ok, let's try to start something here....

Anyone else left a little underwhelmed by the actual contents of the article given the scintillating headline that accompanied it? Let's go through each one:

"Tankers full of oil its owners don't want to sell" - So traders are sitting on oil in anticipation of a sharp spike in prices in the future. So what? In fact, isn't this a good thing? Right now, demand is low due to the global recession, supply is relatively high so we don't necessarily need that excess supply. When demand takes off and oil prices start spiking, these oil traders will start selling off their supplies which will help to increase supply to keep up with the spike in demand and regulate prices.

"Shady deals with brutal regimes" - Yup, no argument here. Anytime an entire industry is nationalized you are begging for corruption. Sometimes nationalization is still worth it, sometimes not. With oil a nationalized industry in so many countries, the big boys like BP and the like are going to have shady deals with brutal regimes. Doesn't make it right, but it's going to happen and it's nothing new. Also, the article made mention of a deal with the Congo in which oil proceeds were used to pay off the president's kid's credit card bill. Is that the fault of the oil traders that made the deal? If I buy a Slurpee from a 7-11, and the owner of that 7-11 uses the proceeds of that sale to fund a meth habit, am I somehow responsible?

"Vast profits" - Today, yes, vast profits. But if the anticipated spike in oil prices do not materialize then those vast profits will start turning red pretty quick. The oil traders are taking a chance here that the big guys like BP apparently aren't willing to take. If they are right, then they'll make a lot of money and we'll benefit as mentioned earlier. If they are wrong then they'll end up losing lots of money with no harm to us.

"Pollution scandals" - Oil is dirty, and until people and governments get serious about finding alternatives oil companies are going to have pollution scandals. When it happens there should be serious consequences, and if there aren't serious consequences that's not the fault of the oil companies.

This may shock some of you, but I'm with Al on this one. While this article definitely portrays a side of the oil trade that perhaps doesn't get a lot of press, there's nothing particularly aberrant or unusual about it, given the forces that have made oil what it is today.

Sure, there's a third party working the system, but as Al pointed out, they're willing to incur bigger risk for larger gains. Would we, as consumers, love to see that oil they're sitting on dumped onto the market, hoping that prices at the pump nosedive? That seems to be what the writer is implying, but it just ain't that simple.

Agreed, a little sensationalized given the title, but the practice of paying for floating storage is what caught my attention...holy crap is that a high stakes gamble. I am either amazed at the simplicity of the situation, or my own lack of creativity for not thinking of it.