Got Gas? U.S. Economy to Worsen as Gas Prices Skyrocket

[ElFenix]

You are the one with a reading problem as pointed out and proven over and over again.

I will spell it out slowly to see if you can comprehend.

Gibbs says domestic oil production up

Shell says domestic oil production down

Shell said U.S. production was 10 million barrels a day and now is 7 million barrels a day.

Again, which one is lying?

'null' is the proper response to this.

 

[no cigar]

Enron hid money from hedged swaps to form long-term borrowing using various counterparties and the differences in how the counterparties made them post collateral.

I am not sure Enron should ever be a good example for anything sans poor risk management and company executives that steal from shareholders.

Exchanges and regulators continue to focus on this idea of liquidity and a good market is as liquid as possible. That is why they continue to allow both HFT's and speculation in the commodities market. Until one can make the argument that speculation causes more harm than the liquidity it provides, regulators will continue to allow huge amounts of speculation.

I believe he is referring to the way in which Enron traders were able to manipulate the market for electricity generation and drive the prices through the roof in the middle of shortages in CA, by such means as phoning in orders to power plants to shut down in an effort to remove generation from the grid and artificially causing a shortage.

Much in the way that today, energy traders are throwing massive amounts of cash into speculative oil positions as well as other commodities ONLY to benefit from the fluctuations in prices and creating synthetic demand.

“This is just a big infusion of speculative capital,“ said Jim Ritterbusch, president of advisory firm Ritterbusch and Associates in Illinois.

So it's investors who are buying paper contracts (not physical assets) for purposes of trading for a profit (not for the use of the asset). I always thought of the notion of a market such as oil, food, etc., was to efficiently link buyers and sellers of a commodity -- for instance, like a cattle rancher and a meat packer. From what I see, when you throw in the X-factor of billions, if not trillions of investor capital into these markets, it makes them inefficient for the person for whom the market is meant.

 

[The-Noid]

So it's investors who are buying paper contracts (not physical assets) for purposes of trading for a profit (not for the use of the asset). I always thought of the notion of a market such as oil, food, etc., was to efficiently link buyers and sellers of a commodity -- for instance, like a cattle rancher and a meat packer. From what I see, when you throw in the X-factor of billions, if not trillions of investor capital into these markets, it makes them inefficient for the person for whom the market is meant.

I can't disagree. However regulators continue to go back to "speculators provide liquidity." Until someone can definitively quantify the negatives of speculation and they outweigh what regulators view as the positives (liquidity) regulators I am confident will continue to side with speculators.

The same argument is used for High Frequency Traders as well. The majority of HFT's provide absolutely no benefit to the markets, in that the liquidity they provide is pulled away as soon as their algo can't handle it. In a normal up and down slow market they provide liquidity to make a penny/share here and there, however as soon as you see big spikes in volume and volatility they are gone.

It's amazing how many times relatively smallish orders, clear huge levels of order book. The liquidity that HFT provides is and continues to be for all intents and purposes fake, see any of the hundreds of studies NANEX has done now.

 

[blackangst1]

You are the one with a reading problem as pointed out and proven over and over again.

I will spell it out slowly to see if you can comprehend.

Gibbs says domestic oil production up

Shell says domestic oil production down

Shell said U.S. production was 10 million barrels a day and now is 7 million barrels a day.

Again, which one is lying?

Actually, theyre both right. Per Gibbs, production is at an 8 year high. Per Shell, we're producing 7m/day when we used to produce 10m/day. He just didnt say when.

 

[ElFenix]

Actually, theyre both right. Per Gibbs, production is at an 8 year high. Per Shell, we're producing 7m/day when we used to produce 10m/day. He just didnt say when.

the guy isn't shell, and doesn't work there anymore.

which is why the answer is 'null'

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yaaaaaay!!!! Both are right and the answer to the question is null!!!

 

[blackangst1]

the guy isn't shell, and doesn't work there anymore.

which is why the answer is 'null'

Irrelevant. He wasnt speaking on Shell's behalf. And he is still correct.

Null is the incorrect answer. Both were right is the correct answer.

 

[ElFenix]

Irrelevant. He wasnt speaking on Shell's behalf. And he is still correct.

Null is the incorrect answer. Both were right is the correct answer.

dave said 'shell' made the claim. that is incorrect, shell did not make the claim. so dave's question couldn't be answered as asked. you substituted a different question based on the actual article, rather than dave's. nothing wrong with that. but the answer to dave's question was null because it asked something else: did shell lie? well, shell didn't make the claim. so the question was nonsense.

