Comments on Callum Roxburgh's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/callum-roxburgh/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/93337/comments?source=feed#comment-372486 372486 Sun, 01 Feb 2009 10:50:50 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/94795/comments?source=feed#comment-251209 251209 Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:45:31 -0400
However, I agree totally with the gist. Nickel has already been down 40% from its peak, ditto rice.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/94795/comments?source=feed#comment-251155 251155 Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:01:40 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/94795/comments?source=feed#comment-251150 251150 Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:38:59 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/94795/comments?source=feed#comment-251065 251065 Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:58:06 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/94795/comments?source=feed#comment-250844 250844 Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:46:46 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/94795/comments?source=feed#comment-250797 250797 Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:11:43 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/94795/comments?source=feed#comment-250646 250646 Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:05:57 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/94795/comments?source=feed#comment-250639 250639 Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:03:50 -0400
Instead, its trading at 11,000+.

Why?

An administration that has intervened, rigged, manipulated news and markets ever since the crisis began, and consistently rewarded the criminals who caused this unmitigated financial disaster. It wasn't by accident or to provide liquidity to the credit markets that Bernanke opened up the discount window to the big investment bankers who were the major cause of this crisis. It was simply a case of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. You get a few HUNDRED BILLION $$ of "free" taxpayer monopoly money to day trade or buy hookers or do whatever you want with, but you better stick a bid up there if this market starts to break below 11,000... we've got an election to win in November, so play all you want, but be there when we need you because we can't have a meltdown in an election year now can we?"

And so the IB's and all the hedge funds they spawned have virtually limitless cash in their trading accounts, and if you have watched this market get whipsawed around with all the multi- hundred point up and down days (usually consecutively), you know the kids are having just a swell time gorging on that discount window candy.

And if you're not in their game, then whether you're long or short, it doesn't matter, because they took a big piece out of your hide.

That money doesn't go to any useful economic purpose, but then it wasn't supposed to... capitalism officially died the other day, after a long illness, and the dawn of American socialism has arrived.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/94795/comments?source=feed#comment-250596 250596 Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:30:03 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/94795/comments?source=feed#comment-250506 250506 Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:41:10 -0400
The dollar devaluation is, in my opinion, the real story here, and is at the heart of the economic issues. That issue remains critical and is intensifying if anything. I would expect the issue to remain for at least a few more years, aside from momentary strengthening like what we are seeing now. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/94795/comments?source=feed#comment-250278 250278 Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:43:19 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/94795/comments?source=feed#comment-250233 250233 Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:00:31 -0400 You can bet our Russian and Muslim friends will make life difficult. We won't know where "bottom" is until spring '09 at the earliest.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93337/comments?source=feed#comment-247463 247463 Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:40:53 -0400 Did I mention term limits for government offices? It will never happen unless the voters make it happen. Vote out the incumbents. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93337/comments?source=feed#comment-243638 243638 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 02:49:54 -0400
A valid point Tom, but if you could replace all the gas fired electricity generation with alternative sources it still wont last very long. America's current energy usage in million tonnes of oil equivalent are:
Oil - 943.1
Natural Gas - 595.7
Coal - 573.7
Nuclear - 192.1
Hydro - 56.8

If you diverted all the natural gas to use as motor fuel and only replaced the 2/3 of the oil consumption that is imported you would still need 628 tonnes oil equivalent which is larger than current consumption. Given that current Proven Reserves stand at 10.3 years under current use, if diverted it would be 9.8 years. That is still short-term in my books. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93337/comments?source=feed#comment-243566 243566 Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:39:15 -0400
Mark Steyn, America Alone, The End of the World as We Know It (about Islamists outbreeding the Western World 8 kids per family vs 2.1:1)

Jerome Corsi, The Obama Nation (Obama's experience - not a lack of it - is what we should be concerned about and CHANGE = wealth redistribution ala Saul Alinsky "slowly, quietly, gently, so they will agree to it with little objection)

Read them before you vote in "08.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93337/comments?source=feed#comment-243532 243532 Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:17:42 -0400 www.limnia.com) has resolved almost all of the issues associated with hydrogen infrastructure. We store hydrogen in patented, solid-state, non-pressurized canisters that are safe, efficient, better than many battery solutions, use common carriers already built out globally and can recharge a car in seconds via hot-swap. Our many hydrogen generation partners have shown methods, this year, to make hydrogen from water or organic waste so that the energy efficiency is completely attractive.

Cindy Lewis
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93337/comments?source=feed#comment-243205 243205 Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:01:23 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/93337/comments?source=feed#comment-242976 242976 Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:53:12 -0400 Will be interesting to see the O'Bama Administration
pick through the minefield of enviro nuts as to what they are going to do, Enviro nuts don't like oil and gas men messin with the water.

