Interesting how most of the comments were self serving and misappropiated the letter that I wrote. I wrote in response to a conservationist's view about drilling off the Virginia Coast and how unrealistic her arguments were with none based in fact. Many of the arguments here are right down the democractic talking points (blame everyone but the regulators - Congress). The fact remains that the price of a barrel of oil today reflects the expected supply over the next few months and will definitely be affected by the lifting of any moratoriun on drilling in ANWR or OCS. The future of the economy is dependent on drilling now, increasing the potential of supply, and developing long term American reliance on nuclear, improving the efficiency (and thereby lowering the price per KWH) of solar, wind, and other renewable sources. Insulting one another on their views does not solve the problem of t

Notwithstanding His Eminance's essences, I wholeheartedly agree with you that both sides are using gas prices as political fodder. I think if Bush would let go of the strategic reserve that would do a lot more for our domestic market. This last slide of 7/15 initially resulted in less than a 5% decrease even though it was the second biggest dollar slide in history for oil. So looking at that percentage number it was less than impressive no matter what the cause. When Bush I released the reserve at the onset of the first gulf war the market saw oil immediately drop from around $30 a barrel to around $20 a barrel-a huge 33% drop. But he is not wanting to do that this time around for some reason. Probably for political reasons to force the hand on the Dems in the drilling issue. The Dems are not better in reality either and cannot come up with anything worthwhile for the near future. So we are stuck and hence lies my angst with politicians.

"I just meant that many many people that have never played futures before suddenly jumped in because of the frenzy and I don't believe they were all seasoned. I think that is middle ground enough for us to at least agree on." I will concede that point -- and many (arguably the vast majority) of those players are a direct result of Phil Graham's efforts to deregulate energy trading.

I hear you and yes there were many factors coming into play at the same time but I don't think that the executive order was completely dismissed as part of many factors. I keep saying that I don't think the executive order was totally responsible but then again I don't think that is it without merit. Of course partisan politics is in play here. Dems want to downplay any success of the president and Reps want any success to be well known. Bad part is both sides go way overboard on their claims. You have to admit that for a while every time the pope passed gas, the price of oil went up so it is reasonable that the executive order had an effect.

I never meant to imply that Trailor Park Jethro sits in his underwear on Etrade and thinks "Gosh, I thinks I gots me 10 dollars to put in this here erl stuff"....LOL. I just meant that many many people that have never played futures before suddenly jumped in because of the frenzy and I don't believe they were all seasoned. I think that is middle ground enough for us to at least agree on.

I have not read anything outside of partisan related sites that relates Bush's declaration to the market retreat. I only pointed out that prices were going through a "rollercoaster" and showed where they had gone down prior to Bush's announcement. It was simply meant to show that there is no way one can say with any surety that the declaration had any effect. The value of the dollar has increased against the Euro and demand has gone down-there are your reasons (among others) from any credible source I read. If Bush's declaration had an impact it would have been felt at the beginning of the market day on the 15th. The market did nothing until after Bernake's statement of the economy. Higher inflation means interest rates will likely go up hence the dollar will look better for commodities traders regarding futures investments. Since the oil market is valued in US dollars a stronger dollar means lower oil costs. The declaration was politics and show.

every investment has inherent risk, whether it be a savings account or a futures contract. What I am saying is that it is not "the average investor" at play with the futures market. Speculators do have some responsibility of driving up the price of oil, but these are sophisticated investors, not your average joe with an etrade account.

Absolutely, there is heavy risk in your examples whether futures or options, that is why I stay out of it. The butterfly and straddle orders are options risk mitigation strategies that basically use middle ground strike prices to overcome heavy influences of put or call downsides. All I asked was why you claim that only seasoned investors can have an influence on futures markets. Anyone with money, be it seasoned or amateur, can easily influence the market by driving the price up through buying speculation. Our current housing market is testiment to that stupidity.

sure, you can make money of futures, but the downside is tremendous. One loss can cripple you economically. It's not like a stock, with a finite limit (i.e. - buying a stock at $10/share - you can only lose $10/share) or with options where you only lose your premium of the option expires unexercises, which most options do expire unexercised). If a future trade goes against you, get ready to declare bankruptcy.

