< sigh > $90 Oil Is A Very Real Possibility

[William Edwards + 708]

5 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Longs everywhere.  I'm not convinced, but I don't have any science to back me up.  Ha-ha!  A lot of the discussion recently has been more about short term moves, with a few chiming in with their longer term views, long, some very long.  Time, as always, will tell, eh?

Yes, Father Time is an equal opportunity abuser.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

5 hours ago, William Edwards said:

Futures prices (random numbers) fluctuate. In the speculation-driven world, 36. 66, 106, or 136 are all just numbers that may or may not be utilized at a given moment. Occasionally, the futures price passes through the level of a fundamentally sound price, but it is simply on its way to another level. Do not place too much significance on any snapshot of the price level.

Hi William, great to see you back commenting again.

[William Edwards + 708]

4 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Hi William, great to see you back commenting again.

Thanks, Tom. I promise not to overdo it.

[Osama + 248]

On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 11:12 AM, Epic said:

Maybe I am confused but I am pretty sure it is supposed to be, "US retaliation by definition depends upon Chinese action." 

I thought China started it all.  They are the one with the trade surplus, after all.  

Not the tariffs....

[Stephen T. Harris, CPL + 23]

Slightly off topic, but in response to Tom and Jan's discussion about induction coils on ferries and the possibility of ripping up our highways to lay coils I say to all of that - The amount of voltage required to recharge cars moving along a highway and marine transportation may pose a serious health risk to humans (new research AGAIN on cellular phones blowing out the memory part of the brains in teenagers as an example) and I believe powering our transportation with batteries and chargers embedded in freeways (rural roads?) is not even on the scale of proper economic analysis. Maybe a better solution to transport is refining the ICE engine to a 99.9% full burn, releasing miniscule emissions, is a far better solution. It is disturbing to me, living in CA, that the ICE engine emission reductions from about 85% burn to around 96% burn since the 1960's when downtown LA was no go for pollution or Chattanooga where some mornings one could not see 50 feet due to the red haze, is never recognized and kudos given to the automotive engineers and refiners for work well done. Today, only about 10 days out of the year does LA downtown get visibly "smoggy" and Chattanooga, another city surrounded by mountains containing air until larger circulation pushes it out, is quite a beautiful city today. I believe our talented engineers, if unleashed, can get a full burn in a few short years from now. Another approach is to use our now plentiful natural gas to charge up fuel cells. To throw away ICE engines, using paleo solar cells (oil) with the amount of heat btu's packed into a hydrocarbon molecule, is really only surpassed by nuclear, is illogical to me.  I would never rely on batteries out on the high seas or any where else and this morning I just pulled out of my console a battery "brick" back up charger for my phone that had exploded! Damn lucky it did not burn my truck up.   

[Glenn Ellis + 57]

A balance between need & greed from the traders and speculators would be nice.