Oil prices...

[Smoking Guns]

You know, I've seen guys literally take themselves to an early grave because of denial.

Stupid, arrogant denial.

Guys, I have no clue what Iran will do.  Common sense says they are no threat.  But does common sense enter the mind of Iran?  Are their leaders rational?  Perhaps. 

[TAP]

Are their leaders rational?   

Are ours? 

Seriously, people generally don't become leaders by acting irrationally nor do they sacrifice whatever they are leading.

[Smoking Guns]

Are their leaders rational?   

Are ours? 

Seriously, people generally don't become leaders by acting irrationally nor do they sacrifice whatever they are leading.

Hitler?  Chavez?  Castro? Stalan?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

You know, I've seen guys literally take themselves to an early grave because of denial.

Stupid, arrogant denial.

Guys, I have no clue what Iran will do.  Common sense says they are no threat.  But does common sense enter the mind of Iran?  Are their leaders rational?  Perhaps. 

Iran wants to become the regional power in the middle east and beyond that a major player on the world stage - they don't care how they get there. I expect them to use oil ( rather the holding back of it) as a weapon.

[TAP]

Are their leaders rational?   

Are ours? 

Seriously, people generally don't become leaders by acting irrationally nor do they sacrifice whatever they are leading.

Hitler?  Chavez?  Castro? Stalan?

None of them were reckless, and they all managed to hold on to power. Hitler basically made one big mistake, but that wasn't really irrational. Rational certainly doesn't mean the same as nice, or running a country I would want to live in.

[TAP]

Is Iran firing their Missles for show? 

I feel like Sisyphus in these threads sometimes.

What's a Sisyphus?

Let down your hair and I'll tell you. Or try google.

[Rapunzel]

Feeling like Sisyphus...

[SLCPUNK]

Self imposed, as we keep coming back.

 

[Smoking Guns]

Are their leaders rational?   

Are ours? 

Seriously, people generally don't become leaders by acting irrationally nor do they sacrifice whatever they are leading.

Hitler?  Chavez?  Castro? Stalan?

None of them were reckless, and they all managed to hold on to power. Hitler basically made one big mistake, but that wasn't really irrational. Rational certainly doesn't mean the same as nice, or running a country I would want to live in.

Hitler wanted to wipe out an entire race and wanted the world to be blonde hair and blue eyed.  Must I go on?  A rational person would not have come to that conclusion.

[polluxlm]

That's not really true...

Hitler wanted races to be separated and for Germany to retain lost territory and honor from the horrendous Versailles treaty. He constantly tried to come to terms with Britain so he could challenge the Bolsheviks in the east. Sadly the allied powers wanted war as much as he did.

Hitler didn't hate jews per se, he hated their culture, religion and what it represented, and he hated the Zionists bankers that preyed on society. A view largely shared by Churchill btw.

I'm not excusing what happened from 1943 onwards, but fact is the jews had a whole 10 years to get out of Germany and into safety. War brings out the worst in people.

[TAP]

Are their leaders rational?   

Are ours? 

Seriously, people generally don't become leaders by acting irrationally nor do they sacrifice whatever they are leading.

Hitler?  Chavez?  Castro? Stalan?

None of them were reckless, and they all managed to hold on to power. Hitler basically made one big mistake, but that wasn't really irrational. Rational certainly doesn't mean the same as nice, or running a country I would want to live in.

Hitler wanted to wipe out an entire race and wanted the world to be blonde hair and blue eyed.  Must I go on?  A rational person would not have come to that conclusion.

I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or just obtuse. Whatever he did internally (he was obviously devoid of any morality) is different from what he did strategically as far as keeping and increasing his power - in that sense his major mistake was invading the USSR. The Iranian government is despicable in how they treat their people - I have a second hand association with Iranian opposition which I'm certainly not going to expound on, suffice to say I'm far from a fan of that government - but despite a morality far from what you or I might think acceptable, normal or 'rational', they are run by people fully aware of the strategic reality of their position and who would act accordingly.

If the US wants to intervene for humanitarian reasons, then say that, and maybe intervene in Zimbabwe, Darfur etc while they're at it, but that's obviously not going to fly with the people who are most eager to bomb the place.

