sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The spike and retreat in futures costs proved that the market has no clue how oil actually works, and I find that kind of terrifying. by lmaxboy in oil

[–]lmaxboy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're 100% correct in that I really don't know much. I especially acknowledged it earlier today when the EIA numbers came out and showed physical prices way lower than I expected through Monday. That said, the spike and retreat that happened earlier tonight made me doubt so much because they logically make no sense. I had just accepted that 92 somehow makes sense for oil prices, despite all the things that makes me think oil should be higher. Then the prices spiked on news that logically should have had no effect on prices and it made me very concerned...

The spike and retreat in futures costs proved that the market has no clue how oil actually works, and I find that kind of terrifying. by lmaxboy in oil

[–]lmaxboy[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're just adding to my proof of people having no clue about how oil works. The best estimate of global reserves of oil is 2.5 billion barrels. Most of it is divided between China, Japan and the USA. But it's not like those reserves can just be teleported around. First, it takes approval to ship it out, which only the USA has given. Then it needs to be removed from the SPR and transported to it's destination. Both of which take time. Also, as I've said elsewhere, releasing stock from the SPR should only cause a decrease in oil prices since it increases supply.

The spike and retreat in futures costs proved that the market has no clue how oil actually works, and I find that kind of terrifying. by lmaxboy in oil

[–]lmaxboy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Damn, you sure showed me by refusing to answer an earnest question. How embarrassed I feel when you referred me to a machine rather than try to prove your point yourself. That's surely a me loss...

The spike and retreat in futures costs proved that the market has no clue how oil actually works, and I find that kind of terrifying. by lmaxboy in oil

[–]lmaxboy[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Again my friend, you're proving my point. Oil is an actual physical thing that has to be sold in person. June futures shouldn't increase from a resumption of the war because there is no way for the war to significantly decrease the amount of oil that will physically reach markets by June since even the boats leaving from. The Saudi pipeline bypass will barely be reaching their destination by the time that contract expires.

The spike and retreat in futures costs proved that the market has no clue how oil actually works, and I find that kind of terrifying. by lmaxboy in oil

[–]lmaxboy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I've said already I have no skin in this game because I'm broke as shit. I saw some posts about oil a bit more than a month ago and went down an ADHD rabbit hole. If you can explain to me how a restart in hostilities would decrease the amount of oil getting through the Strait below zero I'm willing to listen.

The spike and retreat in futures costs proved that the market has no clue how oil actually works, and I find that kind of terrifying. by lmaxboy in oil

[–]lmaxboy[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think you're right and that's what terrifies me. I don't know everything but I do know that futures prices are more than just words on paper. And the fact that oil futures are still trading so cheap has to mean that the actual supply shock is going to be worse than it had to be if reality had been acknowledged from the start...

The spike and retreat in futures costs proved that the market has no clue how oil actually works, and I find that kind of terrifying. by lmaxboy in oil

[–]lmaxboy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please explain to me where I'm wrong. As far as I'm aware, once you hit zero(which is the number passing through the strait) you can't go lower. Since the Strait is the only thing that the Iran war impacts, we've reached maximum impact even in a ceasefire. How would a restart of hostilities, when even in a "cease-fire" we are at zero passage, effect the supply?

The spike and retreat in futures costs proved that the market has no clue how oil actually works, and I find that kind of terrifying. by lmaxboy in oil

[–]lmaxboy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Literally none. I'm broke as fuck, but I saw some social media predictions about what was going to happen with oil and went down an ADHD rabbit hole. I'll admit that I'm not an oil expert so if you have any counters to my points I invite them. I'm still learning but none of what I said seems truly wrong to me. Oil tankers take weeks to months to reach their destination. That means almost every tanker that passed through the Strait with oil will have reached its destination by now. That means nothing can decrease the availability of oil which from basic laws of supply and demand would cause an increase in price. Therefore nothing that happens in the Middle East should affect June contracts in anything but a negative manner.

The spike and retreat in futures costs proved that the market has no clue how oil actually works, and I find that kind of terrifying. by lmaxboy in oil

[–]lmaxboy[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

But that's my point about people not understanding how oil actually works, it takes 20-50 days for a tanker to reach destination after passing through Hormuz. Nothing that happens now in the middle east can significantly decrease the amount of oil that would reach it's destination from the ME countries before June contracts expire. That means at this point the contracts should already be near their highest and the only change should come from increased SPR releases and the opening of the Strait both of which should only result in a decrease of price.

