The reasons that we went war...

[jza10304]

The C.I.A. did have knowledge of the impending coup against Chavez and denied any knowledge. I would not be surprised to know that they may have aided, the same way they set-up "friendly" regimes throughou Latin America in the past.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengaljet' date='May 13 2005, 10:37 PM']I'm glad it's not about the oil cause if it were we might be paying $2.00+/gal. Oil is the only industry that has flourished under w.   1970's gas lines are tied to Jimmy Carter,when gas prices went up under Clinton-he caught all kinds of hell from the right.But......now we pay $2.00+ and nobody blames anyone-it's just the way it is. Oilmen are making a killing and it only costs you $2.00+/gal.
A friend of mine had an oil rig and worked it all his life.He knows the oil business(a Bush backer)and says they could be making good money @ $30.00/barrel-last I knew it's about $50/barrel. Record profits for US oil Companies. Coincidence -I doubt it,but you believe what you hear. [b]Don't look at recent history or the numbers-Math is HARD WORK.[/b][right][post="92137"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

huh?? The numbers speak for themselves, if we don't look at the recent history and the numbers what the heck are we supposed to believe? By the way did you click the link, the Arthur isn't an American, it wasn't written with any American bias. But your right people will believe what they want to believe true or not. (Said with a bit of sarcasm)

Just because your friend that works in the oil industry says we could be making more money by the barrel, doesn't mean were going to charge it. Thats what regulation is for, lets say that Bush is the puppet of the oil industry for a moment, something that could be argued (argued with out bias hard to say) he still would have to go through congress to get anything done. We don't live in a theocracy, we live in a Democratic Republic, one man does not have ALL the power.

Plus who's to say that high gas prices are necessarily a bad thing? While Ill concede the high prices would temporarily make the oil industry more money, it could also potentially convince more Americans to buy hybrids which are also better for the environment, thereby knocking out two birds with one stone.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='jza10304' date='May 14 2005, 11:19 AM']The C.I.A. did have knowledge of the impending coup against Chavez and denied any knowledge.  I would not be surprised to know that they may have aided, the same way they set-up "friendly" regimes throughou Latin America in the past.
[right][post="92280"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


So long as they are friendly, something that can go either way I agree...we cant be isolationists.

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

[quote name='BadassBengal' date='May 14 2005, 04:00 AM']I can't think of a reason why anyone would try to take over/attack Canada... except for free hockey tickets possibly, and beavers.... but since the NHL went down and all, even that won't work...but the beavers will still be up there...
[right][post="92257"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Better beer, better weed, better strip clubs, and the fact that Canada is the largest exporter to the US for oil.

Stats from last 6 months of 2004, US Department of Energy:

1. Canada 2.1 milllion barrels per day 17.1%
2. Mexico 1.6 million bpd 12.9%
3. Venezuela 1.54 million bpd 12.5%
4. S. Arabia 1.40 million bpd 11.8%
5. Nigeria 1.10 million bpd 9.3%
6. Iraq 610k bpd 6.3%
7. Algeria 410k bpd 3.3%
8. UK 340k bpd 2.8%
9. Angola 300k bpd 2.4%
10. Virgin Islands 290k bpd 2.4%

If Suncor Energy's fields in the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta are 60% of what they think it is, Canada's lead will widen big time.

Plus, I think there's been a deliberate shift in policy from the US administration to reduce reliance on Middle Eastern supplies.

Once Putin takes back the oil industry in Russia, look for them to shoot up the charts as a US supplier. They need the cash to manage their economy and pay off some large bond debts coming up. Plus the shit they produce in Russia is much closer to the West Texas Intermediary (WTI) grades that US consumers prefer as opposed to the Brent benchmark coming from the North Sea, and the Middle Eastern crudes which are 'heavier' crudes.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Stanley Wilson's Dealer' date='May 14 2005, 06:39 PM']Better beer, better weed, better strip clubs,  and the fact that Canada is the largest exporter to the US for oil.

