But your point is not that there is NO manipulation, it's that there is none by Big Oil. Am I right?

My point here is that there is no concerted effort to drop prices before the election. The level of complexity something like that would entail is mind-boggling.

That is not to say that certain things don't manipulate the market. If Bush announced that we were going to try really hard to work with Iran, it would put downward pressure on prices. If someone announced a breakthrough that promised cheap energy for everyone, it would put downward pressure on prices. But there isn't much an oil CEO can do, especially in the short term, to affect prices. He watches the prices rise and fall like the rest of us. He tries to make sure the company is in position to profit. What he doesn't do is dictate prices, and therefore dictate profits.

My point here is that there is no concerted effort to drop prices before the election. The level of complexity something like that would entail is mind-boggling.

Robert,

I would like to remind you that Enron managed to thoroughly corrupt the California energy market for many months. There were a number of "experts" who maintained such actvity was not possible and "market forces" were at work, etc... I am sure you are familiar with the details. They were widely reported in major news media.

I haven't read the RR/joule debate, but to indicate energy markets cannot be manipulated is unwise.

Hmmm.  Good point.  I wonder if the American public would be so willing to believe the prices are being manipulated if it weren't for Enron.
I would like to remind you that Enron managed to thoroughly corrupt the California energy market for many months.

There is a vast difference between what Enron did in California, and managing to have a big impact on a global commodity that trades on an enormous scale. It's like saying because a warlord managed to take over a small part of Afghanistan, he could then take over the world.

I haven't read the RR/joule debate, but to indicate energy markets cannot be manipulated is unwise.

That's not what I said, even in the post that you just responded to.

There is a vast difference between what Enron did in California, and managing to have a big impact on a global commodity that trades on an enormous scale.

I mean no disrespect here. I follow your contributions avidly. But I disagree. California is something like the 10th largest economy in the world. The scale of market manipulation there was profound... and it went on for a long while. During which... it was denied by very experienced finance professionals.

In the recent Amaranth case, Bloomberg reported that Hunter (the trader) had purchased, in some cases, 20% of the market's available positions. Nymex NG, though not global, is not a small market either. My point is that the technology, the leverages and the access to many, many billions of $$$ does exist. My disagreement has nothing to do with gasoline going up or down, it has to do with your assertion that oil is too big a commodity to manipulate. Nate Hagens reminds us twice a week that's it's the marginal barrel that prices the market.

It would be interesting to know how Goldman-Sachs traded the market in the run-up to reducing that allocation <g>.

The reason people believe presidents have some power over the economy is that presidents have been claiming the power to do so for generations, and personally take the credit for good times in order to get reelected.

Of course this can backfire, as when the very good engineer and humanitarian Herbert Hoover tried to get reelected.

Is my memory right that Reagan is credited with using oil prices to destabilize and ultimately crash the Soviet Union? Beyond that, isn't it part of what governments are supposed to do - to maintain market structures. Keeping the price of energy down, whether with the 7th Fleet or subsidies, is government action. It strikes me as meaningless to say that a government does not influence prices. Of course it does. But it's not going to happen at RR's level - the Saudi princes, do they take GWB's phone calls - of course they do. I'd not even be surprised if God doesn't tell him where to tell them to drill and find new reserves.

cfm in Gray, ME

Ronnie RayGun's <politically manipulated< the world oil market by having a secret deal with the swing producer, SA, to pump oil like mad to drive down world oil prices. Prices plumetted. The USSR was deprived of huge cash inflows that had been coming in from it's oil.  Within 5 years they, the USSR and it's empire, started to collapse.  The SA"s got the high tech fighter planes, communication, promises of defense if the kingdom was challenged.  They called that chip in after the invasion of kuwait by So-Damn-Insane of Iraq.<p> Of course SA seems to be producing all out so this particular scenario is unlikely.  Are there other scenarios?  Likely.
Don't forget that we were also in an arms race and we kept upping the ante so that they reached a point where they were spending an unsustainable portion of their national budget on the military. I've seen some estimates that it may have reached as much as half of the entire economy of the Soviet Union.
If Bush announced that we were going to try really hard to work with Iran, it would put downward pressure on prices.