[TAP]

I does have a little to do with oil prices

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/john-thomson-this-way-mr-bush-you-could-go-out-a-statesman-866382.html

John Thomson: This way, Mr Bush, you could go out a statesman

A dangerous tit for tat looms as negotiations stall on Iran's refusal to climb down on the nuclear issue, yet the positions of Washington and Tehran are not that far apart. The US president should agree to hold talks without pre-conditions

Sunday, 13 July 2008

Tit for tat is a game that tends to get rough and out of hand. So Iranian missile launches last week answering Israeli practice air attacks in June are worrying. There is more to come.

President Bush is widely believed to have assured supporters that he will not leave office without having dealt with Iran. This mean's "teaching Iran a lesson", perhaps shaking the regime. Some US commentators suggest the regime is already shaking and will have to bow to further pressure. Tehran is keen to show that this analysis is wrong and that if attacked its riposte will be swift and devastating.

Iran, being in breach of Security Council resolutions, is on the wrong side of international law. The five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany ? the "5-plus-1" ? will isolate Iran through further UN resolutions. Some voices may declare a blockade is needed to assert the will of the international community. Iran's response may scare oil consumers and increase the oil revenues, which Tehran can use to bribe people flouting UN sanctions and to subsidise prices for its deprived population.

Israelis, shocked by their failure to win the 34-day war against Hizbollah and worried by the weakness of their government, fear that Iran intends to attack them. This is an irrational fantasy, but has spawned a political reality in giving rise to talk about pre-emptive military action. The visit to Israel last week of Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, could be interpreted as US-Israeli coordination for such an attack. More likely, Mullen warned Israel not to attack ? but the White House will not admit this.

Rumours allege that Israeli planes have practised in Iraqi air space and landed at US air bases minutes from Iran. If Tehran believes them, there could be consequences. US claims that Iranian supplies are going to Iraqis who are killing US troops evoke the counter claim that America is supporting dissidents in Iran and (with Britain) sheltering drug-dealing terrorists in Afghanistan.

What began in 2003 as a legitimate attempt to persuade Iran to desist from its hitherto secret enrichment programme has snowballed into a confrontation between the US and Iran embroiling pretty much the entire Middle East, worrying Russia and China and potentially affecting the daily lives of Europeans.

Tit for tat is likely to continue and, unchecked, could lead to wars nobody wants. Is there a way out? Can Europeans do something effective? The answer to both questions is "Yes".

That the problem is no longer just about Iran's nuclear ambitions but extends to the entire region is accepted by both sides. Each has a package proposal covering the whole range of problems. The Iranian proposal was delivered to the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and the foreign ministers of the 5-plus-1 on 13 May. Their proposal was handed to the Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, on 14 June.

These two proposals offer a way forward. Each covers big issues so briefly that it is hard to be sure exactly what they mean; they are more like agenda items than detailed proposals. But they are the better for that.

Mottaki told a few of us over dinner in New York last week that Solana had assured him the Iranian package could be part of the agenda for substantive negotiations between Iran and the 5-plus-1. Obviously, the other part of the agenda should be the package proposed by the 5-plus-1 themselves.

Both proposals include negotiations not only on nuclear matters but also on political, economic and security issues. Each contains some items not in the other. For instance, the Iranians will not object to civil aviation or means of dealing with humanitarian disasters. Nor, presumably, will the 5-plus-1 jib at discussing terrorism, democracy and drugs.

Offers to negotiate do not necessarily imply commitment to reach agreement. Both packages clearly have immediate tactical goals in view. But it would be wrong to suppose they are wholly insincere.

In three hours of discussion, Mottaki convinced me that while there was no change in the basic Iranian position on the nuclear issue, there was a change in tone and intention as regards the general relationship with the West. Iran, I judge, is ready to make some compromise agreements (as yet unspecified) on Middle Eastern issues that worry the West. And on the nuclear issue it is ready to compromise to the extent of putting its enrichment-related facilities under the control of an international consortium ? including, for example, France, Germany and the UK ? which would then operate a modern, commercially oriented business producing nuclear fuel in Iran for sale globally.