But have no fear--after a couple of indecisive years in office the Republicans take over Congress again and justlike Clinton a Republican Congress will resurrect O'Bama and suddenly O'Bama is a big advocate of drilling and a big advocate of liberal this and liberal that as well.
And just like Clinton he gets re-elected with the help of a Republican Congress that saves his butt, just like Clinton.
The R's will give him direction and something to say he accomplished and something to oppose.
Gee, sounds like the roaring 90's all over again. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93337/comments?source=feed#comment-242903 242903 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:50:32 -0400 ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93337/comments?source=feed#comment-242899 242899 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:42:35 -0400
I liked Obama's idea of using 150 billion dollars to get us off of dependence on foreign oil. It's probably not enough money but it's a start. I just wish we had not spent all of that money and a lot more on a war. We could have used it as Obama is planning to do.

Anyway, I think it's a good article. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93337/comments?source=feed#comment-242896 242896 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:34:14 -0400 example for the country, Carter had solar panels installed on the roof of the White House West Wing. One of Ronald Reagan's 1st acts as president was to remove the solar panels. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93337/comments?source=feed#comment-242883 242883 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:43:22 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/93337/comments?source=feed#comment-242799 242799 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:29:39 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/93337/comments?source=feed#comment-242737 242737 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:29:09 -0400
But none of you talk about:

stopoilspeculationnow.com/

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

Take the link and do something to stop the speculation in commodity futures.

Also, I use solar and my microwave to heat hot water. I have an empty 250 gallon fuel oil tank. I am looking into solar heat and electricity.

My electric bill in the summer is about $28.00 a month...I hardly need AC in NEPA.

A bitter guy in PA. who LOVES OBAMA AND BIDEN.

OBAMA / BIDEN 08]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93337/comments?source=feed#comment-242729 242729 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:23:39 -0400
There is a real easy solution to reducing consumption and increasing efficiency for daily commuters. Currently, the roads are congested by daily commuters driving back and forth from home to some centralized office. In this time of high speed internet, VOIP, VPNs and conference calling, there is no reason for workers to commute across town each day.

Remote Office Centers make it possible for workers to work remotely from an office near where they live. Remote Office Centers lease individual offices, internet, and phone systems to workers from different companies in shared centers located around the suburbs.

Remote Office Centers are fairly new, but can be found in most cities by doing a web search for "Remote Office Centers" in quotes.

Alternative fuels are needed, but they are going to take time to develop. For both the short and long term, this country needs to make sure it is using energy as efficiently as possible. Driving back and forth to an office that could just as easily be located down the street is not an efficient use of oil.

Many people need to be onsite to work, but these workers can still gain the benefit of lower overall gas demand and less cars on the road.

America has always been good at innovating. Innovation is just a matter of using existing technology in a new way. Rather than wait for new technology, American workers can start working remotely using existing technology and save oil immediately.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93337/comments?source=feed#comment-242713 242713 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:04:13 -0400
Yes, we can get a few more years of domestic oil by drilling everywhere we can. Then what? We have an economic opportunity in front of us that comes along only once every century or so. The 19th century saw the great opportunities of the railroads and the industrial revolution. The twentieth century saw the great opportunities of the internal combustion engine and the age of oil, followed by the information revolution. The century we are just starting will be the age of the energy revolution. Are we going to lead it or play second fiddle to someone else, like China?

We need all the sources of energy we can get for the next 10-20 years - oil, gas, coal, nuclear, biofuels (especially from waste) plus emerging alternative energy sources. Ultimately, technology will make the free and relatively limitless energy sources of the sun, air in motion and water in motion the cheapest forms of energy available. There may even be technologies not yet seriously on the radar, such as tapping the energy of the earth's magnetic field.

Go ahead and put all your money in drilling and mining coal. There should be some good profits. However, the great wealth creation of the next 10, 20 and 30 years will be in new technologies. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93337/comments?source=feed#comment-242699 242699 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:46:46 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/93337/comments?source=feed#comment-242696 242696 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:38:28 -0400
Considering much of the flux flow between free enterprise, unfree enterprise, natural and contrived disaster, who's on the take, corporate greed and personal greed, I am convinced that we need to create our own crisis to get off oil and coal and the natural resources we BURN before we find ourselves in another crisis without a paddle - not unlike the '73 embargo and the '78-79 gas crunch (we know who caused eash so we know who the enemy is - an as you know we, the American consumer and American Business, are not exempt).