"Oil was at $140.73 on July 3. It fell to $133.16 by July 10. On July 15, the day after Bush's declaration it was at $138.74. Immediately after the declaration it was still higher than at recent points prior to it. It has since gone up and down in a rollercoaster market that has nothing to do with the declaration from anything I read outside of the Republicans making a political issue out of it." This statement is a big duh since oil went way beyond $140. What you have been impying all along is that oil was on a downward spiral "before" Bush signed the executive order and that is easy to read. All I said was it had an effect/impact on oil futures but not everything. Mature debate? Absolutely but give credit where credit is due and quit claiming otherwise. The sustained drop in oil started "after" the executive order and here it is still going south. I have been following the euro as well and the effect has been minimal at best.

There are oil spills weekly. Last week, the Mississipi River was shut down due to an oil spill. It was reopened before the oil was contained because it was deemed to expensive to keep the shipping lane closed. It is easy to overlook when it's not in your face. If you drill they will spill. The folks who purport it to be safe are not basing their arguments on facts. Oil spills in our country have been devastating to the people directly affected. Are we to take a chance on flushing the environment and tourism so gas is cheaper? No, we should adapt and change, After all, as Americans that is what we are good at; right?

You say I stated oil was on a downward trend before Bush's announcement. What I said is that it had gone down and then back up like a rollercoaster. Yet again you change my words to suit your responses. And what gall to tell me to get over you being untruthful about my comments and me calling you on it. Here are the facts: 7/14 Bush makes his announcement lifting the executive ban (which his dad enacted and brother Jeb supported while Gov of Fla); 7/15 markets open 8 a.m. at $146.34; prices remained steady (Bush announcement had no impact); Bernake stated at 10:00 a.m. that inflation was hurting the economy (and as a result demand would decrease even further); when this became public the oil market fell at 11 a.m. to 135.92; it regained back up to 138.74 by 3 p.m. Bernake's statement on the economy and the economy itself caused it-period. And can you stop the snide remarks. Is it possible to have a mature debate with you?

I guess you got me there. No I don't have any certifications but someone very close has series 7, 66, 9 and 10. If you are so well versed, why then would you say that it is so difficult for amateurs to invest in futures. Just curious.

Thanks for the laugh. I believe I am well-versed about the financial markets, since 1. I shared a bloomberg machine with a hedge fund (do you know what a bloomberg machine is?), and I advised clients on, among many things, options strategies. What licenses do you hold (or held). My guess is none, and let me know when you know how to enter straddle order or a butterfly spread order.

cb says he is right because he says he is right. cb uses his own circular reasoning because he says things he cannot back up.

Wow, what a "childish" comparison. Do you really sit up at night and think up this stuff? Oh by the way, just what experience do you have in futures trading that makes you an expert at what it takes to trade in futures. You may be surprised how easy it is, just like day trading. Of course, it is easy to try to make money in the mania but when it all settles down, the sit at home day traders are the ones that get the shaft. Just so you know, I deal in a lot of stocks but stay away from futures and options. You do know what options are right?

Get over it. It is no secret that oil was on a continual upswing even "days" before the order. This contention that the order had "nothing" to do with it is speculative at best. It is really not worth it to continue to argue this because your stance that oil had already started downward "before" the order is inherently false but you continue to stubbornly argue the point. Just admit it and move on. This is like arguing that because I watered my lawn, the green grass may or may not have been affected because it sure was green last week anyway. Chances are the new water had an effect. Just stop being so anti-bush or better yet to make yourself feel better and send Bill a love letter.

Your statement: "What I disputed was PDs assertion that prices had dropped long before the president signed the executive order so it had no effect and I am absolutely correct." I never said "long before", I said several days before. You once again make a false statement of something I did not say to make your point more "valid". That is weak at best, disengenous is an even better word. I will take you more seriously when you actually take the time to read what I write and not change it to fit your response. The POTUS has access to economic and oil industry data via Commerce, Energy Dept etc that he can see before it is published so it can be safely said he (and any other sitting POTUS wanting to help his party) can use that access to help craft well timed messages-especially in election years. No conspiracy, just business as usual in politics.

"The mere lifting of the president's ban on offshore drilling resulted in a $20-per-barrel drop in three days."

The idea that the Bush admin is looking into futures trading is the source of lower prices at the moment. Not a bunch of unproven drill sites. If it were really the case the oil companies would already be drilling in the millions of acres of untapped coast where they are ALREADY ALLOWED to drill.

"What in the world is your point? That is about as valid as recounting the price of oil last year. It still cannot be disputed that oil made its way to over $146 by Monday and started a "sustained" downslide ($8 ppb first) the very next day "after" Bush signed the executive order." You can't dispute that, you're right, and a gentleman from Spain won the Tour de France after Bush's order, but that doesn't mean that Bush had anything to do with that either.

