Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 30, 2008

Short Thought

Anybody who is long oil, i.e. bets on higher crude prices, has an interest to instigate War on the 70+ million people of Iran.

Oil rises to record on concerns about Iran

Posted by b on June 30, 2008 at 19:40 UTC | Permalink

Comments


this is going to go down as one of the biggest stings ever. And the sheer hypocrisy. Nothing that OPEC's ever done even faintly compares to this. But if it were OPEC's doing, the outrage would be deafening.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jun 30 2008 21:00 utc | 1

I expect a "non-viagra" attack, "incident". The Iranians/Russians etc must be pumping like hell for these prices.

Posted by: | Jun 30 2008 21:10 utc | 2

In the text of the linked story you find this little jewel,

Foreign ministers from the Group of 8 nations last week suggested more talks to coax Iran into opening its nuclear program to inspectors, after speculation the country faces an imminent Israeli strike.

Yet the IAEA says

"Our task in Iran is to make sure that the Iranian nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes. We are at it for the last five years. In the last four months, in particular, we have made quite good progress in clarifying the outstanding issues that had to do with Iran´s past nuclear activities, with the exception of one issue, and that is the alleged weaponization studies that supposedly Iran has conducted in the past. We have managed to clarify all the remaining outstanding issues, including the most important issue, which is the scope and nature of Iran´s enrichment programme. We have made good progress, with still one issue on our agenda and I call on Iran to act as actively as possible, as fast as possible, for me to be able (to ensure) that all issues, that have to do with Iran´s past nuclear activities, have been clarified.

so, it seems that the IHT is more or less a mouthpiece for zionist propaganda/pysops.

wouldn't it be great if the editors of those papers would have noses like Pinocchio that would grow just a little every time they told a lie?

Posted by: dan of steele | Jun 30 2008 21:33 utc | 3

LOL. In the end, the winners will be Central Asia: the -stan states. The losers? The drive the humvee to the mall crowd in the US.

Posted by: Diogenes | Jul 1 2008 0:08 utc | 4

No duality, and with far more complexity than some cheap theosophical ad hominem.

The "winners" are the OK-TX Brenter's and the UK North Sea'rs, who produce much of
the world's sweet crude, besides, of course, Saud's. Hmmm, bet you didn't know that!
The usual suspects, walking around in plain view, looting in broad daylight.

The "losers" are the American tax payers, who have been grifting, through Congress
as their proxy, $10's of B's over a dozen years and two Presidents to pay for oil depletion allowances and gas and diesel desulfurization equipment tax credits to
the US Big Oil companies.

The "winners" are the US Big Oil companies, who worked their magic at EPA to get
the low-sulfur regulations passed, then worked their magic in Congress to get the
tax credits for desulfurization equipment approved, then turned around and put
those credits into ... that's right, sweet crude futures, which they, whatdya know,
control the majority of!! Now you know why they refer to it as "SWEET"! And this
month they worked their magic in Congress again, and kept the grift coming!

The "losers" are the Americans who let Congress go 12 years without raising CAFE,
who let EPA block imports of high efficiency European diesel cars (in the same
desulfurization scam packet), and who let George Bush take out the world's most
inexpensive crude oil, Iraq's, crude so cheap and abundant, that oil was $10/bbl
just before George Bush took office, then mysteriously jumped double once the
election results were announced, then mysteriously jumped double early in 2003.

One of those mysteries of the sea.

The "winners" are the CBOT/ICE commodities future traders. If there was even 1 chance in a billion that
commodities futures trading was causing this runaway price spiral moon launch,
any responsible Fed government, one that adheres to its own GWOT rules, who
really believes Freedom Isn't Free (TM), would close the Enron loophole that
Reagan opened, for sixty to ninety days, say, just up to the elections.

If there was no correlation with futures trading, then closing that loophole
would clearly have zero negative effect on futures traders. They could open
their positions again in October, and oil would still be at $140, or higher.
Right? Instead we get dithering, triangulation, and projectile blood-letting.

Ultimately now, everyone are "losers", except the bin Laden's and the Saud's,
the Hunt's, the Cheney's, the Big Four, the whole Global Halliban, now firmly
entrenched and in control of shutting-in Iraq's surplus and maximizing their
declining sweet crude holdings in the oil patch. America is a kleptocracy.

Everyone says "Iraq was for the oil" like parrots, without any comprehension of
what that means. GWT2 was to REMOVING CHEAP SURPLUS oil from the world markets.
George Bush walked hand in hand down the aisle with the very Saud's who bombed US!
Bush Sr was in NYC having breakfast with bin Laden Sr on 9/11, in front row seats!

9/11 WTC was about covering up the dot.con neutron bomb, destroying the IRS and SEC
records and indictments, for which, under Y2K regulations, there should have been a
100% redundant backup copy in New Jersey, but that got disappeared in the "havoc".
Of course, havoc is a civilian term that doesn't exist in a pre-planned operation.

Iraq was about covering up the cover ups, covering up the desulfurization
tax credit diversion scam, about covering up the Enron deregulated round-tripping
scam, covering up the Fed easy credit bailout of banking perps. 'Lassez les bon
temps roulez'
, said Boy Emperor, and boy, we sure did! Hook, line and sinker.

We are ALL long oil, every waking moment. I'm writing this, long on the electricity
powering the circuits, long on the grains that feed my veins. Long, long, and gone:

If I lost my job today, I would have enough savings for:

3-6 months..................... 26% of Americans
6-12 months.................... 12% of Americans
At least one year.............. 25% of Americans

I don't have any savings 37% of Americans

>1/2 of America will be flat, busted, broke by the next 4th of July, 2009. Then
the NeoZi.con's will celebrate their first Independence Day of the Next 1000 Year
Reich, independent of financial need, because all the M3 resides in their vaults,
and all the oil resides in their tanks, and all the arms reside in their bunkers.

West Bank Rules: They won, you lost. Get over it, and get the hell off their land.

And they'll win because they can count on the ditherers and dualists, the sophists
and vernacularists, the theorists and pundocracists, and all their many pedantists
and sycophants to chatter merrily away ... while our SSTF vaults are being looted.

"I'm finished."

Posted by: West Brent | Jul 1 2008 4:22 utc | 5

There are other reasons to anticipate an oil price jump. It is, after all, hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico. Another Katrina is more likely than a war on Iran. If no Hurricane happens, I'm guessing oil prices fall in October. Maybe not to 70$ again, but perhaps to 100$ or so.

Posted by: Lysander | Jul 1 2008 13:50 utc | 6

West Brent,

The "winners" are the US Big Oil companies, who worked their magic at EPA to get the low-sulfur regulations passed, then worked their magic in Congress to get the tax credits for desulfurization equipment approved, then turned around and put those credits into ... that's right, sweet crude futures,which they,whatdya know, control the majority of!! Now you know why they refer to it as "SWEET"! And this month they worked their magic in Congress again, and kept the grift coming!

Where's the evidence for this? I'm not doubting you - I've heard it before - but I'd like to know where to look...

Posted by: Tantalus | Jul 1 2008 16:13 utc | 7

It is interesting that Americans blame Oil cos (private corps) and ‘speculators’ etc. - that is entities that are not national, not Gvmtal, and are doing exactly what is specified in the free-market mantra. What any American working for a Co. who produces row boats / frozen pizza / etc. is drilled in, and then believes in. And all investors - commodities are HOT!

Oil cos. only control between 7 and 13 % of world ‘oil’ (wide margin, who knows about all those various contracts, agreements, etc.) - all the rest is nationalized by the likes of Putin, etc. Not, in fact that that distinction is that important - it is a free market after all. In short, oil cos. like Exxon Mobil are *very* minor players.

Do they price gouge? Does Chavez? Does Wall mart? Does Mattel? Danon? Disney? The Indian railroad (biggest employer in the world) ? Rolex?

