Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

OPEC blames speculation

by Carrie Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 09:29:07 AM EST

I don't know why the World Oil Congress is being held in Madrid but, given that it is, the Spanish press has access to the participants. Here's an interview published by El Pais today, in which the Secretary General of OPEC blames everyone except themselves: speculators, US foreign policy, US environmental policy, the subprime crisis, you name it... But he also claims that this is not a supply-and-demand problem as there is no unsatisfied demand.

"Muchos se están haciendo ricos con el mito de que falta petróleo" · ELPAÍS.com"Many are getting rich with the myth that there is an oil shortage" - ElPais.com
ENTREVISTA: La nueva crisis energética INTERVIEW: The new energy crisis
ALEJANDRO BOLAÑOS - Madrid - 02/07/2008By ALEJANDRO BOLAÑOS - Madrid - 02/07/2008
El Congreso Mundial del Petróleo que se celebra esta semana en Madrid se ha convertido en un zoco en el que todos tratan de vender la misma mercancía averiada: que la culpa de la brutal subida del precio del oro negro es de otro. Abdalla Salem El-Badri, secretario general de la Organización de Países Exportadores del Petróleo (OPEP), rebate a los que, como algunos Gobiernos occidentales y varias multinacionales, culpan a la falta de producción. Para El-Badri, libio de 68 años, el precio coge impulso en el exceso de especulación financiera.The World Oil Congress held this week in madrid has become a souq in which everyone tries to sell the same broken merchandise: that the brutal rise in the price of black gold is someone else's fault. Abdallah Salem Al-Badri, secretary general of OPEC, refutes those who, like some Western governments, blame lack of production. For Al-Badri, a 68-year-old Libyan, the price is propelled by financial speculation.


Pregunta. Se exige a la OPEP que ponga más petróleo en el mercado para atajar la escalada del precio.Question It is demanded of OPEC that it put more oil in the market to curtail the price rise.
Respuesta. Déjeme decir, lo primero, que no hay ningún problema de oferta. La subida se debe a la devaluación del dólar, las tensiones geopolíticas, la especulación... No hay escasez en el mercado. En realidad, todo esto es fácil de explicar: la crisis de las hipotecas basura el verano pasado en EE UU hizo mucho daño a los mercados bursátiles, y desde entonces la inversión financiera busca otros productos y las materias primas ahora son el principal atractivo para la especulación.Answer Let me say, first, that there is no supply problem. The rise is due to the devaluation of the dollar, geopolitical tensions, speculation... There is no shortage in the market. In reality, all this is easy to explain: the subprime mortgage crisis last summer in the US hurt the stock markets a lot, and since then financial investment is looking for other products and commodities are now most attractive for speculation.

It is really unfortunate that the journalist doesn't know the first thing about the subject he's interviewing on, because if he did he could mention the fact that the price of oil in Euros has also been going up lately (graph courtesy of DoDo):

As to the claim that the subprime crisis is responsible for the rise in oil prices, note that the price of oil slid down in the autumn of 2006, to start rising again around the start of 2007, months before the stock market crash. Too bad the journalist wasn't able to point that out, or that prices started rising in 2003 from between $20 and $30.

P. Las multinacionales han coincidido en lamentar que las restricciones de la OPEP dificultan el despegue de la inversión.Q The Oil Majors coincide in deploring that OPEC's restrictions are making it difficult for investment to take off.
R. No es cierto que todos los países de la OPEP pongan restricciones. Hay muchos con las puertas abiertas a las compañías privadas. Y algunas de estas compañías privadas mantienen las puertas de sus países cerradas. En el 85% de las explotaciones marinas de EE UU no se puede entrar. Tampoco en el norte de Alaska. Hay que ser justo.A It is not true that all OPEC countries set restrictions. Many of them have their doors open to private companies. And some of these private companies keep the doors of their home countries closed. One can't go into 85% of offshore fields in the US. One can also not go to the North of Alaska. You have to be fair.

Let's call that the American Solutions gambit. As discussed here the 38 billion barrels of American oil reserves currently unavailable because of environmental concerns correspond to just 5 years of current US consumption. Even if those resources were developed, 5 years from now we'd be in the same place, except that those oil reserves would be gone. And that's assuming that you can fully exploit them.

Now for a round of he-said-she-said interviewing.

P. El consejero delegado de British Petroleum, Tony Hayward, dijo que el exceso de especulación es un "mito"Q The CEO of BP, Tony Hayward, said that the excessive speculation is "a myth".
R. Puedo responder igual. La falta de oferta es un mito. La causa no está ahí. No es verdad.A I can answer the same. The lack of supply is a myth. That's not where the cause lies. It isn't true.

Whether there is excessive speculation is easy to answer by looking at the "open interest" in oil futures, and it appears the evidence is against speculators driving prices up intentionally.

Bloomberg: Blame Wall Street for $135 Oil on Wrong-Way Betting (May 22, 2008)

Oil's rally to a record above $135 a barrel came as traders bought crude to cover wrong-way bets that prices would decline, according to data from the New York Mercantile Exchange.