Stats from last 6 months of 2004, US Department of Energy:

1. Canada 2.1 milllion barrels per day 17.1%
2. Mexico 1.6 million bpd 12.9%
3. Venezuela 1.54 million bpd 12.5%
4. S. Arabia 1.40 million bpd 11.8%
5. Nigeria 1.10 million bpd 9.3%
6. Iraq 610k bpd 6.3%
7. Algeria 410k bpd 3.3%
8. UK 340k bpd 2.8%
9. Angola 300k bpd 2.4%
10. Virgin Islands 290k bpd 2.4%

If Suncor Energy's fields in the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta are 60% of what they think it is, Canada's lead will widen big time.

Plus, I think there's been a deliberate shift in policy from the US administration to reduce reliance on Middle Eastern supplies.

Once Putin takes back the oil industry in Russia, look for them to shoot up the charts as a US supplier. They need the cash to manage their economy and pay off some large bond debts coming up. Plus the shit they produce in Russia is much closer to the West Texas Intermediary (WTI) grades that US consumers prefer as opposed to the Brent benchmark coming from the North Sea, and the Middle Eastern crudes which are 'heavier' crudes.
[right][post="92369"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img]

Great post.

[Guest bengaljet]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 14 2005, 03:32 PM']huh?? The numbers speak for themselves, if we don't look at the recent history and the numbers what the heck are we supposed to believe? By the way did you click the link, the Arthur isn't an American, it wasn't written with any American bias. But your right people will believe what they want to believe true or not. (Said with a bit of sarcasm)

Just because your friend that works in the oil industry says we could be making more money by the barrel, doesn't mean were going to charge it. Thats what regulation is for, lets say that Bush is the puppet of the oil industry for a moment, something that could be argued (argued with out bias hard to say) he still would have to go through congress to get anything done. We don't live in a theocracy, we live in a Democratic Republic, one man does not have ALL the power.

Plus who's to say that high gas prices are necessarily a bad thing? While Ill concede the high prices would temporarily make the oil industry more money, it could also potentially convince more Americans to buy hybrids which are also better for the environment, thereby knocking out two birds with one stone.
[right][post="92352"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Jamie I too was being a little sarcastic .I'm saying LOOK at the Numbers,see who is making RECORD profits and IT DOES cost Y-O-U $2.00+/gal. And yes there are people on BOTH sides that believe what they want-NUMBERS DON'T LIE. Math is hard work was using W's thoughts on losing $9 Billion in Iraq(that hasn't been found yet),W said "War is hard". Thanks W for bringing me up to date, I feel so much more knowledgeable now.That settles that-I believe now.lol

My friend who IS a BUSH SUPPORTER says that they could be CHARGING $30/barrel and making money. But an industry is saved and it only costs you $2.00+/gal. Check US Oil Co. profits.

I'd like to see an America that doesn't care if that area of the world(Arabs) kill and eat each other. You've got other areas of the world that are starving,murder,etc. -why(Richard Clark) was this administration set on getting Saddam in the 1st wks of the administration-before (9-11)? Why didn't Pres. BushI go into Iraq-cause he saw it as a no win situation and that's where we are today. It was supposed to cost $2B,but now is over $300B and gas is what/gal?

And by the way-Bin Laden still roams. I know Bin Laden didn't have anything to do with 9/11.

Ronald Reagan said" when I'm running the ship",Harry Truman said "the BUCK stops here",so you're saying neither applies to W?Yet others like Clinton and Carter has to be upheld to these thoughts-where's the consistency in that? W is not responsible for anything-poor little Georgie. Poor little herd of sheep that follows.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengaljet' date='May 15 2005, 01:40 PM']Jamie I too was being a little sarcastic .I'm saying LOOK at the Numbers,see who is making RECORD profits and IT DOES cost Y-O-U $2.00+/gal. And yes there are people on BOTH sides that believe what they want-NUMBERS DON'T LIE. Math is hard work was using W's thoughts on losing $9 Billion in Iraq(that hasn't been found yet),W said "War is hard". Thanks W for bringing me up to date, I feel so much more knowledgeable now.That settles that-I believe now.lol

My friend who IS a BUSH SUPPORTER says that they could be CHARGING $30/barrel and making money. But an industry is saved and it only costs you $2.00+/gal. Check US Oil Co. profits.

