Skip to comments.Iran Accord Likely to Push Oil Prices Down [1 Million Barrels a Day Could Return to Global Markets]
Posted on 11/24/2013 3:05:43 PM PST by WilliamIII
Oil prices are likely to drop, analysts said, as the nuclear accord between Iran and six world powers potentially paves the way for more crude oil to reach the global market.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
And unicorns will deliver the mail, and Leprechauns will brew beer and give it away for free...
Costs about $95 to get oil out of the ground in North Dakota. There isn’t going to be much drop.
Zero will do anything to kill the US fracking plays.
What a simplistic and superficial analysis. It has always been the case that as the Middle East erupts in conflict and war, the price of oil goes up. If I ere a speculator I’d buy up oil when this dumb line of reasoning drives prices down.
This so-called agreement will bring Iran and Israel right to the brink, with the U.S. becoming totally relevant. That is a recipe for disaster.
You said: What a simplistic and superficial analysis.
Good point. Restricting the purchase of oil from an oil-producing country doesn’t drive prices up, and easing those restrictions — and increasing supply — doesn’t drive prices down. I wonder what grade you got in Economics 101.
As China becomes their primary customer it will be interesting to see the attitude going forward. My guess is the commies will be a much more controlling customer.
aren’t we giving them $8 billion which will spent on building nukes?
Right now WTI crude is selling at $94.84USD a barrel.
Sorry to be a heretic here, but if Reagan could strike a deal with the Soviets (and a lot of conservatives blasted him for it at the time, myself included ) .... I don’t see why we can’t strike a deal with Iran, especially if it puts our people in their facilities, monitoring them continuously.
It’s weird to me that a lot of conservatives today seem to hunger for war with Iran - and no other “solution” to the Iranian issue will satisfy them. How many wars did Reagan launch? He won the cold war, and he did it without starting any “hot” wars. In contrast, we have the George Bush example - invade Iraq. What, exactly did that get us?
The Saudis are against this deal with Iran. Think it has anything to do with their desire to keep Iranian oil off the market so oil prices stay up? Nah, that couldn’t have anything to do with it. !
And if our gas prices go down, that’s all that matters.
Who is hungering for war with Iran?
This is the kind of weakness that starts wars.
The best way to avoid war is to look strong, that is how Reagan did it
Since you asked, I got As in every econ class I ever took. I wonder what grades you got in English and logic because your post doesn't seem even remotely relate to the point I made.
Here it is in English at a much simpler level. The agreement whereby the US turns a blind eye to Iran's intent to build and use nuclear weapons has removed all incentive for Israeli restraint. When Israel launches a massive attic on Iran and it's military and industrial infrastructure (including the aforementioned oil producing sites) a broader war will erupt in the Middle East. War in the Middle East ALWAYS reduces supplies, ALWAYS increases costs of production and delivery and makes speculators very nervous and ALWAYS drives oil prices through the roof.
Do.....you....understand.....now.....? Or should I say it even slower?
One million barrels a day is a very small drop in a very large bucket.
When Israel launches a massive attic on Iran
Get back to me when they actually do that, and I’ll send you a gift certificate for a night out at Red Lobster. Because it’s not gonna happen.
That's a bit like saying it might be possible to strike a deal with the Nigerian banker who keeps asking for more small payments before releasing the $10 million you inherited that he's holding.
The fact is there is no will for peace with the Iranians mullah's, there never was any intent for peace with the Iranian mullahs, and any attempt to negotiate peace by the Iranian mullahs is a cynical deceptive effort on their part to extract more from the other side. If you don't believe it, then go ahead and keep exchanging emails with the Nigerian banker.
The fact is there is no will for peace with the Iranians mullah’s, there never was any intent for peace with the Iranian mullahs,
Sounds like me when I was criticizing Reagan for dealing with Gorbachev. I learned.
Also, when was the last time Iran - these folks who have no will for peace - actually invaded another country? As I recall, the only war they’ve been involved in, in modern age, is the Iran - Iraq war, and Saddam started that.
Tell me more about these Leprechauns...
all that oil was already reaching the world markets.
this article is BS
nothing was stopping the Iran oil from export, indeed that was the most glaring weakness of the socalled sanctions
most of Iran’s oil is, or will be going to China ... increasingly so, and less to Europe as time goes by. But it all gets to the world market and it all gets purchased.
Iran has repeated many, many times that it desires to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Those are threats a terrorist state makes. In the past the US had a policy not to negotiate with terrorist states. Obama now has changed this.
Now it appears the US will help fund Iran.
Making a statement that “a lot of conservatives today seem to hunger for war with Iran - and no other solution to the Iranian issue will satisfy them.” is a stale liberal talking point just like “part of the problem conservatives have with Obama is that he is black”.
I know a lot of conservatives and none of them “hunger for war with Iran”, or “have a problem with Obama is because he is black”.
The conservatives I know detest war, but know a terrorist state like Iran, sworn to destroy Israel, should be dealt like the terrorist state it is. Sanctions are the only thing that has shown Iran can be slowed down. They also have a problem with Obama’s policies that are destroying the country from within, not the fact that he is 1/2 white and 1/2 black.
I dont see why we cant strike a deal with Iran...
Iran has repeated many, many times that it desires to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Those are threats a terrorist state makes.
Right, they said, “we will bury you.”
Oh, wait, that was the Soviets that said that, against us — look it up. They also financed a lot of terrorism, including the murder attempt against the Pope.
Reagan still negotiated with them
They also have a problem with Obamas policies that are destroying the country from within, not the fact that he is 1/2 white and 1/2 black.
Well, at least i’m with you there.
That would be the first positive thing Obama’s done for the economy.
The U.S. could have more than twice that amount of oil from Canada, just for the asking (and permitting the pipelines).
Reading your posting history, you have a distinct smell.
The big difference between Reagan and Bush (both Bushes, in fact) was that 1990 marked a major turning point in Republican foreign policy. From that point forward, the GOP probably put the Pentagon up for sale to foreign interests (mainly Saudi Arabia).
One little monkey wrench in that scenario is that there probably isn’t any political will in Israel to do what you’ve suggested they’ll do.
No Keystone pipeline, no ANWAR, thus promised Obama to Jarret Iran.
Obama always wanted us addicted to iranian oil.
and there it is. It’s always energy-driven.
Ah, so this the PR move.
Israel is under the bus. So sad that we have abandoned them.
any lies or deceptions to mislead the public
yes, “our” administration’s mass media propagandists are still alive and well
A million barrels is about 1/19th of the oil used in the U.S.A. in only one day. We, as a nation, use about a million barrels less per day than we did a few years ago, before we began our managed slide toward becoming a third world country.
Currently there are four such countries designated by the United States as state sponsors of terrorism.
These countries are Syria, Cuba, Sudan, and Iran.
Essentially Obama is cutting a deal to provide economic relief to a country that is officially on the US government list of countries that sponsor terrorism.
Are you saying the Soviets weren’t sponsoring terrorism?
You have a lot to learn. Start with the famous book by Claire Sterling, The Terror Networks.
I hereby apologize to Israel, on behalf of all REAL Americans. Many Americans suspect President Muhummad Al-Obama is a Kenyan, but few know Valerie Jarret, who secretly negotiated this deal, is Iranian. PERSIAN. Check Wikipedia or Google it.
No, I am not saying that. I am saying the US State Department has never designated the Soviet Union as a state that sponsors terrorism. Nor has it listed many other countries that have done the same.
Like it or not, historically the US has limited the number of states it puts on the state sponsor of terrorism list because the ramifications of being on the list are severe and codified in law.
If you go to the US State Department website you can see what it means to be on this list. Iran is one of four on the list, and Obama is cutting a deal to give economic relief to Iran.
That is what I am saying.
You said: I am saying the US State Department has never designated the Soviet Union as a state that sponsors terrorism.
My comment: Big friggin deal. Whatever report the State Department did or didn’t issue, The Soviets were terror sponsors — that’s a fact, Jack — but Reagan still negotiated with them. Was Reagan a “Neville Chamberlain”?
Wrapped in a 7 Bil dollar gift to the Mullahs to kill Jews and Americans.
I think you can figure out where a lot of that American ‘aide’ will go. Valerie’s boys.
“Top Iranian Mullahs Corrupt, Official Says”
Iran will choke on its own oil puke.
DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW!
Say, looking over your posts in forum, you seem to be one of these insidiously subtle trolls...feeding the Viking kitties just enough catnip to keep the “zots” at bay.
John Kerry got rolled like a pudgy old drunk on a park bench. Knowing his history, he never met an enemy of the United States that he couldn’t find any agreement with. We are worse than “Jengis Kahn” according to him; didn’t you know that?