Do we have an oil bubble?

[Jay]

Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

We are not witnessing a "bubble" in oil but rather the end of the dollar bubble that started in 1971 and peaked during the tech stock bubble in 2000. Barring some unforeseen political arrangement, the positive distortion of dollar value created via the cooperation of global central banks since 1980 to inflate the value of the currency in which oil is priced, if you want cheap oil in the future you will need to either live in a country that produces more oil than it consumes or one that is able, politically and militarily, to extort oil in exchange for another irredeemable national "reserve" currency. Maybe the Europeans can do it with the euro, but we doubt it.

It looks to me that beside the military card, the US is also playing an agriculture card. Elevated world grain prices are due to not only the falling dollar, but also ethanol and other food subsidies in the US, right? It strikes me that this seemingly insane policy of subsidies must also be entwined with the dwindling resource game, i.e. the US can feed itself and a good bit of the rest of the world, whereas the middle eastern countries can not, so the message is that they better be careful or the US will let them starve. Am I reading this right? I have never seen anything here on itulip directly about food prices and how they are part of the worldwide economic and political picture, and how this relates to potentialities in the future. This does seem like a big part of the picture though. Anyone here know how to properly put this in place?

[metalman]

Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

Thank you for welcome. I found this place after I've read "The Next Bubble"

welcome, dude. can't help jumping into the middle of this. :p

I appreciate you took time to provide me with a detailed answer.
As a skeptic I have though few remarks to make
Houses are not a financial asset backed by a security sold by Wall Street either. I agree though that the term of oil bubble may be incorrect. Maybe we should call it a commodities futures bubble.

huh? the mortgage paper was the whole point of the housing bubble. the housing prices were the means to the end. the cdos made the mortgages possible.

itulip is all skeptics. if you are a skeptic of the skeptics, does that make you msm?

For a skeptic this argument can go both ways.
This is an exceptionalism argument. In every bubble there is a widespread belief that "this time is different", but it is always the same.

in these parts, that's a pedestrian argument. google itulip has dozens of quotes from the 1920s and 30s. nothing new under the sun.

In countries with no subsidies for energy there is already a fall in demand, but that is valid for physical oil: the value of paper oil is the perfect candidate for a self-reinforcing appreciation process.

explain that. higher dot com stock prices leads to more dot coms. higher house prices means more houses. higher priced good, accessible oil means more good, accessible oil... but only if there is any to be got. to make new dot coms meant turning a vp biz dev into a ceo. takes a few months. making a new house meant illegals throwing together a pile of twigs. takes a few weeks. making more oil? takes a decade.

As a skeptic on this one I would rather agree with jtabeb.
I think that what is called in popular culture the Enron Loophole was introduced in 2000 and the Swaps Loophole came in 2006.
Where there any tax incentives playing an important role in the housing bubble?

i should be nice... you're new here...

Janszen: So one way to look at it is that we're in for a downturn in assets but that RE will do the least badly among asset classes largely due to government subsidies and protections. What are the major subsidies and protections that the US government provides to US RE owners?

Evans: There are numerous subsidies the government offers from special buyer programs and incentives available at the local level through the Department of Urban Housing (HUD) to the Tax Relief Act of 1997, to state and federal income tax deductions for property taxes, and finally the government sponsored entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that create low-barrier loans to buy back from lenders. That means you can borrow substantially to get into a home, stay in it for two years, sell it, and keep the capital gains up to $250,000 as a single, or $500,000 as a couple. No wonder we’ve been in a 14-year housing boom, but the afterburners were turned up post 1997.

Janszen: Here at iTulip.com we call the Tax Relief Act of 1997 the "Flipper's Bonus," part of the U.S. government's creation of the ideal conditions for a housing bubble. You can argue whether these condition came about by intent or accident, but it's hard to argue that if the Federal government were TRYING to create the conditions for a housing bubble, they could not have done much better than the set of tax and other policies we have today. How do these government protections and subsidies compare to other popular asset classes, such as stocks and hedge funds, in terms of protecting value in the long term?