This is not what the 5-plus-1 are asking for, but in my view it is the best that is obtainable, and so long as it remains in force it precludes Iran from making a nuclear weapon. Early discussion of this idea would get the two sides into a negotiation that could expand to cover all the items in the two packages.

However, there is a snag. The 5-plus-1 continue to insist substantive negotiations must await the suspension, for an indefinite period, of the Iranian enrichment programme. In short, negotiations are hostage to a prior climbdown by Iran on the nuclear issue.

This is unlikely. In my view, the change in Iranian tone and intentions is due to increasing confidence that its influence in the Middle East is equal to that of the US. Hence negotiations, it supposes, will be based on mutual respect.

But the snag may be temporary. Senator Barack Obama says that under his administration negotiations could begin without the precondition about suspension. The Iranians are playing for time.

So by the afternoon of 20 January 2009, when the new US president takes office, negotiations may be possible. Meanwhile, there will be much dangerous tit for tat. Europeans should make it clear to their governments that they are running too big a risk for too small a prize. Let negotiations begin without pre-conditions. Now, President Bush, to propose that yourself would be truly statesmanlike.

Sir John Thomson, a former UK Permanent Representative at the UN, is currently a research affiliate at MIT

[TAP]

Hey Ahmadinejad has a blog, maybe we should leave a comment directing him to this thread and see what he has to say 


http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/

[Smoking Guns]

Hey Ahmadinejad has a blog, maybe we should leave a comment directing him to this thread and see what he has to say 


http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/

Holy shit, how about the letter to the mother.  This guy is fucking hilarious.  This web blog is so bogus.

[Smoking Guns]

http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2392006~title_Former-Saudi-Oil.html

Former Saudi Oil Minister Yamani Calls for Change in Oil Pricing Policy

["Today's Encounter" programme, moderated by Hatim Ghandir, interviews Shaykh Ahmad Zaki Yamani, former Saudi oil minister and head of the Centre for Global Energy Studies in London - date not given; recorded]
Doha Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel Television in Arabic at 1430 gmt on 11 July carries a new episode of its weekly "Today's Encounter" programme, featuring an interview with Shaykh Ahmad Zaki Yamani, head of the Centre for Global Energy Studies in London, by Hatim Ghandir.

Ghandir says that this episode will discuss "recent developments in world energy and oil markets, and why oil prices are out of control." It will also discuss "the responsibility of oil producing and consuming countries, and the reality behind the conflict of opinions, contradictory opinions, and the accusations exchanged between oil producing and consuming countries."

Asked whether oil prices are out of control, Yamani says: "The main cause for what is currently taking place is the present pricing system being used for the coming decades," adding that there are other causes that helped price speculators "to raise oil prices in all directions." He adds that "we might be surprised to see oil prices dropping in the future. Thus, the issue is not the responsibility of oil producing and consuming countries only, but there are other sides, such as oil companies which contribute to raising oil prices, because this rise falls within their interests. Banks, financial institutions, and investment companies also have great interest in the hike in oil prices, because they draw billions of USD profits from what is currently taking place."

Asked whether he agrees with OPEC on the assumption that companies, reserve funds, and oil consuming countries are the cause of this problem, Yamani says that these are not the only cause, but one of many, adding that "OPEC also contributed to this problem; when the oil price soared and exceeded 28 USD in 2003, which was the maximum limit OPEC could allow, an increase in oil production was expected to take place at the time, but OPEC reduced production. Following this decision, oil prices began to rise continuously." He adds that OPEC wanted to play the role of oil companies with regard to oil storage.

Ghandir notes that OPEC pumped more oil into the markets and considered itself not responsible for what was happening, and he asks Yamani whether OPEC's role has distanced it from the supply and demand formula. Yamani denies that OPEC's role has been cancelled, explaining that Saudi Arabia increased production by 300,000 barrels and later by another 200,000 barrels. He says: "But in order for this extra production to reach the markets, it needs 40 days. Thus far, we have not yet noticed the effect of Saudi Arabia's action." He adds that this action coincided with Nigeria's decision to decrease production.