 

[blackangst1]

dave said 'shell' made the claim. that is incorrect, shell did not make the claim. so dave's question couldn't be answered as asked. you substituted a different question based on the actual article, rather than dave's. nothing wrong with that. but the answer to dave's question was null because it asked something else: did shell lie? well, shell didn't make the claim. so the question was nonsense.

lol got it.

Did Shell lie or was the post a lie? :whiste:

 

[blackangst1]

Who is lying Gibbs or Shell?

2-21-2012

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...as-prices-head-toward-record-breaking-height/

Domestic production eyed as gas prices head toward record-breaking height


President Obama's re-elect team defended White House energy policy on Sunday as gas prices shoot toward the $4 mark and beyond, a level that could devastate voters' pocketbooks as well as Obama's chances for a second term.

Robert Gibbs, said the president is looking to increase domestic energy production. ​

"Just on Friday, the Department of Interior issued permits that will expand our exploration in the Arctic. The president has increased our fuel efficiency and energy efficiency standards so we do use less energy, which will help drive down the price," Gibbs said. "Our domestic oil production is at an eight-year high, and our use of foreign oil is at a 16-year low. So we're making progress."


But John Hofmeister, former CEO of Shell Oil and founder of Citizens for Affordable Energy, told Fox News that oil production today is only 7 million barrels per day when it used to be 10 million per day.

"One out of every six Americans is unemployed, working part-time, looking for full-time work or so discouraged they're -- they've dropped out of the workforce altogether, and gas is now $3.53 a gallon, going to $4," said former George W. Bush senior adviser Karl Rove, a Fox News contributor.

"If I were in the White House, I wouldn't be picking out my second term office just yet," Rove said.


"You can't guarantee anything. But you guarantee under the Obama plan, there's going to be less American production, higher prices. We already have highest price on average in history," said Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich

Gibbs, who appeared on ABC's "This Week," acknowledged that "there are no magic bullets," he said the president is focused on an "all-of-the-above energy policy."

We're going to have to conserve energy. ​

We're going to have to make the energy we use more efficient. ​

All of those things will help us get ahead of this problem," he said.
​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Post reported as violation of rule 1.

1. No thread-crapping, thread-derailment, off-topic posting, trolling, the intentional posting of logical fallacies or misinformation.

Shell, nor a Shell representitive, were quoted in the article.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Ut Oh....looks like Dave needs to read the articles he posts thoroughly and make sure his opinion matches what's said in the article.

This is going to be fun.

 

[dmcowen674]

Oh look the righty circle jerk continues, colored me surprised.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The good news for those willing to set aside their pride for a commuter car is that there are many options now for cars that easily average into the 30's for MPG, and starting next month the cheapest Prius costs under $20k, delivering 53 mpg city on 87 grade.

Purchasing a hybrid is beginning to look like a better and better investment. I bet the new Prius-C's will fly off the lots. Hopefully all of the automakers will get off the butts and produce economy-car-priced hybrids in mass.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Any predictions for how badly this will hurt the nation's economy? Will it be:

"So long economic recovery, if you ever existed at all, we hardly knew ya?"

 

[IGBT]

let it go to ten dollars a gallon or more. that's what you obama and the eco-KOOKS want. then watch the economy twist in the wind. Lets see what kind of utopian excuses your obama comes up with to justify "sky rocketing" energy prices.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Could someone please explain what exactly Obama has allegedly done to increase the price of gasoline?

 

[monovillage]

Could someone please explain what exactly Obama has allegedly done to increase the price of gasoline?

He sneaks out at night and changes the signs. Everyone knows this.

 

[1prophet]

I can't disagree. However regulators continue to go back to "speculators provide liquidity." Until someone can definitively quantify the negatives of speculation and they outweigh what regulators view as the positives (liquidity) regulators I am confident will continue to side with speculators.

The same argument is used for High Frequency Traders as well. The majority of HFT's provide absolutely no benefit to the markets, in that the liquidity they provide is pulled away as soon as their algo can't handle it. In a normal up and down slow market they provide liquidity to make a penny/share here and there, however as soon as you see big spikes in volume and volatility they are gone.

It's amazing how many times relatively smallish orders, clear huge levels of order book. The liquidity that HFT provides is and continues to be for all intents and purposes fake, see any of the hundreds of studies NANEX has done now.

The problem with no skin in the game speculation is they are extracting wealth from people who can least afford it like at the pump when there is no problem with the supply.

It was wrong in the past , wrong today, and wrong in the future no matter what financial mumbo jumbo the criminals in wall street use to justify it so they can line their pockets at the expense of the those struggling to get by.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I don't have an issue with speculators as long as they can physically take possession of the commodity they're buying and selling.

