Bill and Bill

[d-ray657]

I don't have any answers, but I have a few questions.

How much more oil is being consumed now compared to what was being consumed when BR was in the Clinton administration? I would assume that there is much more being consumed, and even if the US consumption is larger in raw numbers, I'll bet that it is smaller in the proportion of total oil consumed. What I'm getting at is that it would probably require a much bigger release of oil reserves to affect international oil prices. And that would require a much bigger risk.

Then again, my assumptions could be all wet.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I don't have any answers, but I have a few questions.

How much more oil is being consumed now compared to what was being consumed when BR was in the Clinton administration? I would assume that there is much more being consumed, and even if the US consumption is larger in raw numbers, I'll bet that it is smaller in the proportion of total oil consumed. What I'm getting at is that it would probably require a much bigger release of oil reserves to affect international oil prices. And that would require a much bigger risk.

Then again, my assumptions could be all wet.

Regards,

D-Ray

I think we're talking apples and oranges here.

My point was that Richardson was explaining that we weren't ACTUALLY selling the oil, we were manipulating the futures market.

Considering that the USA was on the top of the heap back then, the dollar was the world's reserve currency, and strong, and while not backed by gold is WAS backed by plutonium, we were the biggest player at the table.

We could buy every hand. And even is some jerkoff got lucky and won one by betting his underwear while we were mixing another drink, we could double down on the next hand and have him leaving wearing a barrel.

Seems like Shrub even crashed the price of oil by saying he was going to open up drilling in the ANWR. And he didn't even have to ante.

My question is, if we can sell high, buy low, and relieve the pressure at the pumps by playing the futures market, why don't we do it all of the time. Other than the suckers will wise up and use different tactics.

Let's talk about the downside. Can't have a winner without having a loser.

Chas

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Charles

I think we're talking apples and oranges here.

My point was that Richardson was explaining that we weren't ACTUALLY selling the oil, we were manipulating the futures market.

Considering that the USA was on the top of the heap back then, the dollar was the world's reserve currency, and strong, and while not backed by gold is WAS backed by plutonium, we were the biggest player at the table.

We could buy every hand. And even is some jerkoff got lucky and won one by betting his underwear while we were mixing another drink, we could double down on the next hand and have him leaving wearing a barrel.

Seems like Shrub even crashed the price of oil by saying he was going to open up drilling in the ANWR. And he didn't even have to ante.

My question is, if we can sell high, buy low, and relieve the pressure at the pumps by playing the futures market, why don't we do it all of the time. Other than the suckers will wise up and use different tactics.

Let's talk about the downside. Can't have a winner without having a loser.

Chas

I should just admit that I am our of my depth here. But what the Hell, that hasn't stopped me yet. I think to carry out your card game analogy, some new prospectors have come into the game carrying a bag of gold nuggets. While we might not have any less than we did before, there is enough other money at the table now to be able to call a bluff.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I should just admit that I am our of my depth here. But what the Hell, that hasn't stopped me yet. I think to carry out your card game analogy, some new prospectors have come into the game carrying a bag of gold nuggets. While we might not have any less than we did before, there is enough other money at the table now to be able to call a bluff.

Regards,

D-Ray

Them's the kind of people you want at your table...provided you can convince them that Big Daddy Warbucks is your uncle, and he's backing your IOU.

If you can't convince then that your IOU is good, you'll be the one leaving wearing a barrel, if you leave at all.

In a way, this is about the poker game, and faith that you're good for your bet, but in a way it's not.

It's about the fed gov manipulating the oil industry via the strategic reserves, and the repercussions.

And to pursue this further, if the government can manipulate the oil market with the crummy SR, what do you think they can do to the overall market...considering the amount of funds they have tied up (pension,etc) there?

I simply asked a question, and admitted that I didn't have the answer, although in a wise ass manner.

So allow me to return to where I started ,with some clarification.

Did you realize that by releasing the strategic reserves, that no oil exchanged hands, only money in the futures? market?

And what is the upside, or downside of playing such games?

I see no reason to continue this exercise unless we address my two queries.

Then we can play a little poker!!!

Chas