Why Are the Big Financial Institutions Selling Oil BIG? (From Oilprice.com)

The following article published on March 7, 2013 by Torkel Nyberg is reprinted from Oilprice.com with permission. E-Cat World does not necessarily endorse the views expressed here, but the article deals with topics that could be of interest to our readers. The original article can be found here.

Why Are the Big Financial Institutions Selling Oil BIG?

A Crude LENR Hypothesis

For two years now, Sifferkoll has been following the energy markets in relation to a possible LENR (cold fusion) technological breakthrough. The basic idea is that, if there is an information advantage, the big banks will acquire it and use it to make as much money as possible. If such actions can be shown, it is in itself good indications of a proven breakthrough.

And there is money to be made. Not yet from the new technology, but from a plunging energy market (oil, coal, natural gas, etc.). The Commitment of Traders report (CoT) published weekly by CFTC (U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission) has been analysed. This report shows the actions and positions of the different market participants in the crude oil futures market. It reveals some interesting data.

Crude Oil WTI Weekly
Fig 1, Crude oil futures; price, CoT (standard & disaggregated report). Please click to enlarge.

At some point during the fall of 2010 there was a large policy shift in hedging crude oil on the NYMEX futures exchange by the big banks and the oil companies. Up to that point the hedgers of crude have largely been the producers as they want to hedge their production against future price movements. On the buy side there was the big financial institutions (Swap Dealers = JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, etc), and the money managers (large pension funds, hedge funds, etc.), that speculate in a price increase.

But during the fall of 2010 this state of affairs changed. From being net-long 200 thousand contracts, the banks became net-short in a couple of months. Their selling has since continued. And now, by March 2013, they are net-short 300 thousand contracts (300 million barrels of oil = $30 billion). See the green lines in the chart above.

At the same time the producers have liquidated their 200 thousand contract short position (blue line above). They are no longer hedging as they used to. And they’ve done it in a very consistent way. It looks almost unreal, buying an equal amount of contracts each month for two years.

During this time the banks have consistently been using a strategy to buy weakness and sell strength during their massive net-selling. As if their strategy was to build a huge short position and at the same time stabilize price. The conclusion is that the banks are now net-short about 300 thousand contracts at a price about $90-$95.

On the buy side the money managers went from being neutral by fall of 2010 to being net-long 250 thousand contracts as of today. This is of course the big funds, and in the end pensions and savings. They are now net-long oil and of course net-long all the producers (oil stocks).

Researching this strategy change has given very little information. One article though, from July 2012, touches on the subject. No answers and no explanations though. Insidefutures.com

Following the Commitments of Traders Report (CoT) does however reveal a great deal of information. The standard report shows the commercial traders, (oil companies and banks), large speculators (big funds) and smaller speculators (the rest). The disaggregated report also shows the position of banks and producers respectively. Both these reports are shown in the graph above. The combination does tell us that something is going on, but what?

Something real is going on, but what?

Why are the producers abandoning their decade long hedging strategy? Why are the banks selling oil like crazy and at the same time actively acting to stabilize the market, probably in the range $80-$100? What information do the big banks and big oil use to make these decisions? Is this information readily available?

Hypothetically: What if the first customer of Rossi actually is the US Navy? What if the US Navy know for sure that the 1MW E-cat works (because they have bought several)? What if they actually knew this even before the first public demo of the E-Cat in January 2011? Since the test was decided upon sometime during the fall of 2010 and Rossi himself says he had run a heater in a Bologna factory during a year before that, it looks reasonable. So let’s assume that this is the case.

It is certainly in the big banks interest to know about these things, and they do have the resources to find out, and keep quiet about it. It is also well known that US entities like SPAWAR and NASA have researched LENR for some time. There are documents that show that they acknowledge the technology and have done so for some time. However, so far, not on the industrial scale of the 1 MW E-cat.