The number of outstanding futures contracts, known as open interest, fell 8.1 percent in a week to 1.36 million at the same time that prices rose 2.6 percent, the data show. Falling open interest and rising prices are signs that traders are buying to exit so-called short positions that would profit if oil fell, and lose money as they rose.

``In a market like today, which is trending higher while open interest is falling, it's a sign that money is moving out of the market,'' said Stephen Schork, president of Schork Group Inc. in Villanova, Pennsylvania. Open interest in Nymex crude futures peaked this year at 1.5 million on March 13.

But, in any case, the futures price of oil has been lagging, not leading, the rise of the spot price, and nowadays future prices are essentially the same as spot prices, rounded down to the nearest pretty number (hat tip to Jerome)

P. ¿Qué puede hacer entonces la OPEP para enfriar el mercado?Q What can OPEC then do to cool down the market?
R. Mantenemos el 40% de la producción mundial y estamos invirtiendo 160.000 millones de dólares en exploración y producción, tenemos 120 proyectos en marcha. BP, por ejemplo, podría invertir en intentar sacar más petróleo del Mar del Norte. Y tenemos capacidad de aumentar la oferta si es necesario. Pero déjeme poner esto claro. No hay nadie haciendo cola por petróleo, toda la demanda está satisfecha.A We maintain 40% of world production and we're investing $160 billion on exploration and production, we have 120 projects going. BP, for instance could invest on trying to get more oil out of the North Sea. And we have the ability to increase supply is it is needed. But let me make this clear. There is nobody queuing for oil, all demand is satisfied.

To the claim that North Sea oil is not being developed one can counter with the following chart (from Euan Mearns of The Oil Drum: Europe). Note the brown "new development" in the upper right:

But one thing is true: there are no statistics on people queuing for oil because unsatisfied demand (unlike production capacity) is not measurable, and actual consumption is taken as a proxy for demand. The problem is that there are no barrels of oil waiting for buyers either - that is, there is no slack of production capacity (as shown also by Jerome recently)

But the rising price of oil is having an effect on consumption. (chart from The Oil Drum: Have we passed "Peak Travel"?)

P. Arabia Saudí ha anunciado un aumento de su oferta en medio millón de barriles diarios ¿La OPEP podría tomar una decisión conjunta similar?Q Saudi Arabia has announced an increase of its supply by 500,000 barrels per day. Could OPEC take a similar joint decision?
R. No creemos que haya escasez. Y Arabia Saudí lo que dijo es que aumentará su producción, si hay más demanda, pero no vamos a producir si no hay clientes.A We don't believe there is a shortage. And what Saudi Arabia said was that they would increase production if there is more demand, but we're not going to produce if there are no customers.

Oh, that's interesting. So on the argument that there isn't really unsatisfied demand, Saudi Arabia didn't really mean it when they announced their last production increase?

In any case, Jerome already debunked the hype around the Saudi production increase

European Tribune: Countdown to $200 oil (7) - Saudis announce oil production increases - again

So we see that the Saudis seem to be regularly announcing or promising production increases to supply the market - and yet always seem to have production around 9.5 mb/d after such increases (I'll explain the higher numbers in a sec).

And it's no wonder: that's where their production has been for the past several years

(graph from a 2006 Econobrowser post)

If you're wondering how it's possible to announce increases every other year, and still produce the same, it's simple: there are production decreases along the way.

P. Si todo se debe a la especulación, llegará un momento en que la burbuja estalle, ¿bajará entonces el barril de los cien dólares?Q If this is all due to speculation, there will be a time when the bubble will burst, will the barrel then drop below $100?
R. Si el mercado vuelve a comportase según la relación entre oferta y demanda, los precios bajarán. Si dejamos el mercado a los especuladores, un día se dice que el precio llega a 140 dólares, otro que subirá hasta los 200, y el mercado entra en pánico. Hay muchos que se están haciendo ricos con el mito de que falta petróleo.R If the market goes back to behaving according to the relation between supply and demand, prices will drop. If we leave the marker to speculators, one day it is said that the price reaches $140, another that it will rise to $200, and the market goes into a panic. There are many who are getting rich with the myth that there is an oil shortage.
P. ¿Es necesaria entonces una reforma de los mercados de contratos de futuros?Q Is, then, a reform of the future markets necessary?
R. Lo que creo es que hay algo en el mercado que ha ido demasiado lejos. Hay que decir, paremos un momento, algo está mal, hay que volver a la normalidad. No estoy diciendo que se elimine a los especuladores del mercado. Lo que digo es, calma, no hay escasez, dejemos a la oferta y la demanda jugar, ése debe ser el juego del mercado.A What I believe is that there is something in the market that has gone too far. It has to be said: let's stop for a minute, something is wrong, we have to go back to normal. I am not saying that speculators should be eliminated from the market. What I'm saying is, be calm, there is no scarcity, let supply and demand play out, that must be the play in the market.

