| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Oil Prices Drop Sharply Despite of Iraqi Pipeline Attacks |
| 2004-08-30 |
| EFL: Oil prices dropped sharply Monday, falling below $42 a barrel, as last week's selloff continued despite sabotage of Iraqi oil infrastructure that curbed exports. "It just goes to show you that when the psychology turns, it turns," said Tom Bentz, a trader at BNP Paribas Futures in New York. There were also signs out of Iraq on Monday that a peace deal reached in Najaf, Iraq, last week could spread to other parts of the country. An aide to Muqtada al-Sadr said the rebel Shiite cleric called for his followers across Iraq to end fighting against U.S. and Iraqi forces and that he is planning to join the political process in the coming days. Light sweet crude for October delivery plunged by $1.21 to $41.97 in afternoon trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. At that level, crude futures were trading roughly 14 percent below the record settlement high of $48.70 on Aug. 19. Oil markets have been extremely volatile this summer because traders fret there is inadequate excess supply globally in the event of a prolonged output disruption in Iraq, Russia or Venezuela. But with the exception of sporadic dropoffs in Iraqi oil exports due to attacks on industry infrastructure, none of these fears have materialized. Oil-price speculation by institutional investors, including hedge funds, magnified this summer's surge in prices, as well as the latest retreat, traders said. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #18 There is no way Soros would do this - he did not get to be a billionaire by throwing his money away. With any luck, the money he's now spending on Kerry will end up being wasted dough. :) |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-30 11:17:45 PM |
| #17 OS: Soros backs quite a few hedge funds. Hedge funds were the ones hosing the markets by screwing with the futures contracts. Conspiracy theory anyone? In the world of finance, Soros plays to win. His previous plays have involved nudging along what eventually would have become reality anyway. The supply of oil isn't particularly strained, and new supplies are brought online all the time. If Soros gets involved in this speculation, there is no way he can get out without losing huge sums of money, because the underlying reality is that there are huge oilfields ready to be tapped. Canada's oil sands are profitable in the $30 range. There is no way Soros would do this - he did not get to be a billionaire by throwing his money away. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 10:25:48 PM |
| #16 Soros backs quite a few hedge funds. Hedge funds were the ones hosing the markets by screwing with the futures contracts. Conspiracy theory anyone? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-08-30 10:16:41 PM |
| #15 ZF: The practical truth is that the usual alternative to restoration isn't democracy, but another dictatorship - an unfriendly one, for a change, like we encountered in Iran after the Islamic Revolution. Jimmy Carter discovered, to his cost, and to the cost of hundreds of Americans killed in terrorist attacks by Iranian-sponsored terrorists, that a pro-American dictatorship wasn't the worst thing in the world. What was worse was the possibility of its replacement by another infinitely crueler dictatorship, but this time an anti-American one where Uncle Sam's entreaties about respecting human rights fell upon deaf ears. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 10:10:54 PM |
| #14 Mrs. Davis: It's one thing to work with 'em, another to restore 'em. Even Roosevelt wouldn't have doen that for Uncle Joe. The practical truth is that the usual alternative to restoration isn't democracy, but another dictatorship - an unfriendly one, for a change, like we encountered in Iran after the Islamic Revolution. Unless we're ready to stick around and duke it out with all contenders for the post of president-for-life, as we're doing in Iraq. In much of the rest of the world, democracy may well have to be imposed - without the imposition of the discipline of good government (much as we may scoff at that phrase) and respect for civilian rule, democracy cannot survive on the barren soil of a history of dictatorial rule since time immemorial. And imposing good government is where our boys in uniform come in. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 10:05:57 PM |
| #13 ZF, It's one thing to work with 'em, another to restore 'em. Even Roosevelt wouldn't have doen that for Uncle Joe. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-08-30 8:05:27 PM |
| #12 Mrs D - Actually I agree with you - apologies if I sounded like I was condoning the idea - the House of Saud has "legitimacy" only in the eyes of their fellow ME tyrants - and the UN, of course. And that's merely a self-preservation ploy. I asked my first Saudi acquantance, a guy named Shaker Al Shaker, why they put up with a King cuz he only takes what belongs to everyone and doles it back out to his favorites, etc. He was dumbfounded - and warned me never to "say this thing" aloud again. This was in '92 and was my initial first-hand glimpse of a police state. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-08-30 7:59:38 PM |