He didn't quite say it that way, but sure did turn down the saber rattling noises for now.

If someone announced a breakthrough that promised cheap energy for everyone, it would put downward pressure on prices.

Would the super-hyped announcements of months-old new from "Jack 2", count as "announced a breakthrough that promised cheap energy"?

only to the hopelessly nieve    which includes about 95% of the us public   by my estimate
> My point here is that there is no concerted effort to
> drop prices before the election

I'm shure you're right. Such an attempt would be crazy. Given all these efforts to make it work - and a single hurricane could easily send crude prices back to $70 or even $80.
And no politcal party can foresee the hurricane season until the elections are over.

Ah, but what are the chances of ANY hurricanes hitting GOM now?  Very slight.  There is always risk, but in this case it might be an acceptable risk.
I must disagree with your assumptions here Robert.  I have a very large imagination.  Many things are possible even if not probable.

My point here is that there is no concerted effort to drop prices before the election. The level of complexity something like that would entail is mind-boggling.

A few years ago it would have been thought technically impossible to monitor all telecommunications in real time and sort for key words.  I assure you that no matter how complex a  system is required for that task, the NSA and CIA computer complexes are doing it.  Just because something is improbable doesn't mean it is impossible.

Probably all it would take is a verbal assurance from Bush to oilco CEOs to open the SPR.
Bush proudly suspended refilling the SPR when oil prices were peaking as a way to reduce further oil price increases. It wasn't under-the-table or covert. Everyone thought it a good idea at the time. However, further putting off refilling it does smell of minor manipulation.
Well, yes. That's the overt part. And it smells. What's the covert part look like?
'He tries to make sure the company is in position to profit. What he doesn't do is dictate prices, and therefore dictate profits.'

Well, a single oil CEO may not, but 'the industry' is more than one CEO. Again, I do not believe that the ever so politically convenient for incumbents drop in gasoline prices comes from a single phone call. Though of course a CEO determines profits, at least in the sense of deciding what margins are acceptable for a number of variables (like BP and Alaskan maintenance costs - the profits to be earned by not spending it on maintenance seem quite hard to resist, for example).

And I absolutely agree that major components of the price drop are externally induced. For example, as noted by your writing 'If Bush announced that we were going to try really hard to work with Iran, it would put downward pressure on prices' - which he seems to have done recently, as I recall.

Seasonality is also a very important aspect of the price drop, of course. It would be interesting to see how the switch over to heating oil is going this year compared to the past - New England is pretty much a loss for Republicans anyways, so refineries which keep producing gasoline later than customary could have an interesting effect on gasoline prices. (This could even increase the margin on heating oil later, making it a zero sum game.)

And if ExxonMobil or Chevron or Marathon or BP decided to get competitive in their retail markets, they could set off a price war, lowering gasoline prices a few percent easily - and of course, in this case, one CEO could start such a price war.

Strange - I just figured out one proven method (we saw it happen in real time, I believe), one unproven/conspiracy theory (though it could be checked), and one potential way (still open for exploitation) to lower gasoline prices by a solid percentage, and I didn't need to call anyone or even waste more than 5 minutes typing.

It is very likely that the pros can do a lot better than me in dropping the price of gasoline within a month or two window. And sure, events can overtake all of these methods - one large late season hurricane would really play havoc to such plans. (Not everything is under human control - but how you react separates the winners from the losers.)

But you seem so close to understanding the essential point -
'He tries to make sure the company is in position to profit.' without seeming to understand that the idea of 'position' is very multi-dimensional. I doubt very much that a company like ExxonMobil, for example, has lost so much institutional memory that they can't remember the windfall profits tax the last time oil prices started to have deep ramifications for the American voter - the same way that a company like ExxonMobil hasn't forgotten that the last time Americans bought small cars en masse, it equalled smaller profits. Oh, did I forget to mention how the price in gasoline could just happen to spill over into another ailing part of the American economy? Or have I wandered into the Iron Triangle?

Politics is at least as fun as watching oil prices - except oil has many more direct connections to physical reality. In this sense, you are right - the market is too complex to easily manipulate. What you forget is that the market encompasses much more than physical goods - the rule of law comes to mind, especially the current rule in America that seems to say oil companies are forced to charge higher prices because of leftists and nationalists who don't understood what profit means.

Profit, to a politican, is just another way to spell power - whether to tax or to appropriate or to redistribute or to keep among friends. Of course the oil companies have preferences - can you say tax cut? They certainly can - it comes in that part about 'dictate profits.' The oil CEO wants to dictate where the profits go, as that is infinitely preferable to having the voters determine, for example, that any company earning a gross profit above 3 billion dollars a quarter gets taxed at a 5% higher rate, the revenue to be placed in a special fund to be used to provide health care for children. Such intereference in the free market is what evil dictators like Chavez do (with commie Cuban doctors, no less), and it is not what America stands for. Lucky that American corporations still have the right to spend money in elections - what 50 million dollars last election cycle for the oil industry alone? - to keep such thoughts far from America's not to be trusted electorate.

And if ExxonMobil or Chevron or Marathon or BP decided to get competitive in their retail markets, they could set off a price war, lowering gasoline prices a few percent easily - and of course, in this case, one CEO could start such a price war.

This is the one that is important to address, because it is central to the argument. The only chance they have for doing that, is if inventories are on the rise. Rising inventories favor things like this. We have rising inventories right now for a number of reasons, but primarily because margins are still pretty good, so refineries are still running hard.

But if inventories were currently flat or falling, the CEO could not do what you suggest. Inventories would dry up, and we would run out of product. So, what you suggest is entirely dependent upon what is happening in the market, which the CEO does not control.

If people don't take anything else away from this discussion, take this: We can conjure up all kinds of theories of how markets could be manipulated. In fact, there are very simple reasons for falling prices at the moment that don't involve any conspiracy theories at all. And I am a believer in Occam's Razor.


I agree with you on the rising inventories this is of course for a number of sound technical factors. This effects the price of gasoline sure. But the dramatic effect on the price of crude worldwide ? Simply because in the US we have rising inventories ? No I don't buy it sorry. There are other factors at work. I see a price war seems to be starting and your correct that rising inventories support it but falling crude prices are key to being able to lower prices based on the increasing inventory. If say crude was still going up despite the healthy increase in inventory in the US ( note not the whole world ) I bet the downward pressure on gasoline prices would be far lower.

The mistake your making is that if any manipulation is taking place its in the context of the oil market and its financial not internal to the oil industry.
Your correct in that rising gasoline inventories are critical for translation into a drop in price at the pump.
And I suspect if anyone is attempting to manipulate the market they would not do it without rising inventories.
But on the same hand gasoline stocks have not exactly been low for several months and the effect of pump price was small till....
The price of crude dropped.

Your dealing with the current situation not what initiated it. I assert rising inventories
have been happening for a while without a dramatic drop in prices.

It seems to be crude is starting to rise now so we will get a chance to see how much inventories and crude prices interact to set the price.

But they keep trying to rise every morning till about noon
and someone pulls the price down all afternoon.
I guess the guy does not get up early. Just check prices after 2 pm or so after he gets back from lunch.

Actually, we do agree in general - the world is a lot more complicated place, with many more physical restraints, than most people seem to be able to commonly accept. Inventories are most likely up for two reasons - stockpiling in relation to a hurricane season which was not devastating, and a slowing economy.

But there is no question that oil companies, speaking with a broad brush, prefer the current party in power in the U.S. to someone like Chavez - and the reasons have little to do with morality, and an awful lot to do with profit, and who gets to do what with it.

There is no question in my mind that this preference will be expressed in as many ways as possible. This is simple human nature, and not a conspiracy theory.