So, what is he saying? Somehow drop the price of oil, then there will be more demand, then OPEC will increase production to match?

The fact is, despite steady increases in production and production capacity (see the chart above), exports have been flat for a number of years (again Jerome):

I dealt with the futures situation above, but now watch how he spins the IEA forecasts to his benefit: current high prices will ensure that the IEA's prediction is made inaccurate by higher investment.

P. En muchos países, como España, un aumento así del precio tiene efectos muy graves ¿No hay nada más que se pueda hacer?Q In many countries, such as Spain, such a price increase is having serious effects. Is there nothing else that can be done?
R. Ustedes también son víctimas de esta situación. Les afecta la especulación, la devaluación del dólar... Para mí, la cuestión está en poner barreras a la especulación. La Agencia Internacional de la Energía dice que no hay ningún problema de oferta en el corto plazo, pero que habrá problemas a partir de 2012. Con este alto nivel de precios, no se puede decir que habrá tensión en el mercado después de 2012 porque no es verdad. Con este nivel de precio, si hay demanda, todo el mundo invertirá y habrá más oferta.A You are also victims of this situation. You are affected by speculation, the devaluation of the dollar... For me, the question is to set barriers to speculation. The International Energy Agency says that there is no short-term supply problem, but that there will be problems starting in 2012. With this high price level, it cannot be said that there will be tensions in the market after 2012 because it isn't true. With this price level, everyone will invest and there will be a higher supply.

Spain is affected by the devaluation of the dollar? Didn't we already show that the price of oil in Euros has gone up as well?

P. Las multinacionales oponen que el aumento de impuestos al petróleo en algunos países desincentiva esa inversión...Q The Oil Majors counter that the rises of taxes on oil production in some countries discourage investment.
R. Las empresas tienen que olvidarse de que la idea de las siete hermanas [siete multinacionales con gran influencia en el precio internacional hasta los años setenta] vaya a resucitar. Las compañías estatales y las multinacionales privadas tienen que convivir. Ya no pueden ir a un país e imponer el precio que quieran y no pagar impuestos.A Companies need to forget about bringing the seven sisters [that is, their ability to influence the global oil price before the 1970's] back to life. State companies and Oil Majors have to live together. They can no longer go to a country and impose the price they want and not pay taxes.
P. Es difícil pensar que la OPEP tenga interés en acabar con la subida de precios, a precios más altos, mayores ingresos...Q It is hard to imagine that OPEC can be interested in ending the price rises, the higher the price the higher the revenues...
R. Le tengo que corregir. Altos precios significan más ingresos para los Gobiernos de los países consumidores porque aumenta la parte que se va en impuestos. Y déjeme recordar que más del 85% de los ingresos que tenemos vuelve a los países consumidores, con ese dinero compramos productos textiles, alimentos, materias primas o productos industriales a Estados Unidos y Europa. No acumulamos más riqueza con esta situación, no es verdad.A I have to correct you on that. High prices mean more revenues for the governments of the consumer countries because the part that goes to taxes increases. And let me remind you that more than 85% of our revenue goes back to the consumer countries; with that money we buy textiles, food, raw materials or industrial products from the US or Europe. We don't accumulate greater wealth with this situation, it isn't true.

How does that make sense? Just because they spend it all doesn't mean they don't benefit from increased revenues.

And, to end, a dig at US foreign policy.

P. El Congreso de EE UU quiere que se lleve a los tribunales a los países de la OPEP que no ajusten su producción a las necesidades del mercado ¿Qué le parece?Q The US Congress wants to take to court those OPEC countries which don't adjust their production to the needs of the market. What do you think?
R. Quiero que, como primera potencia mundial, deje de hostigar a los países de la OPEP. Con el boicot a Libia, el boicot a Irán, el problema creado en Irak, hay cinco o seis millones de barriles diarios menos en el mercado. Debería intentar ayudar, no echar más gasolina al fuego.A I want that, as the world's first power, they stop harassing OPEC countries. With the boycott to Libya, the boycott to Iran, the problem created in Iraq, there are five or six million fewer barrels each day in the market. They should try to help, not throw fuel on the fire.

Display:
How do you say chutzpah in Libyan Arabic?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 08:28:15 AM EST
x-post this on Dkos or some other place? I'd rate this, together with Jerome's previous overview, as one of the best ET diaries working in tandem.

I don't think I am able to grasp the underlying strategy in its audacity: denying decline in supplies while fully blaming speculation helps the OPEC how? Because if prices drop, and they still can't deliver, their pants are down. Are they just betting prices will continue to go up, knowing that speculation does not form the foundation but serves as an easy scapegoat? People are not going to believe that either for very long...

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 10:16:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Spin, deny, obfuscate, disrupt. If you can fool all of the people some of the time long enough to do a Greenspan (i.e. cash out and put your successor in the hot seat), then what's the problem?

Besides, if they admit today that they can't increase production, a lot of people will not believe them anyway. And even those who do believe them might get angry at them. Shooting the messenger has always been a popular sport.