Evans: It’s almost can’t lose. Unlike stocks, you have two things with housing – the use of the investment, plus control. You don’t have to be a financial genius to do well. Just buy a nice home in a nice area, with nice city management and lots of jobs, and your house will pay your living expenses back over time in most cases. Contrast that to investing in instruments that are managed by ridiculously overpaid or crooked CEOs that siphon off the profits, protected by their buddies on the board and the SEC. The average Joe isn’t supposed to make any money, so it becomes a trust issue. Do you trust these suits who might be lying to you about the viability of their companies, or do you trust your own eyes? With a house, you can see with your own eyes what needs to be fixed, and you can control how and when it's fixed. The government doesn't want housing to decline and will do almost anything at the federal level to prevent it, but it has to have help at the municipal level too. That's why you have subsidies.

http://www.itulip.com/blancheevans1.htm

Again the voice of skepticism: Enron and Swaps loopholes

I'm skeptic about that too:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BU5U11GF75.DTL
The only investment offering phenomenal returns are oil futures ... this sound like bubble talk to me, but maybe I'm too skeptic.

the only one? really?

I'm skeptic about that too with respect to direct application of the press role. The press has been a bullhorn for catastrophic and peak-oil scenarios reinforcing the idea that the days of cheap oil are over and the permanent huge increase in oil process is inevitable. Scare tactics are used in bubbles too.

nonsense. the press only uttered the phrase "peak oil" after the price hit $120. yes, they are on the bandwagon now... 4 yrs into it. but they are not 'for' it. they say it's 'bad' and will end. just as you do. not like dot coms (it's a new era!) and housing (the miracle of home ownership!) what's the oil tagline? 'expensive oil will make us all rich!!!' no, they all say it will make us poor. and it has. and it will.

I completely agree with the concept of Peak Cheap Oil. But I am a skeptic and I like numbers. The most expensive method for large scale production of oil uses tar sands. It's almost a marvel of engineering and technology: mining the tarsands, separating the bitumen from sand and upgrading the bitumen to high quality synthetic crude.

ok, you've used that phrase one time too many. ignorance is not the same as skepticism.

False Solutions - The Canadian Tar Sands, A Nightmare In The Making

My problem with the application of Peak Cheap Oil to the current prices of $140+ is that the cost of making one barrel of synthetic high quality oil is somewhere in between $18 and $35 (depending on who you ask )

my problem with saying 'dig up more oil and the prices fall' argument is that if it were that easy it'd be done.

If the cost of producing one barrel of the most expensive kind of oil is, let's say, around $27, how can one could justify prices of $140+ as being a result of Cheap Peak Oil?

talk to the hand...

Saudi Officials Seek to Temper the Price of Oil
Jad Mouawad
Published: January 28, 2007

Saudi Arabia, which benefited immensely from record oil prices last year, has sent signals in the past two weeks that it is committed to keeping oil at around $50 a barrel -- down $27 a barrel from the summer peak that shook consumers across the developed world.

The indications came in typically cryptic fashion for the oil-rich kingdom. In Tokyo last week, Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, said Saudi Arabia’s policy was to maintain “moderate prices.” The previous week, on a stop in New Delhi, he effectively put his veto on an emergency meeting of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to prop up prices after oil briefly dropped below $50 a barrel, the lowest level in nearly two years.

The events that propelled oil prices above $77 a barrel last July, then dragged them down again, were beyond the control of any single producer. Still, Saudi Arabia, which is by far the largest oil producer within OPEC and sets the cartel’s agenda, is seeking to avoid a repeat of the dramatic rise in prices while trying to put a floor beneath them.

Nowhere was last summer’s spike in oil prices felt more profoundly than in the United States. As gasoline rose above $3 a gallon, consumers cut their spending elsewhere, tamping down profits in retail, travel and other industries. United States automakers were devastated as consumers fled from large vehicles to smaller ones, which have historically been the specialty of the Japanese; on Thursday, Ford said that 2006 had been the worst year in its history.

The recent slide back to $50 a barrel for oil -- which translates to about $2 for a gallon of gasoline -- has eased the pressure on the domestic economy, quieting talk that oil prices and the declining housing market would lead to a recession.

[jtabeb]

Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

When Hudson publicly states he has some of his own money on the line in a refinery investment I'll start to take his ranting about that industry seriously. Until then be assured that, although I have learned a great deal from his writings, and iTulip's analysis of same, he doesn't know shzt about the business of refining.

