The report says that 71% of future contracts was held by speculators. But does the report specify a date when this percentage was held? If I'm correct, at the end of each month (actually 3 bus. days prior to the 25th) the number of contracts held by speculators should approach 0%. If they where to hold on to these contracts they would need to take delivery, which I'm sure no speculator wants.

So you can't simply say that in April 2008 speculators held 71% of the contracts. Because on the 22th of April the number of contracts held by speculators would surely have been close to 0%.

Shit, I don't know.
I was just quoting the news article I linked to. That's my point exactly, I don't understand it, but I'm trying to.

I believe that there are clearly more investment dollars in the oil futures market (thank you, in part, Ben Bernanke).

Perhaps it is the case that there could be (insert your own percent)% speculators in the market at any given time, but based on whether they are long and/or short they may not have a corresponding effect on price - one way or the other.

On Friday Karl Denninger said this in his Frightful Friday commentary:

Now The House has come up with a bill that will "restrict" commodity speculation, never mind that a commodity speculator provides liquidity and price discovery, not price setting or forcing. This is obvious to anyone with more than two firing neurons, but it doesn't matter - the people are demanding that someone be "to blame" for high oil prices, and its not acceptable for Congress to say "well, we did that and so is The Fed, and we won't stop them", so they blame "commodity speculators."

The truth on commodity futures (e.g. oil) is simple - if I buy a futures contract that tends to force the price upward, but as expiration approaches if I do not want to take delivery of that oil I must sell that contract and buy the next month's out. In doing so I drive the price of the front month down at the same rate I drive the forward contract up - the net effect is zero. Further, you can determine the total impact of these contracts as they are unwound every month when the futures expire, and the last expiration (which just passed) we saw that the true impact is just a few dollars - under $5/bbl.

Moe Gamble said this on Friday's DB:

At this point, if the government bans speculators and pension funds from the commodity markets, the price of oil will go up sharply.

That's because speculators are now net short.

Specs short: http://www.cftc.gov/dea/futures/deanymesf.htm (Add speculators to nonreportables for total spec open interest.)

Net investment outflows from energy in second quarter: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=ace77xJYOjNU&refer=e...

"Investors" and speculators departed longs and then got increasingly short through the second quarter as the price rose from $100 to $140.

So, it seesm that if you know where to look and how to interpret that it is realtively "easy" to determinthe level and effect on specualtion in the market.

Perhaps the what, where , and how of oil futures speculation effect could be the suject of a guest post by someone who can walk (many of) us through this?

Of course this seems to be happening downthread ;-)

Pete

That may be 71% across all contract months - as speculators are closing out all their delivery day contracts, most they tend to be 'rolling over' into the next month (ie: taking out a new contract for the next delivery month)

So the OVERALL ratio of speculative contracts, across the board, is probably reasonably constant. Generally though, lots goes on on the last couple of days, and I wouldn't be surprised if these are routinely excluded from 'averaged' stats.

1) the SPECULATORS are not really who are being blamed. Actually, the speculators, like Michael Masters who recently testified before Congress, are net short oil, and net long equities, so they want oil to go down. Its the index funds that are net long commodities. ETFs and funds linked to the GSCI or other commodity indexes.

2) Index funds are also very long wheat and gold and other commodities. Yet some of these markets have crashed from where they were a year ago - wheat dropped 50% from its highs of last year. Reason? The actual producers came in because there was plenty of wheat to supply at those high prices and for every index fund/speculator who wanted to buy wheat above $12 per bushel, an actual producer said 'here you go - I am very happy to sell you my wheat at $12". In this case reality caught up with a frothy market... If a large portion (or even a moderate portion) of oils rise is due to speculation (and index funds), the same will happen. Actual oil producers will sell the 'freely available oil' at what are 'too high of prices' and oil will do what wheat did. Hasn't happened yet.

3)By the same logic, those corporations (e.g. airlines) that are buying long term contracts to lock in prices could be swamped by actual oil companies selling them contracts if future oil availability seems adequate (based on their own internal reserve and production estimates. Thus producers will sell forward more contracts than hedgers will in the long dated months and prices will drop into backwardation. We have seen just the opposite.