In either of those scenarios, you'd have the choice between Bad Stuff happening now and Bad Stuff happening a couple of years and a few billion (trillion?) € down the line. Oh, the Bad Stuff might be worse for the waiting, but I wouldn't be so sure about that, and if they expect the fallout to be bad enough to begin with, it really doesn't matter much whether it gets a little worse.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:15:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Besides, if they admit today that they can't increase production, a lot of people will not believe them anyway

I would imagine that if OPEC comes out and admits that it can't increase production, that would have an even greater effect upwards on prices, no?

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake

by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:45:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Probably that as well. But the two are not mutually exclusive. If a third of the people believe them, a third of the people disbelieve them and the rest don't know what to think, for example.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:51:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, you're right, but IMVHO, I would imagine that keeping the world economy from a panicked crash is way up there in OPEC's priorities, given that, say, the Saudis are invested all over the place. If that is the case OPEC will be the last to admit that we're "running out of oil".

In fact if the price keeps increasing steadily but not in leaps and causes demand to drop, they can get away with a diminished production cashing in on the bonanza, while all the way blaming the "speculators". There is no incentive for them that I can think of to be frank about their production capabilities, and one shouldn't expect them to be.

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake

by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 12:35:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...Or not, but i've read the comments, the previous diaries, and more comments up the wazoo.  I've tried to weigh the policy implications, the investment scenarios for the Saudis, the Dubainos... Wait! Dubai!

"We don't accumulate greater wealth with this situation, it isn't true."

Yeah, well, i've kinda checked the before and after photos of Dubai, and well...  it sure looks there isn't any wealth being accumulated.  (Perhaps he meant of course we're not accumulating it, we're AMASSING it!)

Continuing on, i've even begun to digest graphs and charts of all kinds, all pointing to the obvious, which then had me analyzing crash scenarios, etc.

Then, because it's quarter past the eight-ball where i am currently posting, i made meself a homemade Bloody Mary.  I still don't get the lies and deceit, the kampf auf Macht, but i'm just so mellow about it all.

And then i remembered something i've tried to forget.

Back in the screenwriting days, when i barely kept a professional windpower persona, i was writing a real-time novel, and took a job as a marine carpenter in the shipyards i saw a few hundred meters from my rooftop terrace every day for ten years.  Though most of my time there was restoring an historic Bay ferry boat, the main job of marine carpenters is to build staging for others to work.

For example, building staging so the pipefitters could go down in the hold and repair faulty fittings for the system used to get stuff into and out of the hold.  In my case, it was a tanker, and it was an oil bunker of immense proportion.  The foreman warned us to steel our senses, and make sure there was as little exposed flesh as possible.

I cried in tortured pain at the assault on the human senses, as every step and rung of every inch of ladder and landing and more ladder and another landing, deep into the light-sucking blackness, was encrusted with a tar residue black goo of the oil the tanker held, and i wasn't even at the bottom of the hold, where my comrades were screaming "I can't breathe."  The revulsion to my senses was so overwhelming, i kept screaming to the others to get up the ladders if you can't breathe.  (The shipyards rule is one dead is better than two, so when you are in enclosed spaces and the oxygen is replaced by oil fumes, you don't go to help them, you try to get them to come up.)

I made it through the first half shift, but upon flopping on the night deck grasping for air, i came to my senses.  I went to my boss, and said, "i can't cover my comrades' backs as good as they've been covering mine, i thank them, but i'm not going back in there."  Well, you can go home," he said.  I did.

I would like to remind everyone who's thinking intellectually, economically, politically, and with strategic ends...  Please don't forget that oil is poison.  Poison.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin

by Crazy Horse on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 02:36:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If in doubt, lie. You can always claim it was an honest mistake if it turns out to have been the wrong strategy.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 02:13:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Arabian Ponies!

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:44:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]


When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:49:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They're not Arabians.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 12:14:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Darn.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 02:09:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"...There is nobody queuing for oil, all demand is satisfied...."

Thereby showing...hmmm...

That a spokesman can rely on ignorance of the concept of "market clearing price", I suppose.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 04:00:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What happened in 1988-93 to take Brent and Ninian almost completely off-line? Not depletion in absolute terms, it look like, because they rebound after 93.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:08:25 AM EST
Wikipedia: Brent oilfield
The field underwent a massive £1.3 billion upgrade project in the mid 1990's which involved depressurising the entire reservoir and making extensive modifications to three of the four Brent platforms to convert them to low pressure operation which unlocked significant quantities of natural gas from the reservoir and extended the field life out to 2010+.


When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:21:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:47:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
probably played a role too.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 01:31:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Unlikely - Piper and Brent were not served by the same pipeline:
OPCAL built the Flotta oil terminal in the Orkney Islands to receive and process oil from the fields Piper, Claymore and Tartan, each with its own platform. One thirty inch (0.762 metres) diameter main oil pipeline ran 128 miles (206 kilometres) from Piper Alpha to Flotta, with a short oil pipeline from the Claymore platform joining it some twenty miles to the west. The Tartan field also fed oil to Claymore and then onto the main line to Flotta.[3] Separate 46 cm diameter gas pipelines run from Piper to the Tartan platform, and from Piper to the gas compressing platform MCP-01 some 30 miles to the Northwest.
You would have expected only Claymore and Tartan (too small to be named in Euan's chart) to be affected. Ninian didn't suffer a dip in production - that's an optical effect from the chart.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 06:30:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Oil Majors counter that the rise of taxes to oil [exports?] in some [producing?] countries discourages that investment...

