Devon Energy Corp. (DVN)

Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:

All Comments on DVN

  • commenter
    bing
    Jul 22 05:50 PM
    Peak Oil Stocks for the Future [view article]
    Well, now here's a guy with a plan: www.pickensplan.com/


    On May 23 02:46 PM bionerd2 wrote:

    > I must have missed something. I don't see how outlawing development
    > of ANWR is "let[ting] economics work". Seems to me outlawing economic
    > activity is preventing economics from working.     Reply
  • commenter
    RomanH
    Jul 21 05:44 PM
    My Website
    Implementing Pickens' Plan for Public Energy Policy [view article]
    paulk8756,
    I can certainly see how it might appear contradictory, but let me explain.

    While item #1 does give the government additional power, which I would in most cases object, it is needed in order to establish a price for an externality, namely pollution, that so far has no price. I go by the mantra that the government should only get involved in situations where private organizations cannot handle it themselves. In this case, I don't see any other way of establishing a price for pollution other than having a central agency involved. Although the government is involved, it is assisting with a solution that harnesses the power of the free market.
    I assume you weren't talking about #2, as that is removing government involvement.

    As for #3, as I stated previously, I'm not totally sold on this idea. Is it ok for the government to provide benefits (such as cheap lending, tax breaks, etc) to encourage particular types of activity? Its already done with student lending, small business loans and incentives for businesses to locate somewhere. However, private enterprise can already do this, and usually will do a better job vetting ideas because they have money on the line. Ok, I'll strike #3 off the list. Once #1 is in place, the economics for clean energy are there to encourage investment.


    Reply
  • commenter
    slater1182
    Jul 21 05:41 PM
    Implementing Pickens' Plan for Public Energy Policy [view article]
    Please go tell congress to extend the Solar Tax Credits.

    seia.org/

    I would buy this car as a communter if they can make it.

    zeropollutionmotors.us...


    Reply
  • commenter
    S.Olsen
    Jul 21 04:57 PM
    Geothermal Energy Sources 101 [view article]
    Actual experiance in 'geothermal heating & cooling' in a co-op residential community in Lafayette Park, Detroit has proved successful after initial installation glitches in 2002. For a 1,200 sq ft 2 story townhouse the monthly cost of H&C including lighting and appliances is currently reported to be an amazing $29.00 !!! Reply
  • commenter
    petersterlin
    g
    Jul 21 07:50 AM
    My Website
    Implementing Pickens' Plan for Public Energy Policy [view article]
    we are being mislead by world-wide activist organizations and governments that global warming results from human activity.

    That is false. "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules Climate Change". A report by this title that can be downloaded from sepp.org

    The popular notion, that seemingly has become a religion with many people, is that human activity is behind global warming. This idea is being pushed by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - IPCC. Its members are paid by their governments to participate in this activity.

    Most of us citizens who have read about the IPCC and its reports would think that its objective was to determine if human activity was causing global warming. But that is not the case. The IPCC was established in the early 90s by the UN as an activist enterprise from its very beginning. Its agenda is to justify control of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. Consequently, its scientific reports have focused solely on evidence that might point toward human-induced climate change to the exclusion of evidence to the contrary. And the IPCC has not only ignored evidence to the contrary, but worse yet, its leadership has doctored reports to support the leadership's view that human activity is causing global warming.

    A group of 31 internationally known, unpaid, volunteer climate scientists met in early 2007 to produce a truly scientific and balanced report that examined what was known about the science of global warming and cooling. This group called themselves the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change - the NIPCC. Their report has now been completed and can be found at this web site: sepp.org under Publications.

    [If you are concerned that I may be overstating the case against the IPCC's reports, see paragraph 3 on page iii of the Preface to the NIPCC report (the reference to which is found below) that is written by Dr. Fred Seitz, the recently deceased President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, the Past President of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Past President of the American Physical Society.]

    When you read my summary, you may want to read Singer's and Avery's book available from Amazon and other bookstores. The main focus of that book is to present the historical evidence that the earth's climate is being affected by a 1500 year cycle of global warming and then cooling caused by periodic variations in the sun's output. The most recent temperature minimum for the earth was in 1850, and is referred to as the Little Ice Age. We are on an upswing in temperature now known by climate scientists as the Moderate Warming Period.

