????這個(gè)十年之前，從未聽(tīng)說(shuō)過(guò)原油價(jià)格一天內(nèi)會(huì)暴漲幾美元，除非美國(guó)實(shí)施貿(mào)易禁運(yùn)或即將參戰(zhàn)。而且即使到了這種地步，油價(jià)也沒(méi)有高到難以承受的水平（回想一下，2003年3月伊拉克戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)打響前的整個(gè)月油價(jià)都沒(méi)超過(guò)38美元/桶，更不要說(shuō)100美元了。）

????然而，如今天下太平，我們看到的油價(jià)波動(dòng)幅度卻讓昔日戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)時(shí)期的上漲也相形見(jiàn)絀。盡管美國(guó)石油學(xué)會(huì)（American Petroleum Institute）6月份的公告顯示，美國(guó)石油供應(yīng)達(dá)到了30多年來(lái)的高點(diǎn)，但油價(jià)一天內(nèi)猛漲2美元/桶（包括周二）的情形已司空見(jiàn)慣。

????背后的原因到底何在？這已經(jīng)成為不下十幾個(gè)政府部門(mén)的燙手山芋，包括美國(guó)司法部（U.S. Department of Justice）、全美州際檢察長(zhǎng)協(xié)會(huì)（National Association of Attorneys General）、美國(guó)商品期貨交易委員會(huì)（Commodity Futures Trading Commission）、聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局（Federal Bureau of Investigation）、聯(lián)邦能源監(jiān)管委員會(huì)（Federal Energy Regulatory Commission）、國(guó)土安全部（Department of Homeland Security）、聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)（Federal Trade Commission）、財(cái)政部（Department of the Treasury）、聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)備委員會(huì)（Federal Reserve Board）、證券交易委員會(huì)（Securities and Exchange Commission）、農(nóng)業(yè)部（Department of Agriculture），當(dāng)然能源部（Department of Energy）也位列其中。

????雖然各路精英對(duì)于過(guò)去十年油價(jià)為何會(huì)暴漲630%各持己見(jiàn)（到底是因?yàn)橥稒C(jī)因素還是因?yàn)榛久嫱苿?dòng)?），有一個(gè)事實(shí)勿庸置疑：容易開(kāi)采的油田越來(lái)越少，持續(xù)推高油價(jià)。忽視這一點(diǎn)，無(wú)論是對(duì)我們的消費(fèi)者，還是對(duì)美國(guó)國(guó)家安全都不是什么好消息。

????華盛頓的說(shuō)辭一如既往地洋洋灑灑，也一如既往地毫無(wú)作用。一趟趟的調(diào)查、一撥撥的工作組和種種質(zhì)詢沒(méi)有任何結(jié)果，即便這些調(diào)查可能持續(xù)幾年，花掉納稅人大把的銀子。注意，最近有幾位參議員乃至奧巴馬總統(tǒng)都親自過(guò)問(wèn)，對(duì)此事施壓。

????華盛頓州民主黨參議員瑪利亞?坎特維爾在兩周前的一次參議院聽(tīng)證會(huì)上發(fā)問(wèn)，希望了解美國(guó)司法部大力宣揚(yáng)的油氣價(jià)格欺詐工作組（Oil and Gas Price Fraud Working Group）的工作進(jìn)展；除了上面列出的很多聯(lián)邦政府機(jī)構(gòu)，該工作組還包括州一級(jí)的監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)。美國(guó)司法部確實(shí)承諾將“監(jiān)控油氣市場(chǎng)，發(fā)現(xiàn)可能存在的刑事或民事犯罪行為，防止消費(fèi)者權(quán)益受到非法侵害”，但它一直避而不談具體做法?？蔡鼐S爾一直以對(duì)能源市場(chǎng)的強(qiáng)硬立場(chǎng)而著稱，當(dāng)初她還是一名資歷尚淺的參議員，就已經(jīng)同安然（Enron）展開(kāi)了較量。她曾經(jīng)指出，這一丑聞證明“惡劣的市場(chǎng)操縱行為的的確確存在”。

????今年4月，這個(gè)司法部工作組在奧巴馬總統(tǒng)授意下成立，但此后一直沒(méi)什么動(dòng)靜。這令人失望，因?yàn)樗痉ú渴锹?lián)邦政府中僅有的少數(shù)幾個(gè)按法律規(guī)定、有權(quán)將嫌犯繩之以法并送入監(jiān)獄的部門(mén)之一——這不同于民事違法，民事違法只需接受罰款（而且通常支付的罰款額也遠(yuǎn)低于他們違法所得）?！拔覀児膭?lì)政府部門(mén)間加強(qiáng)正式和非正式的溝通，以及信息共享，”司法部的一位發(fā)言人稱?！捌駷橹?，還沒(méi)有認(rèn)定存在民事或刑事欺詐的案例?！?/p>

????信息共享？采取這樣的策略后，違法者最好小心著點(diǎn)。

????Before this decade, it was unheard of for crude oil prices to jump a few dollars a day unless the U.S. was under a trade embargo or about to go to war. And even then, the outright price of oil was hardly prohibitive (recall that for the entire month leading up to the Iraq war in March 2003, oil did not cross $38 a barrel, let alone $100).

????Yet today, without a major media event in sight, we witness price swings that would put the wartime spikes of yesteryear to shame. Despite the American Petroleum Institute's pronouncement in June that oil supplies in the U.S. hit a high not seen in more than three decades, the two-buck oil price pop – including today's – is now seen as commonplace.

????Why? It has become a nettlesome question for no fewer than a dozen government departments and agencies, among them the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Agriculture and, of course, the Department of Energy.

????While intelligent minds may differ as to why oil prices have risen as much as 630% over the past decade – speculation or fundamentals? – one fact is no longer up for debate: a shift seems to have taken place in oil-patch tectonics that's keeping prices propped up. And the cost of ignoring it does not bode well for consumers or our national security.

????The rhetoric offered by Washington has been as impressive as it has been ineffectual, with a flurry of investigations, working groups and general inquiries coming up empty, even as they stretch for years into the future, racking up taxpayer dollars. Taking note, a handful of senators and even President Obama have recently ramped up the pressure.

????Maria Cantwell, Democratic senator from Washington state, advanced questions during a Senate hearing two weeks ago meant to ascertain the progress of the Department of Justice's much-touted Oil and Gas Price Fraud Working Group, which involves many of the agencies listed above, in addition to state authorities. Pledging to "monitor oil and gas markets for potential violations of criminal or civil laws to safeguard against unlawful consumer harm," the DOJ has sought to uncover unlawful activity in the energy market, though it has shied away from explaining exactly how. Cantwell is known for her strong positions on energy market issues after tangling with Enron while still a junior senator. The scandal, she has noted, proved "that fierce market manipulation does happen."

????Since it formed in April at the behest of President Obama, very little has been heard from the DOJ working group. This is disappointing, as the DOJ is one of the only arms of the federal government with the statutory power to bring suspects to justice and imprison them, as opposed to civil offenders, who are simply fined (and usually pay much less than they profited in breaking the law.) "We are encouraging an increase in communication, both formal and informal, and information-sharing among the government agencies," a DOJ spokeswoman says. "So far, there have been no particular cases of finding fraud, civil or criminal."

????Information-sharing? With tactics like that, offenders better watch out.