Asked to confirm whether the hike in oil prices disadvantages OPEC countries, Yamani says that he supports the hike in oil prices when it is justified, but not in the current manner, explaining that the current hike in prices causes great harm not only to the world economy, but also to oil producing countries in the future. He says that the current soaring prices of food commodities and the prevailing economic recession in several world countries are linked to the rise in oil prices.

Asked whether there are certain parties that benefit from the increasing prices and are pushing towards further increases, Yamani says that "despite the harm caused to them, some oil consuming countries do this, because they want to stop being reliant upon oil, particularly in the Middle East and the Arab Gulf areas." He explains that many countries are spending money on alternative energy resources, which one day will cause oil prices to drop.

Asked to confirm whether the drop in the value of the USD has directly resulted in raising oil prices, Yamani says that this is some type of speculation, explaining that companies buy oil to compensate for losses incurred from the decrease in the USD value, similarly as people used to buy gold to compensate for weak currencies.

Ghandir notes that the current OPEC oil pricing policy is still using the USD as the main pricing currency, and he asks Yamani whether there are plans to replace the USD with a basket of currencies or use a different currency. Yamani says: "We have to differentiate between two things: First, tying pricing to the USD; and second, confining the oil price to the USD," explaining that OPEC tries to tie oil pricing to strong currencies in order to draw the highest profits.

Asked whether the current events in world oil markets are fabricated politically and economically, Yamani confirms that this issue is economically fabricated with some minimal political fabrication, explaining that as long as world banks, investment companies, and insurance companies remain active in this market, making enormous profits, and as long as they circulate rumours about a US or an Israeli strike against Iran, oil prices will continue to soar. He says: "If the Americans act recklessly or if Israel were given the US green light to strike at Iran, then the world economy would come to an end."

Asked whether oil policies adopted by Arab producing countries have benefited the Arab region economically, Yamani denies that this had happened, saying: "Grave mistakes were committed by OPEC oil producing countries, as they earned enormous sums of money that are unprecendented in the history of any world country; however, we have not seen any real outcome of these sums of money and effect on the days to come." Asked to comment on the current investments in European and US markets worth billions of US dollars, Yamani says that "the real investment is in human beings. If you want to boost the entity of any state, you should invest in the human resources, because they are the real wealth, not the money that is stashed abroad, oil reserves, metals buried in the ground, or technology."

Asked to confirm whether OPEC countries have achieved better harmony in the last two years than previously, Yamani confirms that there has never been accord among these countries. Asked how he assesses the inclination by some oil producing countries to seek other energy sources, he says that this inclination is very minimal in the Arab Gulf states, but it is growing on a wide scale in a number of world countries.

Ghandir notes that all world efforts have not succeeded so far in finding alternative energy resources for commercial use, and he asks Yamani's opinion on this issue. Yamani says: "Real work in this regard began during the last three years only. Prior to that, the United States was seriously seeking to find alternatives for oil within its territory, and this is why, for instance, it invaded Iraq, took various actions, and helped in and contributed towards the production of Russian oil, despite the acute differences between the two countries." He adds that when the United States realized that alternative energy resources could not help it to do without the Arab Gulf oil, it started to get involved in huge investments "aided by the soaring oil prices."

Asked to comment on the lack of coordination between Arab oil producing and consuming countries, Yamani says that there is no coordination among Arab states, explaining that "Jordan sometimes needs some assistance to save it from collapse, so Iraq extends help to it in return for a political gain, and Saudi Arabia sometimes extends aid to Jordan out of sympathy, in the absence of any type of cooperation."

Asked whether he is optimistic about the future of oil in the Arab region, Yamani says that he wishes to be optimistic, adding that "what concerns me is seeing oil alternatives unavoidably coming in and oil reserves remaining in the ground, against which we can do nothing, particularly as oil is the main source of income to governments, particularly in our country, Saudi Arabia."

Asked what he would advise OPEC leaders to do at this current phase, Yamani says: "If I were permitted to give advice, oil pricing should be changed from what it is currently. This is the first method or step. If this thing is not implemented, we will continue to witness price ups and downs."

Asked to explain what chances Arab oil producing countries have of converting their production from oil to gas, Yamani says that "gas will be one of energy resources in the future. When the present role of oil ends, gas will become the alternative, because it is a clean source of energy."

Originally published by Al-Jazeera TV, Doha, in Arabic 1430 11 Jul 08.

(c) 2008 BBC Monitoring Middle East. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.

Story Source: BBC Monitoring Middle East

[AxlsMainMan]

Oil again settles above $145 a barrel after back-and-forth trading

Adam Schreck, The Associated Press
July 14, 2008 - 4:54 p.m.

NEW YORK - Oil settled above US$145 a barrel for the third time this month, close to where it began on Monday, after a back-and-forth trading session that mimicked last week's wild swings.

Light, sweet crude for August delivery gained 10 cents to settle at $145.18 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange - just over a dime short of the all-time settlement high. Earlier, the contract dipped as low as $142.49 and rose as high as $146.37.

"There's a bit of a tug of war going on," said Addison Armstrong, director of market research at Tradition Energy in Stamford, Conn. "You've got some people in here trying to buy the dips a little bit ... but we're kind of stuck trading inside of Friday's range," when prices gyrated by nearly $6 and set a new trading record of $147.27.

At the gas pump in the United States, prices hit a new record just a tenth of a penny shy of $4.11 a gallon, according to auto club AAA, the Oil Price Information Service and Wright Express. Retail diesel prices are also at an all-time high, of $4.824 a gallon.

Prices in Canada averaged $1.39846 per litre, according to price-watching website Gasbuddy.com.

Monday's oil price swings came as U.S. President George W. Bush lifted an executive ban on offshore oil drilling. That alone will not loosen tight global supplies in the short term because a Congressional prohibition remains in place and any new wells would take years to complete.

However, prices might pull back were Congress to end its own ban, said Phil Flynn, analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago.

"It would send a signal to the market that the U.S. is serious about producing oil. Over time, prices would come down," Flynn said.

The U.S. dollar advanced marginally against the euro and yen, but fell against the pound and the Swiss franc. Investors have been buying U.S. dollar-denominated crude contracts as a hedge against inflation and a weakening dollar, pushing the price of oil to about double in the past year. When the U.S. dollar strengthens, such currency-related buying often unwinds.

"We believe that in light of the dollar reversal, energy bulls could find things rather difficult on the upside, at least during the early part of the week," Edward Meir, an analyst at MF Global, said in a research note.

Geopolitical concerns continued to support oil prices.

About 2,500 workers in Brazil's Campos Basin, which produces more than 80 per cent of Brazil's oil output, began a strike Monday to demand that state-run oil company Petrobras give them an extra day off at the end of each two-week shift on the platforms.

"Supply-side concerns in Brazil, Iran and Nigeria are putting a high floor on prices," Shum said.

Iranian officials vowed on Sunday that the Islamic Republic would fight back against any attacks on it and "cut off the hands" of invaders. The comments came amid heightened speculation that Israel and the United States will attack Iranian targets to destroy what they say are Tehran's suspicious nuclear programs.

Iran is OPEC's second-largest oil exporter.

In other Nymex trade, heating oil futures fell 1.17 cent to settle at $4.0649 a gallon while gasoline futures rose by 0.55 cent to settle at $3.5577 a gallon. Natural gas futures rose 5.5 cents to settle at $11.959 per 1,000 cubic feet.

In London, August Brent crude fell 57 cents to settle at $143.92 a barrel on the ICE Futures exchange.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/headline_news/article.jsp?content=b0714115A

[SLCPUNK]

Well gee golly, how could that be?

Where is the psychological impact on the markets now that Bushie has given the green light for offshore drilling?

[Smoking Guns]

Well gee golly, how could that be?

Where is the psychological impact on the markets now that Bushie has given the green light for offshore drilling?

SLC, I like what the Saudi man said in the article a few posts up..... 

[SLCPUNK]

Yes, but I am addressing those who so proudly advocated lifting the offshore drilling ban, and who parroted McBush's "psychological impact" non sense.

[Smoking Guns]

Yes, but I am addressing those who so proudly advocated lifting the offshore drilling ban, and who parroted McBush's "psychological impact" non sense.

Oh, I gotcha.  Point noted.