilt.'
And notice that none of this leads anywhere close to Putin. What a coincidence ...
Politkovskaya, 48, was shot dead in the lift to her apartment block. A young man was captured on CCTV trailing her in a supermarket. He shot her twice in the chest before administering a coup de grace to the head. Her murder was linked to her reporting from Chechnya, where she wrote about human rights abuses by Russian and Chechen forces during two Kremlin wars, and to her fearless criticism of Vladimir Putin's regime.
Nine people were arrested last year in connection with her death. Officials have released five suspects, allegedly due to lack of evidence. The investigators confirmed they were dropping charges against one of those released, Shamil Burayev, a regional Chechen official.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/19/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Personally. I've been times attempting to research on the Net iff there is any connection bwtn the death of Politkovskaya and my friend Model-Spook Longinova, and for that matter KVerona, espec vv the NUCLEAR LINK???
LONDON (Reuters) - Oil fell $3 to $133 a barrel on Thursday on news that China will raise retail gasoline and diesel prices for the first time in 8 months, which will curb demand in the world's second largest energy consumer. Soaring energy use in China has been one of the main factors driving oil prices to a record near $140.
'This is very significant, a watershed move which suggests the Chinese government is prepared to risk unpopularity to curb the growth in domestic fuel demand,' said John Kemp, an economist at RBS Sempra.'We've already seen other Asian economies cut subsidies and the big one to hold out, until now, was China.'
The move comes just days before an emergency meeting on Sunday in Saudi Arabia between consumers and producers to discuss soaring oil prices. U.S. crude fell $3 to $133.68 a barrel before firming a touch to stand $2.50 lower at $134.18 at 1414 GMT. London's Brent crude was $2.42 lower at $134.02.
China is to raise retail fuel prices by 1,000 yuan ($145.50) a tonne from Friday to help recoup losses in the face of record crude prices, industry sources told Reuters. Back of the envelope calculation shows its about 47 cents a gallon. It looks like it could definitely do something in the medium term, before the Olympics, maybe not,' said James Crandell of Lehman Brothers Energy Research in New York.
Earlier, oil had rallied to over $137 after rebels from Nigeria's oil producing Niger Delta warned oil and gas tankers to avoid the region or risk being attacked. The rebel Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta also said it might carry out further attacks on oil facilities after gunmen caused the shutdown of production at the Bonga field earlier on Thursday. Bongas pumps an average of around 220,000 barrels per day.
Nigeria is already producing about 20 percent below its potential, contributing to the rally in oil prices to a record high near $140 earlier in the week. Its output has suffered from a violent campaign of sabotage by militants in its southern Niger Delta, the heartland of its oil industry.
News that Goldman Sachs has raised its oil price forecasts further on continued supply tightness, had supported prices. Oil would average $117 a barrel this year, compared with its previous estimate of $108, and price would average $140 next year, Goldman Sachs said.
Traders say the market is cautious ahead of the emergency meeting this weekend between producers and consumers in Saudi Arabia. The White House said on Wednesday it was not expecting Saudi Arabia to announce an output increase in Jeddah.
#3
They were about $3 a gallon. The new price will be about $3.50 a gallon. A lot of new Chinese motorists are weekend drivers. This won't put much of a dent in that traffic, but I expect a lot of people who currently drive to work daily to begin carpooling. There are also those who drive to work and stay in company dormitories - typically when the workplace is 30 miles or more away from home - during the workweek. I expect the frequency of trips back home to decline somewhat.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has just unveiled a strikingly ambitious new plan for a joint European military force and identity, has an interesting sense of timing.
He launched his bold proposals for a new EU aircraft carrier task force, along with a common air transport and logistics command and common procurement systems, on June 16.
Characteristically, Sarkozy was very generous with other countries' assets. He suggested the German navy contribute frigates and logistics units to an aircraft carrier battle group that will sail under a European flag. The carrier itself, however, would have to come from Britain's Royal Navy, since France's Chicken of the SeaCharles de Gaulle carrier spends so much of its time in harbor being repaired. Despite earlier promises of a joint design and construction plan with Britain for new carriers, Sarkozy has now put off until 2012 any decision to build another carrier, with its estimated cost of $4 billion.
The reason is simple: There is no cash left in the French treasury. He also told Merkel that France probably will have to delay building a planned new nuclear submarine.
Sarkozy's explanation to Merkel of his financial squeeze puts a new cast on the grandiose unveiling this week in Paris of the country's new defense strategy, to trim and restructure the French military.
The army will lose 10 percent of its troops, some 13,000 men. The air force will lose more than 20 percent, another 13,000 personnel, but 88,000 of the future army of 130,000 are supposed to be available for swift deployment overseas. The navy will also lose 20 percent of its effectives, another 10,000 sailors. The civilian support staff will also lose 18,000 jobs. The idea is to build a leaner and more deployable military, more attuned to fighting terrorism, helping with humanitarian emergencies and U.N. missions and mounting swift expeditionary forces and working with coalitions.
Defense Minister Herve Morin, writing in Le Monde this week, said the idea was to make the French more like their British allies. France currently has 60 percent of its troops in support and administrative roles and only 40 percent available for operations -- the reverse of the more agile and leaner British forces, Morin noted. France could not really operate alongside its British and U.S. allies on the same battlefield, and that had to change.
So the new defense plan is to try to save money while shrinking and modernizing the military, phasing out many of the 471 military bases in France and in Africa, closing the vast barracks that used to house the country's conscripts and cutting back 150 tanks from its armored divisions. Money will go instead to intelligence satellites and to a new generation of small and agile armored vehicles and cruise missiles and submarines.
But by deploying these forces within a European defense structure, with common units like the aircraft carrier task force, France hopes to get far more geopolitical bang for its buck. One aspect of this will be, if the terms are right, to bring France back into NATO's joint military command for the first time since 1966, when President de Gaulle walked out in protest at being refused a say in the deployment and use of U.S. nuclear weapons on French soil.
In return for rejoining NATO as a full member, France is insisting on a top-ranking command, preferably a French admiral in charge of the Mediterranean, although the United States would not want its Sixth Fleet under even the most nominal French orders. And neither France nor Italy wants the Mediterranean airspace coming under French command.
The European parliament has passed tough new immigration guidelines that sparked protests on the part of human rights groups and some lawmakers. European governments had already approved the new immigration measures, but they still awaited passage by the European parliament. That happened Wednesday.
The guidelines allow the European Union's 27 members to hold illegal immigrants for up to 18 months in special detention centers before deporting them. That is considerably longer than current detention policies in most EU countries - but members are not required to adopt the longer limits.
Those expelled also face a five-year re-entry ban applicable for the entire bloc. But governments must first give the immigrants a chance to leave the country voluntarily - and they are required to offer those detained free legal advice and other basic rights.
