Posted on 03/08/2006 9:53:00 AM PST by sully777
OK, I guess this explains why gas in my area has risen more than 10 percent in a week. Not.
Never play poker when the other fellow can stack the deck.
The US Navy will destroy those missiles in less than one hour if the Iranians are stupid enough to try it.
I hope something happens soon, I'm paying $2.49 a gallon for propane.( no natural gas in my area)
The Tanker War, 1984-87 (Price per barrel went from $53 in 1982 to approx. $18 in 1987)
Much of Iraq's export capability was lost during the Iran-Iraq War, either to war-related damage or due to political reasons. In 1982, for instance, Syria (allied with Iran at the time) closed the 500-mile, 650,000-bbl/d-capacity Banias pipeline, which had been a vital Iraqi access route to the Mediterranean Sea and European oil markets. By 1983, Iraq's export capabilities were only 700,000 bbl/d, or less than 30% of operable field production capacity at that time.
Iran's revenue share fell after the 1978/79 Iranian Revolution, followed soon thereafter by the Iran-Iraq War for much of the 1980s [and has not recovered since]. All Iranian onshore crude oil production and output from the Forozan field (which is blended with crude streams from the Abuzar and Doroud fields) is exported from the Kharg Island terminal located in the northern Gulf. The terminal's original capacity of 7 million bbl/d was nearly eliminated by more than 9,000 bombing raids during the Iran-Iraq War.
The tanker war seemed likely to precipitate a major international incident for two reasons. First, some 70 percent of Japanese, 50 percent of West European, and 7 percent of American oil imports came from the Persian Gulf in the early 1980s. Second, the assault on tankers involved neutral shipping as well as ships of the belligerent states.
The tanker war had two phases. The relatively obscure first phase began in 1981, and the well-publicized second phase began in 1984.
The relatively obscure first phase began in 1981, and the well-publicized second phase began in 1984. As early as May 1981, Baghdad had unilaterally declared a war zone and had officially warned all ships heading to or returning from Iranian ports in the northern zone of the Gulf to stay away or, if they entered, to proceed at their own risk. The main targets in this phase were the ports of Bandar-e Khomeini and Bandar-e Mashur; very few ships were hit outside this zone. Despite the proximity of these ports to Iraq, the Iraqi navy did not play an important role in the operations. Instead, Baghdad used Super Frelon helicopters equipped with Exocet missiles or Mirage F-1s and MiG-23s to hit its targets. Naval operations came to a halt, presumably because Iraq and Iran had lost many of their ships, by early 1981; the lull in the fighting lasted for two years.
In March 1984, the tanker war entered its second phase when Iraq initiated sustained naval operations in its self-declared 1,126-kilometer maritime exclusion zone, extending from the mouth of the Shatt al Arab to Iran's port of Bushehr. In 1981 Baghdad had attacked Iranian ports and oil complexes as well as neutral tankers and ships sailing to and from Iran; in 1984 Iraq expanded the so-called tanker war by using French Super-Etendard combat aircraft armed with Exocet missiles.
In March 1984 an Iraqi Super Etendard fired an Exocet missile at a Greek tanker south of Khark Island. Until the March assault, Iran had not intentionally attacked civilian ships in the Gulf.Neutral merchant ships became favorite targets, and the long-range Super-Etendards flew sorties farther south. Seventy-one merchant ships were attacked in 1984 alone, compared with forty-eight in the first three years of the war. Iraq's motives in increasing the tempo included a desire to break the stalemate, presumably by cutting off Iran's oil exports and by thus forcing Tehran to the negotiating table. Repeated Iraqi efforts failed to put Iran's main oil exporting terminal at Khark Island out of commission, however.
