Incidentally, the current record high prices do not reflect record speculative long contracts. Net speculative longs actually decreased last week. The price went up because there was a decrease in commercial traders' net shorts.

Speculative net longs last week were only roughly half what they were July 31 of this year.

If you have speculators covering shorts, and refiners choosing to draw down inventories instead of paying $90 for crude (see Note 1 in my TWIP today), you can get mixed signals.

Just posted this from OPIS in the other thread:

Friday's data from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission underscore the difference between mid-October 2007 and the same period a year ago. Data released by the CFTC on Friday show that large "non reportable" positions among long traders increased by nearly 8-million bbl for crude oil. Meanwhile, funds on the short side liquidated about 4.7-million bbl worth of contracts.

The result is a "net long" number that shows funds betting on price appreciation to the tune of a net position of 69.2-million bbl. Interestingly, this came on a day where Energy Secretary Bodman acknowledged that oil prices are no longer the province of energy companies but instead are within the trading rooms of New York, London, and other worldwide financial capitals.

The year-to-year difference in the bias is staggering. The CFTC report from October 13, 2006, showed speculative longs holding about 159-million bbl worth of crude, but speculative shorts were at nearly the exact same number. The net long position of a year ago was just 301,000 bbl. Hence, the big speculators have a net bet on higher prices that is about 230 times the net bet from one year ago.

We did NOT have speculators covering shorts last week. We had speculators closing LONGS. We had COMMERCIAL traders (industry people) covering shorts last week.

The reason prices are going up is because refiners can no longer choose to draw down inventories, because their stocks are already so low.

You appear not to understand the signals at all.

The year-to-year difference in speculative longs comes primarily from the reweighting of the GSCI in August 2006, in which Goldman caused a massive selling of gasoline futures by all funds using the GSCI. That was simply an artificial and temporary rigging of the market.

OK, I am handing out candy for a bit (it's Trick or Treat time in Scotland, where they interestingly emphasize the "Trick" part). I want to address this one.

You appear not to understand the signals at all.

Says the guy who thinks "stocks are already so low", despite the fact that they are above their 5 year average. Look at gasoline stocks to understand what low stocks really mean. This also from the guy who has some trouble with probabilities, for thinking that getting even money on something that the market values at a 17/1 longshot is a "bad bet." More elaboration on that in a later essay.

Stocks have been drawn down from very high levels, where they have been since they recovered from Hurricane Katrina. At $90 a barrel, is it a surprise that refiners don't wish to hold as much in inventory? Don't forget, I have worked in refineries, and have a lot of contacts still there. I spoke with one about this today. She told me exactly what I figured; they are drawing inventories down somewhat, buying the cheapest barrels they can find, and are trying to wait out this price spike. That's one refinery, but I guarantee you it isn't the only one adopting that strategy.

I need to do a post on LP models that refiners use to guide their decisions. I think that would help clear some issues up. I see a lot of speculation about what's going on with refineries that is often incredibly far off the mark. Heck, I recently saw a post here where somebody didn't think there were any refineries in the U.S. that can process heavy, sour crude!

As far as the rest, that's verbatim from OPIS, one of the most respected names in the business.

The year-to-year difference in speculative longs comes primarily from the reweighting of the GSCI in August 2006, in which Goldman caused a massive selling of gasoline futures by all funds using the GSCI.

That's a nice theory, except for the little bit that August 2006 isn't between October 2006 and October 2007. Sort of like your theory that Saudi made a snap decision to shut down a refinery based on lack of crude. Even though they were making complex tie-ins during that shut down that take MONTHS to plan. I knew when you said this that while you might know something about the market, your understanding of what happens inside the fence leaves much to be desired.

I spoke with one about this today. She told me exactly what I figured; they are drawing inventories down somewhat, buying the cheapest barrels they can find, and are trying to wait out this price spike

Two questions, and I really hope you get time to answer:

1. How long can the continue to wait out the price spike while drawing, say 3mb per week from their inventories?

2. When they cannot wait any longer and decide to bite the bullet and pay the >$90 price, will that not cause prices to rise even further?

The heart of the Whack-A-Mole theory of post peak oil prices exposed :)

This is the new situation right now. Buyers that cannot afford to buy waiting till they have to and then forced to buy at any price.

How long can the continue to wait out the price spike while drawing, say 3mb per week from their inventories?

You could pull 3 million barrels per week for 10 weeks before you dropped below the bottom of the average crude inventory band. Remember, this is where gasoline has spent most of the year now. But....

When they cannot wait any longer and decide to bite the bullet and pay the >$90 price, will that not cause prices to rise even further?

That's the Catch 22 I mentioned. If the consensus in the market is that there is a supply problem, but oil companies think it's a speculative bubble (which they do for the most part), drawing down inventories while waiting for a price drop will just support the belief that there is a supply problem.

I have been thinking a lot about this. If I have a refinery, what I do with my inventories is going to be entirely based upon where I believe prices are headed. You have seen the comments from the major oil executives. I think they truly believe that $94 is not fundamentally supported. So, you pull down inventories. I pull down the oil I bought at $80, and hope that by the time I get low I can replace it at $80. That's why today's draw is not entirely surprising.

Robert, I get what you are saying, however, if you're so inclined could you fill in a couple of gaps for me.

I assume (and I'm happy to be corrected)

1) US crude producers are pumping at 100% capacity, so all that oil still flows in every week.

2) A lot of Mexican and Canadian crude supply is presumably fixed, and flow-rates into the US are probably not affected by refinery orders, at least in time-frames measured in weeks.

3) Most other supply has to come by tanker, which means a lag from order to supply of some weeks. Likewise, once a decision is made to draw down stocks, there will still be a fair chunk of committed supply in-transit

So, if the refineries are drawing down stocks, and those stocks are not being replenished, does that mean that a decision to rebuild refinery stocks must be taken several weeks before internal MOL is reached?

Actually, here's a simpler question: Is it the refineries who import crude, or is there another level of dealer; eg wholesale importers of crude who then on sell to refineries? (in which case, you'd think their stocks would be going up as refineries drew down on their's)

Cheers,
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)

Wait until the PKK get tired of the Turk raids and light up the BTC pipe.

Speek,
how long a refinery can wait depends on its individual reserves. Most American refineries are keeping reserves at a low level and relying on the strategic petroleum reserve as a back-up. And yes, it will add pressure to keep prices high.

Bob Ebersole

Robert,

I'm amazed at the number of people who come on this site and spread misinformation with such an air of authority. Most of the time I just ignore their ignorance, but I'm beginning to think that when I do this I let other people take the fools as authorities because no one challenges their preposterous B.S. For people who don't know who to believe, Robert or Moe Gamble-

Robert is a chemical engineer and has set on the committee setting crack spreads and prices for his employer. We are very lucky to have his judgement on the crude markets writing This Week In Petroleum. He also reviews for his employer new technology dealing with chemical production, and wrote his Master's thesis in Ethanol. Robert is painfully honest in sharing his knowledge, and I've seen him change his mind when the scientific facts disprove his prior opinions-he seems much more concerned with truth than his ego in his research, in other words, he's a open-minded scientist first, and I respect his opinions as being honest and fairminded .

All I know about Moe Gamble is that he has a high estimation of his understanding of the commodities markets and has rude manners.

So people, believe who you want, but if you give an opinion please base it on your own research and be prepared to back it up or qualify the statement as your opinion.

I agree. That wsj graph showing "one year ago" contango doesn't sit right. I've been following crude for 3 years and I've never seen that.