Those supporting the measures, including EU Commissioner Jacques Barrot, argue they safeguard rights for legal immigrants while setting common European standards for illegal ones. Barrot says Europe does not want to be a closed fortress. It will continue to welcome immigrants from elsewhere - just as it does now - and remain faithful to offering asylum to those needing it. But he says the European Union cannot accept illegal immigration, which he argues is not fair to anyone.
But critics like Nicolas Berger, director of Amnesty International's Brussels office, whined claim the new immigration guidelines are unfair. 'We have mainly got two concerns about this reform directive,' Berger said. 'One is the length of detention. People [can] get detained for one-and-a-half years and these are people who have not committed any crime.'
Amnesty is also worried that the five-year re-entry ban could hurt those who truly need asylum. 'Europe is for us going in the wrong direction here quite a bit in terms of continuing this discourse of scapegoating immigrants, of putting immigrants and asylum seekers in the same box as criminals and connecting them to terrorism without looking at reality and individual cases,' Berger said.
About eight million illegal immigrants reside in the European Union, according to the bloc's estimates. More than 200,000 were arrested in the first half of last year - but less than 90,000 were expelled.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Very unpleasant, pavlovian, associations that are by the way the everyday bread of the various orgs opposed to any kind of control over the massive immigration flooded Europe, and that at least partly fuel a renewed antisemitism from the ethnic europeans, because this associate the european jewry (which by large is not concerned by that) to this guilt-racket.
The infamous "this reminds of the Darkest Hours Of Our History" (meaning Vichy, not meaning the 20% of an age class killed in WWI) and the assorted WWII vocabulary used by the usual suspects... because any half-hearted effort to control immigration is Racism and Nazism.
So, really, G(r)om, a big, deep yawn to your europeanophobia, as it is really tired and overused here.
House Democrats responded to President's Bush's call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. This was at an on-camera press conference fed back live.
Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply.
They also reasserted that the reason the Appropriations Committee markup (where the vote on the amendment to lift the ban) was cancelled so they could focus on preparing the supplemental Iraq spending bill for tomorrow.
At an off-camera briefing, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said the same. And a senior Republican House Appropriations Committee aide adds that "there were multiple reasons for the postponement" including discussion on the supplemental. But the aide said there was the thought that Democrats may wish to avoid a debate today on energy amendments.
Here are the highlights from briefing
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling
1115
We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.
#6
the quote is from one guy, hinchey. It does not support the headline.
Its not hitler-stalin - lots of democratic countries have had nationalized oil companies over the years. Its also probably not a great idea, would probably increase costs and reduce efficiency.
Has anyone checked the directions of gasoline prices vs Crude lately? My understanding is that its pretty clear that the crude price is currently driving the gasoline price, in which case clearly refineries arent a key factor.
#7
We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.
That noise you just heard was the collective sphincter of Democrat leadership tightening up. Proposing Big Government solutions at a time when public opinion of the government is at all time low is stupid. But using Hugo Chavez as the model for industry in an election year is just plain moronic. Besides that, the talking points that work for the Sierra Club aint cutting it with the Teamsters. If the Dems were smart they would reluctantly agree on lifting the federal moratorium and let the States do their dirty work. Of course, the key word in that last statement was if.
#9
Actually, we have federal land which we could lease for 99 years and can be made not subject to NIMBY local and state regulations. Building a couple plants, east and west coast, that don't compete on the market and used for national security purposes, rather than then DoD having to buy on the open market, has precedent. I suspect that DoD won't have to produce 128 different EPA standard blends and can project baseline needs, supplementing when necessary off the commercial market. That could free up commercial capacity. Use that to go back into their face and say 'you demonstrate first you can do it cheaper and better' then come talk to us. Of course they can't and won't.
#11
Y'know, I wonder how many pension funds hold petroleum-related company securities? How many teacher and labor pensions are dependent on high rates of returns Exxon-Mobil, etc., ?
#13
Another reaaally good Dummocrat idea. Let's make Maxine(I have a Big Mouth/Small Brain)Waters the Oil Commissar. See how quick evry form of commerce is shut down.
Good comments P2K.
#14
Re: #11 - mrp, nonsense. Everybody knows that only rich people own stocks, especially in environmentally evil companies like oil.
Or at least Democrats know that.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
06/19/2008 12:08 Comments ||
Top||
#15
"Its not hitler-stalin"
The only difference is degree. It would certainly be a step in the hitler-stalin direction and away from what works.
"Then we can control how much gets out into the market."
Who here thinks Hinchey intends to supply *more* gas to the market? Anyone?
#19
So owning the refineries is going to magically make oil appear at the terminals at lower cost and in whatever amount we need?
These people are LOOTERS! They have no idea how to produce anything, and treat production and markets as "magic". They are thugs who think if they simply squeeze harder, they'll get more eggs from the goose. They have no idea how to produce anything, only how to take it from others.
Ayn Rand may have been more prophetic than I com comfortable with in Atlas Shrugged.
Someone wanna steer me to Galt's Gulch when the time comes?
#29
Translated into slacker: House Demoglorps call for nationalization of refineries
House Demoglorps responded to King's Bush's call for CON-gress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. This was at an on-camera press conference fed back live. Frck 'em if they can't take a joke.
Among other conspiracies, the Demoglorps called for the conspiracy to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply. GET SLACK!
They also reasserted that the un-reason the Appropriations Cabal markup (where the vote on the amendment to lift the ban) was cancelled so they could focus on preparing the supplemental Iraq spending bill for tomorrow.
At an off-camera briefing, House Majority LOSER Steny Hoyer (D-MD) fibbed the same. Frck 'em if they can't take a joke. And a senior Republipink House Appropriations Cabal aide adds that 'there were multiple reasons for the postponement' including discussion on the supplemental. But the aide fibbed there was the thought that Demoglorps may wish to avoid a debate today on energy amendments.
Here are the highlights from briefing
Conspirator Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Cabal and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling:
We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how MUCH gets out into the market.
In the thousands of emails Ive received in the year that Corbett has been on the air, I have not received a single death threat - until yesterday.
We will kill you when Obama become PRESIDENT OF USA., the email reads. You would see!!!
Most death threats do not result in death.
But some do.
What makes this threat to kill me all the more mysterious is that it appears to have been sent through Barack Obamas official campaign website barackobama.com the website that sends me official announcements of Obamas campaign comings and goings.
To make matters worse, the email is signed Michelle Michelle & Axelrod.
I took Axelrod to be David Axelrod, Obamas Chicago-based chief strategist.
Michelle Michelle was odd, but I had received an earlier email yesterday that I also read on the air. That one called me anti-American, added a four-letter flourish and advised me to shut up.