I'd like to see an America that doesn't care if that area of the world(Arabs) kill and eat each other. You've got other areas of the world that are starving,murder,etc. -why(Richard Clark) was this administration set on getting Saddam in the 1st wks of the administration-before (9-11)? Why didn't Pres. BushI  go into Iraq-cause he saw it as a no win situation and that's where we are today. It was supposed to cost $2B,but now is over $300B and gas is what/gal?

And by the way-Bin Laden still roams. I know Bin Laden didn't have anything to do with 9/11.

Ronald Reagan said" when I'm running the ship",Harry Truman said "the BUCK stops here",so you're saying neither applies to W?Yet others like Clinton and Carter has to be upheld to these thoughts-where's the consistency in that? W is not responsible for anything-poor little Georgie. Poor little herd of sheep that follows.
[right][post="92522"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

This post is filled with anger about the war and I can understand that, but it didn’t respond AT ALL to a few points I made, rather it brought up the costs of the war. Honestly did you read the article? It talked about why it wouldn’t make sense to go to war in Iraq from a risk-analysis point of view if the war were only about oil, and the author is dead right. (Your point about the cost of the war only furthers my points about if the war were about oil how it adds to the cost analysis of the picture.)

Did you read Wilson's post, about the grade of oil coming from Canada vs. the Middle East, as well as the movement away from Middle East reliance? Did you miss my point about government regulation and the idea that we don’t live in a theocracy?

Sarcasm aside, I find it ironic that you were all about Homers post saying "how he does it so well" in reference to presenting truth, however when truth is presented you can’t accept it.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Stanley Wilson's Dealer' date='May 14 2005, 05:39 PM']Better beer, better weed, better strip clubs,  and the fact that Canada is the largest exporter to the US for oil.

Stats from last 6 months of 2004, US Department of Energy:

1. Canada 2.1 milllion barrels per day 17.1%
2. Mexico 1.6 million bpd 12.9%
3. Venezuela 1.54 million bpd 12.5%
4. S. Arabia 1.40 million bpd 11.8%
5. Nigeria 1.10 million bpd 9.3%
6. Iraq 610k bpd 6.3%
7. Algeria 410k bpd 3.3%
8. UK 340k bpd 2.8%
9. Angola 300k bpd 2.4%
10. Virgin Islands 290k bpd 2.4%

If Suncor Energy's fields in the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta are 60% of what they think it is, Canada's lead will widen big time.

Plus, I think there's been a deliberate shift in policy from the US administration to reduce reliance on Middle Eastern supplies.

Once Putin takes back the oil industry in Russia, look for them to shoot up the charts as a US supplier. They need the cash to manage their economy and pay off some large bond debts coming up. Plus the shit they produce in Russia is much closer to the West Texas Intermediary (WTI) grades that US consumers prefer as opposed to the Brent benchmark coming from the North Sea, and the Middle Eastern crudes which are 'heavier' crudes.
[right][post="92369"][/post][/right][/quote]

so its canada's fault for these fucking gas prices...

fuckin' canadians...

[Guest bengalrick]

one reason that was not looked at, at the time but definatly would have still been happening right now, is the biggest scandal in this worlds history: the oil for food scandal... if we wouldn't have started leaning on countries like france, germany, and russia for help in the war, we wouldn't have uncovered the scandal for oil... it's obvious to me that that is why these countries are not helping us in the war on terror, considering they could do so much for us in their own countries... but since our administration is helping uncover all these scandals, they despise the bush admin. and everything it stands for...

anyways, if we didn't attack, we would still be funding the oil for food programs... or in other words, bigger and better palaces (since not everyone will agree on weapons or other things saddam was probably using, i'll just use palaces)

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='May 16 2005, 10:58 AM']so its canada's fault for these fucking gas prices...

fuckin' canadians...

[right][post="92791"][/post][/right][/quote]

Take that you Yankee bastards...

No but for real, your REAL BEEF is with guys like ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch/Shell, Chevron-Texaco and ConocoPhillips. Those 5 dudes control more than 60% of the refinery capacity in the States. With that sort of the control, they know they can dicate prices to the American consumer.