So let's do the unthinkable - the action and the results are not new - other nations have done it - it's time we did it. Put a $5 BURN TAX on each gallon of gasoline and diesel, equivalnet mcf of NG, ton of coal, lb or gal of propane etc., - A BURN TAX - where ever; from wherever: import or domestic. That tax (God help us because it goes to DC) is to be used only for installing infrastructure like electric railroads, electrified inter/intrastate hiway ferries, electric grid improvements and expansion (beefing up) to handle 20 Quads/yr, INCLUDING SOLAR AND WIND HOOKUPS.

In addition, the electrified railroads, electrified hiways and power grid will have an attached lesser TOLL TAX for prime-movers (the railroads, the ferries, the utilities) and a CREDIT REBATE (reduced fee) for baseline users (John Q Public and businesses).

Doing this:

1) the Govt provides the means for the common good which is it's role,

2) making the profiting entrapanuers pay to play (ie., the capitalistic risktakers placing their bets), and

3) forcing thru taxation (punishment) and relief (rewards) the behavior change desired where,

4) additional capitalistic risktakers will develop the additional means to make it all happen (the R&D, investment, and providing of solar, wind, electric vehicles, hybrids, etc., etc, whatever the need).

5) AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO DO WHAT IT HAS ALWAYS DONE, PUT A TAX ON IT'S PEOPLE AND NEVER REMOVE IT.

AS THE BEHAVIOR CHANGES THE PUNISHING TAX NATRUALLY EVAPORATES (NO MORE BURN; NO MORE TAX).

AND THE NEW ECONOMY IS ESTABLISHED FOR THE NEW DESIRED BEHAVIOR WITH BURDEN AND REWARD IN PLACE, BOTH PAYING FOR USE; AND NOT KNOWING IT, AND SATISFIED.


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93337/comments?source=feed#comment-242681 242681 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:16:48 -0400
Based on the authors presentation, some options should be ruled out outright, and debate should stop because it only causes more confusion and air-pollution from the mouth.

Liquid fuel from coal debate should end. Why? As the author says it is expensive and needs massive investments which we don't have or can't afford. However, the most compelling reason is that it worsens global warming. The efficiency of converting coal to liquid fuels is only about 50% (within a plant; cracking petroleum to liquids in a plant about 88 to 92% and depends on type. of process). If you consider the energy expended in mining coal, transporting/shipping it to a plant, etc, the efficiency would perhaps be less than 40%. Mining and transporting coal is avery energy intensive, and often needs diesel and electricity (not coal!).

Ditto in many ways for converting natural gas to liquids. Efficiency about 50%, but not as bad as coal because natural gas does not contain as much carbon (Btu to btu) as coal. However, if you can use natural gas directly (in a car engine as the author mentioned) why waste energy (global warming!) by converting it. to liquids? Of course, hopefully the car/vehicle engine operates as efficiently at least as an engine on liquids. It does! Actually somewhat better! So I say forget about conversion of natural gas to liquids in most cases.

Hydrogen and fuel cells based on natural gas. This is a difficult issue as there has been too much air pollution coming out of mouths! I was connected (managed the implementation) with the US Government's technology development programs for hydrogen from coal about 25 to 30 years ago. As expensive as the liquids from coal processes, but the efficiency of conversion (whether from coal or natural gas) is somewhat higher than that for converting coal to liquids. Efficiency (in plant) for both close to 66 -68% range, and despite so-called conceptual technological advances (only peripheral) over the last 30 years, the efficiency has not improved much. Mission impossible to get any significant improvements in process efficiencies in my view. So here we have global warming (not as serious as in the case of liquids) issues, though we have also got cost problems. So I say forget this option forever, even though the coal and gas lobbies will say our"National Security." imperatives. (They don't think global warming and our economic security is National security at all!)

Use gas directily! Use coal for coal gasification (which technology development programs I also managed during the period mentioned above). Coal to electricity via gasification- ("clean coal" combined cycle) is more efficient than coal to electricity via current conventional combustion based electricity generation. However, in $ and cents it is about 20% more expensive. When you factor health-care costs which our combustion powerplant generators don't pay from their pockets, coal gasification-combined cycle is actually about 15% cheaper (perhaps more if you include other environmental benefits). The technology availble is so advanced that you can virtually get a near zero effluenct clean technology which also is not given credit during economic analysis by the loudmouth cliques whose only interest is $ and cents for themselves.

This is my epocrypha for today. I am retired and don't seek the limelight, but don't mind doing and contributing for the public interest if the slick and the loudmouths don't shout me down. Sorry if I have done a good job writing good prose.

]]>