That one bore the name Michelle Obama, who is Baracks wife.
Both emails came to me under the email heading of Michelle Obama [michelle.obama@barackobama.com]. Both emails came to me under the subject line Fight the smears against Barack Obama and originated from barackobama.com.
I had received an earlier email from the campaign that was legitimate. Also sent from barackobama.com, it alerted me to Obamas planned campaign stops in Philadelphia. Thats why I figured that the next email that seemingly originated from the same place was legit.
But how could I possibly get a death threat from the official Obama website?
With all the gushing news about how savvy the Obama campaign is in their high-tech internet ability, how could anybody send an email on the official website that threatens to kill somebody?
After asking this question on the air yesterday, I soon received an email of explanation not from anybody associated with the Obama campaign, through, but from a listener who walked me through the process of sending any email from the official Obama site with any message and bearing any name including Baracks.
Its so simple, the email explained, and so stupid.
Its so dangerous, too.
Ive received my share of threats over the years and took one seriously enough to alert Wilkes-Barre police as well as the FBI who launched an unsuccessful criminal investigation.
The idea that Obamas website can be so easily compromised is troubling. Thats why Im thinking about calling the cops and asking them to try to find out who threatened to kill me as soon as Obama becomes the president.
I could laugh and just say that I now have yet another reason to work against Obama winning the election.
But Im not laughing.
The emails Ive been receiving daily about my unwavering support for Hillary Clinton, including a particularly nasty one yesterday from an Obama volunteer in Wilkes-Barre, have become increasingly aggressive.
So have some of the calls to my show.
Now somebody has gone too far.
Obama needs to safeguard his website so this does not happen again to anybody.
If I sent the same message I got to the same email address from which it came, Secret Service agents would soon be looking for me as they should.
I need to know who did this.
I need to know if she/he or they are serious.
I need the sender or senders to know something, as well.
I always do my best to protect myself especially when you threaten to kill me
#1
I think he shouldn't consider it a death threat against himself, instead, he should immediately report it to the United States Secret Service, as a potential death threat against Obama.
This is not a joke, as forensic psychiatrists could point out that individuals who make death threats often carry them out -- but not against their named target -- against whoever is handy.
And with that logic, if whoever sent that death threat is anywhere in the proximity of candidate Obama, they most definitely represent a potential threat to his, Obama's life.
And protecting that life is the responsibility of the USSS.
In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.
'Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,' he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA 'devastating' and 'a big mistake,' despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy. . . . Obama's tone stands in marked contrast to his primary campaign's anti-NAFTA fusillades. The pact creating a North American free-trade zone was President Bill Clinton's signature accomplishment; but NAFTA is also the bugaboo of union leaders, grassroots activists and Midwesterners who blame free trade for the factory closings they see in their hometowns. . . .
In February, as the campaign moved into the Rust Belt, both candidates vowed to invoke a six-month opt-out clause ('as a hammer,' in Obama's words) to pressure Canada and Mexico to make concessions. . . . 'Cept he really didn't really mean it even then.
Now, however, Obama says he doesn't believe in unilaterally reopening NAFTA.
Pretty bald manuever to try and get closer to the center.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/19/2008 07:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is a reassuring move on Obama's part. He may be a normal, self-interested politician rather than a Marxist true believer. If so, expect to see MoveOn and the rest thrown under the bus once he is in office.
#3
NAFTA- A globalist scheme, set up and pushed through by a Democrat, now greedily coveted and protected by Republicans and wage scavenging billionaire industrialists. Trade corridor my ass, it was set up to bust unions and lower wages and overhead for companies, and that's just what it did. I don't give a rat's ass who reports it had a "mild, positive effect on the economy", that's bullshit. It quite possibly did have a positive effect to medium and large business OWNERS, but I've never met any working person who got a job out of NAFTA.
#4
Don't look now Jim but most of the world's "wage scavengin billionaire industrialists" are no longer US citizens and the certainly aren't setting up shop around here anymore.
#10
If I'm Barry, I'm not real sure if I want them standing behind me. Have them stand off to the side maybe. Or in front where I can see them and react to any sudden movements.
#11
The comparison of the two polls showed "Clinton's decision to suspend her campaign and endorse Obama seems to have produced little or no bouncer for Obama,"
President Bush and Republican presidential candidate John McCain are both calling for an end to a moratorium on developing oil and natural gas resources along much of the U.S. coastline. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opposes such a move, saying the country needs to move away from oil. Meanwhile, public-opinion polls show U.S. consumers favoring more development of domestic resources to offset high fuel prices.
Energy has become one of the main issues clearly dividing the two U.S. political parties as they prepare for their national conventions. With oil trading on the world market at above $130 a barrel, U.S. consumers are feeling the economic impact at the gasoline pump and in increased food prices.
During a speech Tuesday in Houston, Senator John McCain called for an end to a moratorium on energy development in coastal areas. 'The broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production,' he said.
The ban, which has been in effect since 1981, covers more than 80 percent of the U.S. coastline and the outer continental shelf. The ban was put in place to reduce the chances of environmental damage from oil spills and in part to protect the tourist industry.
Senator McCain once opposed development in coastal areas, but he says the rapidly rising cost of fuel makes it necessary. 'As a matter of fairness to the American people and a matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now and assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production,' he added.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Even the Pundits on CNN + MSNBC acknowledge that the DEMS want BIG GOVT. vv this oil drilling controversy.
#2
I've coverage of this issue on Fox over the couple of weeks and one important aspect didn't really come across.
In all likelyhood there is substantial oil there , but it would take years to produce, so won't affect petrol prices in the short to medium term.
However, proof of the oils existence can be used to fund massive developments (as Brazil has started to do) - in nuclear, coal liquidization, even 'shudder' solar.
Even a modest 2 million barels a day would produce $100 billion a year in revenue.
#3
philb - yes it WILL affect prices in the medium and short term.
Look at the markets. The peopel who are playign it specualtively, via margins and futures, are betting for a continuous rise in price due to constrained supplies and a weak dollar.
The minute you change that equatiosn the futures lose value and the margin calls loom for those who hold too long.
SO the markets move, and prices will stop the fast upward increase. Just by openign these places for drilling, it changes the equations on how fast and how far prices will go.
Once these peopel see the change coming, they'll find a better return eslwhere and sell. Once these sell orders come through, it will put a "top" on the increses - and that will pul the "momentum" traders out. Once they bail, the shorts will be all over it trying to make a buck by slaughtering the late longs who pulled out too late.
Eventually all this mess in the futures WILL flow back down to the intermediate markets and the cash markets.
And that will cause at least a "topping" effect to cut the rate of increase to nearly nothing, and may very well cause a drop in prices as more money comes out.