Since US entities acknowledge LENR, they did what was needed to verify the E-cat when they heard about it. Because even if they thought the E-cat was a scam, they could not afford not to check on it.  Even a minute chance that Rossi was on to something would cover the expense and risk. The money involved are simply too big for a miss like that.

Also, if US military entities know, then the big banks know, and at least the producers where the big banks have big interests know. Anyhow, they certainly know by now if the first customer is the US Navy, as Rossi (almost) says, and nobody denies.

The thirty billion dollar question is how to make as much money as possible from this information.

First they probably thought that the E-Cat demo could get the price of oil to drop already in the beginning of 2011. They certainly was prepared for it by February 2011, as the aggregated net-short position of big banks and producers was in excess of 300 thousand contracts already at that time. But the price went up, since media did not catch on and other issues (like the war in Libya) were much more important for the oil market at the moment.

When the plunge didn’t happen a new strategy evolved. The producers then started to liquidate their short positions in a very consistent way. This short position have been taken over by the banks probably in cooperation and as a risk reducing strategy, although not as consistently, since they’ve been trading against the market most of the time, buying weakness, selling strength.

By the time of the 1MW demo they probably had Rossi more under control as they simply became the first and only customer for all the 1 MW E-Cats he could produce during the coming 18 months. They played the game the way Rossi wanted it (as his goal is mainly to sell the E-Cats he produce). And since very few people take Rossi seriously there was no problem keeping the news out of media and off the Internet (except for some dedicated sparsely visited sites).

So. What if the banks know about LENR and they are preparing for the oil price to plunge. It would make some kind of sense looking at their actions. It’s reasonable to expect that when the possibilities of LENR becomes widely known by the public, that will be the case. It might drop by 80%, or to the production costs of the easy access reserves. New explorations will be abandoned, shale oil & gas, deepwater oil and oil sands will be abandoned, other green technologies, like biofuels, solar and wind, will also be abandoned, etc. The long term growth potential of the oil industry will vanish in a day. Actually, we already see signs of this development as several large oil fields are up for sale or already sold. There is a widespread divestment strategy among big oil (ShellBP 1BP 2ExxonConocoPhillips, etc.)

If this happens oil stocks will plunge as well, since their stock price reflects many years of potential growth and huge profits, which will evaporate within 10 years. The hedge that they used to have, will then be of limited use, since the stocks will  fall for other reasons anyway. The strategy is probably to let the banks profit from the price movements directly instead. The managements of big oil are probably an important part of the deal, since they will, of course, benefit personally. But the oil business, as the most profitable business in the world, will be history. Big oil will simply merge with big banks in the form of big cash, but only after the oil stocks have crashed.

Meanwhile the strategy of the banks is to sell oil and oil stocks to the money managers as much as possible while keeping the price in the desired price range of $80-$100. They will keep doing this until the news of almost free green and unlimited energy reaches the public. This can happen within a couple of months with a good third party test or any other serious breakthrough in LENR area, or it can take much longer. The banks will buy as much time as they can by keep satisfying Rossi with discrete orders and inducing doubt in media, while increasing their net-short positions. The longer it takes, the better for the banks. They already have the information advantage.

Looking at the forecasts from the big banks it’s obvious that they produce forecasts in the $90-$100 range for the coming year(s). The problem they have is one, to defend the low price of oil in this peak-oil-era and secondly to avoid price hikes which will result in huge paper losses on their books, from their short positions. They seem to do this by pushing information on new developments of shale, deepwater oil and Canadian oil sands to anchor the price at about $90, and at the same time induce hope in new abundant resources (ReutersFinancial TimesFoxBusiness). There are, however, several reports stating that the costs are too high and the volumes way too low for these new resources (Zerohedge). It’s a delicate balance act.

The real reason for the relatively low range bound price of crude for the last two years, is simply huge short selling and anti-trend trading by the big financial institutions (JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, etc.). The reasons for this might be a political agenda executed by these ”swap dealers” to keep the price in a certain range for macroeconomic growth reasons, or maybe, which is the hypothesis of this report, they know something that is not yet publicly accepted. LENR might already be a technological fact on the industrial scale, and not further away in time than the banks can manage to keep it secret. This makes a huge difference on the outcome. Maybe this is exactly what they know. It certainly would not be surprising if they have verified the E-Cat and actively trade on that information. The information advantage is huge and so are the potential profits.

By. Torkel Nyberg


  • _Frank_

    Well, since the admin doesn’t make a story about the answers to some question he asked Rossi recently, I copy that conversion here.

    Frank Acland
    March 7th, 2013 at 12:16 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    1. You mention that issues regarding temperatures and pressures are causing difficulties and complications for certification. Does this refer to the Hot Cat, low temperature E-Cat, or both?
    2. You estimated that the first low temperature plant will be completed and delivered to the first customer in March. Is this still on schedule?
    3. Will your USA partner be manufacturing low-temperature plants as well as the Hot Cats?
    Many thanks, and best wishes,
    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    March 7th, 2013 at 3:03 PM
    Dear Frank Acland:
    1- the certification process id going on also for the Hot Cat.
    2- March/April, as I said
    3- yes
    Warm Regards,

    What happened to the first 1MW hot-cat delivery indented for Febr. 2012?

    December 12th, 2012 at 10:40 AM
    Dear Mr. Rossi
    I am curious if there has been any progress on the hot-cat plant you are planning to deliver to a customer. Is it still on schedule to be delivered in February 2013?
    Thank you

    Andrea Rossi
    December 12th, 2012 at 2:01 PM
    Dear Brian:
    Yes, so far…fingers crossed ( and foreheads wet).
    Warm Regards,


    And here a Rossi respond to a question concerning the FBI raid at Rohner’s Inteligentry.

    Charlie Sutherland
    March 7th, 2013 at 11:11 AM
    Does what happened to the plasma engine folks, Inteligentry, just the other day worry you? If Inteligentry was doing something illegal, then OK. But, if Inteligentry was shut down because of its potential commercial threat to the status quo, then any innovative company – especially yours and even including my own should be concerned.

    Andrea Rossi
    March 7th, 2013 at 12:01 PM
    Dear Charlie Sutherland:
    I do not know the particulars of the issue. I cannot comment things I do not know well.
    Warm Regards,

    FYI: Rohner claimed to have a kind of “nobel gas engine”.
    Now he (and associates?) seems to be in trouble.

    • Veblin

      Are you trying to imply some similarity between Andrea Rossi and the securities fraud case against John Rohner – Inteligentry? Please explain.

      Since you seem interested in the Inteligentry case see these.

      • _Frank_

        Thanks, for the links – I know them already.
        Similarities between Rossi and Rohner?
        Well, both names begins with “Ro” and both of them attracted the attention of Gary Wright (you know the one who runs the “shutdownrossi” site). 😉
        If you find even more similarities (e.g. after reading the documents you have linked), feel free to list them here.

      • Glorg

        According to the SEC case against John Rohner/Intelligentry, he raised $1.4m from investors in the last two years, and used to to buy a house amongst other personal expenses.

        His presentation was terrible and anyone should have seen it was a fraud with a few minutes research, especially since it all came from Papp who was in turn a con artist and liar (300 mhp submarine anyone). But then, a sucker is born every minute, so I am not surprised.

        • georgehants

          If he is genuine, he will knock a very big hole in every-other form of conventional Energy.
          Andrea Rossi
          March 9th, 2013 at 9:39 AM
          Dear Pietro F.:
          In this period many important things are on their way, it will not take long before important events.
          Warm Regards,

        • sparks

          This article is pure silliness. Most petroleum usage is for transportation. It would take over a decade before the effects of LENR would cause a significant shift in our transportation fuel usage, and actually displace gasoline to a degree that would count. LENR produces heat. A new transportation technology based on a heat power source may not be seen for a decade at least, and its uptake in the market, even slower. Just look at how slowly the plug-in hybrids are selling. Even those vehicles, which are perfectly viable, will not displace a significant amount of our oil usage for years yet. And I’m not knocking them — I own a Chevy Volt (and love it).

          • AlainCo

            You don’t understand how prive are build. one second after LENR is accepted, the price of oil will get down. all speculators will sell it, and buyers will start to make the law. Sellers will try to get rid of their stock in next decade instead of selling it slowly as today.

            however current price is not linked to LENR… it is managing the oil-price to avoid stalling economy, coping with shale revolution, with slow growth , avoiding motivating a revival of nuclear energy as it happens after 74.

            When LENR is accepted as a fact, you will notice it. total panic.

          • sparks

            Unfortunately we will probably never know who is right and who is wrong about your assertion….

          • Omega Z


            If this involved today’s oil, I would agree that it would be silly.

            What the Oil companies are shuffling about in these sell-offs are Contracts for production in the 20 to 40 year time frame. They wouldn’t even begin drilling Test Wells for another 10 to 15 years. A process in itself that can take a decade. This is just how Big Oil works. Very Long Term.

            These would be contracted leases quite possible priced based with $200 dollar plus oil imagined at that time. Which if LENR comes to market would be way overpriced contracts.

            Transportation will be Gas powered for a long time yet. However if LENR does come to market, Long term (20 Years plus)would see most transpiration switched to some type of LENR Energy. Whether individual units or Charged Electrical systems. But your right. It wont happen today. 20 plus years from now when these Oil Leases become operational- Different story.

            I Also don’t think this is based only on Rossi & the E-cats, but LENR in General. There’s at least a dozen in development. It Only takes 1 to come to market & they undoubtedly are aware.

            I also have no doubt that most of these Lease contracts will be repurchased as Oil will still be needed. But they’ll be purchased at lower prices as oil demand will decline along with Market price.

            Whats happening is just a Value adjustment by those with some insight to the coming LENR technology.

          • sparks

            All good. Here are some more thoughts. It may be that the big banks are reacting to the writing on the wall regarding the increasing likelihood of financial collapse (re-collapse, more accurately), and possibly sweeping rearrangement of the global financial structure. For example, the EU is about to blow sky high. The banks would be attuned to the fact that their shenanigans of the past 5 years are running out of steam, to be replaced by very high levels of uncertainty associated with growing unrest among the citizens of pretty much all of the Western nations. Recall, during the financial collapse in 2008 the price of oil collapsed to little more than $30 per barrel. This next collapse would probably be much more severe, since they are running out of smoke and mirrors, and the banks may be painfully aware of that. Just more food for thought.

          • Invy

            Ill vote that is more likely than a reaction to lenr… Now you got me worried for another reason.

    • Peter_Roe

      For anyone who missed it, a post by ‘_frank_’ on a watering hole frequented by shills and pathoskeptics indicates his opinion of contributors here. His reasons for posting the comment above – and others – should perhaps be guessed at in the light of this post. Other comments there also make enlightening reading.


      (Credit to Veblin for first bringing this fascinating comment to ECW readers’ attention a few threads back.)

      • _Frank_

        Well, I know that you don’t appreciate my comments (and sometimes this blogs “auto-filtering” system doesn’t either – just now my reply to Veblin is “in moderation” again).
        However, for the sake of “diversity of the views” I will continue commenting here whenever I’m in the mood to do so (and don’t get moderated)

        • Peter_Roe

          OK, I can’t stop you. However I’ll be up front and say that I don’t think that your reasons for commenting here have anything to do with “diversity of the views” and are not constructive in intent.

          As such I’ll feel equally free to say what I think your real reasons for posting are, as evidenced by your comment on wavewatching.net and whatever else I can find, all hopefully within this site’s guidelines.