If a hurricane had hit a major swath of refining or production regions, a fall in prices this large (or at all) would not have occurred.

But here is a counterexample - why is Saudi Arabia still seeming to pump full out even as prices 'collapse?' (Collapse is so relative these days.) Could it be that the Saudis have a preference in the American elections? After all, Saudi Arabia could easily have oil at a price of $70 a barrel plus, just by announcing a production cut - or even by saying they anticipate cutting production on Oct. 21. But even pumping full out, the price seems stubbornly persistent above $60 a barrel.

We can play this out in any number of ways, but in my case at least, it is all just a game.

Nonetheless, a lower price before the elections would seem to be in the long term interest of oil company profits, and remarkably, prices are lower. Peak oil, in part, is the point where reality takes over from playing games - as witness how oil just doesn't seem to want to go below $60 a barrel, regardless of OPEC's commitment to full production. Of course, maybe a country like Iran is cutting production in an attempt to get Bush booted - this game is very fluid, which is why manipulation is such a silly term. There are too many players with too many goals for any of them control the outcome for any lasting time. But long enough for some of the world's largest and most powerful corporations to politically ensure their continued profits in the world's largest single oil market? I don't need to believe in any fantasies to think that greed is the dominant player in the marketplace, just as power is in politics. And when the two areas share a common interest - holding on to what they have - it is hard to imagine them doing nothing while potentially losing what they possess.

Maybe peak oil is truly making an appearance, before the election, or maybe the Saudis don't like Bush any more either - see this link below, found below -

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2006-09-28T155051Z_01_L 28469961_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENERGY-OPEC-CUT.xml

This is the sort of thing that just ruins a good market manipulation - unless OPEC is manipulating the market, not that they would ever do that.

Not everything is domestic American politics.

Not too much time at the moment, but I will try to quickly answer a few posts

But there is no question that oil companies, speaking with a broad brush, prefer the current party in power in the U.S. to someone like Chavez - and the reasons have little to do with morality, and an awful lot to do with profit, and who gets to do what with it.

This is no in dispute. It is just like the guy said over in Jerome's thread. Does Big Oil generally favor Republicans? No doubt. So, they probably see benefit to prices falling before the election, although profits this quarter will suffer a bit as a result. But that doesn't mean they are the cause, and there are actually logical explanations for the current round of falling prices.

But here is a counterexample - why is Saudi Arabia still seeming to pump full out even as prices 'collapse?'

For the same reasons refineries are still running full out. Even though margins have fallen, they are still pretty good. Prices haven't collapsed to the point yet that anyone is ready to cut back.

<For the same reasons refineries are still running full out. Even though margins have fallen, they are still pretty good. Prices haven't collapsed to the point yet that anyone is ready to cut back.>
Exactly!
They can cut profits down still make a boat load of money.  Help GW & Bushco. with the elections. Avoid a windfall profits tax.  IMHO (and non-oil educated) I think this would be a wise business decision.  Hell the oil exec's hardly got a slap on the wrist with congress's little dog and pony show.
Where are the democrats?  My god GW and Bushco leave themselves open to attack.  Who is twisting whose arms?

I wouldn't want to be associated with Bush if he was the last man on earth politically, if the deep seated feelings people I talk with is any reflection of the broader electorate- and I voted for the bastard on #1

I wonder if shrub has a |"special relation" with bandar and the other saudi princes, kind of like Ronnie RayGun had.
Occam's Razor is useful for explaining physical processes, but not so useful for explaining human behavoir.  Not saying I disagree with you on the causes of recent price drops, but when manipulation, deceit, etc. are possible, forget about Occam's Razor.
What he doesn't do is dictate prices, and therefore dictate profits.

If oilco CEOs have never dictated prices, they're unique among modern corporations.

Do you honestly believe that the CEO of a company producing a commodity sets the prices for that commodity? Bill Gates may be able to set the price for Microsoft Office. He has a lock on the market. (In reality, those decisions are made far below that level). But he couldn't do it in a commodities market. They watch the prices just like the rest of us. They don't set them.