Look at the credit markets for an example ofhow the futures, speculators, and hedgers work to create and pop bubbles.
And its been 27 years - if not now, then when? Had we started 5 years ago in ANWR, we'd be coming online with full production. Has we started 10 years ago off the coasts, we be rolling it in now.
ANWR alone is estimated to bring in (via ripple effects) over 700,000 jobs to the US over-all (not just alaska), and boost tax revenues a ton.
Imagine what coastal drilling and mining the green river basin in CO-WY-ND-SD woudl do...
#4
Well, I am going to say something that O'Bama won't like. Everytime an opponent talks about "How" or "Why" something O'Bama stands for, O'Bama responds, "I will not let anyone lecture me on this issue!" (And I thought that is what we did, elect politicians to listen to us)
What I want O'Bama to answer is "How" we are going to "move away from Oil". I want a solid, probable solution. He doesn't even give decent recommendations with his stand on such issues.
#5
But, but, but---if we start drilling Saudis will stop my stipend.
Posted by: Your representative ||
06/19/2008 2:58 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Nobody knows how much oil could be produced from ANWR - and only a handful know for sure whether ANY could. The only proven hydrocarbon accumulation off the East Coast of the US or the Gulf Coast of Florida is one decent-sized natural gas deposit off Destin. The California coast undoubtedly has some undiscovered oil, but not likely in massive, easily-exploited fields that could make a significant or quick impact. I don't know anything about the off-limits Alaska coast but am not aware of any really optimistic reviews. There is natural gas on the North Slope, but no way to get it to market. There is certainly more undiscovered oil there too, but not likely in Prudhoe Bay class accumulations. In sum, all these places warrant further exploration and development but I doubt it would solve our problems. Do it, but understand the risks, limitations and long times (10+ years) to put most of it on production if it is found.
#7
Actually, the Dems will propose getting rid of the Options market in Petroleum, even though Clinton legalized it. There is some proof that Goldman Sachs' predictions of $200 oil, signalled a bubble effect. McCain will have to jump on market closure. Maybe options should be restricted to food and related products. Otherwise Obama could eat this up.
#8
OS, you are just wrong. It's not possible to have a bubble in a consumed commodity (absent physical storage). It's conspiracy thinking.
Legislating agianst 'speculation' in the oil or any other futures market is a spectacularly dumb idea.
The USA dominates these markets, employing large numbers of highly paid people. London, Singapore, Mumbai, and Shanghai would be gobsmacked by their unbelievable good luck if The USA drove itself out these markets
Oil forecasters say there's no chance of $200 crude, as the U.S., which consumes a quarter of the world's oil, slows. Prices will average $78 a barrel this year, 20 percent below the current level, and $75 in the fourth quarter, according to the median forecast of 27 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. The last time prices fell that much was in 2001, when they dropped 26 percent.
If they speculated based on that forecast, they're well toasted in a bubble that's "not possible".
Bubbles are caused by fear, greed, and limited supply, consumable product or not. With most consumables, the supply adjusts quickly. But with oil, there are political and practical limitations, so it takes longer. Meanwhile, we have this bubble.
Both. When the housing market bubble burst a lot of paper capital disappeared and investment fronts and banks started writing 'loses' [on which they had leveraged other actions] off. That was no small amount. So where is all this capital coming from to inflate the oil on the market? There's only so much capital. I doubt it was laying around stuff in some Swiss lock box accumulating dust [/sarcasm off]. It could be the Chinese who've been accumulating vast reserves both in capital and in oil. They're not so much interested in capitalism as they are in power, so they're willing to do a bad commercial or banking 'deal' as long as it keeps the peasants happy and them in power. Then again the Fed dumped loads of money attempting to 'recapitalize' the market after the loses in housing. However, it doesn't take a whole lot of effort by the investment fronts and banks to move monies on the books from one column to another. Or loan, on good o'boy rates to friends of the management. I suspect that all the Fed did was allow the usual suspects to shift 'x' amount in one category that was intended to operate commercial lending to their speculative branches who then received the infusion to play games in the oil market. Now the power exists to call margins. Why haven't they done so already? Better to fall 20 than 100 feet, delaying the call is not going to postpone the day reckoning so much as increase the pain. Everyone is caught dirty. The system has been compromised by those entrusted with it. They've rationalized that what is good for them is good for everyone or what will destroy them will hurt everyone. They're doing it for 'our own good'. Better to see the population as a whole bear the pain of oil speculation than allow the house of cards they've constructed and profited from or socialize among collapse. Calling margin will quickly reveal the culprits and their enablers, it will also be a sponge to the credit market which will constrict business activities across the board, most likely inducing the recession they've been staving off for the last six months.
#14
it's not possible to have a bubble in a consumed commodity (absent physical storage). It's conspiracy thinking.
Umm, bullshit phil. You seem stuck in some sort of ignorance of futures and commodities markets, like McCain and Obama.
Listen up and learn.
FACT: Any place you have speculation and hedging a bubble can occur (and will eventually be deflated).
Financial institutions consider commodities positions as a core component of their portfolios. Hedge fund managers refer to these investors as "index speculators" because of their investing strategy: They allocate their dollars across key commodities futures, according to popular indexes such as the Standard & Poor's-Goldman Sachs Commodity Index and the Dow Jones-AIG Commodity Index.
When financial institutions load up on these futures, it drives up demand (for the futures) other (delivery) prices follow when the pricing data pushees back into the cash markets.
So thats hwo it works and why the money is there.
Now for the bubble:
According to the Department of Energy "annual Chinese demand for petroleum has surged over the last five years to 2.8 billion barrels from 1.88 billion barrels, an increase of 920 million barrels. Over the same five-year period, index speculators' demand for petroleum futures has increased by 848 million barrels."
So there's your bubble without storage. Or consumption.
No conspiracy theory needed. Simple market capitalism.
It goes back to basic capitalism and market forces. Like Milton Friedman in 1953. Friedman, pointed out that speculation has to be stabilizing if speculators are making money. If speculators know that the price of something is going to go up a month from now, they buy today. If they are correct, they make money, and the price change is smoothed by the higher demand today. If they are wrong, they lose money and leave the market allowing prices to moderate lower.
The reality is, if we can manage to allow offshore drilling the speculators will start selling crude-oil futures contracts - decreasing demand, and increasing supply of the futures ocntracts, thereby dropping the price. Price declines will filter backwards from the longer-term contracts to the cash market in the same fasion that the increases did. In other words, what can be bought will be sold. If expectations change on the hope that future oil supplies will rise, prices will adjust lower and it will happen fast.
This is what you, McCain and Obama seem not to understand: via futures markets, price changes (up AND down) are pulled forward in response to shifting oil-supply policies.
