Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

US and others plan biggest release of reserve oil

Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:31 PM EDT
us-news, business, us, economy, united-states, oil
Jonathan Fahey, AP Business Writers
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 2 photos
<p>In this June 22, 2011 photo, gas station manager Joseph Sublett changes a sign reflecting lower prices in Little Rock, Ark. Wary of a new surge in gas prices, the Obama administration has decided to release 30 million barrels of oil from the country's emergency reserve as part of a broader international response to lost oil supplies caused by turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa, particularly Libya.(AP Photo/Danny Johnston)</p>

In this June 22, 2011 photo, gas station manager Joseph Sublett changes a sign reflecting lower prices in Little Rock, Ark. Wary of a new surge in gas prices, the Obama administration has decided to release 30 million barrels of oil from the country's emergency reserve as part of a broader international response to lost oil supplies caused by turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa, particularly Libya.(AP Photo/Danny Johnston)

Advertise | AdChoices

NEW YORK — The United States and other nations that depend on oil imports will release and sell 60 million barrels of crude from emergency stocks in an effort to ease the strain of high oil prices on the global economy.

The release by the International Energy Agency, a group of more than two dozen countries, covers only what the world uses roughly every 16 hours. But it was enough to send oil prices lower, at least for the moment.

In addition to helping the struggling economies of the U.S. and Europe, analysts said the move was meant as a rebuke to OPEC, which has refused to increase oil production to bring down prices.

It will be the largest sale of crude ever from world strategic reserves and only the third since the IEA was formed in 1974 after the Arab oil embargo. The IEA released oil in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina and in 1990 and 1991 after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Half the oil will come from reserves in the U.S. Refiners who turn crude into gasoline will be able to bid on the extra oil and have it shipped to them from the salt caverns along the Gulf Coast where it is stored.

The IEA said high oil demand and shortfalls of oil production caused by unrest in the Middle East and North Africa threatened to "undermine the fragile global economic recovery."

The uprising in Libya has taken 1.5 million barrels of oil per day off of the market — half a million barrels less than will be released each day by the IEA for 30 days.

The price of oil rose to nearly $114 per barrel in at the end of April, the highest since the summer of 2008, has fallen 20 percent since then to about $91 a barrel on Thursday. Analysts questioned how much relief the move would provide the economy, and for how long.

One analyst, Andrew Lipow, said the timing of the announcement, a day after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke delivered a negative outlook on the economy, suggests that industrialized countries are grasping for solutions. He said Americans should expect the price of gasoline to fall, but not dramatically, in coming weeks.

"Fifteen or 20 cents a gallon of relief is not enough to make people feel good about their job prospects or losses on the stock market or our general economic slowdown," he said.

The IEA and the White House said they were acting to increase the supply of oil available during the peak summer driving season.

"We are taking this action in response to the ongoing loss of crude oil due to supply disruptions in Libya and other countries and their impact on the global economic recovery," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said.

Gas prices have already fallen for 20 days in a row. They were down another penny Wednesday, to a nationwide average of $3.61 per gallon, according to the AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report. That's about 21 cents lower than a month ago. Gas prices peaked this year at a national average of $3.98 per gallon in early May.

The timing of the release brought criticism from business groups and Republican lawmakers, who accused President Barack Obama of playing politics with the country's oil reserves, which are intended to address emergencies.

The amount of oil to be released, 2 million barrels per day, represents 2.2 percent of daily global oil demand. The 60 million barrels to be released over the span of a month is less than one day's demand, about 89 million barrels.

The IEA left open the possibility that it could continue the program after a month.

The IEA's move comes two weeks after OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, decided during a tense meeting not to increase oil production to meet rising demand. OPEC is made up primarily of Middle Eastern and North African nations.

OPEC countries are divided over whether to increase supply. Iran and Venezuela want to keep production stable in hopes of keeping prices — and revenue — high. Saudi Arabia wants to increase production, fearing that high oil prices will hurt the global economy and reduce oil demand over the long term.

The head of the IEA, Nobuo Tanaka, expressed disappointment about OPEC's decision after that meeting. At a news conference Thursday in Paris, he said the IEA's action would "contribute to ensuring that adequate supplies are available to the global market."

Kevin Book, an analyst at Clearview Energy Partners, said the move was the first time the IEA has used its reserves as a weapon "to send an unforgettable message to OPEC."

The reserves, he said, have always acted as a shield. "Now we are using it to bludgeon prices globally. This is the first time we've used our shield as a club."

In addition, Book said, it sends a signal to oil investors that governments will go to great lengths to fight high oil prices. These oil investors, including banks, mutual funds and pension funds, buy contracts for oil in hopes the price will go up, but they don't actually use the oil. Critics have said these investors, derided as speculators, have helped push oil prices far higher than they would otherwise be.

"Part of the reason to do this is to make anyone on the other side of oil consumers, whether it is speculators or oil cartels, worried that it will happen again," Book said.

Oil finished trading at $95.41 on Wednesday just before Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said the economy may be in bigger trouble than previously thought. Prices dropped to about $94 overnight and then fell as low as $89 per barrel after the IEA announcement. Oil finished trading Thursday at $91.02.

Worldwide oil demand is at record levels because the recovering economies of the West and the surging economies of Asia are burning more gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.

The unrest in the Middle East this spring cut into supply. Those two factors drove prices higher, raising costs for shippers, travelers and commuters and leaving people less money to spend on clothes, entertainment and travel.

The U.S. economy grew at a rate of 1.8 percent in the first quarter of this year, down from 3.1 percent in the previous quarter, in part as a result of high gasoline prices.

