• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Democrats voted down a bill to build new refineries

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Rainsford
If there is one righty term I hate, it's obstructionist. Not because it's not a valid criticism, but because you guys can't tell the difference between obstruction and genuine criticism. Actually, that's not exactly correct, for you guys there is really no difference. ANY criticism, of any kind, is bad. It makes no difference whether or not you raise valid issues, if there is a problem to be solved, it's a bad thing to stand in the way of any proposed solution, no matter how stupid. If Republicans suggested solving the oil situation by flying to Pluto and seeing if IT has any oil, and Democrats criticized it as a stupid idea, the headline in righty posts around the internet would read "Republicans brand Democrats as obstructionist on energy".
Cliffs: Sweeping generalizations about how stupid right-wingers are.
And while I'm mentioning the problems with this kind of argument, I also wonder why it's so necessary to blame ONE group of people in a neat little package.
Yet this is what you just spent an entire paragraph doing. No one on this forum said anything about obstructionism. That's a quote directly from the article. Yet, I bet you would label me a conservative and sweep me under the blanket you knit with your first paragraph, even though I vehemently disagree with the Republican approach on this issue. So, like you said, stop trying to blame ONE group of people in a neat little package. Stick to arguing the issues rather than arguing with people and everyone will be better off. Not picking on you - I've just seen this a lot in here recently.
...

Hold your horses there, chief. I was talking about the OP, not you, no need to get all defensive. As a matter of fact, I DON'T think you follow the same thought process. I think you ARE a conservative, but there are different kinds, naturally ;)

As for lashing out at the OP instead of debating the issue, in all fairness, he started it. Instead of a thread started to discuss the merits of the idea, it was a thread laying the blame for the current oil prices at the feet of the Democrats who voted down this bill. We didn't exactly start off on the right foot for arguing the issue...
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Hold your horses there, chief. I was talking about the OP, not you, no need to get all defensive. As a matter of fact, I DON'T think you follow the same thought process. I think you ARE a conservative, but there are different kinds, naturally ;)

As for lashing out at the OP instead of debating the issue, in all fairness, he started it. Instead of a thread started to discuss the merits of the idea, it was a thread laying the blame for the current oil prices at the feet of the Democrats who voted down this bill. We didn't exactly start off on the right foot for arguing the issue...
Agreed. I'm just not sure why you took the bait. ;)
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Hold your horses there, chief. I was talking about the OP, not you, no need to get all defensive. As a matter of fact, I DON'T think you follow the same thought process. I think you ARE a conservative, but there are different kinds, naturally ;)

As for lashing out at the OP instead of debating the issue, in all fairness, he started it. Instead of a thread started to discuss the merits of the idea, it was a thread laying the blame for the current oil prices at the feet of the Democrats who voted down this bill. We didn't exactly start off on the right foot for arguing the issue...
Agreed. I'm just not sure why you took the bait. ;)

Feeling argumentative today, perhaps... :p
 

eilute

Senior member
Jun 1, 2005
477
0
0
Do you remember the California energy crisis? There were rolling blackouts all across the state. Bush stated that we needed to build more power plants to fix the problem. Months later it turned out that corruption within the Enron company was the sole cause.



There are several reasons we have high oil prices

1. increased demand, mainly form China and India

2. decreased supply. Old wells are running dry

3. increases in the cost of exploration. We have to dig deeper, dig at the bottom of the ocean, etc. rather than scoop it off the surface of the earth.


Oil prices will continue to rise, and will never go back down.


 

Future Shock

Senior member
Aug 28, 2005
968
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I disagree here. I think that increasing the refining capacity is just feeding the beast. I also firmly believe that, regardless of what the government does (short of actually paying for and building the refineries, then handing them over to the oil companies), no more refineries will be built here. It's just not a financially feasible enterprise at this stage of the game. I question whether there is even a single American company that would attempt such an undertaking, and I sincerely doubt any oil company is overly motivated to pony up around $100 billion in cold, hard cash to build one completely from the ground up, meeting all the new EPA regulations. Especially since they're making more profit by not spending that money in the first place. No, the real solution is to hit the oil companies where it hurts. We need to wean ourselves off of oil. This is the only real solution that I see.

QFT...CycloWiz hits the nail on the head. And drillling in the AWR just delays any price rise by a few months or years, while decimating one of the last areas of unspoilt wilderness left in the US. It's like saying "I'll go on a diet - right after I pawn my watch to buy a case of candybars." The only people that gain from that are the candy producers...meaing the oil companies.

