IMO this is likely. As you all must know by now there is no shortage of crude oil at present. No amount of fear mongering and "peak oil" advocacy can disguise that fact.
The rise in filling station prices is all market action. Investors and suppliers bid against estimated price rises in the markets. This is basically a casino operation.
A fall in gasoline prices combined with slowly falling unemployment levels will doom "Kolob" Mitt's hopes.
I don't intend to vote for either of them. pl
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2012/04/11/gas-prices-growing-evidence-theyve.html
Here in California, we're seeing a slight decrease in the price of fuel. I use premium in my motorcycle, and at one point paid $4.80 a gallon. Right now it's about $4.60, which is still 60 cents more than before the Iran sanctions and counter-sanctions took effect.
We ordinary Americans are pretty much helpless when it comes to this, there being only a two-party political system. Still, I'll likely vote for Obama. I've my reasons.
Posted by: Pirouz | 11 April 2012 at 11:46 AM
Ron Paul FTW!
Posted by: eakens | 11 April 2012 at 12:25 PM
PL, you're correct, it is a casino action, and the hedge funds are the House, so the odds are always in their favor, meaning they always win. As we've seen in the past several years, risk has been greatly reduced because they have Uncle Sam to cover their downside should they trip up. It's all gravy...it's just a matter of how much, and there's no such thing as too much.
Considering that, what makes you believe that prices will go lower? I agree it's not a supply/demand issue, so what makes you think the price setters will drive it down instead of up? I think they have themselves covered either way, but imo, they will use the Iranian crisis to drive the price even higher. The average dolt will believe it is because of supply disruption, when in fact, that will be the cover to gouge even more.
Like you, I'm not voting for either. Maybe they can merge and we can call the new entity Barmittzva Obomney. Seems appropriate.
Posted by: Morocco Bama | 11 April 2012 at 01:18 PM
nor will I vote for either them. Not that I am under any illusions that protest will mean a hill of beans to either of them.
Posted by: jonst | 11 April 2012 at 03:05 PM
Col: You seriously underestimate the power of corporate efficiency. Mr. Romney will not waste a minute formulating Middle East policy. He will just ask Bibi.
Posted by: Matthew | 11 April 2012 at 03:14 PM
Five full tankers at anchor yesterday as I sailed past. Port Phillip is a cheap anchorage.
Posted by: Walrus | 11 April 2012 at 03:34 PM
You may be right Colonel, if Uncle Sam [possibly due to Chinese pressure] decides to get serious with Iran in reducing tensions [approx 400-500 barrels per day]. While the Iran problem indoubitably contributes to the rising oil prices, the problems of Suden [300 barrel per day], Yemen [200 000 barrels per day] Syria [400 000 barrels per day] do not make it any easier.
Hopium that Suadi Arabia, and the other Gulf states will reduce prices is a dream, for Unied Arab Emirates need $107/ barrel, Saudis need over $100 per barrel, etc to have sufficient funds to prevent some more Arab Sorung soical upheavals.
Canada can not ramp up productiopn from the tar sands, conventional heavy production is falling in Canada and Venezuela [and there are no USA firms in the Orinico tar sands, the largest recoverble oil in the world according to the US Geological Survey].
So the importan issue is the IRan/USA input into Istambul and Bagdad . Pray!
Posted by: N M salamon | 11 April 2012 at 04:49 PM
Pat,
I wouldn't count on that. The refiners have not even shifted to producing the summer blend yet, and Saudi Arabia is not going to be able to take up the slack for Iranian oil embargoed off the market.
Time will tell which one of us is right.
Agitprop
Posted by: Dr Onan Agitprop | 11 April 2012 at 05:12 PM
I agree with you about not voting for either candidate.
Oil prices will continue to trend up. We will take out the 2008 high of $145. Commodities are crazy just like the stock market and banks have to make money by stealing from us.
Joe
Posted by: Joe | 11 April 2012 at 06:24 PM
NMS, The Saudis have been ordering tankers by the bushel of late by many accounts. Here's one.
http://247wallst.com/2012/03/20/saudis-ready-fleet-of-tankers-to-send-to-the-us/
Posted by: Mark Logan | 11 April 2012 at 06:54 PM
Dr. Onan
Nobody asked you to "count on" anything. I gave my opinion. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 11 April 2012 at 06:54 PM
With great respect, my referral was to the budgetaary requirements of Saudi Arabia, UAE and others, without saying anything [at this time] about Saudi Production. The Saudies DO NOT WANT ARAB SPRING in EAST Saudi Arabia, predominantly Shia where the oil fields are.
Posted by: N M salamon | 11 April 2012 at 07:33 PM
NMS, Thanks for the reply.
This all may very well be over my head, as I am not involved in the oil business, but my thinking is: If they make less profit per barrel on their oil, but sell enough more oil during that time to compensate, then they still net roughly the same revenue.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 11 April 2012 at 08:52 PM
Sure it's possible for it to fall, or rise. The problem is whether we have the dollars to buy it. One can't advocate for peak oil anymore than one advocates for entropy. It's what happens when extracting a non-renewable resource.
Posted by: Lee Gardner | 11 April 2012 at 09:27 PM
A glut of natural gas has dropped the price to below 2 bucks a ccf for the first time since 2004. That's some good news, unless your faucet is now a flame thrower.
Posted by: optimax | 11 April 2012 at 09:38 PM
Switch to summer blend will push prices up, but world economy is slowing which will ease speculation and drive prices downward. I think downward is the net trend.
This will be, I think, the first year since I reached majority that I did not effectively vote in a presidential election. I will vote, but it will be a write in.
Posted by: Bill H | 12 April 2012 at 01:19 AM
"As you all must know by now there is no shortage of crude oil at present." No shortage of dollars and moral hazard either.
The Central Bankers and To Big To Fail banks make the most significant decisions about market pricing, traditional concepts about capitalism and markets no longer apply.
Posted by: Marcus | 12 April 2012 at 09:41 AM
Hopium
That's one interesting typo!
Posted by: toto | 12 April 2012 at 01:40 PM
The most recent International Energy report indicates the following:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9106#more
Be aware that this is production only (analyzes the top 5 in 2011 Russia. Saudi Arabia, US China, Iran. with regional reports on other areas] without reference of NET EXPORTS, which considers the internal use of hydrocarbons by producing nations, leaving what is left for export - of the top 5 only 3 have export -two are importers, USA and China.
Posted by: N M salamon | 12 April 2012 at 06:54 PM
Over 70 percent of all futures contracts on oil deliveries are held by financial institutions--big banks and hedge funds--that have no capacity to take delivery. They are playing with the "risk premium" speculation and secondary market foolishness to drive up oil prices on a purely speculative basis. Until the government introduces some form of regulation or uses the strategic oil reserves to wage financial warfare against oil futures speculators, the game is rigged. Oil prices will go down in the late summer, heading into the November elections if the Wall Street and City of London gang (most of the futures and derivatives activities take place out of the London offices of outfits like Goldman Sachs) decide they want to put their money on Romney instead of their known horse Obama.
Posted by: Harper | 13 April 2012 at 10:04 AM