Oil prices fell later in the spring, though, as the U.S. economy appeared to slow and Greece's financial crisis threatened to spread to the rest of Europe. Reports that Saudi Arabia would increase production in defiance of OPEC helped send prices lower in recent days. It's unclear whether Saudi Arabia has begun to do so, or still might.

Also, oil supplies in the U.S. are among their highest levels ever, a result in part of rising North American production and less consumption.

Analysts said that while the IEA move will lower oil prices in the short term, it also reveals major concerns about the ability of oil producers to meet growing world demand in the future. If they can't, oil prices will rise dramatically.

Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist at the Economic Outlook Group, said oil would have to drop below $80 a barrel to have much economic impact on the economy. He said he doesn't think the 60 million barrels is enough to do that.

"The argument is, if we can lower oil prices that would be a major tax cut," Baumohl said. "The logic is fine. Whether it can successfully be carried out is the question. And I don't think it can."

IEA members are required to hold in reserve the equivalent of what they would import in 90 days, though countries collectively now hold 146 days' supply.

The U.S. stocks, called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, hold 727 million barrels. The reserve has never been fuller. It held 707 million barrels before the U.S. last tapped the reserve in 2008 in response to supply disruptions caused by Hurricanes Gustav and Ike.

The IEA decision will free about 30 million barrels in the United States. Europe will release 18 million barrels and industrialized countries in Asia 12 million.

For U.S. refiners, bidding for the oil now held in reserve will mean having to import less from abroad. The 1 million barrels per day to be released is about 20 percent of what refiners on the Gulf Coast, where the oil will go, import.

The U.S. imports a total of about 11 million barrels of oil a day and consumes about 19 million barrels.

___

Paul Wiseman contributed to this story from Washington D.C. Jonathan Fahey can be reached at twitter.com/JonathanFahey. Chris Kahn can be reached at twitter.com/ChrisKahnAP.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Jonathan Fahey's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Saudi Arabia , New York
  • Public Discussion (92)
Roy-933464

The release by the International Energy Agency, a group of more than two dozen countries, covers only what the world uses roughly every 16 hours.

In addition to helping the struggling economies of the U.S. and Europe, analysts said the move was meant as a rebuke to OPEC, which has refused to increase oil production to bring down prices.

Screw this. Let the prices rise. We will survive. The automakers that aren't ready to invest in alternative/renewable energy and let this current technology expire deserve to suffer obsolescence as a consequence of their inaction, failure to innovate, and greed for profits. That's the only way to deal with OPEC. Saudi Arabia is the only one that can see that this is inevitable; they were calling for lower prices and increased OPEC production just a couple of weeks ago, saying that they need to keep us strung out on their dope before we move to another corner. Detox is never easy, but we need to just suck it up and check into the clinic.

  • 5 votes
#1 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:10 PM EDT
Bman42

Roy: If somebody booted the EPA out of the way, every vehicle in America could be converted to run bifuel - on either gasoline or natural gas, for probably less than $5,000 each. THAT would bring down the price of oil.

  • 3 votes
#1.1 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:39 PM EDT
certs2345

LOL biofuels.

  • 1 vote
#1.2 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:41 PM EDT
Naughtia

bull@!$%# on the epa.

and yeah lol on biofuels.

bothing is stopping biofuels, or natural gas, the buses here use natural gas and the university has biofuel cars.

  • 2 votes
#1.3 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:30 PM EDT
Linda Luke

I'd like to know the other countries that are releasing their reserves? This release isn't even a fix as far as I am concerned but it certainly is manipulation in the opposite direction as what speculation would give us.

  • 2 votes
#1.4 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:35 PM EDT
Kreepy-Krawler

They aren't helping America or the Americans since the American taxpayers will be flipping the bill of 50% of this, and this oil is suppose to be in reserve in case of war. We are heading in that direction, so wtf are the American troops going to do for diesel to fight in a war.

60 mil barrels of oil, what a waste. It won't even last a week in America.

  • 4 votes
#1.5 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:56 PM EDT
mountainmike-1199289

I could say it would be better to ban oil speculation, but then if anyone proposed that in congress, Wall Street lobbyists would swarm all over Republicans for protection. Republicans are incorrigible suck ups and would do whatever they want for money.

Oh! Panic Attack Time - that would be socialism. Hyperventilate into a brown bag. NO! Socialism would be nationalizing oil, like China. Speculation is not allowed there and they pay about half of what we do for gas at the pump. Banning oil speculation would simply be disallowing a pack of greedy white collar criminals buying and selling oil two or three dozen times before customers buy it at the pump as gas. Why should be grossly overindulge these slobs in their greedy profits at everyone else's expense and nation wide inflation?

They are also speculating on food and everything else we depend upon daily to increase inflation and it is killing the Main Street recovery from their white collar crime wave we are calling a recession.

Wall Street will not allow us to recover from THEIR recession? Then its time to rip Wall Street a new orifice.

It is OK for taxpayers - their victims - to bail them out, so why isn't it OK for Wall Street to bail out taxpayers?

  • 6 votes
#1.6 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:26 PM EDT
Tim Boothby

Wall Street lobbyists would swarm all over Republicans for protection.

Judging by the red carpet treatment BP got from this administration when they dumped millions of barrels in the Gulf of Mexico, saying that Democrats aren't in the pocket of the oil companies is sort of a bad joke.

    #1.7 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:33 PM EDT
    mountainmike-1199289

    Tim:

    BS. BP has been under investigation and a lot of that evidence is coming from government sources.

    • 5 votes
    #1.8 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:47 PM EDT
    mawoaDeleted
    Tim Boothby

    BS. BP has been under investigation and a lot of that evidence is coming from government sources.