But Wiz'es comments on EPA rules are a key issue - suppose that Bush's bill stripped out the EPA protections, and the cost came downt to $50 billion? Again, we would build more refineries, which profits the oil companies in the short term, but only delays the inevitable crude oil source rise (more refineries => more usage => more demand in global markets => higher crude prices). In the end, we end up building environmentally damaging refineries, near large US cities and waterways probably, to get a short-term reduction in prices, only to have them spiral again when the crude price rises from additional demand. Again, a non-solution that only benefits industry now at the larger expense of the public good.

CycloWiz is right - time to bite the bullet and get rid of our oil dependance NOW...

Future Shock

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Refinery measure fails

Republicans branded Democrats as obstructionists on energy. The vote, 237-188, fell short of the two-thirds needed to pass under special procedures.

From CNN.com and not Fox News for you liberals.

Why is Bush being blamed for high oil prices when Democrats are the ones responsible? Granted, even if we started building refineries today, it wouldn't have an effect on prices for years, but what are Democrats doing to help eleviate the situation today?

Hey, I don't blame Bush at all for high energy prices - although his administration's rhetoric has a way of spiking the price per barrel - but hey let's place the blame mostly where it belongs: The American consumer. Let's blame the short-sided, wasteful idiots who ran out and bought a lumbering barge like the 13 MPG Chevy Suburban, or something equally gas-guzzling.

It's a supply-demand equation and anyone currently driving a vehicle getting less than 30MPG is part of the problem. American's could conserve if they really put their minds to it. And yet, they probably won't even consider it until gas is $4.00+/gallon.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Please not more refineries, never. More drilling? Not in this lifetime.

It's a two prong problem. One is oil, is it speculation in the market, of course it is, who can you blame for that Exxon, Shell perhaps? I think not. The traders on the floor of the NYMEX, sure we can blame them, if anything these are the people with the real control over pricing, is that going to change anything, no it isn't. Crude builds today stand at the highest levels since 1998. Gasoline on the other hand has seen serious drawn downs for the last 6-8 weeks except for this week. Why is that, less refinery utilization one during this time period, demand is up overall although this week was flat, and the new good ole EPA summer blends being switched over. All this has had a serious impact on the price of gasoline in the markets and at the pump. Oil traders only add to this problem with speculation trading, but there are two separate and distinct issues at play here.

Do you have proof that speculation by a limited number of traders affects a worldwide market?
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Surprise! Young impressionable minds are left leaning. Gee, I wonder why college kids are so anti-Bush.

You have obviously never met posters like Zendari who don't fit the picture you are trying to paint. I wonder why ANYONE would at this point in our history be pro-Bush. Age notwithstanding. :roll:
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Future Shock
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I disagree here. I think that increasing the refining capacity is just feeding the beast. I also firmly believe that, regardless of what the government does (short of actually paying for and building the refineries, then handing them over to the oil companies), no more refineries will be built here. It's just not a financially feasible enterprise at this stage of the game. I question whether there is even a single American company that would attempt such an undertaking, and I sincerely doubt any oil company is overly motivated to pony up around $100 billion in cold, hard cash to build one completely from the ground up, meeting all the new EPA regulations. Especially since they're making more profit by not spending that money in the first place. No, the real solution is to hit the oil companies where it hurts. We need to wean ourselves off of oil. This is the only real solution that I see.

QFT...CycloWiz hits the nail on the head. And drillling in the AWR just delays any price rise by a few months or years, while decimating one of the last areas of unspoilt wilderness left in the US. It's like saying "I'll go on a diet - right after I pawn my watch to buy a case of candybars." The only people that gain from that are the candy producers...meaing the oil companies.

But Wiz'es comments on EPA rules are a key issue - suppose that Bush's bill stripped out the EPA protections, and the cost came downt to $50 billion? Again, we would build more refineries, which profits the oil companies in the short term, but only delays the inevitable crude oil source rise (more refineries => more usage => more demand in global markets => higher crude prices). In the end, we end up building environmentally damaging refineries, near large US cities and waterways probably, to get a short-term reduction in prices, only to have them spiral again when the crude price rises from additional demand. Again, a non-solution that only benefits industry now at the larger expense of the public good.

CycloWiz is right - time to bite the bullet and get rid of our oil dependance NOW...

Future Shock

I don't know if these are two brilliant posts because of the arguments made, or because I agree with them 100%. ;)

These refiniries would end up costing the American public a sh*tload in tax incentives and funding that the pols would be tripping over each other to hand to the oil execs. This is not the solution but the equivalant of putting a piece of chewing gum on a crack in the Hoover Dam. Real progress can only be made by breaking the addiction. The only way to do that is to take the billions of dollars that we would be handing to Fat Bastard (Lee Raymond, Exxon CEO), and to put it into R&D for a renewable energy alternative.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
sumyungai -- Thanks for the trolling, starting with your OP. :thumbsdowns; :p

morkinva -- Thanks for making the point so well. :thumbsup: :cool:
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Hold your horses there, chief. I was talking about the OP, not you, no need to get all defensive. As a matter of fact, I DON'T think you follow the same thought process. I think you ARE a conservative, but there are different kinds, naturally ;)

As for lashing out at the OP instead of debating the issue, in all fairness, he started it. Instead of a thread started to discuss the merits of the idea, it was a thread laying the blame for the current oil prices at the feet of the Democrats who voted down this bill. We didn't exactly start off on the right foot for arguing the issue...
Agreed. I'm just not sure why you took the bait. ;)
CycloWizard -- I know it's going to be an interesting day when I start off by agreeing with you. :thumbsup: :laugh:
 

fitzov

Platinum Member
Jan 3, 2004
2,477
0
0
The oil companies just got a big tax break from Bush inc., so they can use that to build refineries.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86

1. That doesn't show effort to reduce.

2. Even if you could extrapolate "effort" from analysis of supply-demand economics, that still doesn't explain the fact that oil is MUCH more expensive today than it was in 95 and oil refining capacity hasn't gone down, but increased once everything else is taken into account.

3. Since oil is more expensive, a natural byproduct of that is the distillates are more expensive. As somebody already pointed out, if you have a crapload of apples sitting around, which makes them cheap on the world market, no juicers, and limited supply of juice as a result, then apple juice, not apples, would cost a crapload.

If we had limited refining capacity and that was causing the distortion, then gas would cost more and be grossly disproportionalty more expensive than oil. However, we are in a situation where the input commodity is just as expensive as the output commodity, showing that the true culprit is not throughput, but initial commodity cost.

There is limited reverse-feedback with oil and gas. If gas prices go up due to limited refining, then oil prices don't go up.

To put it another way, just because there aren't enough cooks to make scrambled eggs doesn't mean the price of eggs goes up, or even the price of chickens. It just means scrambled eggs goes up.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
The vote, 237-188, fell short of the two-thirds needed to pass under special procedures
So if it were NOT brought up under "special procedures" it would have passed overwhelmingly. Hmmm. Wonder why it was not brought up under regular procedures?
And we all know that the DETAILS of the bills the Republicans bring up are very often loaded with pro-business anti-consumer details. Perhaps the bill allows refineries to be set up in school buildings? Which is why it came up under special procedures. So it could be brought up without the Democrats having a chance to examine the bill closely.
This whole thing sounds like a Republican maneuver to pretend like the Republicans are doing something when they are being pressured by the oil companies to do nothing.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Future Shock
But Wiz'es comments on EPA rules are a key issue - suppose that Bush's bill stripped out the EPA protections, and the cost came downt to $50 billion? Again, we would build more refineries, which profits the oil companies in the short term, but only delays the inevitable crude oil source rise (more refineries => more usage => more demand in global markets => higher crude prices). In the end, we end up building environmentally damaging refineries, near large US cities and waterways probably, to get a short-term reduction in prices, only to have them spiral again when the crude price rises from additional demand. Again, a non-solution that only benefits industry now at the larger expense of the public good.
Thankfully, Bush isn't so powerful as yet as to be able to do much about the EPA regulations. Most of them stem from legislation from the 60's and 70's that forces automatic upgrades to the regulations based on available technologies. So, unless our technological base actually backtracks somehow, the regulations can't really be rolled back without a major legislative overhaul.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
The best thing to happen to America is high oil/gas prices. The sooner we start a Manhattan project for alternative fuels and break our addiction to foreign oil the sooner we can take our troops out of baby sitting missions in fcked up regions of the world. You want homeland security? Don't rely on unstable parts of the world for energy. Iraq is a prime example of what happens when you see crude in the ground and shape foreign policy around it.