The Oil Majors counter that the rise of taxes on oil production in some countries discourage investment.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 01:47:01 PM EST
Raising taxes discourages investment? Hmmm - what a unique new idea. I'm glad someone pointed it out, because I've heard of that before.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 03:59:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You'd almost think Jerome was someone who knew the market rather than a Dirty Fucking Hippie.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 11:42:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A really good one, Mig. You walk through it point by point and bang all the nails home. First-rate.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 03:24:38 PM EST
Seconded!

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
by Crazy Horse on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 03:36:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thirded.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 11:40:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks!

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 05:34:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"There is no supply problem."

On one side we have the consumers - angry Americans and eventually everyone else living in oil importing nations, and on the other side, citizens of the countries dependent on oil exports for revenue - who will be even angrier in not many years. Mix in our collection of short term thinking, sociopathic leaders, and poof! I wouldn't want to be OPEC. No, really - owning America in the dollar sense is irrelevant in the long term when your country can't produce it's own food, consumer, and industrial goods.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 04:25:56 PM EST
owning America in the dollar sense is irrelevant in the long term when your country can't produce it's own food, consumer, and industrial goods

So, WTF is Dubai doing building 7-star hotels?

4 years ago Peak Oil was a fringe theory, but today even short-term thinking politicians know they have to do something about it.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 06:12:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Making money for the next 5-10 years, perhaps.

Some time after that, I see the various royal families fleeing with their billions to London and Paris while their countries descend into chaos and starvation.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 06:26:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And yes "royal families" only applies to a few OPEC member states.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 06:26:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Oligarchs" may apply to all of them...

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 06:28:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
sorta on topic: Dubai construction photo



you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 03:21:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, the Dubai construction pool has some amazing photos in it.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 03:36:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Compare this to a construction site Inland Empire near LA.

Analyst sees 'ghost town' in Inland Empire | L.A. Land | Los Angeles Times

At several properties, there were a significant number of fully built homes sitting vacant along with a large number of additional homes still under construction... At one master plan community, the entire development appeared to be vacant -- with the exception of crews working on new construction, it was a ghost town.

Can such follies be allowed so easily, even cheered?

by das monde on Fri Jul 4th, 2008 at 05:02:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I lived in the "Inland Empire" for 4 years. I don't know who cheered - everyone I hung out with thought tract developmetns were insane.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 4th, 2008 at 06:05:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And the euro inching towards 1.59 again. Tomorrow's decision by the ECB is going to be interesting to watch. It's been so anticipated that I expect there will be wild movements once the ECB actually raises its rates.

Ther big uncertainty (and thus the current volatility) is with respect to what Trichet will say about the next move (or not).

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 04:42:02 PM EST
So you're saying a quarter-point increase has already been priced by the market so the volatility will be in reaction to whatever he says, pricing expectations of another move 3 months from now?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 06:32:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Markets always price ahead when they can and are smart enough to, so a jump ahead of an announcement isn't unusual.

But markets are also seriously fucking stupid, especially on something like this, which will be loaded with established WSJ bias, so there's plenty of room for a further jump.

Trichet can't afford a dollar crash, so I don't think he's going to be too aggressive about rate increases. Given that inflation is structural anyway, I think we'll see a point or two total for now as window dressing to justify his salary, followed by blind panic in a year or two.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 04:09:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know why blind panic should be expected in the Eurozone.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 04:20:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
wow Mig.. wow

I  read the interview and thought this was ET material.. but translation.. I could not cope with that much right now.. impossible..

You translated and put the graphs there.. this is wow huge work...

I think you deserve some recognition here.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 06:13:05 PM EST
I tried to submit a comment to the El Pais article online, but either there was a failure of the interface (twice!) or they have me down as a spammer :-P

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 06:29:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In this world, Truth is Spam.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
by Crazy Horse on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 06:51:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Some interesting resources, via Econbrowser...


When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 04:50:55 AM EST
FT.com / MARKETS / Commodities - Oil soars to new high above $146

Crude oil prices jumped above $146 a barrel on Thursday boosted by a drop in US stockpiles and concerns about the medium-term supply and demand balance. The rise brings the oil price surge since January to 55 per cent.

Henry Paulson, the US Treasury secretary, said on Thursday that the "predominant factor" behind the rise in oil prices was supply and demand.

"[It] is the fact that global production and capacity has not increased appreciably over the last 10 years and the demand has continued to grow and inventories are at low levels," Mr Paulson said in London.



"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 07:26:49 AM EST
global production and capacity has not increased appreciably over the last 10 years and the demand has continued to grow
What is he talking about? There's steady growth of both capacity and production for the past 20 years.

If you take capacity = supply and production = demand, the problem is that supply growth has been 3 times slower than demand growth. Also, the last time the slack between capacity and production was as narrow as today was in 1973.

So, yes, it is supply and demand, but not because capacity (and especially production) hasn't been increasing.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 07:38:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They're not even trying, are they?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 07:40:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's obvious the "debate" is not about facts.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 07:43:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He probably refers to the fact that capacity growth hasn't been as steep as it used to be before 1980. And that it was not felt because, following the first and second oil shocks, the slack between capacity and production has been wide enough until recently...

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 08:22:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Probably...

It looks like the slack in the 1980's opened up as a result of the Volcker recession.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 08:25:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, actually, it's the Iranian Revolution.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 08:29:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And the Iran-Iraq War...

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 09:17:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
all of the above.

Price spike, worldwide recession.  Rough combo on energy demand.

The price spike led to massive reductions in oil used for electricity, smaller cars/CAFE standards, insulation requirements on new buildings, retrofits for insulation/new windows etc.  Conservation was the word until about 1983 when the price collapsed again.

by HiD on Fri Jul 4th, 2008 at 07:29:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am quite dismayed by Asia Times' publicist Henry Liu writing on the Oil problems. He appeared quite timely with understanding of credit problems and Greenspan role. But apparently he would go limitedly far.

In the latest article, Henry Liu ciritizes the NYTimes flat-earther Thomas L Friedman for his well-meant (as always) proposal of setting minimal prices for oil (say, at lovely $100), so to encourage alternative energy development. I don't see his argumentation consistent, as he emphatically repeats his arguments from own 3 years old article where he dismissed Bush's plans... to bring down oil prices from the $50 highs. Go figure, are the high or low prices must be the problem. But is must be instructive to dig out what this smart (sometimes) commentator is up to.

To keep the oil price at the $100 floor proposed by Friedman, the cooperation of Saudi Arabia is needed to reduce production whenever oil price drops below the $100 floor.

He is optimistic that oil prices may go under $100.

By 1984, the effects of a decade of higher oil prices had affected US demand in the form of better insulated homes and more energy-efficient industrial processes, and in substantial improvement in automobile fuel efficiency, not to mention new competitive use of cleaner coal, wind and solar and other alternatives.

He would not mind Friedman's benefits...

His big point appears to be that when oil prices stay high for an extended period, the effect remains lasting and "normalized" even if market conditions "return back". But the funny thing is that his points work the same for the $50 level (that we might had wanted to leave) and now for the $100 level (that we already left). So he lists the same 10 facts.

Fact 1: Oil-related transactions involving the same material quantity involve greater cash flow, with each barrel of oil generating $100 instead of $25... The United States consumed in 2007 about 22 million barrels of oil each day, about 25% of world consumption of 87 million barrels... Yet daily world production is only about 85 million barrels, leaving a deficit of 2 million barrels... At $100 a barrel, the aggregate oil bill for the US comes to [about] 5.6% of 2007 US gross domestic product... Oil and gas import is the single largest component in the US trade deficit, not imports from Japan or China.

As oil prices rise, consumers pay more for heating oil and gasoline, truckers pay more for diesel, airlines pay more for jet fuel... and the whole economy pays more for electricity. Now those extra payments do not disappear into a black hole in the universe. They go into someone's pocket as revenue and translate into profits for some businesses and losses for others. In other words, higher energy prices do not take money out of the economy, they merely shift profit allocation from one business sector to another. More than $365 billion a year goes to foreign oil producers who then must recycle their oil dollars back into US Treasury bonds or other dollar assets... The simple fact is that a rise in monetary value of assets adds to the monetary wealth of the economy.

So, high energy prices are good, as they bring asset wealth rather than inflation. Great... Shift more money to those investors.

Fact 2: Since energy is a basic commodity and oil is a predominant energy source, high energy cost translates into a high cost of living, which can result in a lower standard of living unless incomes can keep up. High energy cost translates into reduced consumption in other sectors unless higher incomes can be generated from the increased cash flow. Unfortunately, pay raises typically have a long time lag behind price increases. Higher prices translate into higher aggregate revenue for the economy and explain why corporate profit is up even when consumer discretionary spending slows. A large part of the oil problem comes from the fact that higher corporate revenue from rising prices has failed to translate into higher wages.

Why wouldn't the "trickle-down" fail? The earlier version of the fact ponders more: Working longer hours does not translate into productivity increases, but it does increase income. Those who cannot find overtime work will look for a second or third job, or put a hitherto non-working spouse back in the labor market. This generally lowers the standard of living... With higher prices, companies will hire more workers, since with wages remaining stagnant and the cost of worker benefits declining... adding employees will not hurt profitability and will enhance prospects for growth... Employment can be up while the unemployment rate remains constant, because the new work goes mostly to those already employed or those newly entering the job market, but not to the chronically unemployed, who remain unemployed... Nice system?!

