The article listed reductions in the U.S. as a reason for the decline.
Oil’s decline began the day Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling. Much of the “demand” has been fabricated by the enivowacko movement and those invested in alternative technologies (which are often the same people).
I have no desire for oil to be high to achieve “Drill Here, Drill Now.” Just the threat of increased domestic drilling knocked the top off the bubble, imo.
“Oil’s decline began the day”
All futures traded commodities (except gold) decline began several months ago when the hedge funders and others stopped parking money in options and cashed out.
Their holdings are now cash, dollars, notes, yen.
The thinking is that 9 months from now they will start parking their money back in commodities trades and, hopefully, American stocks.
All these headlines about end user “demand” causing recent price major trends are from journalistic hacks. Their depressing and inaccurate headlines help talk down the economy, but nowhere near as much as Paulson’s and Bush’s rambling statements on the economy.
Actually, the price of oil is not solely determined by demand in the U.S. but also the world demand. And as there is less demand for oil on the World Market, the price of oil will fall.
Oil’s decline began the day Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling.
So, you mean that the price of oil would not have gone up to more than $140.00 a barrel if President Bush had lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007?
I have no desire for oil to be high to achieve “Drill Here, Drill Now.”
Sorry, but you cannot have both expanded domestic E&P and cheap oil. In order to make it profitable to expand domestic E&P we will need to have oil at far above $50.00 a barrel. You see, people in industry would like to make a profit when drilling for new sources of oil in the United States!