Much of the production of crude oil in the world may be under the control of particular nationalized companies, such as in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, and so on. But the oil companies have sizeable oil reserves of their own. But what really counts is that they own and control the rest of the network, which includes ships, refineries and the distribution of petroleum products at the retail outlets. Saudi Arabia or Venezuela may own a few oil refineries, tankers, or even gas stations in the U.S. Still, their crude oil, and the crude that is produced in all the other exporting countries, has to go through the world market that is controlled by the major oil companies.

They're literally anal raping you at the pumps. The common excuse that...oh we have higher input costs is complete b.s. Oil just like any other major traded commodity has a very well developed options and futures markets.

These guys have usually hedged (meaning locked in) a certain price that they sell oil to each other for the next 10 years at least. They've been paying more for sure in the last couple of years. But no way in hell have they ever had to pay spot (market) prices like the 40 - 50 bucks range you're seeing currently.

It's the same reason that Canadians...despite living in a country that is a huge net oil exporter, are paying high gas prices...a few companies are dominating the market and thus have pricing power.

Re: The US Senate report...I am really sceptical on the Russia part. I'm not doubting that they have their own selfish reasons for not supporting the war, they have a nice weapons sales program in the region, the Russian oil companies were looking into opening factories there sure...but...Russia is literally flooded in oil. They're not part of OPEC, hence they're not subject to production quotas. So Russia pumps the living shit out of their fields.

Sibneft, Lukoil, Yukos for example were three Russian companies that moved in to the top 10 globally. So it's not like these guys were hurting for oil. Why take oil from the Iraqi allocations when you have already have shit loads?

Part of the reason that Putin is becoming so hardcore in going after the oil company leaders is he realises now just HOW MUCH oil Russia has. And he realises that the privatisation of the Russian oil industry was a complete joke. And he wants it back under national control. Where he can sell the oil, reduce Russia's deficit etc. The fact that these Russian companies aided him by foolishly in their early years cheating big time on their taxes when they were rolling in dough is mind boggling as well.

Yeah...so overall, I'm a bit sceptical about Russia taking upto 30% of the oil for food allocation. Sure you could have sold it and made some money on the side...but when you have it for dirt cheap in your own country, you're not being watched by the UN inspectors or other governments...it makes much more sense to siphon off a couple million barrels here and there and sell that.

[TheBZ]

Great posts, pal...

I think from now on I better leave the commodities assessments to you.

Ultimately, my premise was always that these things are driven by currency values and economic cost controls more than anything else.

BZ

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Stanley Wilson's Dealer' date='May 16 2005, 11:50 AM']Take that you Yankee bastards...

No but for real, your REAL BEEF is with guys like ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch/Shell, Chevron-Texaco and ConocoPhillips. Those 5 dudes control more than 60% of the refinery capacity in the States. With that sort of the control, they know they can dicate prices to the American consumer.

Much of the production of crude oil in the world may be under the control of particular nationalized companies, such as in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, and so on. But the oil companies have sizeable oil reserves of their own. But what really counts is that they own and control the rest of the network, which includes ships, refineries and the distribution of petroleum products at the retail outlets. Saudi Arabia or Venezuela may own a few oil refineries, tankers, or even gas stations in the U.S. Still, their crude oil, and the crude that is produced in all the other exporting countries, has to go through the world market that is controlled by the major oil companies.

They're literally anal raping you at the pumps. The common excuse that...oh we have higher input costs is complete b.s. Oil just like any other major traded commodity has a very well developed options and futures markets.

These guys have usually hedged (meaning locked in) a certain price that they sell oil to each other for the next 10 years at least. They've been paying more for sure in the last couple of years. But no way in hell have they ever had to pay spot (market) prices like the 40 - 50 bucks range you're seeing currently.

It's the same reason that Canadians...despite living in a country that is a huge net oil exporter, are paying high gas prices...a few companies are dominating the market and thus have pricing power.

