Oil Down $2, Speculators Bet on Kerry Win

[porkrind]

Yahoo News:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=749&e=1&u=/nm/20041101/bs_nm/markets_oil_dc

I guess we know who the market wants to win! :)

<snip>
By Richard Mably

LONDON (Reuters) - Oil prices fell heavily on Monday, taking U.S. crude below $50 on speculation that a U.S. election win for Senator John Kerry (news - web sites) could ease the geopolitical friction that helped spark this year's record rally.

[MidwestTransplant]

1. RATE THIS STORY UP!!!!!

:kick:

[TrogL]

2. If the great unwashed understand that Kerry means lower gas prices...

the election's a lock.

[phantom power]

8. I wouldn't expect oil to get cheaper under Kerry

Worldwide competition for oil resources is surging, mostly due to increasing consumption in Asia. That's not going to change. It's going to get worse.

[tridim]

3. If only every motorist could see this story

Kerry would get 90% of the vote. C'mon "liberal" media, do your job!

[maddezmom]

4. rated

You have given the news article Oil Down & a rating of 5.
Its current average rating is 3.73 with 170 vote(s).

[Pirate Smile]

5. Send this to any undecideds bitching about oil prices. Look at the

differences they expect depending on who wins -

"Energy analysts said a win for the challenger Kerry in Tuesday's U.S. poll could mean lower crude prices than if President Bush (news - web sites) is re-elected. Most opinion polls put Bush narrowly ahead.

"Under a Kerry administration we'd likely have a much more interventionist SPR (Strategic Petroleum Reserve) policy," said Jamal Qureshi, market analyst at PFC Energy in Washington.


"And when you look out a bit further, Bush is more likely to be aggressive in the Middle East, particularly in Iran."


PFC is forecasting an average U.S. crude price of $43 a barrel in 2005 should Kerry win, compared to $48 a barrel in the event Bush triumphs. It sees $52 on average in the first quarter 2005 under Bush compared to $45 under Kerry.


PFC says a Bush win could stoke nervousness about U.S. policies in the oil producing Middle East while Kerry is seen as more likely to work through conventional diplomatic channels."

[realcountrymusic]

6. 3.89 with 244 votes 1:18 EST

keep pounding it

rcm

[lakeguy]

7. rated

[Roland99]

9. It's being freeped...down to 3.72

[More Than A Feeling]

10. Are lower oil prices really the best thing, though?

Lower oil prices mean that more oil will be consumed, thus speeding up the day when the world will run out of oil. At the same time, cheap oil means that there is less incentive for costly attempts at innovation to find alternatives to oil. So efforts to promote alternative fuel sources will be hamstrung, because it will always be cheaper to just use oil.

I understand that lower costs at the pump are a political winner, but is this really in the long term best interests of this country?

[durablend]

13. Depends...

Long term it's probably wise to boost prices, but I'd say not until people got relatively decent jobs again (assuming that's even possible). Definitely doesn't help if you're working two minimum wage jobs and are paying the gas and heating bills off of one of them, and are barely breaking even on the other paycheck with food and goods prices going through the roof (despite the impression Greenspin has).

Another thing I never see anyone bring up...everyone goes on and on about having to reduce/replace gasoline use (transportation), but what kind of alternatives are being developed for home heating (since that's a significant part of the household budget for a percentage of the country)? There never seems to be any real mention made of it (unless I'm not hearing it)

[Anarcho-Socialist]

11. rated a 5 n/t

[truthpusher]

12. Just sent this to all of my co-workers - everybody can understand...

...this. Speaks to the people who vote with their pocketbooks.

[54anickel]

14. The gig is up if Shrub loses. Check this article from last week

http://www.thestreet.com/_googlen/stocks/melissadavid/10190813.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

snip>

Since President Bush took office in early 2001, oil prices -- and oil stocks -- have surged to record levels. Some hold Bush, who hails from Texas oil country, at least somewhat responsible. Others dismiss his influence. But even the latter group tends to believe that Bush would do nothing to harm big energy companies during a second term in office.

Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry, on the other hand, might push for major changes.

snip>

Bush Factor
Gheit, for one, still marvels that energy prices have risen as high as they have.

He points to a "perfect storm" -- involving fears about supply disruptions in Norway, Russia and Venezuela -- as part of the explanation. But he says that Bush is responsible as well. He says the president chose to invade Iraq when oil inventories were particularly low. Moreover, he says, Bush later began stockpiling oil for the strategic reserve, and that "spooked" fast-growing countries -- such as China, India and Korea -- that rely heavily on imported fuel. From there, he believes, speculators capitalized on mounting anxieties and drove oil to record levels.

"It was almost a comedy of errors," he says. "One mistake was made, and the next seemed inevitable. ... I believe the ill-advised policies and actions of this administration have been a major contributor -- if not the cause -- of the run-up in oil prices."

Gheit suspects that a U.S. "regime change" is necessary for oil prices to correct. He has long insisted that oil carries a huge terror premium that, over time, is destined to fade.