    There are two ways for politicians to make things go away, they put together a committee to address something, or they call for investigations. Either way nothing happens. By the way, the White House commission submitted its final report six months ago, it accomplished nothing.

    When the report from BP stating that the cleanup was done was rubber stamped by the government in spite of the fact oil is STILL on the floor of the gulf. The government helping BP control all access to the area by reporters and independent investigators didn't help either. Allowing BP to decide who administers the compensation fund and even directly pay his salary was a was also extremely generous of the government as well. In fact the guy chosen to run the fund believes that roughly a quarter of it might be paid out and the rest refunded to BP.

    People in the gulf area have turned to the courts for redress, because the government, with efforts being lead by BP, has done squat for the people down there.

      #1.10 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:13 PM EDT
      Levi777

      We bought a 2011 Chevy Impala that can run on gasoline or ethanol (I think). It's a flex fuel car. I've asked around and there's one place here that sells it. It's not as expensive as gasoline, but you get less gallons per mile, and the only benefits I can see as far as I know, is it has to be easier on the engine because it burns cleaner, and it's better for the environment. However, even if we all converted to bio-fuels, I have absolutely no illusions that the price of bio-fuel wouldn't climb as has gasoline. It's all about maintaining profit margins.

      • 5 votes
      #1.11 - Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:39 AM EDT
      Smith Cassidy

      It's not as expensive as gasoline, but you get less gallons per mile, and the only benefits I can see as far as I know, is it has to be easier on the engine because it burns cleaner, and it's better for the environment.

      That's a nice list of positives in my book.

      However, even if we all converted to bio-fuels, I have absolutely no illusions that the price of bio-fuel wouldn't climb as has gasoline. It's all about maintaining profit margins.

      Not likely. Biofuel is nowhere near the 'scarcity' of oil. Which is also the reason it likely won't be a legit fuel for some time to come. Big Oil is not giving up its stranglehold on the world just yet.

      Biofuel is a type of fuel which is in some way derived from biomass. The term covers solid biomass, liquid fuels and various biogases.[1] Biofuels are gaining increased public and scientific attention, driven by factors such as oil price spikes, the need for increased energy security, concern over greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, and government subsidies.

      Bioethanol is an alcohol made by fermenting the sugar components of plant materials and it is made mostly from sugar and starch crops. With advanced technology being developed, cellulosic biomass, such as trees and grasses, are also used as feedstocks for ethanol production. Ethanol can be used as a fuel for vehicles in its pure form, but it is usually used as a gasoline additive to increase octane and improve vehicle emissions. Bioethanol is widely used in the USA and in Brazil.

      Biodiesel is made from vegetable oils, animal fats or recycled greases. Biodiesel can be used as a fuel for vehicles in its pure form, but it is usually used as a diesel additive to reduce levels of particulates, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons from diesel-powered vehicles. Biodiesel is produced from oils or fats using transesterification and is the most common biofuel in Europe.

      Biofuels provided 1.8% of the world's transport fuel in 2008. Investment into biofuels production capacity exceeded $4 billion worldwide in 2007 and is growing.[2] According to the International Energy Agency, biofuels have the potential to meet more than a quarter of world demand for transportation fuels by 2050

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel

      What would really make sense - and therefore it will likely never happen with the current crop of government "leaders" - is to make marijuana and hemp legal, tax the "pot", and grow the @!$%# out of hemp for it's 25,000+ uses (food, fibers, polymers, etc), including biofuel.

      That, however, just makes too much @!$%#ing sense to happen in the United States in 2011.

      • 1 vote
      #1.12 - Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:37 AM EDT
      bbird-1286083Deleted
      Tim Boothby

      Not likely. Biofuel is nowhere near the 'scarcity' of oil.

      If we tried to replace gas/diesel with biofuel people would starve, there isn't enough arable land to feed a growing population or people and vehicles. Its only a piece of the answer, not the whole thing.

        #1.14 - Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:50 AM EDT
        bbird-1286083Deleted
        Tim Boothby

        Look in the Midwest and ask your local rep about the CRP program

        Grew up there, more than passing familiar with the program. It does have more purposes than keeping land out of production to keep crop prices up.

        Look in the Midwest and ask your local rep about the CRP program and why they will not release that land which is millions and millions of acres back into production

        40 million acres in fact, out of 922 million agricultural acres or about 4%. So putting 4% of farmland back into production is going to add how much? That jumps to almost 8% if you factor just crop land but since CRP land is both pasture and crop land it wouldn't really be accurate.

        and I mean back into production as soon as next year to grow the food stock and.... biofuel. for just this nation.. more than enough period.

        Oh, I'm looking at the whole problem and not just here. We already have problems like China losing farmland and more importantly topsoil to increasing desertification, they (and some Europeans are buying up land in Africa and shipping food home, ironic considering Africa's food problems. China already expects it to take 300 years to restore lost farmland to production, and with a growing population. So, biofuel isn't going to do them, or India, or many African countries any good.

        Biofuel is a part of the solution, not the answer.

        But, on to the rest of your question. CRP has quite a few purposes, among them is conservation of topsoil, which is disappearing pretty quickly, its also to help contain erosion, and since grasses (the whole family) is good at absorbing CO2 and helping to enrich land. It also allows for crop rotation, which reduces the needs for chemical fertilizers and has had a measurable effect on reducing nitrogen and phosphorus, which is better for our ground and surface water. Not to mention wildlife habitat and migration routes.

        You want to see a push for biofuel, stop using corn syrup and feeding livestock, where its mostly filler anyway as stock like cattle evolved eating grasses, not grains. Then they'd have to do something with quite a bit of surplus corn. Even then you couldn't rely on agricultural products for biofuel, one season of drought is going to affect one need or the other.

