Great Insights From Statistical Analysis

An AP "Fact Check" on the correlation of US energy production with gasoline prices takes us to the border of supply and demand before veering off into a comedy club:

FACT CHECK: More US drilling didn't drop gas price

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It's the political cure-all for high gas prices: Drill here, drill now. But more U.S. drilling has not changed how deeply the gas pump drills into your wallet, math and history show.

A statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by The Associated Press shows no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.

...

Sometimes prices increase as American drilling ramps up. That's what has happened in the past three years. Since February 2009, U.S. oil production has increased 15 percent when seasonally adjusted. Prices in those three years went from $2.07 per gallon to $3.58. It was a case of drilling more and paying much more.

U.S. oil production is back to the same level it was in March 2003, when gas cost $2.10 per gallon when adjusted for inflation. But that's not what prices are now.

That's because oil is a global commodity and U.S. production has only a tiny influence on supply. Factors far beyond the control of a nation or a president dictate the price of gasoline.

Oh, for heaven's sake - the question is, does additional US production result in lower prices than would have otherwise prevailed?  If, just to seize an example, producers only ramp up US production in response to shortages and rising prices elsewhere, a simple statistical analysis such as done here will "prove" that more production is always associated with higher prices.

Well - Obama's energy plan calls for more investment in clean energy and increasing automobile fuel efficiency standards.  So we eagerly await the next AP "Fact Check" where they analyze the correlation of rising CAFE standards and clean energy output with gasoline prices.

My guess - since we have a record level of solar and wind output yet gasoline prices are also at a record high, the statistical correlation will be clear - all this "clean energy" investment has increased gasoline prices.  

And has the AP failed to notice that gasoline prices have been spiking since electric cars hit the streets and Obama announced stricter fuel economy standards?  Surely the conclusion is inescapable - this push for fuel efficiency is driving gasoline prices through the roof.

Obvi.

JUST RUMINATING: I don't think OPEC has the pricing power it once did, if it ever had.  But taking inspiration from the AP, I won't be letting facts interfere with a good story.  Imagine (HYPOTHETICALLY!!!) that OPEC has sufficient market power and solidarity to control prices (and/or that Saudi Arabia, as a swing producer, can maintain OPEC discipline on aggregate output).  In that world, if OPEC is determined to keep oil prices at a certain level, or rising along a certain path, they will simply cut their production to offset increased US production.  The net impact of increased US production on global prices will be nil, although revenue will flow in different directions.

However!  The same can be true on the demand side.  If the US manages to cut its demand for oil by improving fuel efficiency or substituting clean energy, OPEC could simply reduce output to maintain prices.

Presumably, at some point if the US reduced its demand enough (or increased production enough) OPEC's pricing power would be undone.  And the US certainly accounts for more gloabl demand than global supply, so that ought to be a sensible place to look.

However, the simple statistical analysis done by the AP is unlikely to illuminate these issues.

Comments

[Threadkiller]

We are talking about McCain?

[NK]

TK-- I don't think your5:38 is correct. Dunham was always a US citizen, was always a US 'domicile'. I don't think 'Bam's citizenship is an issue at birth. 'Natural Born' I think you should stick with the 1795 Amendment and the Federalists Papers.

[NK]

MelR-- O'Brien pleads the Fifth in front of Congress-- no doubt about that. What happens then?

[Threadkiller]

NK, you stated that Barry would still be a citizen if born outside to US. That would only be true if he was born to parents that were not married. Dunham would have to reside in the US for one full year prior to his birth, if she was single.

Being married, she would have had to have resided her for five whole years after her fourteenth birthday to transfer citizenship to an overseas birth.

She was eighteen when he was born. So, specific to an out of US birth, he would not have attained citizenship unless she was single.

True stuff.

[Threadkiller]

Sorry for the typos

[Melinda Romanoff]

Back to biz.

Commitment Of Traders Report.

We will look at Petroleum and Products, Long Format, Disaggregated Futures Only.

Scroll, way, way down to "Crude Oil, Light Sweet- New York Mercantile".