    The NIPCC report has as its objective the presentation of a balanced view of the data on cooling and warming and its sources. What they found is the opposite of what the IPCC and the media are promoting. To quote from the Conclusion of the NIPCC report:

    "It is regrettable that the public debate over climate change, fueled by the errors and exaggerations contained in the reports of the IPCC, has strayed so far from scientific truth. It is an embarrassment to science that hype has replaced reason in the global debate over so important an issue."

     Reply
  • commenter
    paulk8756
    Jul 18 10:37 AM
    Implementing Pickens' Plan for Public Energy Policy [view article]
    Roman,

    After advocating allowing market forces to work to help us out of our current energy crisis, you propose a series of government programs to accomplish these goals. Perhaps you see the contradiction in that?

    But, don't worry, after Obama's elected, you'll get your wish. There will be PLENTY of new government programs for energy and everything else.     Reply
  • commenter
    fxtrader07
    Jul 18 06:20 AM
    Replacement Candidates for David Merkel's Portfolio: From AA to ZZ [view article]
    4-5 index etfs probably would do it as well. don't tell me you can keep track and properly analyze and follow all of your holdings. way too many.
    zero value added.     Reply
  • commenter
    RomanH
    Jul 17 06:32 PM
    My Website
    Implementing Pickens' Plan for Public Energy Policy [view article]
    William, thank you for the thought-provoking article.

    Anytime an expansion of government powers is proposed, I go back to a more principled examination on what our government should be allowed to do. Fixing prices, mandating particular items be used (or not used) are a power I wouldn't want a government to have, as they are certain to be abused. Additionally, most free market inhibitors have unintended collateral damage.

    Many of the goals of this article can be accomplished without ceding powers that can be abused by government nor limiting the free market.

    Here are my recommendations:

    1) Enact a cap and trade program for harmful pollutants
    The price for power needs to incorporate the cost of pollution. My preferred way would be through a cap and trade system that limits particular pollutants, such as carbon dioxide. Over time, the overall limits on these pollutants decreases, making the permits to pollute more expensive. This would guarantee that the price paid for any fuel reflects the pollution it generates. The use of oil would incorporate higher and higher permit costs as time goes on.

    2) Remove all the subsidies and tariffs on fuel
    That means the tariff on Brazilian ethanol goes away, as does the subsidy on corn based ethanol. Any subsidy for oil production needs to be removed. This will level the playing field. Fuels compete on how much they cost to produce plus whatever permit costs for the pollution they produce.

    3) Government assistance to spur investment in fuel alternatives
    This one I'm somewhat unsure of, but I'd be ok with the government providing resources to accelerate private enterprise to solve important national issues. In this case, perhaps its further funding of private research in the area of fuels or sponsoring contests to accomplish specific goals (ie a battery powered car that can go x miles, etc).

    My plan would ensure that our pollution decreases to a desired level and that the market decides what fuel to use.
    Reply
  • commenter
    RomanH
    Jul 17 06:31 PM
    My Website
    Implementing Pickens' Plan for Public Energy Policy [view article]
    William, thank you for the thought-provoking article.

    Anytime an expansion of government powers is proposed, I go back to a more principled examination on what our government should be allowed to do. Fixing prices, mandating particular items be used (or not used) are a power I wouldn't want a government to have, as they are certain to be abused. Additionally, most free market inhibitors have unintended collateral damage.

    Many of the goals of this article can be accomplished without ceding powers that can be abused by government nor limiting the free market.

    Here are my recommendations:

    1) Enact a cap and trade program for harmful pollutants
    The price for power needs to incorporate the cost of pollution. My preferred way would be through a cap and trade system that limits particular pollutants, such as carbon dioxide. Over time, the overall limits on these pollutants decreases, making the permits to pollute more expensive. This would guarantee that the price paid for any fuel reflects the pollution it generates. The use of oil would incorporate higher and higher permit costs as time goes on.

    2) Remove all the subsidies and tariffs on fuel
    That means the tariff on Brazilian ethanol goes away, as does the subsidy on corn based ethanol. Any subsidy for oil production needs to be removed. This will level the playing field. Fuels compete on how much they cost to produce plus whatever permit costs for the pollution they produce.

