WTI Crude Oil Just Went Up Another Dollar/Bbl; Active Rigs In North Dakota Down To 185

Active rigs: in North Dakota, down to 185 --

	6/12/2014	06/12/2013	06/12/2012	06/12/2011	06/12/2010
Active Rigs	185	187	211	169	125

Updates

Later, 9:39 p.m. CDT: wow, Fox News.com is full of Iraqi stories and yet there is almost nothing on CNN.com. Amazing. CNN.com still has the "near-miss in 1961" story. 

Later, 8:40 p.m. CDT: is it over? Is the war over in Iraq? The Iraq story is no long the headline story. The headline story is about a near-miss back in 1961. The next story if "five surprising facts about the JFK assassination." I can't make this stuff up. Stories related to the Iraqi "drama' suggest that it is all over but the celebratory shooting. Deep in the sidebar at CNN.com there is story / headline that is almost lost: Russian tanks enter the Ukraine. And the top story in CNN.com is about a near-miss back in 1961? This is the network that couldn't get enough of the lost Malaysian jet, and already the Iraqi story is old news?

Original Post

I don't  have access to cable television so I don't know what's going on, but Drudge Report says "Baghdad falling."

I have not gone to the link and I have not read the story but if that's true, my comments earlier about regime change by the weekend seem prescient. I believe I was the first Bakken blogger with no ads who said that.

If regular readers have not already bookmarked a site for oil futures, you might want to start tonight. It's getting exciting.

WTI oil has just jumped a dollar and has breached/breeched $107. I track oil futures at various sites, but Bloomberg seems most dependable: http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/

Memo to self: check Merriam-Websters on breached/breeched.

I personally thought the "oil speculators" were slow off the starting block. For the first 24 hours of ISIS shock and awe in northern Iraq there was hardly any movement in the price of WTI or Brent.

In hindsight, the surprise factor of ISIS will compare with American's own day that will live in infamy, December 7, 1941. Remember, how the US telegraphed for months the coming Iraqi invasion. From what I can tell, no one was more surprised than the White House with how fast ISIS moved. I'm impressed. Look at the size of that army sweeping (the word used by The New York Times) down from Mosul -- that's an Army the size of Patton's 3rd Army without the tanks. Obviously all those vehicles had to have been staged somewhere. They all had to be filled with gasoline or diesel. They all had to have drivers. They all had to have had a D-Day/H-Hour plan. And all of that had to have been seen by NSA / NRO satellites. If the NSA did not know where to look, Mr Maliki told them where to look.  I don't think the press has caught on to how big this surprise attack was. This was not a bunch of rag-tags from Syria. This has a lot of professional Army War College written all over it. As in Russian Army War College. [Apparently Iran had nothing to do with this. Iran has reportedly offered to send in its elite troops to help the Baghdad government.]

But I digress. I had not planned to go down that road but then I just checked the news.  Back to where I was originally headed.

There is a second story here. The price of crude oil since this story began has had three legs (so far):

• the first leg was the first 24 hours; almost no movement; everyone caught by surprise
• the second leg was the second 24 hours; it started to sink in, but then the price seemed to level off
• now, the third leg, the third 24 hours, and the price of oil is starting to surge.

The question is why did the price of oil level off and then surge again. Why was there not a surge, going to high, and then dropping back a bit? Again, what explains what happened between/during the second stage and the third stage?

The answer? It has to do with the comments that Mr Obama made at the White House regarding the Iraqi situation. Those comments were released at 1:27 EDT on CNN.com. The price of oil was surging at that time but then leveled off; Mr Obama was speaking on the issue and "speculators" thought the US was ready to act.

But, the words were incredibly empty. "Speculators" were waiting to see how ISIS/Syria/Iran/Russia would react to Mr Obama's comments. "Speculators" assumed that once the President of the United States spoke, the insurgents would stop. Even the White House said -- and they used that word -- hoped that the insurgents would slow down their sweep toward Baghdad.

Now that the president's comments have been translated and discussed among ISIS/Syria/Iran/Russia, it's almost as if the marauders have been given the green light. It looks like Mr Obama is about ready to form an international committee to study the situation. I assume John Kerry will be dispatched to Germany. Chuck Hagel will be dispatched to an undisclosed location. Joe Biden will be asked to not say anything.

We know a couple of things. Like Mr Obama's "all of the above" energy policy that does not include coal or nuclear energy, his "all of the above" Iraqi policy does not include boots on the ground and did not include pre-emptive airstrikes. The insurgents especially liked the idea about "no boots on the ground."

The only thing that disappointed me in his remarks, was that he did not draw a "red line in the sand." I really don't know where he intends to stop the marauders.

Maybe that's why WTI crude oil just jumped another dollar: "speculators" noted the president did not say anything about a red line.

I'm still waiting for Christiane Amanpour to appear on Al-Jazeera reporting from the Baghdad Hilton-ISIS headquarters.

By the time Mr Obama speaks again, it could be all over for Mr Maliki.

The third story: if Mr Obama does not change his plans, and does not remain in the situation room in Washington, DC, he a) will be telegraphing the world he really doesn't care; b) knows that ISIS Iraq is fair accompli; or, c) he has no strategy to respond and his legacy is being written as I write.