Skip to comments.
New 'super-spike' might mean $200 a barrel oil(so says Goldman Sachs)
Market Watch ^
| 03/07/08
| Steve Gelsi
Posted on 03/07/2008 7:24:17 PM PST by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alternativefuels; biofuels; ethanol; goldmansachs; oil; superspike
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
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.:-)
To: TigerLikesRooster; Uncle Ike; RSmithOpt; jiggyboy; 2banana; Travis McGee; OwenKellogg
2
posted on
03/07/2008 7:25:00 PM PST
by
TigerLikesRooster
(kim jong-il, chia head, ppogri, In Grim Reaper we trust)
To: TigerLikesRooster
Too bad the Libs weren’t right...if Iraq were a war for oil stories like this wouldn’t be published.
3
posted on
03/07/2008 7:26:09 PM PST
by
tj21807
To: TigerLikesRooster
4
posted on
03/07/2008 7:26:33 PM PST
by
Mad_Tom_Rackham
("The land of the Free...Because of the Brave")
To: TigerLikesRooster
She’s a stock analyst, not a commodities analyst. You should learn what you are talking about before you start talking smack.
5
posted on
03/07/2008 7:27:33 PM PST
by
FightThePower!
(Fight the powers that be!)
To: TigerLikesRooster
“I am sure that Goldman Sachs has already positioned itself to benefit from super-hike.”
Exactly.
6
posted on
03/07/2008 7:28:02 PM PST
by
Shermy
To: TigerLikesRooster
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.
7
posted on
03/07/2008 7:31:01 PM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: TigerLikesRooster
$200 oil right before the election might be the best thing in the long run.
8
posted on
03/07/2008 7:32:53 PM PST
by
Balding_Eagle
(If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
To: FightThePower!
I know. I was joking. However, I know Goldman Sachs would do anything to make the oil bubble sky-high.
9
posted on
03/07/2008 7:35:08 PM PST
by
TigerLikesRooster
(kim jong-il, chia head, ppogri, In Grim Reaper we trust)
To: TigerLikesRooster
Thank you Dims for keeping this country dependent on foreign oil.
10
posted on
03/07/2008 7:38:11 PM PST
by
skateman
(Always vote Republican)
To: Cicero
It will go up, but I doubt it will go up that high.
11
posted on
03/07/2008 7:38:17 PM PST
by
TigerLikesRooster
(kim jong-il, chia head, ppogri, In Grim Reaper we trust)
To: TigerLikesRooster
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.
12
posted on
03/07/2008 7:38:38 PM PST
by
Mariner
To: TigerLikesRooster
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.
13
posted on
03/07/2008 7:38:51 PM PST
by
mkjessup
(Famous 'Rat Initials: FDR, HST, JFK, LBJ .... to be followed by *B.O.* ?!? - I don't think so!! LOL)
To: mkjessup
If it goes up too fast and too high, that is a possibility.
14
posted on
03/07/2008 7:41:43 PM PST
by
TigerLikesRooster
(kim jong-il, chia head, ppogri, In Grim Reaper we trust)
To: mkjessup
“I would suspect that we will see unified military action taken long before oil even gets close to $200 a barrel. I wouldnt 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?
15
posted on
03/07/2008 7:44:07 PM PST
by
FightThePower!
(Fight the powers that be!)
To: TigerLikesRooster
It's amazing that they would want oil to go to $200. It will cause a severe recession or depression.
16
posted on
03/07/2008 7:45:32 PM PST
by
mysterio
To: FightThePower!
So we should steal what we cant buy? Isnt that why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor?
1.) Absolutely.
2.) We're not Japan and OPEC is a pack of thieves anyway.
17
posted on
03/07/2008 7:47:56 PM PST
by
mkjessup
(Famous 'Rat Initials: FDR, HST, JFK, LBJ .... to be followed by *B.O.* ?!? - I don't think so!! LOL)
To: skateman
“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.
18
posted on
03/07/2008 7:50:23 PM PST
by
FightThePower!
(Fight the powers that be!)
To: TigerLikesRooster
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.
19
posted on
03/07/2008 7:51:54 PM PST
by
mkjessup
(Famous 'Rat Initials: FDR, HST, JFK, LBJ .... to be followed by *B.O.* ?!? - I don't think so!! LOL)
To: TigerLikesRooster
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.
20
posted on
03/07/2008 7:53:48 PM PST
by
Defiant
(Para votar Obama, se necessita una cabeza de nada...un cabeza de nada, para mi para ti, ay arriba..)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson