Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jim_p who wrote (6948)	8/23/2001 9:51:58 PM
From: Think4Yourself	Respond to of 23153

He's just mad because folks here and the other two threads are better at doing his job than he is. Folks here and on SD and BDBBR KNEW the numbers couldn't be right last week.

To: jim_p who wrote (6948)	8/24/2001 2:49:03 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Re: AGA's spokesman explains the NG storage figure revision Hi jim, The questions that McGill's comments raise for me are: 1) Who are the members of AGA who provide the data that is used in the weekly storage releases? McGill states that he is protecting their anonymity. I find this lack of transparency to be a troubling trend in the energy patch. Cf. California's electrical market where even the State feels compelled to keep the public in the dark, figuratively speaking, as it struggles to keep the lights on. 2) Are these AGA members also engaged in trading desk activities? If so, there is a glaring conflict of interest, with the deliberate misrepresentation of gas data being an extremely useful tool to move the forwards markets. 3) Who has oversight over the gaming of AGA numbers, should this in fact be what is going on? The CFTC would be my most likely guess. And if ever there was a toothless wonder of a regulatory agency, this one would get my vote. Only FERC comes close to the same level of knavery to industry. Any comments welcomed! Best, Ray