Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oil Tumbles After Inventory Report
CNN ^ | September 8, 2005: 10:40 AM EDT | staff

Posted on 09/08/2005 8:01:19 AM PDT by kellynla

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Oil futures fell below $64 a barrel Thursday after a report showed a smaller-than-expected drop in petroleum stockpiles following major disruptions in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Crude stocks fell by 6.4 million barrels, gasoline stocks fell by 4.3 million barrels and stocks of distillates decreased by 800,000 barrels, according to the The Energy Information Administration.

Analysts were looking for a drop of 6.4 million barrels of crude, 6.2 million barrels of gasoline and 2.6 million barrels of distillates, according to Reuters.

Free Oil Futures Price Quotes and Charts Barron's Commodity offers free crude oil quotes and charts. Get API data, news...

Free Crude Oil E-Guide Learn to trade oil futures and receive our free CD-rom.

Free Oil Future Information Free oil future information with technical analysis by using different technical...

Oil Future Slipka Trading offers 1-2-3 chart updates, low account minimums and substantial...

U.S. light crude for October delivery slipped $1.27 a barrel to $63.10 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Extended News
KEYWORDS: energy; gasprices; oil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-125 next last
To: azhenfud

any news on any new refineries besides the one in AZ ???

101 posted on 09/08/2005 2:06:33 PM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum

$2,75 on my way to work.

the 93 octane is below $3 a gallon now at $2.95

102 posted on 09/08/2005 2:15:08 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (Ohio State (-1) vs. Texarse, Sept 10th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sthitch


I've got 8 contracts shorted so far,5 of them just before the tumble in the last 2 days ... now the interesting thing is that oct 06 is at $64.50 but spring oil futures are at $67+.

103 posted on 09/08/2005 2:24:18 PM PDT by WOSG (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NickatNite2003

You forgot about the free tumblers and dishes - all for $0.28 per gallon!

104 posted on 09/08/2005 2:47:19 PM PDT by T. Rustin Noone ((Computers allow us to make mistakes faster than any invention except tequila and handguns))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Natural Gas for October's contract is @$11.460, up another 0.113, and we are still in summer weather. Where will energy prices be when the cold kicks in?

Light Crude Oil for October is @$64.83, up 0.34 as of this posting.

105 posted on 09/08/2005 5:24:23 PM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thrusher

Are you kidding or are you a Troll?

106 posted on 09/08/2005 8:27:41 PM PDT by pitbully ( Living Free in America,Thank You Pres. Bush !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Over the months and years ahead, the cost of oil will continue to rise as 100s of millions more new drivers begin to use fuel in third world countries.

107 posted on 09/08/2005 8:29:19 PM PDT by familyop ("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

oil has not tumbled... actually it is higher than it was before the report was released-

108 posted on 09/08/2005 8:31:43 PM PDT by ElRushbo (Harley Riders against Elton John)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: green iguana; NYorkerInHouston

Here are some numbers for you all from the DOE website:

Date Percent of GOM Oil Shut-in
September 7 57.37
September 8 60.12

An almost 3% of the total jump from Wednesday to Thursday. Which means that either something interesting is going on, or the numbers thus far aren't exactly reliable. (And about 2% jump from Tuesday).

109 posted on 09/08/2005 9:21:45 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: T. Rustin Noone

Ohhh yeahhhh :o)
They were pretty cheesey..But what could one expect.

110 posted on 09/09/2005 3:18:44 AM PDT by NickatNite2003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: quantfive
"Be good to see the bubble burst. Have to wait and see."

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Steve Forbes, just this morning, said he sees the "bubble bursting" within the next ten to twelve months and per barrel prices being half of what they are today, meaning $1.50/gal gas again.

Think of it this way... I make or obtain a product for $2.00 and sell it on the market for $3.00. Nice little profit. If production costs cause me to raise the price I'm offering to the market to $4.00, I'll make a large profit on the goods I went to market with $2.00.

For a while at least. Reality will catch up. It has always been that way in commodity markets.

Now, with people cutting back on their consumption of oil by driving less, keeping their cars tuned up, and the correct air pressure in their tires, the oil market is not sustainable and the prospective traders are going to get hurt pretty bad because of it.

Right before Katrina, production was significantly outpacing demand, yet prices were remaining high.

No, oils going to pop, just like the tech bubble did.