Correct me if I'm wrong PLEASE, be has the industry as a whole taken to reducing refinery throughput to REDUCE capacity since the last oil bust.

Seems to me that THAT would be a very profitable way to make "excess profits" don't you think?

[jtabeb]

Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

EJ writes in:

If one learns nothing else from their 10 years at iTulip it is this: all asset bubbles are mean reverting.

We said that about the NASDAQ in 1999 and we said that about housing in 2005. Now we are saying this principle does not apply to oil.

Will oil prices "revert to the mean"? What is the "mean" oil price?

It is an absurd question.

There can be no "bubble" in a non-renewable commodity, one that is consumed and especially one that is the heart of the global economy. You can have a gold bubble as occurred in 1980 because gold is not consumed.

There is no mean oil price to revert to.

Oil price problems are money value problems.

Since 1971 the oil price is the flip side of dollar purchasing power.

We warned in 1999 that the paper dollar standard was going to end within the next ten years. Time's up.

The dollar peaked in 2001 just before the start of the Iraq War.

Bottom line iTulip position on oil:

We are not witnessing a "bubble" in oil but rather the end of the dollar bubble that started in 1971 and peaked during the tech stock bubble in 2000. Barring some unforeseen political arrangement, the positive distortion of dollar value created via the cooperation of global central banks since 1980 to inflate the value of the currency in which oil is priced, if you want cheap oil in the future you will need to either live in a country that produces more oil than it consumes or one that is able, politically and militarily, to extort oil in exchange for another irredeemable national "reserve" currency. Maybe the Europeans can do it with the euro, but we doubt it.

But why oh WHY is the gold price of oil not going through the roof?

If it is really a consumable vs non-consumable issue then it shouldn't matter if priced in gold or cash or sea shells, correct?

What good is gold if it won't buy you oil or food or real estate on the cheap (in gold terms).

If it were just oil, oil price in gold would reflect this, it doesn't, so why the disconnect?

Just look at FIAT DJIA vs DJIA in gold, Oil in FIAT vs OIL in GOLD, FOOD in FIAT vs FOOD in GOLD, ETC Etc etc.

Lets call gold the best currency to price items in (even if you think it's not)

How we doing on that count?

[metalman]

Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

But why oh WHY is the gold price of oil not going through the roof?

If it is really a consumable vs non-consumable issue then it shouldn't matter if priced in gold or cash or sea shells, correct?

What good is gold if it won't buy you oil or food or real estate on the cheap (in gold terms).

If it were just oil, oil price in gold would reflect this, it doesn't, so why the disconnect?

Just look at FIAT DJIA vs DJIA in gold, Oil in FIAT vs OIL in GOLD, FOOD in FIAT vs FOOD in GOLD, ETC Etc etc.

Lets call gold the best currency to price items in (even if you think it's not)

How we doing on that count?

old, old, old, old, old, old, old, news...

http://www.itulip.com/gold.htm

http://www.itulip.com/energyandmoney.htm

[jtabeb]

Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

welcome, dude. can't help jumping into the middle of this. :p



huh? the mortgage paper was the whole point of the housing bubble. the housing prices were the means to the end. the cdos made the mortgages possible.

itulip is all skeptics. if you are a skeptic of the skeptics, does that make you msm?



in these parts, that's a pedestrian argument. google itulip has dozens of quotes from the 1920s and 30s. nothing new under the sun.



explain that. higher dot com stock prices leads to more dot coms. higher house prices means more houses. higher priced good, accessible oil means more good, accessible oil... but only if there is any to be got. to make new dot coms meant turning a vp biz dev into a ceo. takes a few months. making a new house meant illegals throwing together a pile of twigs. takes a few weeks. making more oil? takes a decade.



i should be nice... you're new here...

Janszen: So one way to look at it is that we're in for a downturn in assets but that RE will do the least badly among asset classes largely due to government subsidies and protections. What are the major subsidies and protections that the US government provides to US RE owners?

Evans: There are numerous subsidies the government offers from special buyer programs and incentives available at the local level through the Department of Urban Housing (HUD) to the Tax Relief Act of 1997, to state and federal income tax deductions for property taxes, and finally the government sponsored entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that create low-barrier loans to buy back from lenders. That means you can borrow substantially to get into a home, stay in it for two years, sell it, and keep the capital gains up to $250,000 as a single, or $500,000 as a couple. No wonder we’ve been in a 14-year housing boom, but the afterburners were turned up post 1997.