        Then we have to look at the increased amount of chemicals added to the soil to produce organic material to convert and the continued addition of CO2 through burning these fuels, this could be lowered if we use grasses, as cellulose converts far more efficiently, and greenly. So, to that end if they just mowed the CRP land and converted the green mass to fuel, it might just be more efficient than any other crop, without losing topsoil or adding chemicals or using water resources, but you would lose the benefits to wildlife.

        I've looked into this just a little bit.

          #1.16 - Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:37 AM EDT
          real michaud

          Roy easy for you to say...the gas prices are killing me...i commute 50 miles round trip to work...its almost like i'm working to pay gas so i can turn right around again and go to work to pay for gas to go to work.

            #1.17 - Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:53 AM EDT
            mountainmike-1199289

            Scientists have developed genetically altered algae that can take in carbon dioxide from sources such as coal burning power plants, generate either ethanol or diesel, and the waste product would be clean oxygen. For all of the people that are saying it can't be done, it is being done. The first commercial plant opened this last year.

            This is a 2008 article:

            Inside the Solar-Hydrogen House: No More Power Bills--Ever

            A New Jersey resident generates and stores all the power he needs with solar panels and hydrogen

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hydrogen-house

            NOt CAN'T BE DONE, IT IS BEING DONE. Now something like this needs to be mass produced to bring the price down.

            • 2 votes
            #1.18 - Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:33 AM EDT
            Roy-933464

            Roy easy for you to say...the gas prices are killing me...i commute 50 miles round trip to work...its almost like i'm working to pay gas so i can turn right around again and go to work to pay for gas to go to work.

            Don't get me wrong. It sucks. I've made some changes, like actually treating gas as a bill instead of lumped into miscellaneous expenses. I've added at least $5 to the cost of anything that I have to drive to put the right value on things. It's amazing how much i've saved and trimmed back on other things as a compulsive shopper. I'm pretty certain I'd be buying a new truck over the summer otherwise. Not a chance of that now. It kinda feels good to have just paid off a truck and to have one year to go on my other truck. If people keep away from the dealerships and drive what they've got until the wheels started falling off, the auto industry might get the picture.

            • 1 vote
            #1.19 - Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:15 PM EDT
            Reply
            certs2345

            I see what's happening. Oil prices are dropping, and have been for a little while. So the administration decides to let some of the reserve out so they can take credit for something that they have absolutely nothing to do with. Outstanding.

            • 6 votes
            Reply#2 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:24 PM EDT
            taao

            Exactly certs this is Obama campaign 2012. Americans suffered as they adamantly refused to release these reserves...now for political expediency they have decided to throw the proverbial dogs a bone. This corrupt and illegal administration needs to go. This country is about to suffer one of its most darkest moments if Obama is not stopped and the United States that we grew up in will be obliterated and lost. True Americans need to stand up legally in defense of their country now!

            • 2 votes
            #2.1 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:35 PM EDT
            scott9876

            What?

            • 3 votes
            #2.2 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:44 PM EDT
            rescue dogs62

            We didn't have a shortage of oil in the first place. Rather that getting EPA out of the mix, if we get the Wall Market speculators and futures markets out, we'd be back to $50.00 a barrel.

            • 8 votes
            #2.3 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:57 PM EDT
            California Militia

            i dont know if its a campaign thing, but the first thing i thought was "why didnt anyone give a crap when i was paying almost 5 dollars a gallon." I am thinking this is less to curb prices here in the US as it is to help our Allies who cant seem to deal with that gadaffi thing.

            did i call them allies? ? ? I meant our "when i need something" allies. yep, always ready to be critical of us till they need something.

              #2.4 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:02 PM EDT
              scott9876

              Sorry I kinda like the EPA, I like clean water and clean air.

              Blaming the EPA?

              Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight,

              • 7 votes
              #2.5 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:09 PM EDT
              Repoman-1208817

              Scott, the epa has done some good but if anyone bothers to look at what they have done to the fuel and auto industry they can see the damage the EPA does.

              Take diesel fuel. The EPA regulated the fuel to be refined to 500 PPM of sulfer. That was great. It needed to be done. The trade off between pollution and fuel economy were good. Then the EPA went and dictated the change to 15 PPM. Now we have a problem. The new diesel destroys engines, so maintenance costs go up. The new fuel's energy rating is dramatically lower than the 500 PPM diesel by about 30% which means to travel the same distance it takes 30% more fuel. The cost to refine the 15PPM is quite a bit higher so the cost is higher.

              Now all this may seem unimportant until you realize 99% of all products more by way of diesel fuel. Who do you think pays the costs the manufacturer, the shipper the retailer or the consumer?

              This is just diesel fuel. In the auto industry the EPA has dictated arbitrary fuel standards or convinced congress to dictate them causing the auto industry to make and market cars that lose money because no one wants them. This cost is transfered to cars people want so the auto maker doesn't lose money completely. Then congress mandates more fuel changes (ethanol) which impacts the MPG so the auto industry has to make even more money losers.

              Getting the EPA out of our fuel and auto industry would save consumers thousands of dollars annually and would still keep our water clean ( if you believe it is clean now).

              • 3 votes
              #2.6 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:31 PM EDT
              Naughtia

              before 2000, most speculation was done to keep the price of oil down. now it is to drive the price of oil up. jpmorgan and everyone else owns an oil tanker these days, and they pay them to circle the globe and never going to port until the price is right.

              the same reason why we hit the recession is the same reason why we have expensive gas, wallstreet. that dog still hasnt been reigned in and they are laughing all the way to the bank as they rape 98% of america

              • 4 votes
              #2.7 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:32 PM EDT
              follow the money

              bernie sanders war against oil speculators:

              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/stop-oil-speculation-now_b_877739.html

              drive up your gas prices.