The new wave of Iraqi assaults, however, led Iran to reciprocate. In April 1984, Tehran launched its first attack against civilian commercial shipping by shelling an Indian freighter. Iran attacked a Kuwaiti oil tanker near Bahrain on May 13 and then a Saudi tanker in Saudi waters five days later, making it clear that if Iraq continued to interfere with Iran's shipping, no Gulf state would be safe. Most observers considered that Iraqi attacks, however, outnumbered Iranian assaults by three to one. Iran's retaliatory attacks were largely ineffective because a limited number of aircraft equipped with long-range antiship missiles and ships with long-range surface-to-surface missiles were deployed. Moreover, despite repeated Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, Iran itself depended on the sea-lanes for vital oil exports.
These sustained attacks cut Iranian oil exports in half, reduced shipping in the Gulf by 25 percent, led Lloyd's of London to increase its insurance rates on tankers, and slowed Gulf oil supplies to the rest of the world; moreover, the Saudi decision in 1984 to shoot down an Iranian Phantom jet intruding in Saudi territorial waters played an important role in ending both belligerents' attempts to internationalize the tanker war. Iraq and Iran accepted a 1984 UN-sponsored moratorium on the shelling of civilian targets, and Tehran later proposed an extension of the moratorium to include Gulf shipping, a proposal the Iraqis rejected unless it were to included their own Gulf ports.
Iraq began ignoring the moratorium soon after it went into effect and stepped up its air raids on tankers serving Iran and Iranian oil-exporting facilities in 1986 and 1987, attacking even vessels that belonged to the conservative Arab states of the Persian Gulf. Iran responded by escalating its attacks on shipping serving Arab ports in the Gulf. As Kuwaiti vessels made up a large portion of the targets in these retaliatory raids, the Kuwaiti government sought protection from the international community in the fall of 1986. The Soviet Union responded first, agreeing to charter several Soviet tankers to Kuwait in early 1987. Washington, which has been approached first by Kuwait and which had postponed its decision, eventually followed Moscow's lead. United States involvement was sealed by the May 17, 1987, Iraqi missile attack on the USS Stark, in which thirtyseven crew members were killed. Baghdad apologized and claimed that the attack was a mistake. Ironically, Washington used the Stark incident to blame Iran for escalating the war and sent its own ships to the Gulf to escort eleven Kuwaiti tankers that were "reflagged" with the American flag and had American crews. Iran refrained from attacking the United States naval force directly, but it used various forms of harassment, including mines, hit-and-run attacks by small patrol boats, and periodic stop-and-search operations. On several occasions, Tehran fired its Chinese-made Silkworm missiles on Kuwait from Al Faw Peninsula. When Iranian forces hit the reflagged tanker Sea Isle City in October 1987, Washington retaliated by destroying an oil platform in the Rostam field and by using the United States Navy's Sea, Air, and Land (SEAL) commandos to blow up a second one nearby.
Within a few weeks of the Stark incident, Iraq resumed its raids on tankers but moved its attacks farther south, near the Strait of Hormuz. Washington played a central role in framing UN Security Council Resolution 598 on the Gulf war, passed unanimously on July 20; Western attempts to isolate Iran were frustrated, however, when Tehran rejected the resolution because it did not meet its requirement that Iraq should be punished for initiating the conflict.
In early 1988, the Gulf was a crowded theater of operations. At least ten Western navies and eight regional navies were patrolling the area, the site of weekly incidents in which merchant vessels were crippled. The Arab Ship Repair Yard in Bahrain and its counterpart in Dubayy, United Arab Emirates (UAE), were unable to keep up with the repairs needed by the ships damaged in these attacks.
Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm
Sure it is...and your proof is what?
I watch the oil markets with a live feed from NYMEX...and the oil market got hammered on the news...and has been selling the last three days steady...down 3.70 a BBL since Monday open...
Do you have direct evidence of manipulation of the futures markets? If you do, I am certain that the CFTC would be very interested.