Janszen: Here at iTulip.com we call the Tax Relief Act of 1997 the "Flipper's Bonus," part of the U.S. government's creation of the ideal conditions for a housing bubble. You can argue whether these condition came about by intent or accident, but it's hard to argue that if the Federal government were TRYING to create the conditions for a housing bubble, they could not have done much better than the set of tax and other policies we have today. How do these government protections and subsidies compare to other popular asset classes, such as stocks and hedge funds, in terms of protecting value in the long term?

Evans: It’s almost can’t lose. Unlike stocks, you have two things with housing – the use of the investment, plus control. You don’t have to be a financial genius to do well. Just buy a nice home in a nice area, with nice city management and lots of jobs, and your house will pay your living expenses back over time in most cases. Contrast that to investing in instruments that are managed by ridiculously overpaid or crooked CEOs that siphon off the profits, protected by their buddies on the board and the SEC. The average Joe isn’t supposed to make any money, so it becomes a trust issue. Do you trust these suits who might be lying to you about the viability of their companies, or do you trust your own eyes? With a house, you can see with your own eyes what needs to be fixed, and you can control how and when it's fixed. The government doesn't want housing to decline and will do almost anything at the federal level to prevent it, but it has to have help at the municipal level too. That's why you have subsidies.

http://www.itulip.com/blancheevans1.htm


the only one? really?



nonsense. the press only uttered the phrase "peak oil" after the price hit $120. yes, they are on the bandwagon now... 4 yrs into it. but they are not 'for' it. they say it's 'bad' and will end. just as you do. not like dot coms (it's a new era!) and housing (the miracle of home ownership!) what's the oil tagline? 'expensive oil will make us all rich!!!' no, they all say it will make us poor. and it has. and it will.


ok, you've used that phrase one time too many. ignorance is not the same as skepticism.

False Solutions - The Canadian Tar Sands, A Nightmare In The Making



my problem with saying 'dig up more oil and the prices fall' argument is that if it were that easy it'd be done.


talk to the hand...

Saudi Officials Seek to Temper the Price of Oil
Jad Mouawad
Published: January 28, 2007

Saudi Arabia, which benefited immensely from record oil prices last year, has sent signals in the past two weeks that it is committed to keeping oil at around $50 a barrel -- down $27 a barrel from the summer peak that shook consumers across the developed world.

The indications came in typically cryptic fashion for the oil-rich kingdom. In Tokyo last week, Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, said Saudi Arabia’s policy was to maintain “moderate prices.” The previous week, on a stop in New Delhi, he effectively put his veto on an emergency meeting of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to prop up prices after oil briefly dropped below $50 a barrel, the lowest level in nearly two years.

The events that propelled oil prices above $77 a barrel last July, then dragged them down again, were beyond the control of any single producer. Still, Saudi Arabia, which is by far the largest oil producer within OPEC and sets the cartel’s agenda, is seeking to avoid a repeat of the dramatic rise in prices while trying to put a floor beneath them.

Nowhere was last summer’s spike in oil prices felt more profoundly than in the United States. As gasoline rose above $3 a gallon, consumers cut their spending elsewhere, tamping down profits in retail, travel and other industries. United States automakers were devastated as consumers fled from large vehicles to smaller ones, which have historically been the specialty of the Japanese; on Thursday, Ford said that 2006 had been the worst year in its history.

The recent slide back to $50 a barrel for oil -- which translates to about $2 for a gallon of gasoline -- has eased the pressure on the domestic economy, quieting talk that oil prices and the declining housing market would lead to a recession.

C'mon here guys. Housing was in short supply AFTER demand increased due to the FED's monetary policy, Which came first the house or the CDO's.

The price action CAME FIRST, then the securitization. Oil SAME ******* THING. (granted it is easier to build a house than to find a new supply of oil , but but but supply can increase or demand can go down OR OR OR a combination of the two.)

We saw housing supply increase (not likely in this case) but One of you F'ers tell me that the FED's lending facilities are NOT GOING INTO THE ENERGY MARKET, come on, one of you guys MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. You won't because you know it's happening.