| #11 ZF & .com Thanks. I still think it's a lousy idea and I'm not convinced W would do it. The examples given don't show it's a great policy. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-08-30 7:53:23 PM |
| #10 Mrs. Davis: I would love to see the evidence that Bush would restore the House of Saud once deposed. I think no American President has ever restored a King to his throne. My point is pretty much that if we can work with Stalin (during WWII), we can work with these bush league tyrants. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 7:46:13 PM |
| #9 Mrs. Davis: I would love to see the evidence that Bush would restore the House of Saud once deposed. I think no American President has ever restored a King to his throne. The US helped the Shah of Iran regain his throne by ensuring the failure of a coup attempt by the Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh. I believe it was FDR who laid the foundations of the current relationship with Saudi Arabia - promising to protect it from all external enemies. Kuwait was obviously restored to the Kuwaiti monarchy after its liberation from Iraqi rule. This isn't anything new. The fact is that we deal with the world as it is, not the way we would like it to be. The alternative the Saudi royal family is a Saudi version of Iran, and that doesn't bear thinking about, given Saudi Arabia's vastly greater oil reserves. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 7:40:45 PM |
| #8 Well, there's the Emir of Kuwait, Jabir Al Sabah... upgraded in 65 from Sheikh, not quite a Kingy Thingy, yet. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-08-30 7:23:51 PM |
| #7 Zhang, I would love to see the evidence that Bush would restore the House of Saud once deposed. I think no American President has ever restored a King to his throne. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-08-30 7:12:57 PM |
| #6 What? Dammit! Where's Mark? Lawzie! I am in deep doo. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-08-30 6:21:36 PM |
| #5 JFM: Bush's ultimate goal is to destroy the hornest's nest of Islamism through democracy. Whatever the tactical alliances with the Saudis sooner or later Bush's road will lead to confront them. We really have no levers to use against the Saudis short of military force. I think the Saudis are more concerned with whether Uncle Sam will come to their rescue if a military coup is launched by a jihadi faction. Under Bush, intervention is assured, followed by a restoration of the government. With Kerry, even if there was an intervention, it is not clear that the Saudi regime would be restored. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 6:11:59 PM |
| #4 Bush's ultimate goal is to destroy the hornest's nest of Islamism through democracy. Whatever the tactical alliances with the Saudis sooner or later Bush's road will lead to confront them. And in the other side, the Saudis dream is to have the whole world prosternating towards them: they WILL try to come to terms with Al Quaida, and despite Kerry's words agaisnt them they will favour the weakest candidate in the fight against Islamo-fascism. |
| Posted by: JFM 2004-08-30 5:53:30 PM |
| #3 JFM: My personal opinion is that Soros and the Saudis have been manipulating oil price in order to torpedo Bush. I'm not sure Soros would risk his considerable wealth to do this. We are talking about big time dollars here. He has no clue how this is going to end - with the pound, the endgame was predictable. With respect to the Saudis, I don't really see how they gain from a Kerry administration, which is said to be deeply anti-Saudi. The reality is that Bush will work with them, whereas Kerry might cut them off. I think this price drop may in fact be due to the Saudis opening the spigots to ensure a Bush victory. They want someone who will help them crush any coup attempt by the jihadis within the government. I don't think Kerry can be counted upon to step up to the plate. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 5:27:51 PM |
| #2 My personal opinion is that Soros and the Saudis have been manipulating oil price in order to torpedo Bush. |
| Posted by: JFM 2004-08-30 5:14:47 PM |
| #1 Oil markets have been extremely volatile this summer because traders fret there is inadequate excess supply globally in the event of a prolonged output disruption in Iraq, Russia or Venezuela. But with the exception of sporadic dropoffs in Iraqi oil exports due to attacks on industry infrastructure, none of these fears have materialized. Oil-price speculation by institutional investors, including hedge funds, magnified this summer's surge in prices, as well as the latest retreat, traders said. There ya go. What we've been experiencing (especially here in CA) is the product of a small group of people letting their emotions get the better of them. Few things are worse than allowing emotion to dictate one's actions (and legislation). Democrats, are you paying attention? |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-30 4:54:07 PM |