4)Part of the reason we are this high is that speculators are SHORT the market, e.g each time we rally 10% there is a positive feedback loop where they have to cover their shorts and the market spurts higher again, which then encourages other deep pocketed hedge funds, who don't buy into the general peak oil concept of limited flow rates, to go short. After all, there will be plenty of ethanol and tar sands to make up for the 'possible' decline in crude. This is all changing as firms like Wood Gundy, Goldman, Barclays, etc. have started to publish very realistic research on how dire our oil situation is (though they are writing from a profit/investment perspective as opposed to a social/policy one). So once everyone has gotten oil religion and the large funds stop 'shorting' the market (e.g. no shorts left), then we will be free to drop in price. In this sense speculators ARE influencing the market, but in a very sneaky, self interested way not being discussed 'before Congress'.

5) Finally, oil margins have recently been raised to $8,500 per contract:

Consider we are at midway point of URR and there are 1 trillion barrels left, this is 150 barrels per person living on the planet (and none for any of their children or grandchildren). For $8,500 one can control 1,000 barrels of oil, 8 times ones all time allotment for posterity (assuming that each human had equal rights to oil, which clearly isn't the case). Imagine what $85,000 or $850,000 or $8.5 billion could do. As I've written about often here, there is a paradigm shift coming between abstract wealth (paper currency) and real wealth (commodities, real goods, social, natural capital, etc.) Left to their own devices the deep pocketed institutions could run oil closer to its true value, in the thousands per barrel, but OECD trade and the economic system as we know it grinds to a halt before that time.

Interesting and important times. I agree with Jerome. Lets hope our leaders are mature enough to look beyond the easy scapegoats and make some uncomfortable but necessary planning choices. Its always difficult to admit that its our own fault...

Consider we are at midway point of URR and there are 1 trillion barrels left, this is 150 barrels per person living on the planet (and none for any of their children or grandchildren).

That's enough for everyone currently in the world to drive a car 500 miles (or 800km)*

Write that on your bumper sticker.

That really puts the scale into something people can start to comprehend - and start to realize just how little oil left in the world...

Say what ? 150 barrels lets you drive only 500 miles ?

ok, typing on calculators is dangerous (typed 19.5x25 when I've should've typed 19.5x150)

150 barrels at 19.5 gallons per barrel and 25gpm is

3000 miles per person in the world (or 4700km)

and the common rebuttals to this type of statistic is:
1)but there are so many people in the world that don't use ANY oil that your numbers are meaningless
or
2) ya but your forgot about ethanol and oil shale

(n=5 from personal experience)

To (1), "Virtually nobody uses no oil, it's just that a few people use a lot. For example, Ghanans use about a barrel of oil each a year, and Americans use 25. So those 150 barrels each could keep Ghanans going for 150 years, but Americans only for 6 years. Anyway, put together Europe, Japan, the US - and that's about a billion people using 15 barrels each. Ten years if nobody else gets any."

At this point they go silent and look surly and obviously hate me already, so I add, "Maybe you should take the bus."

Since when does 15 barrels per person times 1 billion people times ten years = 1 trillion barrels?

I make 15 x 10 x 1,000,000,000 = 150 billion. Out by an order of magnitude.

You'd be more convincing if you could add up.

Why not just skip the maths and go back to:

We use 30 billion barrels per year.
We have about a trillion left.
That's 30 years supply.

...oh wait that wasn't the answer you wanted. Not dramatic enough. Now you'll have to explain flow rates. Damn.

.

Flow rates are derivative of available supply and demand. The bell curve is simply the normal derivative. So we don't have 30 years of oil left in the ground because supply and demand are not constant.

Actually, we probably have 100 years of oil left in the ground. It's just that 1/3 of it will be used up in the next 15 years or so.

That is the point where the bell curve (assuming we are already past peak) will go into negative curvature, and drop gradually over decades to a point where a tiny number of users can afford the remaining resource. After that point is reached, it will become a niche market commodity.

Prices may begin to fluctuate normally, but only because it will no longer be in mass demand as a consumer application. It would no longer be a question of marginal demand-killing, the price would be high enough that the utilization would drop off as the vast majority of users switched to alternatives and we'd have excess capacity again. As the utilization dropped off, so would demand for unconventional oil.

Unconventional oil will increase total reserves, resulting in a second supply peak or echo peak, further extending the time frame for remaining oil in the ground, possibly indefinitely. But this secondary bell curve for new, higher-price oil will be much lower (in annual output) and wider than the current peak.

So we would never get back to today's flow rates because of the expense (relative to energy and work) needed to replace conventional sources of oil barrel for barrel, so oil would remain available even as the cost of using it goes up and the number of users goes down.

that makes 73000 miles?