My point is that the BEST BUBBLE IS A SUPPLY CONSTRAINED BUBBLE!! ( Then you all start acting all MISHIAN and saying that "well, if it's supply constraints it can't be a bubble, what's your definition of a bubble anyway, I don't have time for this to explain it to a peon like you a gain, we've been over this already...)

BULL ******* SHIT! AND, you know it is.

Prove it you say, I say FINE! Look at California Electrical Prices!

Was it a bubble? Yes!

Supply Constrained? Yes!

So Don't ******* tell me it can't happen that way, IT HAS!

(Remember it only takes one counter example to disprove something, you got one, so don't reiterate the same arguments over and over again)

I want a better argument than that. (one that is at least credible)

Why am I so pissy?

The little guys (ME) get only 1 chance to **** UP and then we are wiped out. I don't want to be wiped out so I want you (ITULIP) to get this right.

When you line of reasoning has more holes than swiss cheese, I AM NOT HAPPY:mad:

See my previous post on "ten reasons why it ain't an oil bubble".

OFF the Cuff I refuted (or at least couter argued) like 8 of them and I'm a freaking pilot for god's sakes! ( we make our money with MONKEY SKILLS not BRAINS).

That bothers me. :eek:

You have to do better than "Awe Gees, shucks well, It's supply constraints so IT MUST NOT BE A BUBBLE". Seen it lived it and it was a bubble.

I WANT BETTER. WE NEED BETTER. YOU NEED TO GIVE US BETTER!
OUR COLLECTIVE PORTFOLIOS DEPEND ON IT!

Happy forth BTW!

[jtabeb]

Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

old, old, old, old, old, old, old, news...

http://www.itulip.com/gold.htm

http://www.itulip.com/energyandmoney.htm

So you why don't you go and do something productive and address my first post? Specifically how you can't have a supply constrained bubble ( I argue that you can). Take a shot and give me some new thoughts. It's better than regurgitating OLD OLD OLD STUFF, Nes Pas?

[GRG55]

Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

Correct me if I'm wrong PLEASE, be has the industry as a whole taken to reducing refinery throughput to REDUCE capacity since the last oil bust.

Seems to me that THAT would be a very profitable way to make "excess profits" don't you think?

So what is unique about the global refining industry that allows it alone to have accomplished this magical result?

Airlines could actually make money if they wiped out two thirds of their worldwide seat capacity. Grocery stores could raise their prices substantially if they closed half the stores in your country. Undertakers could make obscene incomes if they could find a way to shutter a good number of funeral homes, while maintaining the same rate of dead people. The world's carmakers could really make some money [even dismal GM ] if they closed half the global production of cars. Just imagine how good a year the homebuilders would be having right now if they had continuously cut their capacity over the last 10 years, instead of increasing it and overbuilding.

So why haven't any of these happened? Is every other industry just stupid and brain dead compared to Big Oil?

Hey, Boeing could generate monopoly profits if only it bought out the other US commercial airplane makers and defense contractors like McDonnell Douglas. Oh, I forgot...they already did that. :rolleyes:

Refining has been a crap business in the OECD for a long, long time. Money exits crap businesses. Perpetually crap businesses means money exits faster and faster over time [and doesn't come back very quickly either]. Huge amounts of capital invested, ever increasing regulations, NIMBY, hostile politicians and public. Would you put/keep your money into a business that never even covers its cost of capital? Didn't think so. Don't think Hudson did either. Why should you or he expect anyone else to?

Companies shrinking their exposure to a lousy business is nothing new. Since the last oil bust [25+ years ago], how many times have you had to line up for gasoline because there was a shortage in the USA? If the companies were colluding to drive up prices why did it take them a quarter century to do it? And why haven't they squeezed you and everyone else on the planet so you have to line up for every tankful and pay even more than we are paying now? Since I don't see anyone lining up anywhere, maybe there isn't really any shortage of gasoline in this world after all. Looking at the dismal stock price performance of the pure refining/marketing companies in the USA over the past year (Valero, Frontier, Tesoro) it would appear that I am not alone in thinking that refining is a lousy business.

A couple of us on this site think that refining could be getting pretty close to rock bottom. The stock prices haven't stopped falling, and who knows where the exact bottom is, but you and your fellow citizens better start hoping for better financial performance in this sector soon, or there won't be anybody willing to risk their capital increasing refining capacity in the USA. And you can bet the farm on that.

[Spartacus]

Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

heard on the radio today - not an exact transcript - the entire quote was attributed to an OPEC minister

the oil prices is not high because of supply and demand, but because the currency oil is priced in, the US dollar, is weak.

But don't expect oil to come down in price anytime soon, as the demand fron China and India is so strong.

[Guest]

Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

When Hudson publicly states he has some of his own money on the line in a refinery investment I'll start to take his ranting about that industry seriously. Until then be assured that, although I have learned a great deal from his writings, and iTulip's analysis of same, he doesn't know shzt about the business of refining.

Spot on GRG55 - your post above tells it like it really is. And I agree with you (emphatically) that Hudson's grasp of the essentials regarding the refiners (and "big oil") stretches ones credulity like a (very stretched) rubber band. I found myself gaping to read some of his conclusions. How could an economist so brilliant, conclude ... etc. etc.

[metalman]

Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

Spot on GRG55 - your post above tells it like it really is. And I agree with you (emphatically) that Hudson's grasp of the essentials regarding the refiners (and "big oil") stretches ones credulity like a (very stretched) rubber band. I found myself gaping to read some of his conclusions. How could an economist so brilliant, conclude ... etc. etc.

that's the problem with these brainy guys... brilliant about one thing so think the are brilliant about everything.

[EJ]

Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

When Hudson publicly states he has some of his own money on the line in a refinery investment I'll start to take his ranting about that industry seriously. Until then be assured that, although I have learned a great deal from his writings, and iTulip's analysis of same, he doesn't know shzt about the business of refining.

Exchanged emails with Hudson on this. He said: "My main point was about the National Petroleum Reserve, not about refiners and shipping. That was added almost as an afterthought, and I haven't been following it as closely as I used to. What I do understand is that new refineries haven't been built. That's about it."

I looked hard at a US refinery investment opportunity with a local VC about a year ago. We involved a number of 40+ year oil experts from around the world in the due diligence. Bottom line, as I recall, is that 1) refineries are, due to labor cost issues, more economical to build and run in other countries that have project management expertise, especially India, and 2) oil producers are moving toward building their own refinery capacity to capture more of the downstream high margin refined oil product business. We concluded that a new US oil refinery was likely to face intense competition from refiners in oil producing countries and countries with low labor cost nations. Also, the founder wanted $1M just to fund the business planning and environmental approvals process. For these reasons we passed on the investment opportunity.

[GRG55]

Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

Exchanged emails with Hudson on this. He said: "My main point was about the National Petroleum Reserve, not about refiners and shipping. That was added almost as an afterthought, and I haven't been following it as closely as I used to. What I do understand is that new refineries haven't been built. That's about it."

I looked hard at a US refinery investment opportunity with a local VC about a year ago. We involved a number of 40+ year oil experts from around the world in the due diligence. Bottom line, as I recall, is that 1) refineries are, due to labor cost issues, more economical to build and run in other countries that have project management expertise, especially India, and 2) oil producers are moving toward building their own refinery capacity to capture more of the downstream high margin refined oil product business. We concluded that a new US oil refinery was likely to face intense competition from refiners in oil producing countries and countries with low labor cost nations. Also, the founder wanted $1M just to fund the business planning and environmental approvals process. For these reasons we passed on the investment opportunity.

$1M would have been far, far short of what is required to prepare just the EIA studies and documents required for permit applications in the USA. And that's before the applicant gets dragged through the endless public consultation process.

In the absence of a history making conservation effort, US imports of finished products will continue rising.

I was involved in a first stage assessment to build a sour crude refinery in one of the Arab Gulf states, and we couldn't get the numbers to work there either.

[algerwetmore]

Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

I am always amazed when someone throws in the "speculators" card. It's not like some totalitarian is forcing someone to trade with the speculators.
By the way, with oil production falling dramtically at Cantarell and Ghwar, I concur with EJ and Fred, it is not a bubble, but simply supply and demand.

[ccyork]

Re: We have an oil bubble : the proof

a "bubble" implies oil will probably never go higher than it is right now

that is doubtful

oil could easily correct, and correct a great deal. however it won't be long before oil is sky high once again

-- ccyork

The Jim Rogers Project is now under construction: http://jimrogersproject.wordpress.com/