              • 1 vote
              #2.8 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:33 PM EDT
              mountainmike-1199289

              Prices are going down because Big Oil got caught price gouging and Wall Street got caught starting a speculation frenzy when they thought they could hide behind the Libya bad news.

              Republicans need to get their lips surgically removed from Wall Street's and Big Oil's butts and start working for their victims, the American people.

              • 3 votes
              #2.9 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:29 PM EDT
              Time Lord

              MtnMike...when it comes to being "bought"...career politicians on BOTH sides of the isle are "greased". It would be unfair to just point the "proverbial finger" at the "republican" side of the fence. This is a bi-partisan issue, and yes, "We the People" are getting "hosed" and doing nothing to change the game, change the players or change the rules...so far

              30 million barrels is a drop in the bucket. In a month, (according to the figures provided in the article) this 30 million barrels amounts to a mere 5% of our total consumption. So what is the REAL reason for selling these reserves...? Cuz this jus doesn't make sense or add up to anything significant enough to make any impact on prices.

              Side note...did anyone notice the 20 cent spread between grades...? What happened to the 10 cent spread between grades?...an where are those CHEAP prices posted? Certainly not Washington State...

              • 1 vote
              #2.10 - Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:20 AM EDT
              certs2345

              So what is the REAL reason for selling these reserves...?

              To piss off OPEC, have them slow the production they increased, have the speculators then jack the barrel price back up, and then gas prices rise. Presto, just what obama wants.

                #2.11 - Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:26 AM EDT
                mountainmike-1199289

                Time Lord:

                Both parties have their issues. Yes.

                But in this specific case, follow the money. Remember the 2008 presidential race and McCain was against offshore drilling and Big Oil refused to donate to his campaign. He needed money and was getting desperate for votes and changed his position to being FOR offshore drilling. That got an immediate response from Big Oil donating millions of dollars to his campaign. Then when Obama was dealing with the BP oil spill, he put pressure on the Interior Department to close down MMS and start doing some real regulation on Big Oil. The response was a big flow of Big Oil money to Republicans to water down or obstruct any effort to regulate them. Then you have Big Oil giving Republicans money to extend tax loopholes.

                Then if anyone was going to propose banning oil speculation, it would have to be a Democrat. Wall Street would do what it did when the banking reform legislation was being passed - donate millions of dollars to Republicans to obstruct or water down the legislation.

                I would rather see a ban on oil speculation rather than a release of oil from our strategic reserve. Speculators double the price of gas by buying and selling oil two or three dozen times before it reaches the customer at the pump. Profits are drawn from each transaction. Right now this is really out of control because of their use of super fast computers. Its not only greedy speculation, it is greedy speculation on meth. Sooner or later, the speculators are going to have to be ripped a new orifice for causing nation wide inflation with oil, food speculation. Its Wall Street again because none of the main white collar criminal slobs that caused the recession have been held fully accountable.

                • 1 vote
                #2.12 - Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:44 AM EDT
                Reply
                infrared

                The price won't drop. Increasing supply of a product would make it cheaper but oil and gas don't operate in that sense. It is all speculation that drives the price.

                • 1 vote
                Reply#3 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:26 PM EDT
                Bman42

                Yeah, maybe this'll cut the price of oil $10-20/bbl. For a month or two. How about something with a little more oomph, like you have to have facilities to take delivery to be able to buy futures? Oh, but then big oil and wall st would still be angry next year when the administration is out soliciting campaign donations.

                • 1 vote
                Reply#4 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:37 PM EDT
                ray.burchard

                Bman, … Your absolutely correct. Its just another political tactic to win temporary voter approval without confronting the real greedy culprit, Wall Street's investment bank speculators.

                • 2 votes
                #4.1 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:06 PM EDT
                Little Sure Shot

                More like a week, then what?

                  #4.2 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:12 PM EDT
                  California Militia

                  maybe we can invade Venezuala. Arent there poor people there who need protection from their leadership and a more transparent democracy.

                  i mean heck, were about to have an extra 10k uniformed soldiers available anyway right. how many men can it take to control Venezuala.

                  • 1 vote
                  #4.3 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:06 PM EDT
                  Repoman-1208817

                  how about just digging our own wells and building another refinery?

                  • 4 votes
                  #4.4 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:32 PM EDT
                  ray.burchard

                  Good suggestion California, … We could deplete and replenish our defense contractor's armament stockpiles, destroy and rebuild Venezuela's antiquated infrastructure, control their crude oil production and distribution, of course all while looking for their WMD's.

                  Then of course, all of this corporate prosperity at the American taxpayer's expense. But don't worry about paying for it, its simple, we'll just cut our social and civil services and other amenities, increase our national debt and our debt ceiling, what is a little recession among friends, we needed to cut America's dead weight anyway

                    #4.5 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:01 PM EDT
                    mountainmike-1199289

                    Lobbyist In Charge Of ‘Trying To Kill’ Financial Reform Hired By GOP Chair To Oversee Financial Regulations

                    A few days ago, incoming Agriculture Chairman Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) announced the hire of Ryan McKee as the senior staffer to oversee the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. McKee is currently a lobbyistworking for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s division dedicated to deregulating complex derivatives products. In her new role working for Lucas, McKee will be liaising with regulators in charge of implementing new rules under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law to overhaul the over-the-counter derivatives market.

                    And Republicans are so very, very, very sympathetic toward Americans at the gas pumps that they hire an anti regulation lobbyist to be the director of the regulatory commission with oversight over oil speculation.

