Dropping back into the atmosphere at Mach 25 is never 'routine'....

In article , Rand Simberg
wrote:

On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 09:21:06 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The chart shows that political instability caused oil prices
to triple on one occassion, and quadruple in another.
It's near seventy right now.

Not for long.

If you have inerrant knowledge of the future, you can sell it on the
futures market.
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/mar...php3?market=CL
There are people who are willing to commit to buying oil at around $70
at any time over the next year or so, and above $65 for the next 6
years.

If you know that the price is going to go down, you can make a killing.

And anyone who knows that the price is going to hit $150 can go to the
same market and fleece the suckers who think the price will stay the
same.

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

Rand Simberg wrote:


It's not possible for a president to "leak" data.

You folks are hilarious.



They all do. A "leak" is sexier than a "press release"
and can be disavowed if it doesn't poll well.

Blaming people for treacheously disclosing the information
that the president gave them to disclose would be a bit
thick though.

--
adress is partialy sdrawkcab.

"John Doe" wrote
In terms of the original Post, Oberg seems fixated on rehashing that
glitch and turning it into a major almost fatal incident the authorities
refused to discuss. I had provided him with numbers showing that cabin
pressure during that re-entry didn't go below what a passenger on a
commercial airliner would experience in flight. Of course, they don't
report air leaks on the Shuttle because they happen on every flight.

Talk about diversions and coverups!

And false finger-pointing!

Yeah, I have an open-items list of unanswered space screwups,
and DART and the Soyuz partial depress are at the head of the
list. And no, I don't get bored, grow apathetic, and just give up.
Especially when TOLD to by the likes of 'John Doe'...
[whose posts are usually pretty sound and a good contribution to this
list --
so overall, THANK YOU for taking part, even under a fake name...]

"John Doe" wrote
Not so.

It wasn't long ago that $20 per barrel was considered the "normal"
price, and that a jump to $30 was just due to tempoerary instability
(political/weather etc) and it woudl return to $20. But it didn't, and
$30 became the norm. Another problem cause oil to jump to $50, and then,
$40 became the baseline against which people were told the exopect the
oil price to gravitate.
..
It was long enough ago that you have to account for inflation -- since
oil peaked at $80 a barrel under Carter, then dropped.

As for the price of gasoline, again, when adjusted for inflation,
normalized per mile of vehicle movement, and adjusted for
work-effort to purchase, it's still lower than it's been most of
the history of internal combustion engines...

The irony is, the greenies WANT oil prices high, and when
they are, they get to blame Bush AND have their cake too.

On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:12:27 -0400, in a place far, far away, John Doe
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:

jonathan wrote:
And this recent talk of war with Iran, I'm beggining
to sense the White House is spinning out of control
and becoming desperate.


Actually, it is all going according to plans laid out by
Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Cheney back in 1998 and was fully documented in the
newamericancentury.org web site back then. (and yes, that is when "axis
of evil" was coined, not in 2002).

Indeed it was, and appropriately so.

The shift to Iran is simply to turn the attention away from their total
incomeptance/failure in Iraq, just like the timing of the Iraq invasion
was to shift the media's attention away from their failures in Afghanistan.

Yes. Right.

It has nothing to do with the fact that a nutcase has taken over the
country, pledged to destroy Islam and bring forth the twelve Imam with
an apocalypse, and they're about to get nukes.

On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:16:30 -0400, in a place far, far away, John Doe
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:
Not for long.

Not so.

It wasn't long ago that $20 per barrel was considered the "normal"
price, and that a jump to $30 was just due to tempoerary instability
(political/weather etc) and it woudl return to $20. But it didn't, and
$30 became the norm. Another problem cause oil to jump to $50, and then,
$40 became the baseline against which people were told the exopect the
oil price to gravitate.

Now, we are told $60 is the price we should expect the oil to be around.
Next disruption, the price may go up to $80 and then we're told $70 will
be the "normal" price and so on and so on.

You're an economic ignoramus. The price of oil is already too high to
be sustained for long, when a price of only thirty dollars is
necessary to open up vast new reserves, which aren't at all dependent
on Middle East dictators.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
Here's what I have faith in. When oil reaches oh about
$150 a barrell in the next five years or so,

That will never happen. To think it even possible betrays a profound
ignorance of economics and the nature of current reserves.

Actually, I should amend that. It will never happen in nominal
dollars. It could occur as a result of general inflation, but then
everything will cost three times as much.

I'll look for citations if necessary, but my recollection of a mid-1980s
Federal Reserve report stated that from 1968-1973, the primary driver for US
inflation was federal overspending (Vietnam, Great Society and maybe even
Apollo), but from 1974-1981, the driver was the rise in energy prices.


Jim McCauley

"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
1) Iran's total oil product amounts to around 3% of world production.

When there is less than 3% cushion between oil demand and oil production
capacity, then this 3% becomes very important and loss of this supply
can command huge price increases. The temporary shutdown of a few oil
rigs in the gulf of mexico due to a hurricane coming their way is enough
to cause the world price of oil to go up.

2) The US imports 0% of its oil from Iran.

How easy an argument. Say the USA attacks Iran and destroys its ability
to export Oil. How do you think Iran's normal customers will cope ? They
will buy their oil from elsewhere. And world oil price will increase
significantly.

Do you really think that suppliers of oil to the USA will not match the
world price increases ?

The ones who will benefit are the oil companies in the USA whose profits
will rise. Heck, at current prices, even Bush might be able to make
profits from his oil companies that used to fail one after the other
before he became a politician. The only question is whether Bush will
tell his oil friends the exact dates of the bombings in Iran so that
they can then secure huge futures contracts just before. This way, they
can continue to buy large quantities of oil at a fixed price, and
immediatly raise prices ate the pumps and generate huge profits.


GM/Ford/Chrysler might the the ones with anough clout to convince the
white house not to go ahead. Since they rely on SUVs/trucks to survive,
they may not be able to widthstand such a large oil increase.

John Doe wrote in :

"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
1) Iran's total oil product amounts to around 3% of world production.

When there is less than 3% cushion between oil demand and oil production
capacity, then this 3% becomes very important and loss of this supply
can command huge price increases. The temporary shutdown of a few oil
rigs in the gulf of mexico due to a hurricane coming their way is enough
to cause the world price of oil to go up.

2) The US imports 0% of its oil from Iran.

How easy an argument. Say the USA attacks Iran and destroys its ability
to export Oil. How do you think Iran's normal customers will cope ? They
will buy their oil from elsewhere. And world oil price will increase
significantly.

It's hilarious to me to see both of you alternately invoking, then
ignoring, the fungibility of both oil and money as it suits your respective
arguments.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Look any war in iran will only make the price of oil go UP/ Instability
always leads to price increases and generally instatenous ones.....