 

[1prophet]

Purchasing a hybrid is beginning to look like a better and better investment. I bet the new Prius-C's will fly off the lots. Hopefully all of the automakers will get off the butts and produce economy-car-priced hybrids in mass.

It's better if you can afford to keep it under warranty at all times and not pay for any repairs by constantly trading it in.

Those that can't are going to be in a world of hurt when they find out their local mechanic can barely work on it.

 

[dmcowen674]

I don't have an issue with speculators as long as they can physically take possession of the commodity they're buying and selling.

Woa

Probably the only thing we will ever agree on

 

[The-Noid]

I don't have an issue with speculators as long as they can physically take possession of the commodity they're buying and selling.

There aren't enough transactions that are back-to-back (buyer to seller with a broker) to be able to do this. i.e. there are many more sellers in the crude market than there are natural buyers.

There are some speculators that have to be in the market, i.e. banks/investment banks that need to hold orders until they can complete a back to back transaction (Market Making). This is however very different than the proprietary trading that many banks are known for now days. Hopefully however the Volker rule will alleviate some of these concerns.

I do agree that there are too many speculators (ETF's, hedge funds, pensions, investment companies, etc.) that tend to be long biased and are buyers as an inflation hedge that shouldn't be in the market.

 

[werepossum]

I can't disagree. However regulators continue to go back to "speculators provide liquidity." Until someone can definitively quantify the negatives of speculation and they outweigh what regulators view as the positives (liquidity) regulators I am confident will continue to side with speculators.

The same argument is used for High Frequency Traders as well. The majority of HFT's provide absolutely no benefit to the markets, in that the liquidity they provide is pulled away as soon as their algo can't handle it. In a normal up and down slow market they provide liquidity to make a penny/share here and there, however as soon as you see big spikes in volume and volatility they are gone.

It's amazing how many times relatively smallish orders, clear huge levels of order book. The liquidity that HFT provides is and continues to be for all intents and purposes fake, see any of the hundreds of studies NANEX has done now.

There aren't enough transactions that are back-to-back (buyer to seller with a broker) to be able to do this. i.e. there are many more sellers in the crude market than there are natural buyers.

There are some speculators that have to be in the market, i.e. banks/investment banks that need to hold orders until they can complete a back to back transaction (Market Making). This is however very different than the proprietary trading that many banks are known for now days. Hopefully however the Volker rule will alleviate some of these concerns.

I do agree that there are too many speculators (ETF's, hedge funds, pensions, investment companies, etc.) that tend to be long biased and are buyers as an inflation hedge that shouldn't be in the market.

There really should be a way to reduce the impact of such traders, if only by reducing their leverage, without losing the positive impact of futures trading. Though I'm not really sure if oil futures trading is even necessary anymore from the suppliers' perspective, though it's probably quite profitable. I can still see the hedge value for really large consumers, but I'm sure they'd love to have all the people looking to make money shut out of the market. If the buyer had to have at least the ability to take physical possession of the oil and the liquidity to purchase it, would that significantly reduce oil prices while leaving adequate liquidity? Or is the entire speculator debate pretty much a red herring?

 

[AlienCraft]

Hang on.

Did you know there is so much excess refining capability in the U.S. now that the number one export for the country as a whole last year was shipping out gasoline?

There is so much excess capability that they are closing down existing refineries permanently.

Where have you've been?

No I didn't know that, that's why I made the statement. Do you have something to back that up? I have heard many reports of lack of domestic refining capability (no new construction, NIMBY,et al) as well as the increased demand of India,China as the reason our price is subject to upward pressure. I know we export a great deal of refined product, but in the mean time since it's cheaper & easier for Big Oil to build refineries there, they are. I also know that our use of gasoline was down again last year, yet prices still go up.
Into the looking glass, Alice.


Arco Regular $3.839 / Ga All over Sacramento today.

Chevron Downtown $3.939 / ga
It's not going down to $2.00/ga unless Mr.Gingrinch nationalizes the oil companies like Mr.Chavez does!

 

[AlienCraft]

It's better if you can afford to keep it under warranty at all times and not pay for any repairs by constantly trading it in.

Those that can't are going to be in a world of hurt when they find out their local mechanic can barely work on it.

I drive about 80,000 miles a year for work. That sucker has to last for at least 4 years. One driver just bought a Salvage Titled one and We will just see how it handles the daily use we put on them.
I would love to have the Braking Regeneration system on the Scion xB. The Prius chassis is larger than the xB ver1.0.
<<< Getting out before I hijack this into a car modification thread.....:whiste: