Thread: Oil Tumbles as Signs of Slowing Economy Spur Commodity Selling

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^^ nice demand and supply curve, that's a nobel prize for you

jump higher boy,

Do you realise how stupid you sound by your pathetic comments against anyone who disagrees with you?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency said in October 2007 that oil prices will remain high for the foreseeable future due to rapid increases in demand from the rapidly growing economies of India and China.[14] This does not quite align with the fact that prices started climbing in 2003, when no special event took place in either country, but when Iraq was invaded. Then prices doubled again between 2006 and 2008, this time due to speculation, when US trading was allowed to take place through the US-owned ICE Futures exchange in London rather than the NYMEX, thereby escaping US regulatory requirements.

Quoting the EIA now, before you dismissed them as 'loonies', remember that?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Price of petroleum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recent speculation regulations have been put in place, would that explain the recent decline in oil price ? probably, and that reinforce the idea that current oil price is determined primarily by speculators. China and India got plenty of oil. No shortage on that end.

Yep, use of Wikipedia is about your limit!

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

The EIA disagree with you

yeah, yeah, EIA is an economics think tank that is drawing supply and demand curve in PowerPoint, yeah nice try

Peak Oil ? reality or fiction ? difficult to say, the higher price should increase oil supply very soon (2 years), matched by a declining demand, we all know what that means.

Peak oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Quoting the EIA now, before you dismissed them as 'loonies', remember that?

hahaha !!! quoting wiki, not the EIA, but I guess you missed that part also

keep jumping troll, and buy new glasses

ok enough wiki for now, not the best source, but a good summary of things to read. Of course recent events are always controversially documented in wiki, but at least they are all there and easy to deconstruct or support. For more technical topics, wiki is still a very nice source and less controversial.

one last one, based on facts:
Chronology of world oil market events (1970-2005) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chavez Goes Weapons Shopping in Russia Amid Arms Race (Update2)


By Matthew Walter




July 21 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez heads to Moscow today to shop for air defense systems, submarines and other weaponry as Latin America's arms race quickens amid signs that his regional influence is waning.

Past Venezuelan arms purchases from Russia have strengthened ties with Moscow as its rivalry with the U.S. intensifies over President George W. Bush's plans for an Eastern Europe missile defense system and other issues. Chavez, 53, also plans to visit Belarus, a Russian ally that the U.S. considers a dictatorship.

Chavez ``regularly refers to us as an `empire,' opposes our initiatives in the Americas and seeks out our adversaries as friends and allies,'' Assistant U.S. Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Thomas Shannon said July 17 in testimony to a congressional committee.

Chavez will order $2 billion worth of weapons, including Project 636 diesel subs, Mi-28 combat helicopters and airplanes made by Ilyushin Co., the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported May 12, without saying how it obtained the information. The Russian Interfax news service, citing an unnamed defense ministry official, said today Chavez may order $1 billion of weapons, including three Varshavyanka subs and up to 20 Tor-M1 air-defense systems.

Continued here:

Bloomberg.com: Exclusive

Now, if the latin lot start muscling in on the agression, watch the oil price go!

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ fucking priceless, wiki, ring a bell ? the paragraph was quoted from wiki, they mention IEA, just for the argument point, to show how wrong they are. Something that stroke another nerve apparently

are you that mental ? distracting the whole thread by focusing on pointless details where you still get OwNeD at the end ? awesome

PS: Nice reedit, you completely removed your pointless reference after making a fool of yourself, once more

You do realise that the IEA and the EIA are two completely different orgainisations, don't you?

FYI, The IEA is a 27 member country group of analysts, wheeas the EIA is a branch of the US Government.

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

You do realise that the IEA and the EIA are two completely different orgainisations, don't you?

FYI, The IEA is a 27 member country group of analysts, wheeas the EIA is a branch of the US Government.

^ blame yourself, I was copying/pasting the reference IEA directly from your quote, that you completely deleted after you realized your mistake

anyway, doesn't take away the validity of the argument, focusing on pointless details again, that's all you have left

^By the way, my question still stands on my reference soiurce, The EIA, do you still think that they are loonies, as you previously stated?

Mind you, given you confusion between them and the IEA, it is unlikely that they will be quaking in their boots at your assessment!

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

You do realise that the IEA and the EIA are two completely different orgainisations, don't you?

FYI, The IEA is a 27 member country group of analysts, wheeas the EIA is a branch of the US Government.

^ blame yourself, I was copying/pasting the reference IEA directly from your quote, that you completely deleted after you realized your mistake

anyway, doesn't take away the validity of the argument, see my other post above

Like I said, you are a complete psycho

What are you talking about now?

Summary:

Butterfly thinks that the following countries (of the IEA) are actually part of the US Government!