$3 a gallon? We need $5 a gallon and fat stupid SUV driving Americans will finally wake up.
 

jlmadyson

Platinum Member
Aug 13, 2004
2,201
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Future Shock
But Wiz'es comments on EPA rules are a key issue - suppose that Bush's bill stripped out the EPA protections, and the cost came downt to $50 billion? Again, we would build more refineries, which profits the oil companies in the short term, but only delays the inevitable crude oil source rise (more refineries => more usage => more demand in global markets => higher crude prices). In the end, we end up building environmentally damaging refineries, near large US cities and waterways probably, to get a short-term reduction in prices, only to have them spiral again when the crude price rises from additional demand. Again, a non-solution that only benefits industry now at the larger expense of the public good.
Thankfully, Bush isn't so powerful as yet as to be able to do much about the EPA regulations. Most of them stem from legislation from the 60's and 70's that forces automatic upgrades to the regulations based on available technologies. So, unless our technological base actually backtracks somehow, the regulations can't really be rolled back without a major legislative overhaul.

Well, on the refinery side I wouldn't so easily believe that more and/or expanded capacity isn't going to come. Shell has in the works to expand one facility to the largest in the nation, going from 300,000 bpd to 600,000 bdp, that kind of addition would pretty much be the equivalent of a new refinery, not to mention the largest. Weaning off of oil is nice idea, but there is no magic wand that is going to make that happen any time soon. Alternative energy sources are great, but until those sources can be moved to the mainstream without crazy jumps in cost of living that isn't going to happen this year or next. We need to utilize the energy sources we have and build on those resources we have yet to tap into, as well as continue to research and utilize alternative resources.

Plan would make refinery largest

PORT ARTHUR, Texas ? Motiva Enterprises LLC announced Friday that its Port Arthur refinery is likely to be the location for a planned $3.5 billion expansion that would make the facility the largest refinery in the United States.

?This is a significant update,? Sue Parsley, community relations coordinator for the Port Arthur refinery, said. ?The good news is that they have completed the scope of work and decided that Port Arthur would be the place if they go ahead with the project.?

In a press release, the company stated that ?results indicate that a 325,000-barrel-per-day crude throughput increase at the Motiva Port Arthur Refinery in Texas would be the best, most logical choice.?

The Port Arthur facility has been in competition with refineries in Convent and Norco, La., for construction of a project that would increase refining capacity by 325,000 barrels per day. With the Port Arthur plant already producing around 275,000 bpd, the expansion to 600,000 bpd would make it the largest refining facility in the country.

?It looks like now the Louisiana facilities are out of the competition, and we are very happy about that. Now we are just awaiting word from the company. But this means they are closer to a decision,? Parsley said.

Motiva Enterprises LLC is a joint venture between Shell and Saudi Refining Inc. The company?s three refineries currently have a combined capacity of 740,000 bpd.

Parsley said the decision is pending resolution of a few issues between the two companies, Shell and Saudi Refining. Regulatory approval will also be required before construction could begin.

According to Motiva, the potential expansion would bring needed supplies of transportation fuels to the U.S. market, particularly the Eastern and Southern regions of the country where Motiva facilities are located.

?We are confident that the market fundamentals will support an expansion of our U.S. refining capacity,? William Welte, Motiva president and chief executive officer, said. ?Adding 325,000 barrels per day of refining capacity would be the equivalent of building a new refinery in the United States. We are taking deliberate steps to strengthen our nation's ability to meet future demand for gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels.?

The company said the proposed expansion would notably increase refining capacity but because of modern design and technology, associated emissions would be minimized. Motiva would not only utilize advanced technology in all new installations, but also replace existing systems to significantly lower emissions from refinery operations.

In addition to increasing refinery output that would benefit the nation?s oil supply, the expansion would be a boon for Port Arthur.

Final engineering is expected later this year and construction could begin in 2007.

During the construction phase, the project would provide 3,000 to 4,000 jobs and would result in 300 permanent positions when completed. Including indirect jobs, the impact would be 11,000 jobs and $6.8 billion in construction and spin-off revenues. When the refinery is in operation, the anticipated economic impact on the community is $10.5 billion.

?The community has been a large player in the equation,? Parsley said. ?The taxing entities, industrial groups, civic leaders and neighbors have all played a large role. It sends a very positive message to the company that this area is ready and welcomes such an expansion.?

 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Always...and I mean always blame the minority party instead of the majority party.

Oh, and who is to blame for high oil prices? Spectators who love the unrest and political fallout over a fvcked up Middle East policy brought to you by the folks at the PNAC (i.e. The Neocons running the White House and parts of the rest of DC). That's what's driving oil prices up.