Fact 3: As cash flow increases for the same amount of material activities, the GDP rises while the economy stagnates from wage depreciation. Companies are buying and selling the same amount or maybe even less, but at a higher price and profit margin and with employees at lower pay per unit of revenue. As the oil price rose within a decade from about $10 a barrel to $150... those who owned oil reserves saw their asset value increase also 15-fold. Those who do not own oil reserves protect themselves with hedges in the rapidly expanding structured finance world.

We need more of structured finance!

Fact 4: With asset value ballooning from the impact of a sharp rise in energy prices... the economy can carry more debt without increasing its debt-to-equity ratio, giving much-craved support to the residual debt bubble that began to burst before oil prices began to rise. Since the monetary value of assets tends to rise in tandem over time, the net effect is a de facto depreciation of money, misidentified as growth.

Do we have to love misidentification games?

Fact 5: High oil prices threaten the economic viability of some commercial sectors, such as airlines, trucking and motor vehicles, which have exhausted their price elasticity. These sectors cannot pass on increased cost without causing their sales volume to fall.

And the earlier version reminds that US airlines United and Delta recently won court approval to dump their pension obligations in a bankruptcy proceeding... United workers will lose about a quarter of their total pensions if their accounts are shifted to the government-run Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp (PBGC)... A successful move by United to get out from under its pension obligations... cleared the way for similar actions elsewhere in the industry and the economy... The result is that the PBGC will fail financially as more companies default on their pension obligations, the same away the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) did during the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s...

Fact 6: Industrial plastics, the materials most in demand in modern manufacturing, more than steel or cement, are all derived from oil. Higher prices of industrial plastics will mean lower wages for workers who assemble them into products... While low Asian wages are keeping global inflation in check through cross-border wage arbitrage, rising energy prices are the unrelenting factor behind global inflation that no interest-rate policy from any central bank can contain. Ironically, from a central bank's perspective, a commodity-led asset appreciation, which central banks do not define as inflation, is the best cure for a debt bubble that the central banks themselves created with their loose money policies...

We can beat Greenspan only with other Greenspan...

Fact 7: War-making is a gluttonous oil consumer. With high oil prices, America's wars will carry a higher price, which will either lead to a higher federal budget deficit, or lower social spending, or both. This translates into rising dollar interest rates, which is structurally recessionary... But while war is relentlessly inflationary, war spending is an economic stimulant, at least as long as collateral damage from war occurs only on foreign soil. War profits are always good for business, and the need for soldiers reduces unemployment. Fighting for oil faces little popular opposition at home... [Even though] the US already controls most of the world's oil without war, by virtue of oil being denominated in dollars... petro-war is launched to protect dollar hegemony... Military solutions to geopolitical problems arising from political economy will remain operative options for the US regardless who happens to be the occupant of the White House...

We'll make war as long as there is oil for it...

Fact 8: There is a supply/demand myth that if oil prices rise, they will attract more exploration for new oil, which will bring prices back down in time... But now... oil in the ground can be more valuable than oil above ground because it can serve as a monetizable asset of rising value through asset-backed securities (ABS) in the wild, wild world of structured finance (derivatives). So while there is incentive to find more oil reserves to enlarge the asset base, there is little incentive to pump it out of the ground merely to keep prices low... Gasoline prices also will not come down, not because there is a shortage of crude oil but because there is a shortage of refinery capacity... Refineries are among the most capital-intensive investments, with nightmarish regulatory hurdles... There is no incentive to expand refinery capacity to bring gasoline prices down because the return on new investment will need high gasoline prices to pay for it... It is not the nature of the market to reduce the price of output from investment so that consumers can drive gas-guzzling SUVs that burn most of their fuel sitting in traffic jams on freeways.

With all those obscene profits records, oil companies look for incentives to put those profits for use?! Or otherwise, why oil companies were allowing to burn their precious assets at the price cheaper than bottled water? Does this explain that oil companies are reluctant to build any refineries at all in the last decade? It must be a wonder that refineries were built at all in some mysterious times.

Fact 9: According to the US Geological Survey, the Middle East has only half to one-third of known world oil reserves. There is a large supply of oil elsewhere in the world that would be available at higher but still economically viable prices... The United States has large proven oil reserves that get larger with rising oil price. Proven reserves of oil are generally taken to be those quantities that geological and engineering information indicates with reasonable certainty can be recovered in the future from known reservoirs under existing economic and geological conditions. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the US had 21.8 billion barrels of proven oil reserves... when oil price was around $20 per barrel... US proven oil reserves had declined by about 20% since 1990... but this was due mostly to the falling price of oil, which shrank proven reserves by definition. At $100 a barrel, the reserve numbers can be expected to expand greatly. The reason the US imports oil is that importing is cheaper and cleaner than extracting domestic oil. At a certain price level, the US may find it more economic to develop more domestic oil instead of importing... If the Middle East and the Persian Gulf implode geopolitically and oil from this region stops flowing, the US, as an oil producer will be a main beneficiary of $50 oil, or $100 oil, or even $1,000 oil, as would Britain... and countries such as Norway, Indonesia, Nigeria and Venezuela. But the biggest winner will be Russia.

That's wonderful, the higher oil prices, the greater are proven oil resources... Let's bring oil to $1000.

Fact 10: $50 oil bought the US debt bubble a little more time, but bubbles never last forever and it burst in August 2007. But in a democracy, the White House in 2005 was under pressure from a misinformed public to bring the oil price back down to $25, not realizing that the price for cheap oil could accelerate the bursting of the debt bubble.

Perils of democracy?!.. Or does it matter much, which month a bubble is burst?

Well, everything looks bad anyway the oil price goes?!

P. S. The whole Asia Times bunch is becoming pretty reactionary and narrowly thoughtful with their market views, except Delasantellis and Mogambo.)

by das monde on Fri Jul 4th, 2008 at 06:40:17 AM EST
Have you posted this on dKos yet?

At any rate, I replaced the oil in Euros diagram with the up-to-date version (until 1 July; the old one you embedded was until 18 March).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jul 4th, 2008 at 01:19:02 PM EST
Thanks for the update...

No, I haven't cross-posted this anywhere yet. DKos doesn't like hotlinking so I'm going to have to put all the charts into photobucket or something. Also, I'm not sure July 4 is the best time. Maybe tomorrow... (saturday morning should be quiet enough to give me a shot at making the reclist.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 4th, 2008 at 01:52:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Mine is on Photobucket, a lot of others you embedded are on Flickr, only three remain, but ask Jérôme, he probably has copies of all three hosted on an approved site already.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jul 4th, 2008 at 02:09:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/5/23814/05503

Daily Kos doesn't allow 'style' attributes on TD tags... Ugh.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 5th, 2008 at 03:33:10 AM EST
It's been "Rescued" - well deserved.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jul 6th, 2008 at 06:42:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I'm going to link to that... http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/5/222321/3016/1020/547161

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jul 7th, 2008 at 05:37:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sometimes, when there are too many technical (or buzz-)words with nebulous meaning, I just glaze over reading a financial text. So, I have to admit, in this diary, it's the Bloomberg wrong-way bet article.

Can someone explain to me, without using more financial words, the meaning of: "wrong-way bets", "to cover wrong-way bets", "outstanding futures contracts", "short positions", how buying open interest constitutes exiting short positions? Maybe then I can follow Stephen Stork's logic on my own...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 6th, 2008 at 05:16:59 AM EST
wrong way bet: means that players bought positions that will earn them money if prices move in one direction, but prices went the other way.

Which means that they need to "cover" their bet, by effectively selling back their position - at a loss, but at a smaller loss than if the price movement that caused the loss continued.

"short positions" are positions where the player has sold the asset (usually by borrowing it before, or via equivalent instruments), ie is betting on the price going down (the expectation is to be able to buy back the asset later for less).

I'm not sure exactly how "open interest" is defined, but I would imagine it's the number of offers officially put up on the market to buy a given asset at prices that are currently above market price (and are thus unfulfilled): for instance, if you give an order to your broker to buy 1,000 barrels at $150.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jul 6th, 2008 at 07:16:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
and  'wrong way bet' probably has its origins in the betting man's 'each way bet' i.e. a bet on both a winner and/or a 'place' (say in the first three) with the pay out on the 'place' adjusted down accordingly by fractioning the odds at the time the bet was accepted.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Jul 6th, 2008 at 07:23:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Aaaah, so "interest" in "open interest" has nothing to do with fees, nor weith unsold oil, but means "would-like-to-buy"...

So most traders bet that prices will go down, and thus wanted to earn money by selling oil with the intent to buy it back cheaper when prices go down. And now they are buying oil, to sell it later when prices go up, but the number of potential buyers is going down. Is that right?

Unfortunately, I still don't get why this means that "money is moving out of the market", and whether open interest holders are a subset of long position holders or a wider group...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 6th, 2008 at 05:36:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, "open interest" is the number of contracts that have been traded. Each contract has a long (buyer) and a short (seller) side. If someone who is long enters a similar contract on the short side, the open interest is reduced. The amount of money in margin accounts (posted as collateral to be able to establish the short/long position) is roughly proportional to the notional value of the open interest. Therefore, when open interest goes down, people can take money out of their margin accounts.

Also, open interest can differ widely from the amount traded in the spot market, but when open interest exceeds the spot volume by a lot, people are in for a lot of pain.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jul 7th, 2008 at 05:50:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have never traded in commodities, but if they are anything like securities options, open interest is the total amount of transactions outstanding, un-covered, by self, or others, of all contracts, by  type + price + expiration date, in a given market, on a given moment.

Margin accounts are usually lines of credit to play the market and the required percentage of the owner´s actual cash varies with market conditions and size of account, so the regular players usually maintain funds there even when the margin is repaid.  Something like a bank´s capital requirements.

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.

by metavision on Tue Jul 8th, 2008 at 11:44:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]