Comments on Miranda Marquit's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/miranda-marquit/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/68435-exxon-mobil-diversifies-into-the-hybrid-car-market?source=feed#comment-184084 184084 Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:41:10 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/70501-looking-for-solid-returns-from-big-oil?source=feed#comment-150691 150691 Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:48:54 -0400 Diegojames
Porter Ranch, California
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/68435-exxon-mobil-diversifies-into-the-hybrid-car-market?source=feed#comment-136344 136344 Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:01:27 -0400
Obvious motive there, that is why nobody with a brain cell takes that "report" seriously.

CNW Marketing wanted to accuse Toyota of pollution by using nickel in its batteries, which is complete BS considering that:

- Stainless steel manufacture uses thousands of tonnes of nickel per year.

- Ditto manufacture of jet engines with high-temperature nickel alloys.

- And the U.S. Mint uses more nickel per year to mint its coins than Toyota can ever use to manufacture Prius batteries.

Funny thing is, even GM is hopping onto the hybrid bandwagon these days, using the same nickel metal-hydride batteries as the Toyota hybrids in cars such as the Yukon Hybrid, the Malibu Hybrid, and the Saturn Vue Green Line.

Pot, Kettle, Black!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/70501-looking-for-solid-returns-from-big-oil?source=feed#comment-134680 134680 Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:52:12 -0400
I know that BP talks a big game in alternative energy investment, and it is investing in jatropha, but a lot of it has been for show. And I'm not overly fond of STO. But it does make an interesting option for people who are interested in carbon neutrality and want a slice of the Big Oil pie.

Over time, all the oil companies will likely increase. I simply pointed out (and I'm not an investment professional) that in fundamentals BP seems to have more of a problem than many other Big Oil companies.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/70501-looking-for-solid-returns-from-big-oil?source=feed#comment-134670 134670 Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:37:29 -0400 E TOT CVX COP MRO BP XOM STO PTR PBR


I stuck a 1000.000 into each of them. So far I'm down .02%.
Now when I fill up my tank, I'm still pissed.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/70501-looking-for-solid-returns-from-big-oil?source=feed#comment-134251 134251 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:14:51 -0400
Disclosure - I already own some BP.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/70501-looking-for-solid-returns-from-big-oil?source=feed#comment-134191 134191 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:40:45 -0400
StatoilHydro (I have owned STO and NHY for years before the recent combination) is over 50% state owned. STO is licking their chops as the icecaps melt so that they can get in and drill in the Arctic before the Russkies. Please don't preach carbon neutrality when it comes to Integrated Oils. You are cherry picking information and presenting it as fact. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/70501-looking-for-solid-returns-from-big-oil?source=feed#comment-134065 134065 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:21:33 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/68435-exxon-mobil-diversifies-into-the-hybrid-car-market?source=feed#comment-129470 129470 Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:02:03 -0400
Not very likely. Have you ever seen the size of the battery in a Hummer? Very big. For that matter, if you've seen a Hummer itself (haha), it too is very, very big. And when you make big vehicles (and I'm not talking about driving them yet) with big batteries, believe me, it doesn't take a rocket or any other scientist to understand (even without looking too hard, yet) that the carbon footprint is bigger for the Hummer.

And where did you read this? I bet it wasn't in a scientific journal. I've heard the same silly argument made the same silly way about CF
bulbs being more carbon intensive in manufacturer than incandescent ones. And that argument too was gleaned from "some article somewhere." Nothing specific, of course. Not, say -- even a prestigious scientific magazine (not journal) like Scientific American, or maybe one of the more popular (but still credible) ones like Discovery, or Science Digest etc. etc. Nor National Geographic.

Of course, anyone could print up something and claim it is the "Journal of such and such" and make the typeface and everything look so-very technical and prestigious, and thus better able to fool those who don't generally spend their time in Universities and getting familiar with the ones that really are part of academia's "bona-fides."

I'm not being a snob -- but obviously anyone who is even half-serious about an issue should be able to remember where they read something as revolutionary as the idea that a Toyota Prius is more carbon intensive from birth to death than a Hummer! Otherwise, why would they remember any of it at all? The issue of carbon emissions is not exactly a side or esoteric issue these days.

So think hard. Maybe you read it on one of those so-called conservative, online blogs. Or yes, maybe it was on Faux News.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/68435-exxon-mobil-diversifies-into-the-hybrid-car-market?source=feed#comment-128325 128325 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:19:42 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/68435-exxon-mobil-diversifies-into-the-hybrid-car-market?source=feed#comment-126956 126956 Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:05:28 -0400
The question should be, why did they once import wonderfully efficient cars, and then stop? What cars you ask? The Suzuki-built Geo Metro. I just bought an ancient specimen, whose odometer has rolled over too many times to count, and routinely get 50 mpg, and on one occasion, 60 mpg over a 100 mile route consisting of only 40 miles of toll-road.

No high technology needed for 50 mpg. Just a 1.0 liter engine with 55 hp, a manual 5 speed transmission, and an aerodynamic form. With a further improvement of an even smaller diesel or turbo-diesel engine, the car would probably get 75 mpg on the highway.

The question I'd like to have answered, is why can't you buy a car as efficient as the Metro today? Don't tell me there is no market for them. Even though I am sure that many people would not stoop (literally or figuratively) into such a modest conveyance, I am equally sure that there are alot of people with long commutes who WOULD prefer to fill their tank with 10 gallons of gas and then get 500 miles out of those gallons. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/68435-exxon-mobil-diversifies-into-the-hybrid-car-market?source=feed#comment-126726 126726 Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:22:28 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/68435-exxon-mobil-diversifies-into-the-hybrid-car-market?source=feed#comment-126705 126705 Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:11:55 -0400 reviews.cnet.com/8301-...

I just might get one! If they can't make the fuel cell technology work where the car produces its own hydrogen from water - and they CAN do that but maybe it would be too expensive - then this would be next best. Although many would love to drive faster than it's proposed 96 mph, this is the USA and our top speed is 70? 75? For most of us, this would make a terrific vehicle. Something to look forward to. Why don't GM, Ford, and Chrysler come up with this stuff?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/68435-exxon-mobil-diversifies-into-the-hybrid-car-market?source=feed#comment-126597 126597 Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:58:26 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/68435-exxon-mobil-diversifies-into-the-hybrid-car-market?source=feed#comment-126207 126207 Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:59:19 -0400 Ethanol also has a much larger foot print cradle to grave than Gasoline.
ea. plow, plant, spray, harvest. haul to refiner, truck to terminal(you can't send it by pipeline to crossive for that.). But that is not politically correct for the environmentalist. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/68435-exxon-mobil-diversifies-into-the-hybrid-car-market?source=feed#comment-126186 126186 Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:52:34 -0400 You did not have to drive around with a tank of potentially explosive hydrogen in your trunk.
The car actually had a reformer on board that converted gasoline to hyrodgen and had zero emissions. The problem with hybrids is it pollutes very much to make the batterys. I remember reading somewhere that a Toyota Hybrid had a larger carbon foot print from birth to death than a big Hummer due to the manufacture of the batterys.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/68435-exxon-mobil-diversifies-into-the-hybrid-car-market?source=feed#comment-126100 126100 Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:01:21 -0400
What people are you talking about? Here in Texas, in the second largest state in the union, we are quite pleased with oil at 111 today. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/68435-exxon-mobil-diversifies-into-the-hybrid-car-market?source=feed#comment-126027 126027 Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:32:21 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/63068-exxon-mobil-does-it-again?source=feed#comment-125348 125348 Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:36:02 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/64623-do-biofuels-harm-more-than-they-help?source=feed#comment-117853 117853 Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:46:31 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/64623-do-biofuels-harm-more-than-they-help?source=feed#comment-117188 117188 Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:40:58 -0500
And, don't forget, most alternate energy research dollars go to the oxymoronic "clean coal", instead of going to legitimate projects.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/64623-do-biofuels-harm-more-than-they-help?source=feed#comment-117152 117152 Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:40:32 -0500
Thomas: I have to agree with you about subsidies. It's a great way for pols to cater to their Big Ag supporters while at the same time pacifying environmentalists by saying: "Look, we're supporting the fight against dirty, polluting oil!" It also gets them in with those who are looking at energy independence as well. Too bad they skate over the fact that they are also giving big subsidies to oil companies as well...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/64623-do-biofuels-harm-more-than-they-help?source=feed#comment-117134 117134 Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:05:00 -0500
Umm-- subsidies aren't directed at the "tree-huggers"; they are a transparent and stupid use of pork-barrel politics to fish for corn states votes.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/64623-do-biofuels-harm-more-than-they-help?source=feed#comment-117078 117078 Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:23:06 -0500
Georealist ("So..the investment upshot of this article is...?"), DirtSimple ("This has nothing to do with investing ..."), and Lefty (I'm sooo sick of tree huggers..."): You've missed a crucial point here. As Gabby pointed out in a comment on this article seekingalpha.com/artic... , there is currently a 51 cent/gallon tax credit for US ethanol producers. At least part of the reason for that is the growing concern about the environment among voters.