IIRC, 9 permits were issued after the first Gulf War for new refineries (will try to find it again) and NOT ONE was ever built. Big oil doesn't want new refineries, period!
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Engineer
Always...and I mean always blame the minority party instead of the majority party.

Oh, and who is to blame for high oil prices? Spectators who love the unrest and political fallout over a fvcked up Middle East policy brought to you by the folks at the PNAC (i.e. The Neocons running the White House and parts of the rest of DC). That's what's driving oil prices up.

IIRC, 9 permits were issued after the first Gulf War for new refineries (will try to find it again) and NOT ONE was ever built. Big oil doesn't want new refineries, period!

Again, as I have asked for the 100th time, could somebody provide me the definition of a speculator and the proof that they are causing this?

Anybody who claims that it's just speculators can immediately be labled is financially ignorant and should be ignored.

Refineries are not the answer.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Refinery measure fails

Republicans branded Democrats as obstructionists on energy. The vote, 237-188, fell short of the two-thirds needed to pass under special procedures.

From CNN.com and not Fox News for you liberals.

Why is Bush being blamed for high oil prices when Democrats are the ones responsible? Granted, even if we started building refineries today, it wouldn't have an effect on prices for years, but what are Democrats doing to help eleviate the situation today?

Who knows, it is part of that mysterious democratic plan to weed us off foreign oil and lower gasoline prices by doing everything possible to stop the process of what they are promising.

John Kerry campaigned on getting us off ME oil, then tries to block legislation to open up known quantities of oil within our borders.

 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Engineer
Always...and I mean always blame the minority party instead of the majority party.

Oh, and who is to blame for high oil prices? Spectators who love the unrest and political fallout over a fvcked up Middle East policy brought to you by the folks at the PNAC (i.e. The Neocons running the White House and parts of the rest of DC). That's what's driving oil prices up.

IIRC, 9 permits were issued after the first Gulf War for new refineries (will try to find it again) and NOT ONE was ever built. Big oil doesn't want new refineries, period!

Again, as I have asked for the 100th time, could somebody provide me the definition of a speculator and the proof that they are causing this?

Anybody who claims that it's just speculators can immediately be labled is financially ignorant and should be ignored.

Refineries are not the answer.


I never said refineries were.

Also, why else would oil supplies, which inventories are at an 8 year high (even higher than the 1998 market that produced $11 per barrel oil), be at over $72 per barrel now? Even OPEC has stated the world is well supplied and the White House agreed with them? Can you explain why the irrational exuberance on oil is there (I'm not talking about gas, I'm talking about oil, which is in the OP's subtitle.)

Mr. Smart@ss financial wizard, what is the real answer then since you seem to throw it out there? I'll be refreshing once and awhile to see it and I don't mean the supply and demand bullcrap as I've already stated that the levels are high and those in charge say the same. Spit it out or be ignored yourself!
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Engineer

I never said refineries were.

Also, why else would oil supplies, which inventories are at an 8 year high (even higher than the 1998 market that produced $11 per barrel oil), be at over $72 per barrel now? Even OPEC has stated the world is well supplied and the White House agreed with them? Can you explain why the irrational exuberance on oil is there (I'm not talking about gas, I'm talking about oil, which is in the OP's subtitle.)

Mr. Smart@ss financial wizard, what is the real answer then since you seem to throw it out there? I'll be refreshing once and awhile to see it and I don't mean the supply and demand bullcrap as I've already stated that the levels are high and those in charge say the same. Spit it out or be ignored yourself!

First off, most of the worlds market works off of futures when talking about oil. People hedge their delivery risk by purchasing contracts that will allow them to take delivery of oil at a certain price within a certain time, locking in that price. Of course, part of that price has to do with the risk-free rate of interest, since you don't have to purchase the actual product and hold it. Finally, you have to build in risk.

Risk is the fundamental measurement in finance and it is also priced within everything you buy or sell. You cannot have an abnormal return above RFR without risk, unless it is an abritrage profit, which would then be quickly priced out of the market. That risk comes from a variety of factors, mostly geo-political, and has to be accounted for throughout the entire length of the contract.

Of course, with futures, the price is also driven by the underlying. If people anticipate risks within the market, disruptions, and other issues, then they will build those into the projections for price, so that the futures track with underlying.

However, to say that speculators are only causing the increase is quite a misnomer. Especially considering the fact that, unlike spot prices, futures has to have a counterparty. Thus there is somebody on the opposite side of the contract that is betting the long or short is wrong. So a reverse speculation takes place.