                    And the Commodities and Futures Trade Commission during Bush years was run by political appointees that refused to regulate oil speculation. That led to the 2008 oil price spike that was speculation driven (no supply-demand issues to point to).

                    ‘Perhaps 60% of today’s oil price is pure speculation’

                    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878

                    how today’s oil prices are really determined is done by a process so opaque only a handful of major oil trading banks such as Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley have any idea who is buying and who selling oil futures or derivative contracts that set physical oil prices in this strange new world of “paper oil.”

                    With the development of unregulated international derivatives trading in oil futures over the past decade or more, the way has opened for the present speculative bubble in oil prices.

                    Since the advent of oil futures trading and the two major London and New York oil futures contracts, control of oil prices has left OPEC and gone to Wall Street. It is a classic case of the “tail that wags the dog.”

                    A June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report on “The Role of Market Speculation in rising oil and gas prices,” noted, “…there is substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased prices.”

                    What the Senate committee staff documented in the report was a gaping loophole in US Government regulation of oil derivatives trading so huge a herd of elephants could walk through it. That seems precisely what they have been doing in ramping oil prices through the roof in recent months.

                    The Senate report was ignored in the media and in the Congress.

                    The report pointed out that the Commodity Futures Trading Trading Commission, a financial futures regulator, had been mandated by Congress to ensure that prices on the futures market reflect the laws of supply and demand rather than manipulative practices or excessive speculation. The US Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) states, “Excessive speculation in any commodity under contracts of sale of such commodity for future delivery . . . causing sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in the price of such commodity, is an undue and unnecessary burden on interstate commerce in such commodity.”

                    Further, the CEA directs the CFTC to establish such trading limits “as the Commission finds are necessary to diminish, eliminate, or prevent such burden.” Where is the CFTC now that we need such limits?

                    They seem to have deliberately walked away from their mandated oversight responsibilities in the world’s most important traded commodity, oil.

                    • 1 vote
                    #4.6 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:39 PM EDT
                    real michaud

                    I agree Repoman...we should drilll here, and as a matter of fact the permits are back to start drilling....i think another reason why gas is going up is that we are now actually importing less...I just wish Obama would take the speculators to the carpet.

                      #4.7 - Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:57 AM EDT
                      Reply
                      The Grim Creeper

                      So, what's the emergency? Because Barack Obama's approval numbers are tanking? I have a great idea for lowering prices: drill, baby, drill!

                      • 6 votes
                      Reply#5 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:51 PM EDT
                      scott9876

                      Lame Grim.

                      Why don't you say thank you and be done.

                      • 6 votes
                      #5.1 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:54 PM EDT
                      The Grim Creeper

                      I'm not thanking Obama for anything but doing the right thing with Bin Laden. Other than that, he is a COMPLETE failure. After 2012, he can build homes with Jimmy Carter.

                      • 5 votes
                      #5.2 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:57 PM EDT
                      scott9876

                      Why will he need to join Jimmy Carter? He will be too busy on his second term.

                      • 5 votes
                      #5.3 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:14 PM EDT
                      Naughtia

                      once again, the right just pulling @!$%# out their ass.

                      I'm sure you can show me the "tanking" in the gallup graph here and while you are there, tell me how barack compares to your god reagan?

                      just step into reality for one day.. one day!

                      • 3 votes
                      #5.4 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:36 PM EDT
                      Darkdonnie

                      He will be too busy on his second term.

                      I think I can, I think I can.............fail!

                      How many presidents have been reelected with unemployment above 8%?

                      Here is some help!

                      Obama Likely to Face Highest Jobless Rate of Any Postwar Incumbent

                      • 1 vote
                      #5.5 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:37 PM EDT
                      mountainmike-1199289

                      Grim:

                      You need to quit nitpicking Obama and start looking at the Republican horrific track record on controlling oil speculation (post 4.4 above).

                      • 1 vote
                      #5.6 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:41 PM EDT
                      scott9876

                      Gee Dark bush got a second term :-)

                      Please tell me who is going to beat him pleeeeeeeeeease!! Is it Bachman??

                        #5.7 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:55 PM EDT
                        jawill11

                        I have a great idea for lowering prices: drill, baby, drill!

                        In order for something to qualify as a "great idea", it has to actually achieve the desired result. It's been explained time and time again that drilling for every drop of oil available in our country would affect prices at the pump by no more than $0.05 per gallon. In fact, domestic production has been steadily increasing over the last few years during these latest price increases.

                        • 1 vote
                        #5.8 - Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:20 AM EDT
                        Reply
                        RobPlumley

                        This is not going to do a thing. Driving and using less is by far the best alternative to saving dollars. An earlier comment about "let them rise" may very well be the best motivation for business and personal use of this very limited resource.

                        The price of fuel has been rising due to speculation, rather than supply and demand. Instead of using the reserves as a bludgeoning tool, why not stop the speculators, and at least have stable fuel prices.

                        • 1 vote
                        Reply#6 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:01 PM EDT
                        Mr. Miller-447368

                        Instead of using the reserves as a bludgeoning tool, why not stop the speculators, and at least have stable fuel prices.

                        Because it's much easier to sell your entire culture and country down the road than it is to do the right thing? Just guessing.

                          #6.1 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 PM EDT
                          Reply
                          ObamaIsGodAwful

                          How foolish, using our emergency reserves to take the heat off a failed President. There is no oil or gas shortage at this time, no national emergency. The high gas costs are from the price fixing and production fixing monopoly OPEC, and the high costs of production, transport, and taxation. Obama is increasing the baseline costs and subsidizing the market transiently with this market dump of cheap oil that we will eventually replace at a higher cost with newly purchased oil.