111 posted on 09/09/2005 4:56:46 AM PDT by Unsh8kableFaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
either something interesting is going on

That could be pipeline work. They get the platform up and start to pump, but then take it back down to work on the line. Looks like my analyst's 57% was a pretty good number...

112 posted on 09/09/2005 8:15:25 AM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: pitbully

I assumed my statements were outlandish enough that it would be obvious that I was joking.

I guess I should have known better and included a sarcasm tag.

113 posted on 09/09/2005 8:18:16 AM PDT by Thrusher (Remember the Mog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

What's that equate to in terms of the price of gasoline?

114 posted on 09/09/2005 9:22:53 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redbob

I'm not the person to ask.
I don't know.
There may not be a significant drop in the price and I am planning on the price being between two and three dollars for quite some time.
No matter how much oil we produce or import, the refineries even before Katrina were operating at maximum capacity and with no new refineries being built since 1976, I don't expect the price to fall very much.
Realistically, I think our days of gas under 2 dollars a gallon are history.

115 posted on 09/09/2005 9:38:50 AM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeW23225

How fast things change..........

September 5th. $3.19/gallon

September 9th. $2.99/gallon and plunging.

116 posted on 09/09/2005 2:34:53 PM PDT by GeorgeW23225 ("Grow your own dope. Plant a liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java
Gasoline demand tends to be inelastic,

Actually, gasoline tends to be sluggishly elastic. Demand DOES change, it just changes slowly. And similarly with supply. People can reduce a certain amount of gasoline consumption quickly -- avoiding unnecessary trips, walking (very) short distances, combining trips, carpooling, etc.. But the physical construction of our cities demands a commute. Cities these days are largely suburbs. Without a commute, we don't do business. And that's not a parameter that's easily or quickly modifiable.

Same with gas-miserly cars. Sure, given time the automakers can retool and start cranking out econoboxes again. But that takes years and a sustained demand for them before the manufacturers are willing to take the risk.

On the supply side, it takes years to drill new wells and build new refineries, to say nothing of developing alternate fuel technologies such as shale extraction or polymerization.

The money is made in the short haul, where the supply/demand curve goes grossly out of whack for a brief period of time because of some disaster (real or invented). In this last round of gouging, supply went short overnight, and the speculators and profiteers jumped on futures, which drove the price through the roof. The gougers made their money -- driven by hysteria they themselves helped create -- then bailed before the bottom fell out.

Classic amoral capitalism.

117 posted on 09/09/2005 5:43:48 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Very little retooling could have next years car & truck engines running High Pressure Fuel Injection.

Developed over a half century ago & carefully shelved in favor of catalytic converters( a horror story in itself).

H P F I allows each fuel molecule to be completely surrounded by air for complete combustion (more bang for the buck), and no unburned fuel components that need a cat. to burn them after the fact.

For as long as we've had cat. converters all that wasted fuel burned in them could have been used to power our vehicles down the road( a 20~30% MPG improvement).

Just imagine if we had been able to use 20~30% less Towelhead juice since 1965!

118 posted on 09/10/2005 10:22:41 AM PDT by norraad ("What light!">Blues Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: norraad
Years ago, when I was a journalist, I interviewed a guy from the local community who claimed he had invented a carburetor that actually vaporized the fuel. Most carbs just atomize it -- reduce it to very fine droplets. So do fuel injectors. Liquid gasoline won't burn; it must first vaporize (shift states). That is an energy-intensive process, and reduces the amount of energy available for useful work.

A true vapor carburetor would provide far more energy per intake cycle than one that atomized fuel. The inventor claimed that the resulting explosion could not be contained by a gas engine's cylinder head. He was forced to tool a diesel engine head to keep the thing from blowing apart.

I was skeptical (that was back in the days when journalists were.) So I consulted a physics professor at the University of Colorado. He verified (in general terms) the results I had been given.

That sounds a lot like what you're describing.

119 posted on 09/10/2005 4:48:35 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Exactly, but here's the thing, your using much less fuel for the same flame front of "bang" ( or rapidly expanding fire).

So, you really get the same bang for less bucks.

Not only do you not need stronger heads, but they last longer (no carbon buildup).

That "lasting longer" bit is why we went with cats.( God forbid, who would want that!).

120 posted on 09/10/2005 8:50:19 PM PDT by norraad ("What light!">Blues Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-125 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson