March 31, 2005
— Ace According to a Goldman Sachs report (this article also lifted from Drudge).
What the hell is there to say about this, except-- gulp?
This would be bad. This would send us into Carter-like recession. Maybe worse.
Phil Flynn, senior market analyst at Alaron.com, said $105 oil is technically possible but not likely for at least 3 years and only if a major supply disruption, such as a halt to imports from Saudi Arabia, occurred.
'The timing of the report was conducive to the rally,' Flynn said. 'It's just another reason to be long. There's no doubt we're in a new bull market for crude oil.' Hear audio interview.
John Kilduff, energy risk analyst Fimat USA, agreed that the $105 price assumes a major supply disruption in Saudi Arabia or a Venezuelan embargo on shipments to the U.S.
'I don't know how they get to that number, short of a significant supply disruption event occurring,' he said.
'It's more reflective, to be fair, of the psychology of the energy market right now that there's going to be tremendous demand growth in the late third and the fourth quarter of this year. That's going to put the producers of crude oil in an extremely challenging position in terms of meeting that demand, and that's what is being priced in right now.'
"Drudge's clearing house"
oops, wrong thread...
Posted by: fat kid at March 31, 2005 12:27 PM (yHxMk)
Posted by: ace at March 31, 2005 12:39 PM (Q6+G6)
Posted by: mike beversluis at March 31, 2005 12:41 PM (eUZox)
Posted by: fat kid at March 31, 2005 12:44 PM (yHxMk)
Posted by: JFH at March 31, 2005 12:50 PM (fmEeo)
Posted by: bullwinkle at March 31, 2005 12:55 PM (kotdI)
Posted by: McDirty at March 31, 2005 01:03 PM (YNJZw)
One sign of this happening would be if a ruling gets passed on reopening old "sealed" wells. If you hear that's been done, invest in domestic production companies...
The Canadian oil sands would get a *huge* boost in production investment, too, and we'd see massive increases from there in a couple of years.
Posted by: cirby at March 31, 2005 01:12 PM (fY33n)
Posted by: Allen at March 31, 2005 02:56 PM (BGGiq)
(Oops, wrong thread...)
Posted by: someone at March 31, 2005 03:08 PM (S22v9)
No, it wouldn't completely replace current energy sources, but it could make a big dent and solve recycling problems at the same time.
Posted by: Yehudit at March 31, 2005 03:23 PM (B1+Qp)
Once the oil price get to $90 a barrel. we will start processing the oil in Senator Kennedy's and Senator Byrd's hair. That will end the oil shortage and stop the price increases.
Posted by: Jake at March 31, 2005 04:57 PM (r/5D/)
(1) Iraq is getting its shit together, which means increased production there.
(2) Alternative-fuel vehicles are growing in popularity.
(3) Because I f'ing said so.
Posted by: Dogstar at March 31, 2005 05:54 PM (KgeNY)
Or maybe not.
Posted by: Dimmy at March 31, 2005 07:25 PM (vVm5J)
Posted by: at March 31, 2005 10:09 PM (P6vXb)
We did have high inflation during the Carter years, in fact the recession of 1980 was because the Fed tightened the money supply to combat inflation and soon interest rates rose and people could get less credit or would spend less and the eventaully the GDP went down.
Posted by: at April 01, 2005 01:29 AM (frL7c)
That's like crying about being out of beer while your uncle's buying a liquor store.
Posted by: spongeworthy at April 01, 2005 05:46 AM (uSomN)
Posted by: Pat at April 01, 2005 06:21 AM (LehEL)
Posted by: Herve Leger Dress at June 20, 2011 09:47 PM (fqYIK)
62 queries taking 1.3988 seconds, 255 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.