New 'super-spike' might mean $200 a barrel oil(so says Goldman Sachs)

Market Watch ^ | 03/07/08 | Steve Gelsi

[TigerLikesRooster]

New 'super-spike' might mean $200 a barrel oil

Goldman's projections foretell persistent turbulence in energy prices

By Steve Gelsi, MarketWatch

Last update: 1:42 p.m. EST March 7, 2008

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- With $100-a-barrel here for now, Goldman Sachs says $200 a barrel could be a reality in the not-too-distant future in the case of a "major disruption." Goldman on Friday also boosted by $10 the low end of its 2008-2012 projected range for crude to $60 a barrel -- significantly lower than current prices, to be sure, but a possible mark for oil if "normalized" trends return to the marketplace.

With the dollar's fall continuing and financial markets roiled by the credit crunch, commodities like oil have been drawing the fancy of increasing numbers of investors. Accordingly, Wall Street firms have been eager to adjust forecasts to incorporate fresh data on the global economy and energy supplies.

Goldman analysts Arjun Murti, Kevin Koh and Michele della Vigna said prices have advanced more quickly than Goldman had forecast back in 2005, when it predicted a range of $50 to $105 a barrel as part of its "super-spike" oil theory.

"We characterized the upper end of the band as more likely to be driven by geopolitical turmoil and that recession was a key risk to our view," the analysts said. "In fact, oil prices have reached $100 a barrel without extraordinary turmoil, and the U.S. currently appears to be in recession."

[TigerLikesRooster]

Hmm.. I am sure that Goldman Sachs has already positioned itself to benefit from super-hike. It would help if Abby Joseph Cohen does cheerleading for high oil price. She is good at talking things up.:-)

[TigerLikesRooster]

Ping!

[tj21807]

Too bad the Libs weren’t right...if Iraq were a war for oil stories like this wouldn’t be published.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Spinning for profits.

[FightThePower!]

She’s a stock analyst, not a commodities analyst. You should learn what you are talking about before you start talking smack.

[Shermy]

“I am sure that Goldman Sachs has already positioned itself to benefit from super-hike.”

Exactly.

[Cicero]

I am sure that Goldman Sachs has already positioned itself to benefit from super-hike.

That's their job. But it doesn't necessarily mean that this forecast is bogus.

[Balding_Eagle]

$200 oil right before the election might be the best thing in the long run.

[TigerLikesRooster]

I know. I was joking. However, I know Goldman Sachs would do anything to make the oil bubble sky-high.

[skateman]

Thank you Dims for keeping this country dependent on foreign oil.

[TigerLikesRooster]

It will go up, but I doubt it will go up that high.

[Mariner]

This is a certain sign the GS is short on oil...over the long term.

They'll do what they can to pump oil up in the short term...increase their short position as a hedge...and then wait for the this, the "next bubble" to crash.

[mkjessup]

There is a point (we obviously haven’t reached it yet) where the price of oil becomes so prohibitive, threatening the economic well being of any importer of petroleum, that the industrial nations which depend on oil will collectively say ‘enough is enough’ and their military forces will descend upon the Middle East like a pack of ravenous wolves, and we WILL see the so-called ‘War for Oil’ that leftists and liberals of all stripes claim we are already engaged in.

Those nations without an effective fighting force will align themselves with those who do, for a price, and ‘OPEC’ will stand for ‘Occupied Petroleum Exporting Colonies’.

I would suspect that we will see unified military action taken long before oil even gets close to $200 a barrel. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the navies sailing and the bombers flying at $130.

[TigerLikesRooster]

If it goes up too fast and too high, that is a possibility.

[FightThePower!]

“I would suspect that we will see unified military action taken long before oil even gets close to $200 a barrel. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the navies sailing and the bombers flying at $130.”

So we should steal what we can’t buy? Isn’t that why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor?

[mysterio]

It's amazing that they would want oil to go to $200. It will cause a severe recession or depression.

[mkjessup]

So we should steal what we can’t buy? Isn’t that why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor?

1.) Absolutely.

2.) We're not Japan and OPEC is a pack of thieves anyway.

[FightThePower!]

“Thank you Dims for keeping this country dependent on foreign oil.”

Bush could sign an executive order tomorrow that would require federal employees who's jobs don't require it to telecommute 2 days a week. In addition to that, he could ask congress to pass a law that would require companies to allow employees who are in a position to do so to do the same. That would reduce demand and lower the price long enough for us to DRILL for domestic oil.

[mkjessup]

If it goes up too fast and too high, that is a possibility.

What the weak sisters don't understand is that as the price of oil heads higher and higher, it places more and more hard currency into the hands of Islamofascist regimes which makes it ever easier for them to underwrite terrorist organizations (either through a desire to support them, or as means of buying 'protection' as the Saudis have done in the past), in addition the increased revenue can be poured into nuclear weapon programs and that alone ought to be plenty of reason to send in the Marines and seize control of each and every petroleum asset in that region.

[Defiant]

Isn't McCain against drilling in ANWR?

Can you imagine if there was a Republican running for President? He could say that he will push for drilling in ANWR and Idaho oil shale, and pump it out as fast as he can til gas is back to $1.50 a gallon. I wonder if people would respond to that?

But I understand, it is more important that your friends in the New York Times applaud your decisions--and your "maverick" status.