But as the environmental case for biofuels weakens, political support for subsidising them will wane. Note:

seekingalpha.com/artic...

So tree-hugging, feel-good environmental babble has a LOT to do with investing in this sector, because if sentiment towards biofuels turns negative, the political support for the subsidies will disappear, and the corn ethanol stocks will implode.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/64623-do-biofuels-harm-more-than-they-help?source=feed#comment-116485 116485 Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:42:22 -0500
Jatropha, though, does not destroy topsoil. It actually turns bad topsoil into something usable later. And, unlike corn ethanol, is fairly efficient.

And yes, CO2 does help plants. Unfortunately, too much of it can be harmful. Too much of nearly anything can be harmful. And when what takes the CO2 from the air is being destroyed by clearing, it can be a problem.

Global warming, though, is not something I am overly concerned about. I see it as a red herring. Rather, pollution and the quality of the air we breathe (and the attendant health issues) is more of an issue for me. But the pols want us focused on a global warming debate. Why? Because air pollution and air quality is something we can work on, and something that requires actual action. Global warming by humans can't really be proven definitively at this time, so focusing on a debate forestalls having to take action.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/64623-do-biofuels-harm-more-than-they-help?source=feed#comment-116436 116436 Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:48:30 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/64623-do-biofuels-harm-more-than-they-help?source=feed#comment-116400 116400 NEWSFLASH: all that fossil fuel we use today got to be fossil fuel because at one time long ago it WAS carbon in the surface ecosphere as plant and animal life! Yes, right here on this little bitttie eensey weensey desert island floating around in the ocean of the universe, and on which we are stranded! All we are doing is returning that carbon to the light of day on the surface of the island. By the way, how many of you out there fretting about the harm of global warming can remember the 70's when we were supposedly returning to the ice age? If you don't, check it out. This global warming hysteria is the same thing redux, just in the opposite direction. Actually, I wouldn't mind a little milder weather here in the northeast. I wouldn't have to move south when I retire. Why, I might even have the beach at my front door!! ]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:06:01 -0500
How can one conclude that returning subterranean fossilized carbon to plant and animal life on the surface by using fossil fuel is harmful? CO2 (product of burning any fossil fuel) is fertilizer for plant life, and plants produce oxygen. Guess what folks -> NEWSFLASH: all that fossil fuel we use today got to be fossil fuel because at one time long ago it WAS carbon in the surface ecosphere as plant and animal life! Yes, right here on this little bitttie eensey weensey desert island floating around in the ocean of the universe, and on which we are stranded! All we are doing is returning that carbon to the light of day on the surface of the island.

By the way, how many of you out there fretting about the harm of global warming can remember the 70's when we were supposedly returning to the ice age? If you don't, check it out. This global warming hysteria is the same thing redux, just in the opposite direction. Actually, I wouldn't mind a little milder weather here in the northeast. I wouldn't have to move south when I retire. Why, I might even have the beach at my front door!! ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/64623-do-biofuels-harm-more-than-they-help?source=feed#comment-116392 116392 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:48:44 -0500 I suppose it might also be worth a mention that there is nothing like sustainable bio-fuels. They all trash topsoil integrity and consume huge amounts of fertilizer and water. From an investment standpoint that makes Nat Gas..Solar..and Nuclear (oh my God!!!) the only alternatives.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/64623-do-biofuels-harm-more-than-they-help?source=feed#comment-116351 116351 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:49:14 -0500
* Some folks think so

* Clean Air Performance Professionals]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/64623-do-biofuels-harm-more-than-they-help?source=feed#comment-116312 116312 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:29:13 -0500 You might have also covered the issue from the stand point of becoming less dependent on oil from miserable places like Venz and the Middle East. In which case, you should have included electric power generation by nuclear and liquid coal fuels.
thanks for the article, this is a complex subject, badly in need of attention. ]]>