    3) Government assistance to spur investment in fuel alternatives
    This one I'm somewhat unsure of, but I'd be ok with the government providing resources to accelerate private enterprise to solve important national issues. In this case, perhaps its further funding of private research in the area of fuels or sponsoring contests to accomplish specific goals (ie a battery powered car that can go x miles, etc).

    My plan would ensure that our pollution decreases to a desired level and that the market decides what fuel to use.
    Reply
  • commenter
    sopocistudio
    Jul 17 05:14 PM
    My Website
    Implementing Pickens' Plan for Public Energy Policy [view article]
    Re: Gas/CNG conversion,

    I've got a cousin who was a RABID hunter (think in terms of the Rockies for elk/dall sheep, Michigan UP for black bear, etc...whatever was in season. His "hunting vehicle" was a 72/73 Suburban w/ 350 V8. It had the "over size" 40 gal. gas tank, and he converted it (or had it converted), adding CNG capability. His range with that monsterous fuel hog was 650/700 miles, and it could be switched from one fuel to the other "on the fly", merely by flipping a switch under the dash.

    old trader     Reply
  • commenter
    paulk8756
    Jul 17 05:03 PM
    Implementing Pickens' Plan for Public Energy Policy [view article]
    It's no secret why Honda can charge more for the Civic GX. It's the ONLY new CNG powered vehicle now being sold in America. Once again, a matter of good old supply and demand at work, which is why gasoline prices skyrocketed in the first place.

    This is also why gasoline prices are retreating now. I've maintained for months that gas prices would recede when Congress actually takes action to increase domestic energy reserves. Wall Street sees that happening now.

    But I wouldn't short oil just yet. So far, the Greens and the Democrats are digging their heels in. This means we can only end the offshore exploration moratorium in October, when the Senate Republicans can keep it from being renewed for another year.

    So stay tuned, it promises to be one hell of a fight!



    Reply
  • commenter
    paulk8756
    Jul 17 03:34 PM
    Implementing Pickens' Plan for Public Energy Policy [view article]
    Rich,

    Years ago the cost of a CNG conversion from a gasoline powered engine was $1,000, and today I'm told it's around $3,000. But in mass production that doesn't account for the $7,000 price difference between a Civic GX and an LX, or how the GX could cost even more than the Hybrid, which must be significantly more expensive than the GX to produce.

    Thanks again for the CNG truck info. Let me ask you, would it be feasible for long haul truckers to utilize CNG (...assuming they could readily refuel), and what are the cost differences? I know they work for trash hauling trucks today, and I rode in CNG powered taxicabs 25 years ago.


    Reply
  • commenter
    paulk8756
    Jul 17 03:18 PM
    Implementing Pickens' Plan for Public Energy Policy [view article]
    Peter,

    Thanks for the fascinating post about United Oil, and the tremendous oil and gas reserves off the coasts of Alaska and South Carolina. I have no doubt there are virtually ENDLESS supplies of these resources all around America offshore, enough to power our economy for HUNDREDS of years by themselves.

    Indeed, world renowned astrophysisist Thomas Gold believes we have only scratched the surface, and there could easily exist more than 100 TIMES the oil and gas reserves we have previously discovered. That would pose severe problems for both the Arabs and the Greens, both of whom are vitally dependent on the theoretical nonsense of Peak Oil.

    Reply
  • commenter
    RichK
    Jul 17 03:13 PM
    Implementing Pickens' Plan for Public Energy Policy [view article]
    Paulk8756:
    The Honda Civic GX does qualify for the federal tax credit of $4,000, but Civic GX sells for $5,000 more than its gasoline twin. NGVs inherently cost more than a gasoline vehicle. The biggest difference is the fuel storage tanks. Gasoline is stored in an inexpensive rigid plastic bag. Because natural gas is stored at 3600 psi, the tanks must able to handle twice that pressure for safety. That's not cheap. Also, most US vehicles use Type 4 tanks. They're much lighter than the all metal tanks but they are more expensive. Honda had the higher incremental price even before the tax credit went into effect in 2006.     Reply
  • commenter
    paulk8756
    Jul 17 02:18 PM
    Implementing Pickens' Plan for Public Energy Policy [view article]
    Hondas also merit another $5,000 per unit premium over comparable Chevys and Fords, due to the resounding consumer acceptance of their vehicles here in America.
    Reply

Trading Center