          • GreenWin

            Quax only has seven commentators and 4 of them the same person. 🙂

          • Peter_Roe

            I dunno how Hody keeps his cast of characters straight! Or why, for that matter, now ECN seems to be finished.

          • _Frank_

            In case Quax site reallly has such a lack of visitors, then he surely appreciates that Peter posted a link to his site.

          • Peter_Roe

            Quax’s site has potential – its just a pity about the ECN pathoskep rump he invited over. Hopefully any new visitors may not feel that sneering at anything that passes in front of their eyeballs is obligatory.

            I have posted a reply to your comment below, but it is currently in moderation.

          • _Frank_

            Just for clarification ( should be evident for a rational mind anyway): I don’t receive any benefits etc. from anyone for posting comments here or on any other blog and it is not in my interests to suppress any new technologies.
            In contrary, I personally would surely benefit from any new technology which provides “abundant and cheap energy”, since I too have electricity bills to pay and must fill up my car with petrol from time to time.

          • Peter_Roe

            Still in moderation so I’ll try again with an edited version.

            I don’t know whether you are a shill or not – that isn’t ‘evident’ I’m afraid – although I am amazed that you apparently expect your comments to be welcomed here, given your words on Quax’s blog. The question which I have posed to other ‘skeptics’ in the past remains:

            As your posts on Quax’s site make clear, you evidently think that Rossi is a fake and that anyone who thinks that he might just have something is a gullible flake, aka ‘True Believer’.

            This being the case, I am curious why do you choose to post unrelentingly negative comments on a blog inhabited by ‘very dumb and unpleasant remnants’ (Hody’s words, echoed by yourself) that takes Rossi, if not at face value, at least seriously for most of the time?

            I don’t believe in angels, but I don’t feel any need to lurk on angel-related websites and pi$$ in their pool, or to pour scorn on the inhabitants from some sneering crony site. I wonder why people such as yourself apparently do?

          • _Frank_

            What does you make think that my comments are not welcome by the majority of the readers here?
            If we can trust the latest poll, then about 1300 people read this blog – but only a few post comments.
            Why do you think that out of this 1000+ people there aren’t some (maybe it’s even the majority) which like to read facts like the Rossi-statements I’ve posted at the start of this thread? Do you really think the readers here are just interessted in your opinions?

          • Peter_Roe

            So you are not going to explain why you post on a site you despise then? Quelle surprise.

          • _Frank_

            I did already explain why I post comments here:
            “for the sake of different views”;
            because I think that there are readers around, which not only like to read your opinions or “True believers” views, but also informations and facts from “sceptics”.
            BTW: Your analogy of e-cat sites wit angel-believers sites is “interessting”

    • captain kirk

      Let me get this straight Frank…. you are convinced that Rossi is a big scammer (based on your posts elsewhere) and that the conspiracy includes many including Jed Rothwell who stated: “I know many people who have met Rossi. Some have worked with him for weeks or months in his lab. I know people who tested his devices independentlly , in their own labs….As I said , I know people who confirmed his claims independently with their own instruments” ……or Christos Stremmenos who stated…Andrea Rossi who, with the scientific advice of Sergio Focardi developed the first working device known as the E-Cat I agree that there are many, many scammers out there in many different areas, but based on the limited information available … to at this point be sure that Rossi is just orchestrating a big scam (with the help of enablers) is rather dumb

      • John-64

        So it’s probably not a scam. But could it be a case of mass delusion or wishful thinking?

        • captain kirk

          It most certainly could be in the mind of a psycho skeptic… wishful thinking absolutely by the mainstream physics community please please show rossi to be a fraud otherwise we’ll look like fools

        • clovis


        • Peter_Roe

          The concept of ‘mass delusion’ is itself a delusion – a convenient fiction propagated by those whose purposes the concept sometimes suits.

          ‘Mass deception’ does of course exist, but you need control of the corrupt mass media organisations to carry that off – something obviously not in Rossi’s purview.

      • yamal

        why do you think a conspiracy would have to include jed rothwell? a statement like ‘i know many people who…’ is a matter of interpretation.

        pekka janhunen recently wrote ‘… went to Bologna to measure the device with their own equipment and came out with a statement that is must be a nuclear reaction …’ which puzzled me because i had never heard about anything like that. he was referring to essen and kullander and ‘their own equipment’ turned out meaning to describe the fact that we can’t be sure the ammeter used to measure input energy couldn’t have been theirs. does that make pekka part of a potential conspiracy if it is one – or does it make him a valuable witness to confirm rossi if it isn’t? of course not. hearsay doesn’t work either way. (nothing against pekka, btw. i read some of his stuff on the journal of propulsion and power and came away very impressed (assuming it’s the same PJ) – but i wouldn’t take his comment on essen and kullander as any kind of confirmation just because he was the person making it).

        • GreenWin

          Peter, I’d say Rule 7,8 and 10 fairly well cover the above dis info. You??


          • Peter_Roe

            Somehow I missed the whole comment until you pointed it out – can’t think how. Perception really is 99% of reality isn’t it!

            7 and 10 definitely, but I would also say a variant of 16 – in this case an attempt to discredit ‘witnesses’. Either way we are definitely getting the full monty from this particular tro11.

        • Yes it’s me, and thanks for your interest in advanced propulsion. To repeat the story as I remember it now: In April 2011, E&K used their own method to gauge water and an unknown (to us) ammeter (it could have been theirs, Rossi’s, Bologna uni’s or something else). They anyway came out saying it’s a nuclear reaction. Then a few weeks later Mats Lewan repeated the measurements with instruments that he brought.

  • Slabadang

    Sorry your on the wrong track!

    Its the total makeower of the world oilmap that is the reason behind the shift in investment strategy. The Fracking/Shalegas revolution has changed everything and gas7oil deposits eq to six Saudi Arabia have been discovered only the last two years. So “peak oil” is pur on hold for a couple of hundred years now. This month USA produced more liquid OIL /LNG than Saudi Arabia. The US will be self sufficiant in just a couple of years. Many countries will have an increased prodution of its own fossil fuels. So take a shore bet sell stocks in oil shipping! And oilprize is falling. Congratiolations everyone!

    • Luca Salvarani

      Dear Slabadang

      Absolutely wrong (It was also my opinion based only on know-nothing media)! There are many financial and geologic reports that refuse your thesis… Anyway e-cat is much more cheaper and easy to use than oil and shale gas, even if I absolutely don’t believe in their development due to pure geolocig reasons.
      Please start with this:

    • MJS

      Yup these are some of the reasons … E-cat had nothing to do with any of this and if real probably won’t for another decade.

  • Zbiges

    I visit your site regularly Frank. I don’t write posts because my English is poor. But the article above is so amazing that I decided to write something.
    Is it possible that a technology that is still in its infancy so may affect the price of oil?! It’s hard to believe. (probably more hard than it is Mr. Rossi is a fraud, I’m sorry for that. I believe him :))
    but if this is true, it means that we are very close to the breakthrough, as the world has never seen. Until I got chills of excitement. 😀
    I wish you all wish it was true!
    Thank you very very much for your work Frank

    • Peter_Roe

      I suspect that many contributors here feel like that from time to time, Zbiges, although some long time followers may have learned to keep their enthusiasm in check pending real developments. The potential prize (despite certain misgivings I sometimes express) is just so great that it is just not something you can walk away from.

      btw, your written English seems fine.

      • Zbiges

        Thank you Peter for your kind words about my English.
        Your remarks about Mr. Rossi followers (me too) are very accurate, but they were already in the history periods of drought. I have seen it from one and a half years and I am also affected by impatience, but the prize …
        You’re right.
        Thanks for encouraging me to write 🙂

    • Luca Salvarani

      To Zbiges

      1) It’s absolutely not hard to believe! My poor english doesn’t allow me to further explain in detail this point… The best thing to do is making an example: in the late 90s dot.com assets prices were skyrocketing because the market was expecting a strong growth in the coming YEARS (not months…); the same now for some tech firms if you look at their market capitalization and their multiples (P/book value in the most simple to get and understand… go to Google finance and check it). It’s all about the growth assumptions you make when pricing a security…
      Another reason is the record low interest rates that increase the present value of future cash flows (discounting them at a lower rate). This low interest rates have another effect: get borrowing money and buying future cash flow more cheap so you have an “overshooting” in the asset price.. also because the market is expecting that those law interest rates will last for some years…
      In conclusion: what drives market prices are mainly the expectacions so the e-cat can have a substancial impact on the commodities prices and on related companies before a large scale diffusion of the technology. Anyway I expect a greater impact on the gas price rather than the oil one.
      2) Another possible way to wiew the problem is the RELATIVE performance of OIL compared to the other commodities… expecially considering the FED’s QE that’s inflating everything…. In other words: we have a consistently stable oil price when the other main variables affetting it (so called “recovery”, infinite quantitative easings with the related choice to convert it in real assets not inflatable such as gold, real economy inflation not the supposed one by Obama and the government ecc..) would have increased it!

      • Zbiges

        I understand these relationships you mentioned.
        I am an occasional forex trader 🙂
        I just want to believe in the article above 🙂
        You say that the price of gold is pumped 😀 I have to remember 🙂
        Your English is very good. Even I understand 🙂
        I greet and wish you good transaction

        • Luca Salvarani

          Dear Zbiges

          1) Sorry for the misunderstading: I don’t think gold is overvalued at all! I mean on a fundamental base, especially considering future massive and self-increasing quantitative easings.. even if in the short to medium term its surge can be artificially limited.
          I believe this to the extent that I’m a “gold standard” supporter… and it says all!
          2) I just mean that FED policy is inflating everiting, so why not oil? If you don’t trust the dollar in the long term due to QE, and want to convert it into something real you should prefer oil on gold… because it’s much more versatile and can be used right now meanwhile the gold can’t… So we could heve expected an oil overperformance over gold but we get just the opposite… thus the article seems perfecly logic!

          PS Be careful on forex! albeit I’ve never worked on it.

          • Zbiges

            I am also sorry for the misunderstanding.
            My opinion about the price of gold, it was supposed to be a joke.
            probably too much I trusted my English.
            please, don’t worry about my investments…
            but, thank you for your concern.
            I regret that we can better understand 🙁
            Your views are very interesting for me.

    • Luca Salvarani

      There would be much more things I’d like to say on this topic since I’ve a financial degree but it’s too difficult for the space and the technical aspects..
      One of these is the financial-intensity of the oil industry (one of the greater of any industries) so it has a long recovery period for their billions $ investments and so a much more financial sensivity thus even a small decline in future cash flow have a greater impact on current market prices.. (To be simple think the sensivity as a first derivative of market price on future cash flow..)

    • admin

      Thanks for posting Zbiges — don’t worry about your English, it’s perfectly clear.

  • Roger Bird

    I don’t see diddly on that chart. I am reminded of anthropologists who see every chipped rock as a stone tool, because they want to see it. Or New Age people who see something in the I-Ching.

    • georgehants

      Roger please give your reasons for doubting the I-Ching.
      Can you give Evidence to show they are not stone tools or do you just accuse all anthropologists equally by opinion.

      • Jim

        Some information can only be obtained through direct experience. People who are unwilling to perform the steps necessary to have the experience will never have access to the information.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      I-Ching? Is that like self-checkout at the grocery store?

  • georgehants

    The Hindu
    Protesters in Tokyo demand end to nuclear power
    Thousands of people rallied in a Tokyo park on Saturday, demanding an end to atomic power and vowing never to give up the fight, despite two years of little change after the nuclear disaster in north-eastern Japan.
    Gathering two days ahead of the second anniversary of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that sent the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant into multiple meltdowns, demonstrators said they would never forget the world’s worst nuclear catastrophe since Chernobyl, and expressed alarm over the government’s eagerness to restart reactors.