Furthermore, the NYMEX is only part of the commodities trading worldwide, and the traders represent only part of the worldwide market that chases after a certain amount. For the longs to dominate the market would require quite a bit of capital, much more than what most people attribute, hedge funds.

Furthermore, to imply that it is irrational exuberance, would be equally misleading. Equating one-off equity runs or housing runs to a worldwide based commodity market is foolish. GOOG or a house is a one-off valued at what a limited market expects. Oil, on the other hand, is much different.

I could go further, but I must get some stuff done.

Keep in mind that spculators are extremely small in worldwide consumption and use. Essentially, it is risk that is causing the problems, along with supply issues.

 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
This was a bill to gut the exisiting envirnomental regulations applicable to refineries. The GOP spin-meisters are wrongfully protraying it as a bill to build new refineries, which it was not. Even the oil producers were luke warm about this bill.

There are many reasons for the lack of new refineries being built, and environmental concerns are only part of the picture. Personally, I feel the most compelling part of the equation is that oil firms are oligopolies and all benefit from restrictions on production. Their expenses would inevitably rise and profits fall, if capacity expands.

Environmental regulations are the pretext here, the real decisions limiting our refining capacity are profit driven and made in closed board rooms and gentlemens clubs.

 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Supply issues on "OIL" has been pointed out: 8 year supply high worldwide and rising.

I'm not sure how risk doesn't equal speculation. You're speculating on risk or so it would seem. :confused:
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Engineer
Supply issues on "OIL" has been pointed out: 8 year supply high worldwide and rising.

I'm not sure how risk doesn't equal speculation. You're speculating on risk or so it would seem. :confused:

Speculation implies profiting from risk. However, the futures markets largely exist to hedge *against* risk, not to take it. The largest amount of volume is hedge against risk, which is what the worldwide market does. Furthermore, for every person using the futures markets to accept risk, there is a counterparty using it to hedge risk.

An addition to risk of today is risk of tomorrow. Will oil always continue at it's current levels? Will geo-poltiical issues cause it to raise? Is it really as well supplied as thought? Or is it supplied to the maximum profit of oil producing countries, ala OPEC? What is a well supplied market? It is the amount that the market demands and obviously, the market demands more.

It is supply and demand, but not just for today, but also the future, which comes back to hedging.

This isn't like speculation on housing or GOOG. It isn't really always speculation for profit, but also speculation for loss of profit, the distinction is there and is usually lost on laymen.

However, people use speculators and hedge funds as the boogieman, blaming some morphous villain on their woes, when in actuality, it is their own demand of a limited supply and their future demand of a diminishing supply that is causing the issue.

An additional point. While supply may be keeping pace, it is keeping pace at an increased cost. People use the term "peak oil". However, peak oil is a fools explaination for the market. For every "peak" there will be a matching find that just costs an additional marginal amount, further keeping pace with current supply. However, at what cost? If supply doesn't match the increase in demand, then the natural response is a further increase in price.

When that happens you can use more expensive extraction methods to expand production, some examples are oil sands and oil shale, which will eventually be profitable. However, if they cannot provide enough to match the increase in demand, then the price will not return to an equalibrium.

Finally, the recent find in increasing reserves did drop prices. This could be because demand has decreased or that supply has increased.

The world has to get used to the fact that the easy, cheap, oil is gone. It's a matter now of how quickly supply with ramp with demand given India, China, supply disruptions, and overall geo-political risk. All of these get built into the price of a commodity such as oil.

Hedging doesn't always provide price feedback. Even if it did, the markets, in their most efficient state (as commodity markets are *the* most efficient market) will often punish those who take speculative positions since they are truly a random walk that rely much less on non-public material information and much more on the general market of millions of purchasers of both future and underlying products that often have the same information.

Some can say that markets can be efficient but irrational. That can be the case for many markets (housing, GOOG, .bombs). However, those markets are often filled with the irrational expectation of continual *GOOD* results. People are betting the good times will always roll.

However, betting bad times will keep going is a fools bet, one which people are loathe to make and is much more unpredictable in nature.

Always keep in mind that speculation in the commodity markets is *MUCH* different than equity. Futures are used and less educated people are eliminated from the mix. Furthermore, for every short every (seller or writer) there has to be a long (buyer) willing to take your contract. Some may say that this is the same as a buyer/seller in equity, but there are many fundamental differences, the largest is that speculation in futures requires that contract, which is ongoing and that profit/loss is always realized by marking to market and final resolution in the spot markets.