In the mean time, here is some information relating the price we all pay at the pump to the price on the futures markets after a time delay. This subject has been rather extensively studied.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2003/gasolinepass/gasolinepass.htm
Given the high prices, then, there should be significant signs of decreased consumption, right? The price of oil has more than tripled since 1999. Has the consumption decreased to one-third? Has the consumption decreased to half? Has the consumption even decreased by 10%?
To watch the world continue its consumption despite the tripling of price, and to claim that nothing "justifies" the high price reflects, I think, some wishful thinking.
It takes time for markets to adjust. But the the tripling of prices has hardly created any adjustments whatever. Crude oil surpluses, such as they are, are not a very convincing indicator that consumption is declining. Without such a decline, there is little reason to expect a decline in prices.
Evidence? Gave it already.
BTW, NYMEX trading April contracts for refined at 1.60 at 12:38 PM EST. It is now trading 1.6280 at 2:20 PM EST. That would be UP. Now, if I recall correctly, NYMEX was trading March contracts in the low 1.50's. I mean the cold in the Northeast (NOT), the Chinese (NOT), Nigeria (NOT), Saudi terrorist (NOT), supply and demand (NOT see related threads), and Starits of Hormuz (see my post above).
Evidence? I've posted two threads that gives cold hard facts, and historical context that counter the wild speculation. But the speculators always counter with demands of proof. Sheesh that's ballsy.
BTW, how many related jobs will be lost when GM and Ford close their plants because gasoline prices have been so high, based on speculation. Let's see there's 55,000 direct losses and a ratio of 1 in 6 jobs interconnected to automotive manufacture in this country.
Here's to the speculator and hedge fund manager: Consistently giving Americans real world jobs for unknown years.
You haven't a clue as to what your talking about...nor do you understand the function of the futures market as it relates to producers, shippers, and refiners...
I suppose you would prefer a closed market or to leave the participants naked to risk?
I suppose aluminum futures markets are also manipulated?
It never ceases to amaze me that free market conservatives would attack a market...and every time oil spikes up they act like little socialist crybabys...
You haven't a clue as to what your talking about...nor do you understand the function of the futures market as it relates to producers, shippers, and refiners...
I suppose you would prefer a closed market or to leave the participants naked to risk?
I suppose aluminum futures markets are also manipulated?
"And the local gas stations just pushed up prices by about 12 cents a gallon."
Must be nice. Not too long ago, it was around $2.20 here in mid-Michigan. It's $2.56 now. Nobody has an explanation.
And yet taxes on diesel remains at a stupid price.
Hunt brothers who manipulated the silver market. Yes, they went bust but nevertheless their manipulations caused the price to increase ten-fold.
Further...exclude all instances that occurred before the Internet ...
OK, the California electricity market, manipulated by Enron et al. Yes, they were just taking advantage of inefficiencies created by gov rules, but many markets are inefficient to some extent.
For another, Saddam Hussein managed to turn a pretty penny before the recent Gulf War by alternating between saber-rattling and feigned meekness.
There is a respectable argument to be made that the Internet and automation of many trading activities introduce the possibility of new kinds of manipulations. Given a flaw in widely used systems one could conceivably exploit unstable feedbacks and really make a killing. Or perhaps by subtly hacking a router to adjust the timing of trades you could get a kind of millisecond-level resonance going. Hmmm, I smell a novel in that. Too bad I can't write worth a damn.
Sounds like what happened in my part of Texas. Jumped around .25 cents in one day for no reason @ all. Hasn't gone down since and I doubt it ever will.
Don't like gasoline prices? Yell at an environmentalist and/or refinery NIMBY.
"Nothing on this scale is coincidental."
It's about the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf more than Iran's oil supply. I saw a military analyst on Fox News the other day who said that one of our early plans to deal with Iran was to shut the Strait Of Hormuz ourselves. Iran will try to close the Strait and may even try to wreck the Saudi terminals, refineries and etc..
We have numerous agreements with other nations to supply them with oil if their normal supply is interrupted. So...keep your gas tank full.
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.