Americans at the pump need a scapegoat. They can’t believe that the high prices are about the crapped-out dollar, debt, the war in Iraq, mismanagement, loss of US power, end of the cheap energy age, the massive imports needed, etc. They see a sign and blame the seller for unfair prices, while gouging others as best as they can with over-priced row boats or pizzas that may kill ppl.

The oil age is over. The US is the least equipped to deal with it, though, contrary to popular belief, it is not at present amongst the very top users. (It has a large very poor population.)

Posted by: Tangerine | Jul 1 2008 19:40 utc | 8

[this comment was spam-trapped and released late by b]

Jony b cool & Diogenes,

OPEC is more than just Middle East Countries. And OPEC countries are making money hand over fist. Saudi oil earnings are now higher than total US GDP! Why are the –stan states going to be the big winners? Not too many years ago, many Iraqis thought they would be winners because of the oil there. So far, it hasn’t turned out that way.

Moreover and in contrast, Exxon maybe is small on the world scale in oil production. Someone who used to be in the oil business told me recently, and I don’t know if this fact is true, but Exxon roughly has/controls 2% of the refining, 1% of reserves in comparison to total global oil production.

In fact, Bloomberg reported yesterday that Exxon, BP, Investors Lose in Best Year for Oil Prices.


June 30 (Bloomberg) -- Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc and BP Plc investors are losing money in the best year for oil prices as they cede control of production to state-owned energy companies.
Exxon, the world's biggest company by market value, fell 7.6 percent this year in New York trading after Venezuela forced the Irving, Texas-based producer out of the Orinoco Belt, South America's largest oil fields. Shell lost 4.6 percent in London trading as Russia seized control of the $22 billion Sakhalin-2 venture. BP dropped 8.1 percent this year after the Russian government said it intends to take over the Kovykta gas deposit in Siberia owned by BP's Russian venture, TNK-BP.

But the implications at the cost of oil at even $100/barrel are more than startling. This is panic mode – where is all this money going to come from to pay for this oil!!??

I do not agree that speculation is causing the majority of the problem in the price of a barrel of oil. That is only one symptom of a deeper problem. And as U.S. oil speculators are able to operate on a world market, some of the options presented at controlling speculation do not make a lot of sense in my opinion. But I am not an economist and have never traded a commodity, or even owned a single share of stock in my entire life. These are just my simple thoughts. If U.S. printing presses run full throttle, how can anyone expect a real commodity, as priced in U.S. dollars, to fall? Again, this just doesn’t make sense to me, especially when we are talking about the price of oil. I disagree with b when he uses the term “speculative bubble”. Is it more correct to think that the U.S. dollar is inversely following the commodity prices, and not that commodity prices are rising because the U.S. dollar is falling? Is this subtle difference in reasoning significant? Just thinking out loud here. Is it not that oil is long, but that the U.S. dollar is short? Again, I am not an economist and maybe what I am saying here makes no sense, but I pose this as a question for those more knowledgeable on this subject than I. When speculators naturally find something to trade for that is better than holding onto a falling dollar, can we really call this a bubble? Coal is not under any similar ‘peak oil’ theory, but coal has been increasing along with oil. I can explain this via a worthless dollar more easily than blaming speculators even though coal is an energy commodity.

Back to the thread topic, it is certainly and simply incorrect to state that any oil investor has an interest in starting a war with Iran. There are many factors involved and to simply draw a conclusion on just one factor, that is, the price of oil, is not logical. Are there not Iranians who are oil investors? If so, do they have an interest in starting a war against Iran? If I choose to hold a few barrels of oil in speculation, does that mean I have an interest in starting a war with Iran? Wouldn’t my short-term small monetary gains be less than my long-term disadvantages when one considers the probable further negative effects on the U.S. economy and my insufficient inability to cope with a full economic depression?

Posted by: Rick | Jul 4 2008 14:23 utc | 9

The comments to this entry are closed.