with OPEC looking at 170$ per Barrel for middle of the summer following some trouble in Lybia and preparing for an additional 100% increase just in case the Iranian discussion gets out of hand the forcast is getting grim if you keep a volatile President in DC in mind.

it seems Citibank and ML still need more capital and have more downwriting to do:

 

"Goldman expects Citigroup to take $9 billion in write-downs during the second quarter and Merrill to take $4.2 billion in write downs in the quarter. Both firms are scheduled to report their second-quarter results in mid-July."

Included GS advice to go for Short Selling on CITI Shares.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/ratings-game-sour-brokers-goldman/story.aspx?guid={0E71A69B-89B9-4F59-833A-EEC16048DE28}&dist=hplatest

If someone looks at the arguments from Lybia and follows it with a bit of DD one finds that on May 21,2008, the U.S. House overwhelmingly passed a bill authorizing Sherman Act enforcement against OPEC. Among the proponents of the idea was The Heritage Foundation.

In Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California (1993), the Supreme Court ruled that the Sherman Act could be applied to the acts of foreign corporations committed in foreign countries, if the purpose and effect the foreign acts was in part aimed at the U.S., which OPEC's actions obviously are. So even without the explicit language in the House bill, the Sherman Act allows anti-OPEC lawsuits. (And, notably, the Sherman Act, as amended by the Clayton Act, is much friendlier to civil enforcement by private parties than are the antitrust laws of most other nations.) Accordingly, the real barrier to an anti-OPEC Sherman case is the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. Indeed, in 1978 the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers brought a Sherman Act case against OPEC, only to lose the case on FSIA grounds. So the House bill creates an exception to FSIA for anti-OPEC suits.

Anyone surprise there is a reaction from OPEC members?