Re: The US Senate report...I am really sceptical on the Russia part. I'm not doubting that they have their own selfish reasons for not supporting the war, they have a nice weapons sales program in the region, the Russian oil companies were looking into opening factories there sure...but...Russia is literally flooded in oil. They're not part of OPEC, hence they're not subject to production quotas. So Russia pumps the living shit out of their fields.

Sibneft, Lukoil, Yukos for example were three Russian companies that moved in to the top 10 globally. So it's not like these guys were hurting for oil. Why take oil from the Iraqi allocations when you have already have shit loads?

Part of the reason that Putin is becoming so hardcore in going after the oil company leaders is he realises now just HOW MUCH oil Russia has. And he realises that the privatisation of the Russian oil industry was a complete joke. And he wants it back under national control. Where he can sell the oil, reduce Russia's deficit etc. The fact that these Russian companies aided him by foolishly in their early years cheating big time on their taxes when they were rolling in dough is mind boggling as well.

Yeah...so overall, I'm a bit sceptical about Russia taking upto 30% of the oil for food allocation. Sure you could have sold it and made some money on the side...but when you have it for dirt cheap in your own country, you're not being watched by the UN inspectors or other governments...it makes much more sense to siphon off a couple million barrels here and there and sell that.
[right][post="92801"][/post][/right][/quote]

Two things dont make any sence to me,

1. While the oil companys may control 60% of the refinery capacity, and have some say in determing the price... we regulate it as well, they dont decide what the price at the pump is, they decide what they charge for their work, the taxes we have on it are then added by the goverment, but its not unlike the airline industry...its regulated.

2. "These guys have usually hedged (meaning locked in) a certain price that they sell oil to each other for the next 10 years at least." .... This is collusion, we have laws againt this sort of thing.


Guess I dont buy they hype.

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='Stanley Wilson's Dealer' date='May 14 2005, 06:39 PM']Better beer, better weed, better strip clubs,  and the fact that Canada is the largest exporter to the US for oil.

Stats from last 6 months of 2004, US Department of Energy:

1. Canada 2.1 milllion barrels per day 17.1%
2. Mexico 1.6 million bpd 12.9%
3. Venezuela 1.54 million bpd 12.5%
4. S. Arabia 1.40 million bpd 11.8%
5. Nigeria 1.10 million bpd 9.3%
6. Iraq 610k bpd 6.3%
7. Algeria 410k bpd 3.3%
8. UK 340k bpd 2.8%
9. Angola 300k bpd 2.4%
10. Virgin Islands 290k bpd 2.4%

If Suncor Energy's fields in the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta are 60% of what they think it is, Canada's lead will widen big time.

Plus, I think there's been a deliberate shift in policy from the US administration to reduce reliance on Middle Eastern supplies.

[b]Once Putin takes back the oil industry in Russia, look for them to shoot up the charts as a US supplier. [/b]They need the cash to manage their economy and pay off some large bond debts coming up. Plus the shit they produce in Russia is much closer to the West Texas Intermediary (WTI) grades that US consumers prefer as opposed to the Brent benchmark coming from the North Sea, and the Middle Eastern crudes which are 'heavier' crudes.
[right][post="92369"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Completely agree with that. If russia comes back on they will def be one of our bigger suppliers over the middle est.

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 16 2005, 12:34 PM']Two things dont make any sence to me,

1. While the oil companys may control 60% of the refinery capacity, and have some say in determing the price... we regulate it as well, they dont decide what the price at the pump is, they decide what they charge for their work, the taxes we have on it are then added by the goverment, but its not unlike the airline industry...its regulated.

2. "These guys have usually hedged (meaning locked in) a certain price that they sell oil to each other for the next 10 years at least." .... This is collusion, we have laws againt this sort of thing.
Guess I dont buy they hype.
[right][post="92819"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

I dont think its that regulated is it??? and they can charge what they think is "fair" market value for there product. Which is refined oil. Personaly i put this on the gas companies for keeping the prices high. Because there is no shortage there crude prices are falling but my pump is still reading 2.30..... that to me means the people who are selling it are fucking me

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 16 2005, 12:34 PM']2. "These guys have usually hedged (meaning locked in) a certain price that they sell oil to each other for the next 10 years at least." .... This is collusion, we have laws againt this sort of thing.
Guess I dont buy they hype.
[right][post="92819"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

It's totallly not collusion. It's financial mgmt. It's a company locking in the rate they buy or sell their goods at. If anything it's a good tool as it allows companies to predict cash flows better and hence decide how to spend money against it. It's what derivatives are for. Why would companies subject themselves to the vagaries of day to day price movements, when they can lock in a reasonable rate?

Rather than laws against this sort of thing, the US has the most developed and advanced commodities derivatives market in the world.

The New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)

[url="http://www.nymex.com/jsp/index.jsp"]http://www.nymex.com/jsp/index.jsp[/url]

Trust me companies lock their prices in for long periods before they produce. The majority of oil is sold via futures and options at a certain price before they even pump it out of the ground.

The small % of oil that is sold on the open market is usually traded through derivatives as well.

here are futures prices off the NYMEX.


[url="http://www.nymex.com/jsp/markets/lsco_fut_cso.jsp"]http://www.nymex.com/jsp/markets/lsco_fut_cso.jsp[/url]

Those are options to buy oil in the future at a certain price. e.g. you can buy a set amount of oil in November 2005 at 51.10.

Given the current oil price of 47.85 as of today, that means they expect prices to rise by November. If lets say in the next month, oil prices fall to lower levels, the November contract for oil would trade down as well.

[Jamie_B]

Guess Im not following you because what I got from your post was that they are selling to each other to determine the price.... when industry determines its price amongst themselves ... how is that not collusion??

[Jamie_B]

More on the oil for food program....

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857167/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857167/[/url]

[Guest bengalrick]

i haven't read enough about the russian connection so i'll have to hold back on an opinion about them... the point about them having alot of oil and not being in the OPEC is a valid point of why they would want to mess w/ saddams oil.. but greed is pretty powerful so they may have done it for more...

either way, i'm very glad all these accusations are coming out... for instance, this guys [url="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-britain-oil-for-food-investigation,1,6180064.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines"]galloway[/url] was part of the labor party (tony blair's party, and supports the war for the most part) but was kicked out b/c of the oil for food scandal... hmmm, lets see... he didn't want to go to war, but i bet it had nothing to do w/ all this money he made...

its so obvious that the scandals are going to come accrossed the board... i wouldn't be at all surprised in a US senator or congressman is indited in this scandal... i'm not saying that every country that opposes the war, is probably involved in this scandal, but it does make it very suspicious as this info keeps gushing in...

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 16 2005, 01:03 PM']Guess Im not following you because what I got from your post was that they are selling to each other to determine the price.... when industry determines its price amongst themselves ... how is that not collusion??
[right][post="92836"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Here's an example, you are the CEO of Jamie B Oil. You've recently struck oil in Texas, right outside the Cowboys stadium. The fumes from your rig are wafting into the stadium causing the Dallas players to get ill. This combined with the bright options of the Bengals, has you overjoyed.

Anyway, your site engineers and oil engineers tell you, "Mr. Jamie, we can pump out oil from this sight at a rough price of $20 per barrel. "

Taking that piece of info, you factor in all the other costs with that site. Buying the land rights, paying construction costs on the rig, investigation costs etc. Factoring that in, you get a total of lets say $10 more bucks.

So, the cost for Jamie B oil to produce one barrel of oil from this site is $30.

Now that you know that...you can decide how to sell it. Currently, oil is selling on the NYMEX at $47.25. This is the spot price. Which means the price as of that moment.

So Jamie B oil could sell all the production as $47.25, you'd be clearing $17.25 per barrel. You'd be happy doing this.

However, your accountant comes and says, Boss....we're selling oil at 47.25 and that's cool, but we're worried that oil is going to fall to $25 bucks soon. This is what our forecasters have come up with.

This has you worried, at 25 bucks, you're losing $5 a barrel.

So, you go to the NYMEX and you look at futures prices. Like the ones I posted.

You call up an oil trader at the NYMEX in New York and you say, "What up homeskillet, Jamie B here, I want to lock in 90% of my companies production at at least $35 a barrel for the next year. (You're making a $5 profit per barrel)

So the oil trader decides to do the deal. He buys a "futures" contract. That is, you enter into a contract with him, to sell oil to him for $35 a barrel for the next year.

I'm the CEO of Stanley Wilson Oil Distribution. We're experiencing a major shortage of oil. We didn't realise this earlier because we were all stoned. So, my accountant comes to me and say's, Mr. Dealer, we gotta stop smoking weed and get some oil in here, you made some commitments to the clients to sell oil at $40 per barrel for the next year. Plus we think oil is going to go up in price!

I finally sober up and realise, holy fuck, this irritating accountant is right. I got a major oil shortage.

Now one option is to buy oil on the spot market. At $47.25. Which is a high price. So I'm like fuck that, this sucks ass, I'm gonna be broke. I'm gonna lose $7.25 per barrel.

So I call up the Oil Trader at the NYMEX in New York.

"Dude! You gotta save my ass! I need oil for the next year at less than $40 a barrel."

The oil trader is like, "lucky for you, I just entered into a contract with Jamie B Oil to buy oil from him for the next year. I can sell it to you for $37.50 per barrel."

I'm like "sweet ass bro! ship it in!"

So in this case, everyone gets happy.

Jamie B oil is making $5 a barrel and selling it to the oil trader in NY $35.

The oil trader is selling it to SWD Oil Distribution for $37.50 making $2.50 per barrel.

SWD is selling it to clients a at $40.00 for the next year. I'm making $2.50 per barrel and already thinking about how much weed I can smoke with the profits.

So is it collusion? Sort of, we did all work together to get oil. In real life, the Oil Trader wouldn't tell me the company he had brought oil from. He'd just tell me what grade of oil he could get me. But, certain traders work for certain companies. So I'd have a good idea who I was buying it from.

This is how oil companies operate worldwide, of course on a much larger scale.

And I simplified the numbers and the situations big time.

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

BZ, your points were right, it is economically cost driven.

But since we're on the topic this just came in the news.

Ukraine raps Russia oil 'bullies'

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4552349.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4552349.stm[/url]

The Ukranian prime minister (check out the pic by the way, she's not bad for an older lady) is accusing the Russian oil companies of cutting supplies to boost price. Russian companies are saying they have renovations to do.

This is an example of companies dominating a market and having pricing power.

This is one of the reasons that the Department of Energy set up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). So that there is a buffer against an interruption in supplies and companies couldn't exert that sort of control again.

[url="http://www.spr.doe.gov/default.htm"]http://www.spr.doe.gov/default.htm[/url]

[Jamie_B]

That had to be the funniest explanation I’ve heard....homeskillet. I think I’m going to have to expand into the weed, I mean Latin American coffee production, market so that I can sell it to your workers and keep you from noticing what were doing.

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]

As far as the reserves, that’s what I meant that the government has some control over the pricing as well as the taxes on it.

So what of your point about the grade and moving away from Middle Eastern reliance, as well as the post I made about the cost-risk analysis?

I just find this hard to believe that the war is about oil, based in that alone.

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 16 2005, 02:26 PM']I just find this hard to believe that the war is about oil, based in that alone.
[right][post="92860"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Oh i don't think so really either. It wasn't my intention to try to make that connection.

My whole thing started with Bad Ass's post that why would anyone want to invade Canada. Then that started a tangent of oil talk. Then Bengalrick jokingly said the Canadians were to blame, so went ever more tangential with more oil talk and the role big companies play.

Personally, I don't think oil is the major reason they went in, but at the same time I don't think I trust the official administration explanation either.... all that oil talk was purely tangential. I also don't think the US would be that hurt if certain countries moved to price oil in Euros. It would be an irritant, but not a complete road block.

[Jamie_B]

Cool...thanks for the education though.

[TheBZ]

I think it falls upon me to try to better defend my statement that such foreign policy (ie. Iraq) is connected to oil in an economic sense.

[b]Disclaimer: [/b]This is a theory, for lack of a better word...I am not trying to pass myself off as a political analyst. However, I do believe this is at the root of alot of decisions...And I will include a few links.