    • Peter_Roe

      Funny how we never hear about these things on the BBC or in the papers.

      • GreenWin
        • Peter_Roe

          Thanks – good ol’ Grauniad. The link to their Fukushima article is very revealing of Cameron’s dubious and unhealthy relationship with the nuclear industry, too.

          There is a lot wrong with this rag but at least they dare go where others fear to tread, such as the efforts to legitimise geoengineering now that more people are becoming aware of ongoing ‘experiments’ and are not surprisingly unhappy about them:



          • Greenwin

            At least some of your more thoughtful science-types are concerned this whacky idea is going off without anywhere near enough debate:


            They should also discuss hiring an ET space-tug to nudge the planet’s orbit. Wouldn’t it be healthier?

          • Silvio Balatelli

            The article and many of the comments below is whisful thinking.
            There is a change in hedging pattern of producers since 2011.
            However, it is more likely that this effect are driven by fracking, and not LENR. The awareness of fracking vs LENR is 99:1, in my estimate. Nobody in the financial industry is taking LENR very serious, at this stage.
            As long as LENR is discussed along the Rossi´s clownery this will not change, until the Rossi team can deliver something substantial.
            Historically it is not true that banks perform better than commercials (producers), the opposite is true. The swap dealers / banks are mainly market makers, the real investor money is in the managed money section.

          • Matts

            I guess the interesting question is what would be the most probable scenario IF Rossi sold the first 1MW E-cat to the Navy? Would the banks know about it? Would they find it interesting? Would they act on it? If Rossi is a “clown” as you say and didn´t produce a 1MW plant I guess none of it makes much sense. $30 billion is a big bet on fracking for a “market maker” and to be honest the money is as real on both the long and short side of the bet. And why would the money managers be equally long with the same well known fracking information?

    • GreenWin
      • Peter_Roe

        Same problem at the UK’s waste storage site at Sellafield. We can’t keep the stuff contained for 40 years – what chance 40,000 years? The politicians were aware of this train coming down the tracks decades ago, and did fa about it. And now Cameron wants to build more of the things, with no way to clean up the mess left by the last generation of nukes. Insanity.

        • Greenwin

          Nobody wants to address these issues while the opportunity to construct more waste belching nukes remains. Greed.

  • Peter_Roe

    Comment moved

  • Mike888

    should be interesting to note HESS GAS is selling all their gas stations they own thousands around the USA, great timing I would say.


    • Omega Z


      This would have nothing to do with the Topic. Gasoline will be around for a long time yet even If a LENR device was publicly presented tomorrow.

      Gas Stations are a very tough business to be in. Most are Convenience centers & nearly all the Profits come from the extras they sell. They Only hope they make enough off of Gas sales to cover overhead.

      This explains why: These Convenience Gas Stations make about 16 cents per gallon. The Majority of customers whip out their debit/credit card to pay.
      The Service fee on credit cards is approximately 3% or 3 cents per dollar. Or about 12 cents per (@ $4)gallon depending of Gas prices.

      Their not allowed to pass this on in the price. The States recently passed a law that would allow passing on the surcharge but, Only under certain conditions. Most don’t qualify, but even if you were one of the lucky few that could pass this on, consider this. The Competitor down the road can’t & because of this, His price per Gallon will be about 12 cents a gallon cheaper. Where You Going to Gas Up.

      Now you know why Pop & Chips Etc. Cost so much at these places.
      About 8 months ago, An owner of a chain of about 1100 stations went bankrupt in the area I live in.

  • GreenWin

    In February 2013 Shell Group just sold $1.7B assets in the Niger Delta, Gulf of Mexico. and Alberta Canada tar sands. Small enough to not attract a lot of attention