There are four headings and three sub-headings for each. The sub-headings are simple, long, short, and "spreading". More on the last in a bit. The Four large groups; Producers, Swap Dealers, Managed Money, and Other Reportables. The first is obvious. 2nd is HF's, Quants, and prop desks, 3rd are CTA's and ETFs, 4th are locals, last column has to do with option hedging.

More later.

[Threadkiller]

NK, here is an interesting read on where McCain was born.

http://www.birthers.org/misc/DevilDetails.html

[NK]

TK-- enough-- this is where you wander into fever swamps and look for angels dancing on heads of pins. McCain was born in a hospital used by US service members for sanitary facilities? a factual distinction with no legal difference.Dunham?, one way or another, Barry's a citizen by her native born status; there is only a hint of a question of 'natural born' if Barry was born abroad and brought into the country. Sorry, I can't wander in the fever swamps.

[Threadkiller]

The factual difference is "US territory" or not. I would hope that distinction does not lie in a swamp on a pinhead.

The law re Dunham:

http://www.visalaw.com/05jan1/2jan105.html

No harm NK, I thought you were engaging me on the subject.

Sorry.

[hit and run]

NK:
Sorry, I can't wander in the fever swamps.

Heh.

Wait, hold on a tick-- here's a thought-- is TomM also BenF? The mind boggles.

Posted by: NK | March 23, 2012 at 05:20 PM

[Danube of Thought]

Under the law as it stands today, Dunham need only have spent two years in the US after her fourteenth birthday. 8 US Code Section 1401:

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years

That's the way the statute reads today. A court might well give it retroactive effect as the district court was inclined to do in the McCain case.

I suspect that the conspirators arranged for the phony birth announcements for reasons having to do with potential custody disputes. (Actually, I suspect that the birth announcements were legitimate, but what the hell...that's no fun).

[Threadkiller]

I suspect they were legitimate announcements too.

[Threadkiller]

From the provided link:

"What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

Again, children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child.

When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14. An exception for people serving in the military was created by considering time spent outside the US on military duty as time spent in the US.

While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship, amendments since 1952 have eliminated these requirements.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother were US citizens if the mother was resident in the US for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child. Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen father acquired US citizenship only if legitimated before turning 21."

If a court is so inclined to give retroactive effect to a present day statue, it would be another example of how 1961 could be changed at a point of time other than 1961.

[C]

Is it just me, or is the turmoil in the middle east's effect on gas prices the worst moral hazard ever?

Ever time gas prices start to go down, Iran rattles the sabers. Coincidence? I think not. By allowing them to blackmail the markets into causing gas price spikes, you're encouraging their bad behavior and rewarding all the middle eastern countries for doing so.

Is it such a surprise that oil producing latin american countries support Iran? I don't think so.

[Dave (in MA)]

Just remember:

(click on it if the whole image isn't visible)

[Bart]

"The net impact of increased US production on global prices will be nil, although revenue will flow in different directions."

Maybe. But, where will the profits go?

Here. Not there. That makes a big difference.

[MJW]

That's the way the statute reads today. A court might well give it retroactive effect as the district court was inclined to do in the McCain case.

Courts, including some circuit courts, have uniformly held that citizenship is determined by the law in effect at the time of birth. See, for example, Runnett v. INS, 901 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1990):

The applicable law for transmitting citizenship to a child born abroad when one parent is a U.S. citizen is the statute that was in effect at the time of the child's birth.

[BR]

TK, this is for you at about 1:05 to 1:20

The Bam Breaks

And to paraphrase Winston Churchill - great is the man who can stand alone and hold onto his viewpoint when he is right, despite all others disagreeing.

[BR]

LUN for water in motion :)

[MJW]

That's the way the statute reads today. A court might well give it retroactive effect as the district court was inclined to do in the McCain case.

I'm not sure why a judge would need would need to give retroactive effect to a statue to give McCain citizenship. He was, it seems to me, unequivocally a citizen at birth under the statute in effect at his birth: the 1878 law that granted citizenship to children born to a U.S. citizen father, provided the father had at some time resided in the U.S.

If his father had never resided in the U.S., he would still be a citizen because of a 1937 law granting citizenship to all children born in Panama to a citizen parent employed by the U.S. government or the Panama Railroad Company. But that law is explicitly retroactive.