Studies of the ANWR coastal plain indicate it may contain between 6 and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Advances in recovery could increase that number (some estimates this were based on are more than 10 years old and lower priced oil).
As for coastal oil, I agree that there is no "knowing" until we drill. But estimates are that several fields like the one recently discovered in Brazil are likely in some of the few formations that have been mapped off the east coast, and that is in addition to the productive formations in the gulf and off of Florida's coasts (which the Cubans have had help drilling while we stand idly by). So there is proven oil out there, we simply are not doing anything to exploit it. Opening nearly the entire gulf of mexico is a near certainty to yield more oil.
And then there are the shales in CO-WY-ND-SD that can produces the equivalent of as much as 800 billion barrels.
They primary obstacle for all these increases are government and environmentalists.
So the first thing the politicians should be looking at is removing governmental obstacles to this added petroleum supply in order to promote economic stability (c.f. above re: futures, pricing stability and oil supply policy). This is nto to say that is the only thing to do: while adding to petroleum production, we must develope alternatives and being replacing petroleum within a decade, be it nuke-electric-hydrogen (fuel cell), or coal liquifiaction.
The stark choice for we the people will be between the politicians that listen to us and do what is right for the nation (add to our supplies and stabilize the economy) and those politicians that are owned by Luddite "environmentalists" who would collapse our economy with their fanatic blindness to any solutions other than destroying capitalism in favor of some sort of "pristine" Neanderthal existence.
#16
It's not possible to have a bubble in a consumed commodity (absent physical storage).
Not true given derivatives markets, but also irrelevant to oil since many countries including the US and China do in fact store oil. Iran's doing it on tankers at the moment as is Venezuela, as well.
#17
True, lotp, but do you believe they are storing enough to raise the price of oil 30% for more than a quarter?
And why are they storing? China and the US are for strategic stockpiles and are akin to consumption, not speculative hoarding. And in any case, the US has stopped buying for its stockpile. Are Venezuela and Iran storing oil on ships to drive up the price or are they having trouble selling what they have already extracted? Ship rental gets pretty expensive. True, the reduced supply from these countries may be helping to drive prices up and you could characterize that as speculation, but not by Wall Street.
Certainly there can be a brief bubble in oil prices, but what we are seeing now is not the result of speculation. It is the result of increasing demand in China and India and perhaps the permanent or temporary plateauing of supply.
And the price of oil is not running up in isolation. The price of almost every commodity is increasing as is food. This is inflation, not speculation. The only reason the price of manufactured goods is not rising is that low cost labor is being substituted in the manufacturing process creating social as opposed to financial problems. There has been excessive expansion of the money supply since 1997 and the Asian liquidity crisis. It is likely to come to a stop shortly after the election and we will be in for one rough recession. If it's short it will be worth it.
But to think that the price of oil is being driven up at the pump by malefactors of wealth is to engage in wishful thinking.
#18
From the Minerals Management Service (MMS), the government agency responsible for oil and gas leasing in the US offshore.
Alaskas offshore waters contain US reserves estimated at 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas
significant oil and gas resources exist in the Gulf of Mexico in areas greater than 100 miles from shore approximately 45 billion barrels of oil and 232 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Infrastructure exists in the region and industry has an excellent track record for safety and environmental protection.
Virginia legislature has expressed interest in opening some of the Virginia offshore waters to leasing. Estimates 4 billion barrels of oil and 37 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Estimates California's coastal waters hold 10 billion barrels of oil. (enough to completely supply California's needs for 15 years)
Estimates indicate there are currently 85.9 billion barrels of oil and 419.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that are technically recoverable from all federal offshore areas OCS. Add to that 22 billion more barrels and 226 trillion cu ft of natural gas in non-federal offshore areas. Totals: 105 billion barrels, 681 trillion cu ft.
Note that ALL of the above are "Undiscovered Conventionally Reservoired Fields" per the DoE spec. "Technically recoverable" resources are those that are producible using current technology.
(Note: the above numbers are via US MMS 2006 and the US DoE numbers from 2005).
One other note: remember this also involves natural gas. Look at your power bill. Going up by a HUGE amount real soon? Then DRILL NOW! 23 percent of electric power is produced by natural gas - and the US can produce HUGE amounts of this if we can get the government and enviros out of the way.
Regarding the estimates, they methodology in use is still the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission's congressionally mandated reporting system the "1978 Standard". It has come under fire for being "Texa-homa" centered in terms of production and is technologically obsolescent. From Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), the World Petroleum Congress (WPC), and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), the current SEC system remains rooted in the technology of the 1970s, without any consultative forum to address technological change in reserves reporting.
Given the above, it is probable that these estimates may be adjusted higher and prove-out larger.
So, you can listen to the greens and politicians, or you can listen to the markets, the bankers and economists that know this sector, and most of all, the engineers that know oil.
I put my money on the side that has the bankers and engineers.
#19
So thats how it works and why the money is there.
My question is whether it is 'real' money. When it is credited, it's paper. When people or institutions use margin to drive up or speculate in a market, be it housing or oil, they are not using real capital as much as paper capital inflated by that margin. Ten cents on the dollar gives the players far more means to attenuate the market than full payment. The game we pay for is the speculator is gaming with everyone's credit, particularly when the Fed recapitalizes the market will more money, inflating the currancy and decreasing the value of every holder of real money. If the market has real money, then there should be no problem with calling margin, because they're covered. Otherwise the 'money' is not there.
#20
Nible - reread my post. Its very clear that speculators are driving up futures demand as a hedge against inflation. I reiterate:
According to the Department of Energy "annual Chinese demand for petroleum has surged over the last five years to 2.8 billion barrels from 1.88 billion barrels, an increase of 920 million barrels. Over the same five-year period, index speculators' demand for petroleum futures has increased by 848 million barrels."
There is your bubble. There is no clearer presentation than that as a market bubble.
Its NOT inflation, its a bubble.
Go reread what I posted. If you do nto understand fundamental market economics, then you are going to continue to run way off the mark as you are now.
Months ago the futures were at $100 - that is, you could buy a contract that would allow you to later purchase the oil at $100 a barrel.
The speculator is betting that the price will go above that future contract he has, and the supplier knows that he has just made a profit of selling the future contract without actually selling the oil (thats the premium on top of the contract). The seller charges the buyer $10 for the contract.
The speculator now has spent $10, and owns a contract that guranatees him the right to buy the oil at $100 a barrel. Thus this is a pending market demand for 1 barrel of oil at $100.
Time passes, and oil shoots up over $120. The speculator is now "in the money", and begins calculating how much longer he will ride his contract. Its a NPV calculation of the money invested versus the expected value of the contract over price+premium.
A little more time passes, and the NPV makes sens for the speculator to sell - so he sells his contract to an oil consumer (refiner) for $130, which is $10 below the $140 price. The refiner gets a good break of $10 a barrel, the speculator gets $10 for a short term investment of $10, a 100% return. Far above the rate of inflation.
As long as the speculator sees a rate of return in the present value of his money that far exceeds inflation, he will continue to purchase and then sell contracts.
Speculators provide "price smoothing" and commodity liquidityin this fashion - they soften the price curve for consumers by taking on the risk and selling below market later. They also create demand because each contract is a barrel of oil that is already "spoken for" and thus not available for sale to the cash/spot market.
The more futures demand, the higher the price will go and the shorter the supply will go, absent any changes to the situation.
That is how a bubble is made.
Now - you know the tune, lets change the tempo.
Speculators get wind of a possible increase in supply. Even a tiny one, even "way out there".
They do the NPV calculations on the potential investment in a futures contract at a range of given prices.
If supply just threatens to moderate the continued increase in prices, the futures contracts of the higher priced oil simply are less valuable over time, because they run the risk that the price might not climb enough, nor climb fast enough, to be worth while.
So they purchase less of them at higher prices, and if they purchase more, it will be lower priced (less risky) futures. This in turn makes higher priced futures that are currently held lose value. Meaning that people holding them will want to sell them sooner, and will sell at a lower margin in order to unload them and go to something less risky. So you have a price drop pretty rapid in the futures market - they are far more liquid than the cash markets. With the price drop, the speculators will leave the market because the returns will be lower, and less of a hedge over inflations. This means less oil tied up in contracts, and more oil hitting the spot market for true supply and demand.
That in turn means that the end consumer pays LESS for oil because he is paying the speculators less, and there is more oil for the spot/cash markets, instead of being tied up in contracts - meaning more supply therefore lower cost.
The bubble deflates as the speculators bail for better returns, and the prices come into line with actual consumer demand and producer supply.
Now there is even more to it: most of the speculators are leveraged. That is, they BORROW the original $10 to buy the contract with. So they are paying interest on the money. Meaning they have to have even better than inflation and market rate returns - they have to cover interest cost of the money invest as well. So the returns are required to be even higher.
Now they are even MORE sensitive to a potential risk - because a sudden price drop doesn't have them out money - it has them facing a margin call from a banker, for money that is usually a multiple of what they have in cash. And that will force a huge liquidation in assets and a market crash if too many speculators default on a given investment bank. Given the carnage that happened in the mortgage industry, there is hypersensitivity by the banks now.
If there is even a whiff of price moderation and risk, the BANKS will quickly force these people to reduce the amount of exposure they have by liquidating their futures to much lower levels in the petroleum biz.
So even as small a thing as lifting a moratorium and beginning exploratory drilling takes palce, you'll see a relatively quick and possibly sharp, drop in the futures market, to be followed by drops in the spot cash markets, and thus the overall price.
(and this doesn't even account for the short sellers who can pound a falling price set hard to force bigger drops, which can cause panic selling from speculators and hedge funds)
So there you have it peopel: a bubble, how it got there, and how it can fade far more quickly than people may think.
#24
I messed up the math - I had different figure in my head.
the premium of $10 is guaranteed profit for the contract sellet.
the sale at $130 is a $20 profit, meaning a 200% return on the investment in only a matter of months, and it still saves the consumer $10 a barrel.
And the section on leverage still stands correctly.
Think of it this way.
You have $100 to invest.
Put it into a CD, and in a year you'll have $103.
Put it into a money market fund and you'll likely have $105 in a year.
Put it into the stock market, and typically (historically) you'll have $107 in a year.
Now if you want to play fast and loose:
Oil is 100, and you speculate that there will be a runup, given supplies look to be staying very tight for the foreseeable future and demand is still strong.
So you take you $100 and put it as collateral for a loan of $1000 10% per anum.
Take that $1000 and buy 200 futures for $105 oil at $5 each.
In 6 months, oil goes to $120.
You re-sell the futures at a strike price of 105 with $5 for your premium and $5 for your profit = a contract for $115. The buyers will snap this up because its far cheaper than the cash price.
They pay in effect, $115 for a barrel, 10 to you and $105 to the oil supplier (who makes money again, I might note).
You now have 2000 on a $1000 10% loan. Pay the loan off, and the $50 in interest to date, leavin you with $950 plus your original $100 you paid in as collateral.
You have, via speculation, turned $100 into $1050 in 6 months.
NOW you see why so many are doing it?
The actual numbers in terms of premium (futures market priced) are far smaller, but the volumes are astoundingly large, so there are large sums of money out there - and large loans form investment banks backing much of it in hedge funds.
Now how willing would you be to risk that you default on the $1000 loan, lose your collateral, and be forced to cut back other investments to pay the bad loan -- if you knew that the US was going to allow drilling, that supply would increase, and that prices might not rise fast enough and far enough?
Now do you see how all that is needed to pop your bubble is for the price increase to SLOW DOWN, not drop?
And evne th threat of more US production is enough to slow the rate of increase to the point where the futures market will react like a bubble, and pop or deflate.
And remember - these are made up numbers - the real-world margins are far thinner and far more risky.
#25
NS: The US and China are not storing oil for speculative reasons but for national security use. In China's case that does equate directly to consumption.
Iran and Venezuela are deliberately distorting the market IMO and don't mind the irrational loss of value since it's their citizens who ultimately pay, not Shorty and Chavez.
Rising demand is indeed real. The impact of the lower dollar is also a factor right now. The oil producers are seeing to extract as much profit as they can from the chaotic situation, with Iran and Venezuela being particularly egregious in open market manipulation.
Behind this there's also the failing fields in Mexico and the Saudi kingdom, among other places. The world economy & political playing field is breaking up and shifting massively and a lot of players want to profit from &/or manage that shift.
All of which leaves room for speculators. But they're not the entire story by any means IMO. The massive liquidity pumped into the international finance system by very low interest rates, needed to fund the wars since we were doing it pretty much alone, is a key enabler.
#26
lotp - the interest rates and relatively easy credit for hedge funds (backup up by government bailouts) create the environment that speculators thrive in - their cost of money is low, and they can leverage huge sums because of the credit breaks they get.
Simply requiring specualtors to put more skin in the game by restricting the amount of leverage available for thier activities fromthe investment banks would cause the bubble from speculation to pop.
And this could be done by simply regulating the investment banks level of liquidity required by law, and passing a law forbidding hte Fed to bail them out of yet another hole.