                          • 1 vote
                          Reply#7 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:17 PM EDT
                          scott9876

                          You could be drowning and President Obama could throw you a life preserver and you would complain about the color of the life preserver.

                          Get over it, the President is Black and that republican scam of being against everything the President is for will back-fire.

                          • 3 votes
                          #7.1 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:49 PM EDT
                          California Militia

                          i dont know, sounds alot like the last two years of bush's term...

                          LOL so i guess you can blame bush for making president bashing OK.

                          just had to say it....

                          • 1 vote
                          #7.2 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:10 PM EDT
                          BlueDevilBasher

                          Two wars going on 10 years and several middle-east oil nations on the verge of total anarchy.

                          Sounds like an *emergency* to me.

                          The republinazi are angry because it screws with their profit margins.

                            #7.3 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:37 PM EDT
                            ObamaIsGodAwful

                            Three wars total, don't forget Obama's war on Libyans.

                            Who do you think the government bought the oil from in the first place, and who they will buy it from to replace? Our profit margins are very safe.

                              #7.4 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:12 PM EDT
                              scott9876

                              war on Libyans

                              Maybe you should go over there and be a human shield.

                                #7.5 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:18 PM EDT
                                ObamaIsGodAwful

                                Maybe you should volunteer to go to D.C. to serve Obama as a panty shield.

                                • 1 vote
                                #7.6 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:40 PM EDT
                                mountainmike-1199289

                                And if Obama did not get involved in Libya and Gadhafi had slaughtered his own people, right wing Republicans would be criticizing Obama out of the other side of their mouths. Damned if you do and damned if you don't game. The only thing that is constant is the whining about Obama.

                                And if Bush/Cheney were still in office, they would have lied their butts off, invaded, and we would now have three unfunded, multi trillion dollar quagmires.

                                • 2 votes
                                #7.7 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:45 PM EDT
                                ObamaIsGodAwful

                                All Obama had to do was go to Congress and get approval. If the Congress said no, and if Gaddafi slaughtered people, it would fall on Congress. If Congress approved, then any blame would be shared.

                                Obama is a rogue President, too darn arrogant to bother following those annoying laws meant for lesser men.

                                  #7.8 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:50 PM EDT
                                  scott9876

                                  Idiot

                                    #7.9 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:14 PM EDT
                                    ObamaIsGodAwful

                                    CoH breaker. Pathetic.

                                      #7.10 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:23 PM EDT
                                      scott9876

                                      Yes I fell for a troll

                                        #7.11 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:45 PM EDT
                                        ObamaIsGodAwful

                                        Your crush on me is cute.

                                          #7.12 - Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:15 AM EDT
                                          scott9876

                                          ;-)

                                            #7.13 - Sat Jun 25, 2011 9:41 PM EDT
                                            Reply
                                            AlphaDogReporter

                                            This will not have a huge effect on pump prices since there is no oil shortage anyway. New drilling has been underway for several years, older wells are being refitted to pump more oil, and 70% of existing U.S. oil leases aren't even being tapped into yet. More symbolic and temporary than anything, the speculators will drive it right back up again.

                                            • 2 votes
                                            Reply#8 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:19 PM EDT
                                            scott9876

                                            Well if people dump out of it because it can be slowed or stopped by government efforts, its not a good investment?

                                              #8.1 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:52 PM EDT
                                              Reply
                                              California Militia

                                              The release by the International Energy Agency, a group of more than two dozen countries,

                                              i sure would like to know how much is being released by which countries, or is this a case like the UN where they decide to do something and its the US who has to dig deaper for other countries.

                                                Reply#9 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:09 PM EDT
                                                D. JermanoDeleted
                                                thecuban-3587246

                                                Guy's the U.S is only releasing 30 Mil barrels from the 727 Mil that we have in reserve... if the Obama administration thinks this is a political move of a positive nature i think he is going to be in for a surprise-i don't see Obama getting any KUDOS for this move. Gas is still going to be over 3 dollars a Gallon at the pump.. i see it different the American people ain't dumb am sorry Obama but i don't think your numbers at the polls are going to change.

                                                  Reply#11 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:11 PM EDT
                                                  ray.burchard

                                                  Nice gesture, to demonstrate a presidential concern for the lowly American voting, public consumer. And done without even challenging or offending America's plutocratic authority.

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  Reply#12 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:19 PM EDT
                                                  BetchaCantGuess

                                                  Sixty million barrels of oil is not even one day's consumption for the world.

                                                  We must focus on the supply and demand fundamentals in light of the growing number of people entering the middle class in the world's two most populous nations and the fact that oil production simply is not increasing as shown here:

                                                    Reply#13 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:23 PM EDT
                                                    Darkdonnie

                                                    US and others plan biggest release of reserve oil

                                                    And the uniformed constantly say the Obama has no control of the supply of oil. hmmmm

                                                    • 1 vote
                                                    Reply#14 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:24 PM EDT
                                                    scott9876

                                                    And the uniformed constantly say the Obama has no control of the supply of oil. hmmmm

                                                    Ok now you are just out right lying.

                                                      #14.1 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:58 PM EDT
                                                      Reply
                                                      Yearning

                                                      I wonder what they mean by "release".

                                                      Is this free oil for Exxon? How does this oil enter the market?

                                                        Reply#15 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:26 PM EDT
                                                        Tim Boothby

                                                        That's a lot of excitement for a 2.5-3 day supply of oil.

                                                        • 2 votes
                                                        Reply#16 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:36 PM EDT
                                                        mountainmike-1199289

                                                        Doing something instead of what the Republicans are doing - NOTHING but protecting big oil and Wall Street - is commendable.