Since the end of WWII, the international currency for oil has been the American dollar. This has had a few major effects:

1. There is a never-ending/increasing demand for US dollars...Which are available through trade and investment.

2. Because of the need for US dollars, it "end-arounds" the necessity to meet budgets and basically...the United States hasn't been bound by the restriction to only print as much money as your country is able to meet in production, manufacturing, etc. This is how it is for most other countries.

This means that in many ways...For the United States to grow economically, the treasury literally only had to "make money". The dollars have instant value.

3. The European Union has introduced the Euro, and they naturally want to bolster the value to compete/exceed the American dollar. To this end, France and Germany have been doing alot of work in trying to make deals with countries like Iraq to take Euros for oil.

As has been mentioned numerous times, the U.S. deficit is ungodly...However, this is not a big deal when you are able to print money 'at will' and obtain value for it.

Therefore...if enough oil-producing nations start taking Euros instead of dollars, it means that the deficit becomes far more tangible. And if that happens...There's going to be a whole lot of money owing to someone.

That's the gist of the theory...Here are a few related links:

[url="http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Iraq_dollar_vs_euro.html"]http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Ira...ar_vs_euro.html[/url]

[url="http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1115-31.htm"]http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1115-31.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/economy/loonie_rebounds/pressures.html"]http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/econo.../pressures.html[/url]

Obviously, France and Germany weren't going to support a war in Iraq when they were already in there trying to make things go their way. This is part of the reason why the U.N. is under heavy fire, and there appears to be a battle for control there as well.

Personally, I think the wider-scale conflict for the United States is with Europe; because France and Germany are working their tails off behind the scenes to cut deals and become the influence in alot of these oil-producing nations.


As for me...I am admittedly of a very socialist bent...Moreso than 90% of Canadians, I would think. For that reason, I would prefer to have the hammer in the hands of more left-leaning European nations as opposed to the United States.

I don't think other Canadians feel that way at all...They are mainly stuck on the point that they believe that the reasons for war have been misrepresented and skewed. This was somewhat echoed by Stanley's last statements - although I have no doubt that he and I are miles apart in credo - since he works in finance, and I am writing a SF book that relies heavily on the 'evils' of corporate domination and regulatory corruption.

Personally...I wouldn't be so judgmental if the U.S. admitted that their foreign policy was designed to protect your economic prosperity, and to keep you as close to the top of the heap as possible...And to keep the others from trying to knock you off of your perch.

However, that is exactly what I think is happening. You will have to be the judge of whether you believe the 'Moral' reason or 'Safety' reasons to go to Iraq exist at all...But maybe they are there protecting your way of life in an ECONOMIC sense.

If that is the truth, and it was told...Would it be something that people would disagree with?

BZ

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

[quote name='TheBZ' date='May 16 2005, 06:08 PM']I don't think other Canadians feel that way at all...They are mainly stuck on the point that they believe that the reasons for war have been misrepresented and skewed. This was somewhat echoed by Stanley's last statements - although I have no doubt that he and I are miles apart in credo - since he works in finance, and I am writing a SF book that relies heavily on the 'evils' of corporate domination and regulatory corruption. 
[right][post="92917"][/post][/right][/quote]

I don't think we're that far apart. Admittedly due to my industry, I'm definitely more free market oriented and believe it's the best system. But I think if you compared me to other people in my industry, I'm slightly left. As in I'd vote against two-tier healthcare. I'm all for social security, I do believe corporations should be regulated to a degree as they have proven time and time again to sacrifice basic ethics to make cash now.

Hey I even voted NDP once. Talk about wasting your vote

But yeah, BZ hit it on the head. The overwhelming impression in Canada is that the Bush administration's explanation for the war on Iraq is skewed and "murky" Most Canadians overwhelmingly supported the Afghanistan mission.

Even the Conservative Party in Canada. Who in terms of political orientation are closest to the Republicans in the States. They'd vote for a common missile defence shield etc, 25% tax cut, tougher on criminals, etc. etc. felt that the situation wasn't explained fully and were hesitant to back the war effort.

Their leader, Stephen Harper is described here in Canada as "Bush Lite"