Malinvestments MUST be liquidated in order for capital markets to function properly. The lack of real consequences for the banks and speculators is what is damaging the economy and creating these speculative bubbles. Nobody gets left "holding the bag" - they all get bailouts from the Fed. By bailing out these people, its has distorted the markets and allowed bad money and a lack of consequences for bad decisions to distort the market.
Time to let some of the big hedgers fail as they should, and place the investment bankers behind them on notice that they will be liquidated in federal receivership should they run into issues.
"No more bailouts, liquidations instead" as a stated policy of the SEC and Feds would be enough to stop it without any further legislation.
That in itself will fix a very sick part of the market economy that has been dragging us down in more than one sector.
At that point, supply-demand will be the real driver, and supply side measures like increased drilling would have a tangible positive impact - especially when combined with demand side measures the marketplace is already starting to push together: hybrids, efficiencies.
Not to mention that energy is fungible, especially as we turn more and more to electricity instead of combustion.
And even combustion petroleum has alternative - a lot of noise is coming from Biotech in terms of bio-engineered production of petroleum from plant sources, as well as petro-chemistry research and development of oil shale conversion, and coal liquification and conversion (Including the USAF sponsoring these plants for aviation fuel production).
For the most part, all we have to do is let the markets work (and fail when they should), and get the government the hell out of the way of production.
#27
How about this...
If democrats insist on no solutions.
Then democrats may not drive cars & trucks fly planes ride in trains ... anything that uses fuel.
#28
Good to see you guys coming around to my point of view. I agree that higher margin requirements are a good idea because they would reduce the number of dumb retail speculators who play the commodities market.
But phil's point remains; It's not possible to have a bubble in a consumed commodity (absent physical storage). It's conspiracy thinking. with the critical point being absent physical storage.
And that's why I asked one simple question that has not been addressed despite the death of billions of electrons, where did the speculators put their 848 million barrels of oil when the contracts closed? Whoever is long has to take delivery. And we aren't hearing about a tsunami of fails in futures contracts.
If the speculators had bought all this oil and were sitting on it after the contract closed, they would have to take delivery and store it somewhere. If they did, the inventory numbers would show a huge increase in the inventory of extracted crude. But they don't. So the oil is being consumed, not hoarded by speculators.
Unless...and here my conspiratorial side comes out, the players are storing it but it's not included in the inventory number. Now, who could do that?
As I pointed out months ago when the dollar was attacked, the Chinese are flush with dollars and I believe they were behind the run. I believe they may also be behind the run up in oil prices, or at least aggravating it. They would have the capacity to store large amounts of crude without us knowing unless we really worked to find out. And I doubt the CIA retains even that minimal level of interest or competence.
I believe we'll see more and more financial dislocations before the election. And we haven't seen the last of the mortgage problems by a long shot. A lot of mortgage rates will readjust in the next 12 months and the mortgagees will be underwater. We have not dealt with the problem properly at all.
So I see more and more problems and they will not be due to speculators because financial speculators are not setting the price of oil; fundamental forces of demand and supply are.
And I think the price of oil will be under $40 a barrel by the end of 2009. That is why we should implement an import fee to keep the cost of imported oil above $100 a barrel so that the bottom does not fall out on all the domestic shale, OCS, nuke investments that will otherwise be abandoned in 2010 when it is clear they will never pay off with gas at $1.50 per gallon.
There are two bans on drillingâone by Congress and one by an White House executive order put in place by President Bushâs father. Why wonât the son revoke that order NOW if he truly believes expanding American oil production by increasing access to the Outer Continental Shelf is an urgent priority.
#30
NS, setting a price floor as a matter of national security?
I've considered that myself, and Im still not comfortable -- but it may be a decent way out as long as the tarrifs are directed properly. That's the rub.
Then again, you coudl have Obama elected and Maxine Waters and her ilk will simply nationalize and destroy the oil industry, and we will be forced to do thigns the hard way in terms of replaceing petroleum.
Not sure what you mean by this. I see the issue being excluding Canada from any tariff. Every other barrel of imported oil gets pushed up to the floor price. And all aspects of energy are now national security issues.
The other thing we need to think about is what happens if, when we lease the OCS, the Chinese submit the highest bid?
I'm not worried if Obama and Maxine win. I live near lots of Amish and they will help me accommodate to the new regime.
#32
Apparently there is some arbitrage buying of oil to sell at a higher futures price, which must be stored somewhere.
But as NS says, Why isn't it showing in oil inventories? Probably because the net effect of higher futures prices is a drawdown in inventory.
I also agree with NS, governments must set a floor price for oil. We are highly likely to see a crash in the near future seriously harming alternatives. Although I happen to think the oil price will go right back up again.
If you want the reason for increased demand, look at global car sales over the last few years.
Republican John McCain would put the United States on course to build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 if elected president, the Arizona senator said on Wednesday.
McCain, his party's presumptive nominee in this fall's presidential election, is laying out his plan to make the country energy independent. 'If I am elected president, I will set this nation on a course to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030, with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America,' he said.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not issued a new nuclear plant license since the mid 1970s and utility companies have balked for years at constructing new sites because of concerns about plant safety and cost overruns.
There are 104 operating nuclear reactors nationwide at present, which generate about 20 percent of the nation's power supply.
McCain has argued forcefully for further nuclear plants, seeing them as part of a solution to fighting climate change and establishing U.S. energy independence. Sen. Barack Obama, McCain's presumptive Democratic opponent, has issued supportive statements about nuclear power but has set no outright goal for building plants.
Though nuclear energy is key to meeting U.S. climate concerns, the issue of disposing of nuclear waste from U.S. plants and solving nuclear proliferation concerns are also paramount, Obama's campaign said on its website. The key roadblock to new U.S. nuclear plants has been finding a home for nuclear waste. Congress designated Yucca Mountain, 90 miles (145 km) from Las Vegas, to be the nation's waste repository, but the site is years behind schedule and may never open because of powerful opponents like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not issued a new nuclear plant license since the mid 1970s and utility companies have balked for years at constructing new sites because of concerns about plant safety and cost overruns.
McCain, speaking at a campaign event on energy in the electoral battleground state of Missouri, added he would set aside $2 billion a year for research and development into clean coal technology
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
WAFF.com > GORDON BROWN: WE NEED OVER 1000 NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS/STATIONS. The more, the better, for the Environment + Anti-Global Warming efforts.
REDDIT > ENERGY FROM NUCLEAR WASTE?; + CAN MANKIND RECYCLE NUCLEAR WASTES INSTEAD OF BURYING IT?
#3
McCain has very shrewdly placed himself at the forefront of the issue of high oil prices with his recommendation of a moratorium on federal gas taxes, a repeal of the ban on offshore drilling and his proposals for alternative energy plans. Best of all, what he is saying makes sense and is an extension of the Republican free market philosophy.
For once Barack Obama seems slowfooted in recognizing the potency of this issue and developing any counterproposals of his own to steal his opponent's thunder.
#6
The good thing about this, is that it sticks it both the more extreme enviros AND to the global warming deniers at the same time. It establishes a position of taking global warming science, and the need for action, seriously, while making it clear that such concern is NOT an excuse to establish a puritan regulatory regime over the economy, as some imply.
#7
As much as I agree with this idea, where the heck are we going to find the people and resources to build, staff, and maintain these things? IIRC the industry has always been shorthanded, and there's only a handful of companies that are Federally authorized to do the work. I think this is one of those ideas that's great in principle but impractical - at best - in practice.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
06/19/2008 10:08 Comments ||
Top||
#8
2030 is 22 years from now. Thats time to expand appropriate university courses.
#10
Mike - I think it's as much a problem of the industry never having really reached critical mass as anything. When I was completing my engineering degrees (early-mid 90s) the common knowledge was that the nuclear industry was dead as a doornail and a graveyard for the careers of those working there. Structure it such that it is again viable and the staffing issues will abate.
#11
A friend is considering early retirement from the nuke company he works for.
Why?
He has 12 requests before the NRC and just can't deal with how slow they are. Figures he would die of old age before they ever get serious and move a tad. He thinks he might want to do something useful with the remainder of his life not sit in NRC hearings.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
06/19/2008 16:56 Comments ||
Top||
#14
In only 22 years, the permit for the first of those 45 reactors may finally be (provisionally) approved. The environuts and NIMBY folks will tie the whole process up in court after court, requiring impossible standards be met (the site must be less radioactive than granite), there must be an escape plan for everyone within a thousand miles, it must not impact the breeding ground of a yet to be discovered endangered species, .....
I am in favor of nuclear power, but I don't have much hope for it in my lifetime.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
06/19/2008 18:09 Comments ||
Top||
#15
of what type - focus fusion? pebblebed - the anwers make a lot of difference as to costs to construct and maintain.
#16
Ah, the waste! What to do. France has solved the waste problem. Why not set up a trade agreement with them. One ton of nuclear waste for one ton of red wine. Think like a Frenchman, trade what you don't want, like radioactive waste, for something you do want, like red wine. Problem solved.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
06/19/2008 20:01 Comments ||
Top||
(Xinhua) -- Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said on Wednesday that he would not resign and his impeachment was subject to the parliament. Local Dawn TV channel quoted Musharraf as saying that his impeachment is the right of the parliamentarians. Musharraf said if the parliamentarians wish to impeach him, they should do it, reports said.
The Pakistan coalition partners have vowed to let Musharraf step down since the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) won general elections and formed a new government in March. Musharraf has denied some reports that he would leave his office of presidency.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
"Hell no I ain't goin'. You're gonna have to pry my sprockets off my cold, dead ches...wait. Can I rephrase that?"
According to officials from Petrobras, Brazil's state-owned energy firm, the newly discovered light-oil deposit is some 190 miles off the coast of Sao Paulo state and at a depth of almost 2 miles below sea level, which in the Santos Basin averages about 1.5 miles from the ocean floor to the surface.
The find is the fifth major discovery by the group comprised of Petrobras, Britain's BG Group and Spanish energy giant Repsol.
Officials for all three companies have not speculated publicly about what the reserve could hold. However, a BG Group spokesman called the new find "very speculative."
"There is a new hydrocarbon province emerging in the waters off Brazil," a BG official told Britain's The Independent newspaper late last week. "This was very speculative, frontier exploration that has uncovered what is proving to be a major new province."
Though its volume is undetermined, the newest reserve has added to the considerable clout of the consortium led by Petrobras, which, following the announcement of its discovery, prompted the company's shares to rise more than 2.3 percent on Brazil's Bovespa stock exchange.
#1
You have to drill to discover. Brazil doesn't seem to be handicapped by the loon environmental Congress Critters such as we have. In 10 years, Brazil will be a superpower at this rate.
Hidden deep in Senator Christopher Dodd's 630-page Senate housing legislation is a sweeping provision that affects the privacy and operation of nearly all of Americas small businesses. The provision, which was added by the bill's managers without debate this week, would require the nation's payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government.
FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey commented: "This is a provision with astonishing reach, and it was slipped into the bill just this week. Not only does it affect nearly every credit card transaction in America, such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, but the bill specifically targets payment systems like eBay's PayPal, Amazon, and Google Checkout that are used by many small online businesses. The privacy implications for America's small businesses are breathtaking..."
#6
so then if anyone wants to buy what I am selling on ebay then it is check/money order only..paypal makes ebay much easier but the govt can kiss my ass if i am reporting the income from the shit i sell on ebay
Posted by: Dan ||
06/19/2008 18:59 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Any clue as to what moron slipped this into the bill?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
(Xinhua) -- Over 50,000 individuals have applied for accreditation as local observers for Zimbabwe's presidential election run-off set for June 27 while the government said on Tuesday it would cut the number by 80 percent. 
The World Council of Churches (WCC) on Wednesday called for United Nations action to put an end to 'atrocities' committed by the Zimbabwe authorities in advance of June 27 run-off presidential elections.
Folk musicians from the south-east of Benin played for dignitaries at the 10th summit of the Community of Sahelo-Saharan states, known as CEN-SAD, but it was Muammar Gaddafi who was the star of the event.
(Bloomberg) -- U.K. lawmakers ratified the European Union's new governing treaty, sparking opposition claims that Britain is trying to pressure Ireland into holding a new referendum. The Lisbon treaty bill cleared its final reading in the House of Lords, meaning it passes into law. The upper chamber of Parliament also rejected by 33 votes a motion to delay ratification until later this year. 
Gunmen have killed the police administrative director in the violent Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez, the latest high-profile killing in Mexico's drug war, police said on Wednesday. Silvia Molina was shot outside her house on Monday night by suspected drug hitmen, the first public official in Ciudad Juarez's city police force to be targeted.
Russian investigators yesterday charged four men in connection with the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya, adding that the preliminary inquiry into her death was now over. They said they had charged three men with involvement in the killing of Politkovskaya, who was shot dead outside her Moscow apartment in October 2006, and an officer from the Federal Security Service (FSB) - Russia's post-KGB spy agency - with extortion and abuse of office. All four have been in prison since August.
President Bush and Republican presidential candidate John McCain are both calling for an end to a moratorium on developing oil and natural gas resources along much of the U.S. coastline. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opposes such a move, saying the country needs to move away from oil. Meanwhile, public-opinion polls show U.S. consumers favoring more development of domestic resources to offset high fuel prices. 
Republican John McCain would put the United States on course to build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 if elected president, the Arizona senator said on Wednesday.