"The futures markets are very volatile, especially when a lot of non-professional investors are getting into it. It is driven by educated guesses of what the supply/demand balance will be weeks or months in the future. Any rumor of change can drive fluctuations." - this statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the futures market. It takes a sophisticated investor to enter into futures trading. Period. The upside is good, but the downside is huge. It's not a bunch of non-professionals at work here, quite the opposite.

What in the world is your point? That is about as valid as recounting the price of oil last year. It still cannot be disputed that oil made its way to over $146 by Monday and started a "sustained" downslide ($8 ppb first) the very next day "after" Bush signed the executive order. A momentary down spike doesn't make a start of anything. Geeesh....

Am & Keith- I'm surprised you haven't figured it out. The temporary drop in futures prices the week before the executive order was made public was the result of Bush warning his cronies the order was coming so they could dump their futures positions. The warnings were distributed by black helicopters.

The futures markets are very volatile, especially when a lot of non-professional investors are getting into it. It is driven by educated guesses of what the supply/demand balance will be weeks or months in the future. Any rumor of change can drive fluctuations.

It appears you do not know what you are talking about? What about the $9 drop the week before the 15th? You know, on July 7th and 8th...before the order was signed. My reply was to debunk your assertion that "As I said before, in case you missed it, I didn't say that the presidents order was definitely what drove prices down but I am sure that it had an effect." By the way, I love the fact that you presume to know that I am an Obama, or as you so cleverly (rather childeshly) call Nobama. I also love the fact that you claim that I am a socialist. That sir, demonstrates that YOU have no idea what you are talking about. I back my assertions with fact (which I notice that you are unable to refute), you back yours with name-calling. Keep trying.

Get a clue and try not to get involved in claiming something that you have no idea what you are talking about. As I said before, in case you missed it, I didn't say that the presidents order was definitely what drove prices down but I am sure that it had an effect. There were probably many factors in play. What I disputed was PDs assertion that prices had dropped long before the president signed the executive order so it had no effect and I am absolutely correct. Wow, you NObama supporters sure put on a great show. If you were smart, you would keep your socialist mouth closed and hope that the prices jumped back up so you could blame Bush again. Talk about short sightedness.....

The bill put forth by the leadership in the Congress to somehow regulate the oil futures market in the U.S. would have only driven futures trading to the foreign exchange market. It was bad legislation that would have resulted in more business moving offshore.

The prices in the futures market are not driven by supply and demand as of today, but by what traders believe they will be at some future date.

The current runup in oil futures has some characteristics similar to the recently burst housing bubble. Futures prices rose simply because they had been doing so and traders thought that would continue. Any indication that the US was going to finally adopt a serious effort to increase supply would burst that bubble, especially to the extent that the bubble was being sustained by investors who were not serious futures traders and who had only gotten into that market because of the euphoria of the bubble. Such investors lose their shirts regularly because of that emotional component to their decisions.

So, yes, the futures prices can be sharply depressed by a mere word from the President, but the effect is short lived as serious traders reassert contr

Oil prices rose on the 14th, and if the president's order had any affect on the price, it would have been witnessed on the 14th. It declined the next day on concerns about the U.S. economy, not the president's order. Nice try, but news reports contradict what you are trying to assert. Unfortunately, the lamest argument in this thread is yours -- since it is false.

I can't even begin to laugh enough or so hard at THIS conspiracy theory. This is the lamest argument that has ever been proposed by PD. My goodness, what NObama supporters will stoop to. Welcome to the epitome of socialist "bad Bush", "bad McCain" hooha NObama crapola that I have ever seen. Just stick with the facts and quit trying to make a conspiracy out of a success story that cannot be denied. Geeesh...

Is what I say to those who somehow want to believe in the myth that Bush waved a wand and "poof" prices went down. Think of politics and timing: the POTUS has info on economic data tabulated prior to the public knowing the results; he knew the dollar was going up against the Euro; he knew what oil reserves and consumption were. etc. A well timed and placed statement that according to even the industry plays no role in today's market trends is then issued by the POTUS; the candidate of choice for the POTUS releases a commercial at that time portraying his opponent Obama as causing the high prices; then said candidate states the POTUS (his supporter) gets the nod for bringing prices down. Bingo, the perfect political play and people buy it. It is not that simple people.