Can anyone please explain how high trading volume and contango both undermine the speculation argument?

the US hit zero net oil exports more than 20 years before our production peaked

See Interstate Highways, the creation of modern Suburbia, the universal destruction of our downtowns and inner cities, etc.

Best Hopes for A Reversal,

Alan

If we say the US imports 13 million barrels/day at $130/barrel then there is roughly $1.7 billion leaving the country every day or 12 billion/week going to the oil exporters from the US alone or maybe twice that worldwide. It seems clear they do not want to recycle all this into bonds and looking at the huge amounts of building works going on in the ME energy use there will only continue to increase so reducing exports so increasing prices...

Mexico production and export numbers.

C+C production down 80,000 barrels per day, March to April.
All Liquids down 78,000 barrels per day, March to April.
Exports down 189,000 barrels per day, March to April.
Exports down 240,000 barrels per day, April 2007 verses April 2008.

Ron Patterson

Even if there isn't a neocon conspiracy against Mexico and its oil, the people of Mexico should act as though there is one based on their past history with the US and the current disaster perpetrated by the US on Iraq. The burden of proof is on us to show that we have something to offer most Mexicans besides sweatshops.

Yet nowhere in any major American media is there any discussion of the idea that the United States must justify its demands to the rest of the world based on rational self-interest. There are occasional reports of the negative effects of the World Bank/IMF cabal on various countries (the list is endless), and less often reports on the negative effects of NAFTA on Mexico. What we are not allowed to do is put these stories together the way that people overseas increasingly do:

What's good for America is bad for everyone else.

What's good for everyone else is bad for America.

These ideas are so alien to our eyes that we make no demand to our leaders that they articulate an alternative. Even the most liberal Presidential candidate who is electable must phrase the problem in terms of misunderstanding on the part of the foreigners.

The most absurd and dangerous form this has taken is when democratic governments like Turkey have given into the popular will and refused to aid the US invasion of Iraq, while other democratic governments like Denmark defied the popular will by joining Bush's crusade. Bush's propaganda ministry (state & corporate wings) invariably talked of the defiant actions as coming from the "government", while the compliant actions were by the "nation" or "people". In other words, only evil big government says no to America. The people everywhere are always on our side, only muzzled by socialist tyranny. We've been living under this formula for generations, and we've used it to ruin Vietnam and Iraq to the tune of millions dead.

So now if Mexicans line up against US oil companies, will we pretend again that the majority are just brainless (and thus cartoon-killable) clones of renascent Communism, and the corrupt business minority are somehow "the people of Mexico"? Because we are known to go war to save the people from Communism.

What an incredibly biased article by the author Laura Carlsen. As far as PO though, she doesn't seem to appreciate the need to lessen the slope on the downside of oil production.

Hey WT, oil is fungible, right? Proximity doesn't matter, right? I am joking of course. I do not see oil as fungible, especially when national protection of natural resources kicks into high gear in the not too distant future.

Once the sides are drawn up over the last of the Petro Battles, proximity to the resource will be key to survival.