Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Wilma Watts on January 29, 2011 at 5:35

The Egyptian disruptions and concerns about the closure of the Suez Canal and Sumed pipeline, both of which transport more than 1% of global oil supplies - are huge. We are talking 1 to 3 million barrels per day at risk, out of a total market of 88 million barrels per day.

Add to that a bullish report on the energy sector entitled “Tightening Balances a Boon for Prices” was just issued by Morgan Stanley. They see the need for increased OPEC production in 2011 that will "refocus the market on the supply side, and its inability to meet growing demand. Prices need to remain higher to ration demand."

Morgan Stanley’s projection of spare crude oil production capacity makes it apparent that much higher prices will be necessary in the years ahead - the spare capacity chart in a word can be described as “shocking”. If they are correct on spare capacity, or lack thereof, it will also be shocking to the world economy and oil prices.

The discussion of Egypt and the potential impact on the oil market and Morgan Stanley’s spare production capacity chart is on the January 29th blog posting:

http://www.lsgifund.com/index_files/Page960.htm

These are exciting times to be an investor in the energy and ag sectors, and in the market in general.

Bloomberg reported on Friday volume of USO calls (oil price ETF) was way up as folks tried to capture the upside price move. I think buying energy producers is a better play, but hey, no telling.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CypressKnees on January 29, 2011 at 6:32

With the Suez canal shut down and the price of tankers (what is a tanker) up, mr Jhh was very far-sighted.

And you too, Wilma Watts. Fascinating! You all are so smart!

 

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/50181/

 

AND the Pyramids are closed!

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ledlights on January 29, 2011 at 7:40

Here is a picture of tankers in the Red Sea below the Suez canal taken at 25000+ ft from our airplane flying from Sharm-el-Sheikh to Cairo in December.  This was my first trip to Egypt.  My guess is that Islamic extremists do not currently have a lot of traction in Egypt, but I really do not know.  We were treated very well during our visit, and the Egyptian people I talked to seemed to consider Obama's speech in Egypt a huge sign of respect toward them.

Attachments:

• tankers.jpg, 77 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ledlights on January 29, 2011 at 7:44

Oops - try this one resized to be easier to view

Attachments:

• tankers2.jpg, 16 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CypressKnees on January 30, 2011 at 1:47

Thank you.

What a spectacular photo!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Max on January 29, 2011 at 8:32

How much of our supplies to the wars in the middle east travel through the canal?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on January 29, 2011 at 15:10

I'm not sure as to the answer to your specific question but it's overall strategic importance cannot be overstated.  Eisenhower said his handling of the Suez Crisis in the 50's was one of his biggest foreign policy mistakes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CypressKnees on January 30, 2011 at 1:53

Would you be willing to elaborate on that?

(Read something on "GlobalSecurity.com or org" which had one of the generals agreeing to return hostilities but asking, "whose side are we on?"

If you have time/inclination, would much appreciate. And probably others would, too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CypressKnees on February 13, 2011 at 5:20

You, ledlights and JHH are so ahead of the curve with your thoughts about the Suez Canal and the crisis in the 1950s.

The BBC is doing a mini-series on UK military involvement during that time. I wish the US would do a series about Eisenhower's role as you mention in your post above-

Thanks for this interesting post.

CypressKnees

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MARG on February 13, 2011 at 8:38

Definitely, the President made it very clearly that he was very much for them when he spoke there early on in his presidency.  For a couple of reasons, I heard it twice.  What better friend could they have?  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on February 13, 2011 at 12:00

Sorry, I missed this post, basically Eisenhower didn't support Britain, France, and Israel after Egypt (under Nasser) decided to nationalize the Suez.  Some folks say this was the end of British power abroad, as they never tried to act without the backing of the U.S. afterward... it's also cited as a big reason why the British never helped us in 'Nam.  Some also say this was why the French gave Israel so much nuclear technology.  At any rate, it's a very complicated topic, here's the wiki link, but it's only a start.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JHH on February 13, 2011 at 14:53

These two headlines tonight:

Report: Palestinian cabinet to resign in wake of Mideast turmoil

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-palestinian-ca...

 

UPDATE 1-Gaddafi tells Palestinians: revolt against Israel

http://af.reuters.com/article/tunisiaNews/idAFLDE71C0KP20110213?sp=...

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page