Australia (Government site | IEA site)Japan (Government site | IEA site)Austria (Government site | IEA site)Republic of Korea (Government site | IEA site) Belgium (Government site | IEA site)Luxembourg (Government site | IEA site)Canada (Government site | IEA site) The Netherlands (Government site | IEA site)Czech Republic (Government site | IEA site) New Zealand (Government site | IEA site)Denmark (Government site | IEA site)Norway (Government site | IEA site)
participates in the Agency under a special AgreementFinland (Government site | IEA site)Portugal (Government site | IEA site)France (Government site | IEA site)Slovak Republic (Government site | IEA site) Germany (Government site | IEA site)Spain (Government site | IEA site)Greece (Government site | IEA site)Sweden (Government site | IEA site)Hungary (Government site | IEA site)
Switzerland (Government site | IEA site) Ireland (Government site | IEA site)Turkey (Government site | IEA site) Italy (Government site | IEA site) United Kingdom (Government site | IEA site)

^No trolling; just a complete expose of your lack of knowledge and intellect, together with a demonstration that you attempt to make up for those traits by bullying and rudeness.

It is interesting to note how many other posters have PM'd me, encouraging me to complete this rout and show you up for the person you are.

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

It is interesting to note how many other posters have PM'd me, encouraging me to complete this rout and show you up for the person you are.

gee, we must get the same PM then

I'm going to use the "Lots of people have PM-ed me to say I am right" line in a debate soon too.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

It is interesting to note how many other posters have PM'd me, encouraging me to complete this rout and show you up for the person you are.

gee, we must get the same PM then

I somewhat doubt that.

Originally Posted by bkkmadness

I'm going to use the "Lots of people have PM-ed me to say I am right" line in a debate soon too.

^^ sshht, don't help him

He is competiting with AA for some annual troll award,

^And you're competing for the 'how wrong can some be on a thread' award:

B/F: Oil demand from China is 'imaginary' - wrong
B/F: Oil production has kept on increasing in line with demand - wrong
B/F: Tries to calculate a percentage - wrong
B/F: The EIA are 'loonies' - wrong
B/F: The IEA are the same as the EIA - wrong

Does anyone see a pattern here?

^ hehe, you are still there, I was worried you left for the mia noi

here is another wiki link for you:

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^Thought you were going to stop using Wikipedia.

(Is that 'wrong' again?)

Thanks for your interest, I will be leaving for a meeting shortly, but the mia noi will be at the usual time of 5.30. I'll let her know you asked after her.

Originally Posted by lannarebirth

The price of oil is high, not due to supply/demand issues for the oil, but due to supply demand issues centering on oil's pricing mechanism, ie: oil futures. The public seems to think that commodities are a new investment class (which it's not) and allocate investment resources every month to buy the futures at the ask. there's been a constant bid under these commodities devoid of the underlying supply/demand dynamic. Consequently many "commodities funds" have built larger positions than is allowed by law. That's all going to get unwound at some point.

I'm not saying oil and other commodities will fall through the floor, or that in the future it might not go still higher based on real supplier/customer hedging activity. I'm only saying that isn't extant now and it's gonna get undone.

That's what I'm talking about:

Written testimony of Mr Michael Masters

People tend to get all wrapped up in their intellectual arguments and want to show their education wasn't wasted. I find, however, that where governments and markets intersect it's best to think like a criminal and follow the money.

And as Joe Granville famously noted: "news is for suckers".

Fuel dropped by 5p a litre at major retailers in the UK today

Originally Posted by lannarebirth

That's what I'm talking about:

Written testimony of Mr Michael Masters

Great link, lannarebirth, always been about speculation, nothing else. Always amazed at the ignorance of the public, we have a few good examples in this thread, without mentioning names of course

Originally Posted by lannarebirth

And as Joe Granville famously noted: "news is for suckers".

See the thread about Chomsky, this is extensively addressed in his work "Manufacturing Consent"

Even a soothsayer saw it coming:

.: M A H E N D R A P R O P H E C Y :.

Barchart.com - Charts - $CRB CRB INDEX INDEX=

A good call is a good call, regardless of the source.

^ On the 3rd july the rsi on the crb chart hit 71.Overbought. A four year old could have made that call. "Mahendra Sharma" knows no more than the average chartster or whatever you want to call them.

Originally Posted by Spin

^ On the 3rd july the rsi on the crb chart hit 71.Overbought. A four year old could have made that call. "Mahendra Sharma" knows no more than the average chartster or whatever you want to call them.

Uh huh...


$CRB - SharpCharts from StockCharts.com

Don't know if chart will show up as created, without subscription. Anyhow, just funnin' about the Mighty Mahendra.

^ I notice the last correction in march fell about 9.5% from top. This correction is right at 9.5% today so i'll be interested to see what happends over the next few days...

Originally Posted by Spin

^ I notice the last correction in march fell about 9.5% from top. This correction is right at 9.5% today so i'll be interested to see what happends over the next few days...

There's my guess:

$CRB - SharpCharts from StockCharts.com

But truthfully, I have no idea whatsoever.