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #16.1 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:44 PM EDT
                                                        Tim Boothby

                                                        NOTHING but protecting big oil and Wall Street - is commendable.

                                                        Well of course Dems are doing this, how else are they going to convince keep donating to them. Look at what $3 million from BP did to the Obama campaign fund in the last election, and all of the influence over the Gulf fiasco too.

                                                        Loyalty to a party over self interest is cute, but sad.

                                                          #16.2 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:19 PM EDT
                                                          mountainmike-1199289

                                                          Democrats passed a banking reform bill over Republican opposition. Guess who was paying Republicans gobs of money to obstruct and water down the bill. That's FACTUAL evidence, whether you want to consider it or not. When the BP Oil spill happened Big Oil paid Republicans gobs of money to water down or obstruct regulations that would come out of these government involvement.

                                                          • 1 vote
                                                          #16.3 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:41 PM EDT
                                                          Tim Boothby

                                                          So, you're trying to shift subjects because oil sticks to Democrats just as easily as it does to Republicans? The topic here is oil, derail in your own seeds.

                                                          By the way, you can badmouth the Republican party all you like, it's just as worthless as the Democratic party. They've been bought and paid for, the smart contributor/buyers have long since discovered that they can buy both parties as equally as just one, that includes big oil.

                                                            #16.4 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:51 PM EDT
                                                            Time Lord

                                                            Tim...

                                                            "...you can badmouth the Republican party all you like, it's just as worthless as the Democratic party...the smart contributor/buyers have long since discovered that they can buy both parties as equally as just one"

                                                            ...write on. There is so much "greasing the wheel" in Washington DC...how do folks think our "Career Politicians" got so slimy and slippery...? After spending DECADES in office, they have plenty of time to hone their "talents", spin their webs and pad their wallets. It's become so common place and "normalized"..."it's jus become business as usual on the hill." No one bats an eye...

                                                            But "We the People" keep bad mouthing one party over the other, bad mouthing the President, bad mouthing each other and the perps remain invisible...smiling, playing their smoke'n mirrors game, while we remain transfixed on the partisan political "springer show".

                                                            Oh...by the way, the grape kool-aid in the break room cooler is getting low. Somebody needs to call the "guy"...can we git cherry this time...? Ah like cherry

                                                            • 2 votes
                                                            #16.5 - Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:49 AM EDT
                                                            Reply
                                                            datsun1

                                                            Now the simple people can see how complicated the world really is, that's why not just anyone can do the leadership job. It takes more than looks and talk.

                                                            Great move mr president, that's the way to handle those idiots who control the oil supplies and pricings of the world. Blind sided their azzes, that's the way you handle all idiots who think that they are so smart, and don't know dada.

                                                            True this strategic move caught those idiots off guard and it's not a permenate solution, but it sends a loud message, and that my friends makes it worth while, I would give a days wages to see the looks on their pastey faces right about now, LMAO.

                                                            It probably means war now, pay back is a mother. But will we let the idiots intimidate us? Hell no we want go.

                                                              Reply#17 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:26 PM EDT
                                                              Bill WisdomDeleted
                                                              RosellaCampbellDeleted
                                                              Tony Wlliams

                                                              Forcing a drop in price is good but opening a refiner would be better.

                                                              It would mean jobs, it would mean an increase in refined product, and more important that increase would force prices even lower.

                                                                Reply#20 - Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:05 AM EDT
                                                                Tim Boothby

                                                                And it spreads out the refineries even more so the loss of one in minimized

                                                                  #20.1 - Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:16 AM EDT
                                                                  Reply
                                                                  Bill WisdomDeleted
                                                                  almasmith

                                                                  Thanks for showing up such fabulous information. I like this post, keep writing and give informative post...!

                                                                    Reply#22 - Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:12 AM EDT
                                                                    Patrick Crowley

                                                                    If the picture shown in one MSNBC news site is correct there are contracted security military personnel guarding a site where there are emergency fuel reserves kept.

                                                                    We had a speech not all that long ago from President Obama declaring no release of emergency reserve fuel should happen for economic reasons.

                                                                    These two things combined may add up to a problem of an emerging threat to our Country. One would be that the costs are to high for private contracted guards to be watching over fuel reserves. The next would be the transparency of our undeclared emergency.

                                                                    Congress if something looks wrong your branch of government is designed to over look these proceeding and use sound judgement. If any insider trading is the threat then it should be very apparent from whom it is coming from and where.

                                                                    PS: This is in no way a jab at the President of the United States of America. I do not believe Mr Obama would make this decision. If it were me I would immediately place all military personnel on an caution alert. That means secure that oil and all Congressional personnel with tighter security and be on a the ready. Or at least take an inventory of whats taking place there.

                                                                    This is just an honest opinion.

                                                                      Reply#23 - Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:26 AM EDT
                                                                      Gokulram Arunasalam

                                                                      The 60 mb of oil is only a couple of days of demand, so not sure this will have any sustainable impact on crude oil prices. Appears more to do with sentiment.

                                                                        Reply#24 - Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:30 PM EDT
                                                                        Leave a Comment:
                                                                        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                        You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                                        (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                                        Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                                        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                                        FUN STUFF:
                                                                        • Leaderboard |
                                                                        • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                                        • Top of the Vine |
                                                                        • Newsvine Live |
                                                                        • Newsvine Archives |
                                                                        • The Greenhouse
                                                                        COMPANY STUFF:
                                                                        • Code of Honor |
                                                                        • Company Info |
                                                                        • Contact Us |
                                                                        • Jobs |
                                                                        • User Agreement |
                                                                        • Privacy Policy |
                                                                        • About our ads
                                                                        LEGAL STUFF:
                                                                        • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                        • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                        • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com