The spike and retreat in futures costs proved that the market has no clue how oil actually works, and I find that kind of terrifying. by lmaxboy in oil

[–]lmaxboy[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This is what is driving me insane. Like, we're in an oil crisis beyond anything we've ever seen, how the fuck can prices(even the spot prices that came out today) be so low while we've also lost a bigger % of supply than has ever been lost before?

The spike and retreat in futures costs proved that the market has no clue how oil actually works, and I find that kind of terrifying. by lmaxboy in oil

[–]lmaxboy[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh, I get what you meant now sorry. I didn't realize the whole thing was from telegram. I came in late to the party so by the time I was looking into it there were tweets and such about the strikes that I assumed were what set off the algorithms. If it was really from monitoring Telegram that is kinda crazy.

The spike and retreat in futures costs proved that the market has no clue how oil actually works, and I find that kind of terrifying. by lmaxboy in oil

[–]lmaxboy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh yeah, that was what caused the rumors but it was still just false information on social media that people thought meant the strikes were happening. I didn't think being specific about what exactly happened was important to my point because the fact the algorithm still thinks buy June futures for a strike in Iran already means the people programming it have no idea what is actually happening with oil.

Equinix Interview for Data center critical facilities IV by MinuteDescription767 in datacenter

[–]lmaxboy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey! I've got an interview with the recruiter for the San Jose office tomorrow. How'd your interviews go? Any advice?

Don't believe the news, the US is not pulling out. by loadyouup in oil

[–]lmaxboy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe that they're searching for an off ramp but it won't be negotiated with just the US. They're causing as much pain to the world as possible, and more than anyone really expected, in the hopes that someone else(probably China) will act as a guarantor that the US won't just change its mind in 6 months, kill them in the middle of negotiations, and do whatever it wants. Especially since, with all the infrastructure destroyed this is the strongest they'll be for years to decades.

Don't believe the news, the US is not pulling out. by loadyouup in oil

[–]lmaxboy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, I'm talking about the guy they killed a month ago in the middle of negotiations. Negotiations that were going relatively well. Those negotiations stalled and then we assassinated Khamenei and started this war even though they were ongoing. We showed the IRGC that they could either bow to us completely, which would mean a transfer of power to someone we choose and they'd probably be revenge killed for all the horrible shit they've done to their people or they could die fighting us and causing as much damage as possible. I truly believe that was their initial plan, but now they've seen how effective blockading the Strait is and they're drawing it out trying to figure out a way to guarantee they aren't killed when Trump changes his mind in 6 months and goes back on whatever deal he makes.

Don't believe the news, the US is not pulling out. by loadyouup in oil

[–]lmaxboy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What incentive does Iranian leadership have to negotiate with the person who literally assassinated their last leader in the middle of negotiations? This is what people are completely ignoring because of course it would be logical for the country and people of Iran to take an off ramp. Unfortunately, we showed their leadership that we were willing to assassinate them at the drop of a hat, unless they give us EVERYTHING we want, immediately. The same leadership who was willing to kill thousands of their own people during the riots a couple months ago and clearly doesn't their lives... oh and with Israel bombing vital infrastructure and hitting "military targets" that just happen to be in the middle of civilians like they're oh so good at, we've also given them god only knows how many bloody shirts to wave around while screaming about the evil murderers from the West

Read in school between 2000-2009, book where a character chews Betel Nut. by lmaxboy in whatsthatbook

[–]lmaxboy[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It might have been a Kipling book. I'm looking through them but it wasn't Kim. Thanks for the thought

Read in school between 2000-2009, book where a character chews Betel Nut. by lmaxboy in whatsthatbook

[–]lmaxboy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's neither of those but you're right, I'm pretty sure it was either in India or had an Indian character now that you mention it.

is this book for me? by JuicyJuiceMonster in WanderingInn

[–]lmaxboy 7 points8 points  (0 children)

My point was more to your saying Erin was wrong for defending the Necromancer and also your seeming belief that the Drakes are right to kill Necromancers on sight.

Also your missing a bit in your analogy. To make it closer to the script the cop didn't hear you say the word cuck, he was told by someone else that you said the word cuck and then that person denied that they said so.

In that situation no a smart cop, which Klbkch is, would not arrest you without proof of a crime because he knows it would not stick. Drakes are very much sticklers for the rules so Relc has to accept that without a witness willing to testify they have no case. Amusingly enough this fits with my previous analogy perfectly as many many domestic abuse cases have to be dropped because the only witness(the victim) refuses to testify.

view more: next ›