XLE Forum Topics
- All Comments on XLE
- General Discussion on XLE
- The T. Boone Pickens Approach [view article]
- Trading Places: Energy and Financials [view article]
- 'Pickens Plan' Comes in the Nick of Time [view article]
- Friday Outlook: Commodities, Emerging Markets [view article]
- Weekly Market Review: Stagflation Story Remains Intact [view article]
- Oil Majors vs. Drillers: The Battle for Profits [view article]
- Tuesday Options Outlook: EMC, XLE, USO, GS, WB, C, CROX, LOGI [view article]
- Economic Upswing? Check Back Next Year [view article]
- Options Trader: Thursday Outlook [view article]
- Thursday Outlook: Commodities, Emerging Markets [view article]
- Wednesday Outlook: Commodities, Emerging Markets [view article]
- Oil and Energy Stock Correlation [view article]
loading ...Recent XLE Articles
- Bespoke's Sector Snapshot (7/25/08)
- Trading Places: Energy and Financials
- Friday Outlook: Commodities, Emerging Markets
- The T. Boone Pickens Approach
- Selling Premium on the Uncertainty in Oil
- Tracking Sentiment in the Movement of Sectors and Asset Classes
- Options Trader: Thursday Outlook
- 'Pickens Plan' Comes in the Nick of Time
- Economic Upswing? Check Back Next Year
- Oil Majors vs. Drillers: The Battle for Profits
- Full List of Articles »
The T. Boone Pickens Approach [view article]
At this point, it should be clear that "global warming" is really only one of the many effects of "drastic climate change caused by human activity". It's important to emphasize this point because many people still make the mistake of trying to deny climate change based on a limited and improper understanding of the concept, which makes them equate it solely to "global warming". This is not just a matter of semantics; it's a crucial distinction. And I agree with the notion of the poster above who indicated that the dominant discourse still refers to climate change as a theological matter (a question of belief), rather than a matter of science and facts. It is evident to the vast majority of the global scientific community that has studied the climate change phenomenon that it is real and that its consequences can no longer be dismissed. It's also evident to them that global warming is simply one of the many faces of global climate change.On that note, I guess it's only fair to give credit to whom it's due. The very fact that global warming is being discussed on a financial forum is a product of the work of none other than Canadian scientist David Suzuki. For over two decades, David has been one of conservation's strongest voices; he's been pioneering the study and the popularization of the notion by taking on several media projects aimed at educating people around the world. In this sense, all Al Gore did was take the words of Suzuki and other such experts and put them in such a way that would make them more palatable to American audiences. An he has obviously succeeded at that. If you are still in doubt, then think about the Global Warming Index (GWI) created by UBS last year to capture temperature variations and turn them into money-making instruments. While weather investing is hardly a novelty, it's clear that the GWI is a recent attempt at making weather derivatives trading a common practice among some of the biggest culprits of climate change. As it is, some of those trading in weather derivatives include reinsurers, hedge funds and ENERGY companies. No wonder this is now a $50 billion industry.
As Ilija Murisic, executive director of hybrid derivatives trading at UBS said, “Global warming has created much more volatility in temperatures and weather conditions, which has led to increased liquidity in the weather derivatives market”. At least in this sense global warming is VERY REAL and it is here to stay.
Given this state of affairs and the sorts of sophisticated baskets that are being engineered around the GWI, you've got to wonder if the big players in the energy sector (and their proxies on Capitol Hill) have any interest whatsoever in doing anything about climate change and reducing CO2 emissions. I mean, if you could make a tone of cash by going long on the GWI (it's the obvious choice), thereby hedging any other positions in different assets classes that may or may not be affected by changing market conditions and socio-political dynamics (i.e. the push toward more fuel efficiency in every sector), why would you even bother to reduce emissions let alone develop alternative, carbon-free sources of energy?
There's an underlying perverse logic in such things as the GWI that make me think that anything that we do on the climate change front will always be undermined by the whims of the money-hungry, ruthless interests of big capital. And it doesn't matter how you put it or the position you take on the subject, big capital will always find an opportunity to make money, whether you believe global warming is real or not...it doesn't matter! Yet ignorance and blindness are such that we can't even realize the obvious fact that even those media characters espousing the "drill, drill, drill" mantra are simply puppets in this game.
Reply
The T. Boone Pickens Approach [view article]
Fitz: your mention of how good the Cheney energy policy was that prices are up 5X...notice that congress didn't act on the policy and most of the key initiatives have not been enacted.GOP financial hijinks...not limited to GOP...lots of blame for all parties on that one. Take a look at the wall of shame on the FNMZ and Freddie Mac scandals.
Agreeing with BUsh: I don't agree with him on everything...I think he's dead wrong on immigration...he caved in to the Demo's and the hispanic lobby not to mention the business lobby. He didn't veto near enough spending bills and allowed spending to go out of control...he didn't fight hard enough to make the tax cuts permanent. I still think the war was right...saddam was a madman and violated UN resolution after UN resolution...just going to let him keep on? And he was genocidal. Why is genocide bad in one country but okay in another...on and on. Bottom line: I don't agree with him on everything and I'm sorely dissappointed in Bush. BUT, knowing everything that has happened and given the choice between him and Gore and/or Kerry, I'd vote for him again without a blink. The other two alternatives would have been horrible.
My financial situation has improved tremendously since he got in office. My salary is way up, my stock holdings and savings are way up, even accounting for inflation and the low dollar. I'm happy with the financial situation. Now, when they try and take the tax cuts away, we'll all be in a world of hurt.
Bottom line: I don't agree with all GOP'ers and everything they do, but I do agree with them some time. I disagree with the philosophy and the actions of all democrats. So, I despise McCain but will hold my nose and vote for him because the messiah is just a horrible choice. I philosophically disagree with all my heart on his tax policy, his health policy, his energy policy, his Iraq policy, his Iran policy, his social policy, his selection of bombers and crooks as friends, etc. I think the man is a catastrophe waiting to happen as it involves me and my family and my business and my state and my country. His voting record in the Senate bears out what he will be like as POTUS and it scares the crap out of me. McCain is a little better, but not much.
biofuels for planes...i like it as long as it isn't corn-based ethanol. no more burning food for energy. that's just stupid. Reply
Trading Places: Energy and Financials [view article]
here, here Reply'Pickens Plan' Comes in the Nick of Time [view article]
"just in time" ...or a few years too late?
Check back in 20 years to find out. Reply
Friday Outlook: Commodities, Emerging Markets [view article]
Whidbey,Read the last paragraph of the post again before you call everyone else Martians around here. Reply
The T. Boone Pickens Approach [view article]
Fitz: your mention of how good the Cheney energy policy was that prices are up 5X...notice that congress didn't act on the policy and most of the key initiatives have not been enacted.GOP financial hijinks...not limited to GOP...lots of blame for all parties on that one. Take a look at the wall of shame on the FNMZ and Freddie Mac scandals.
Agreeing with BUsh: I don't agree with him on everything...I think he's dead wrong on immigration...he caved in to the Demo's and the hispanic lobby not to mention the business lobby. He didn't veto near enough spending bills and allowed spending to go out of control...he didn't fight hard enough to make the tax cuts permanent. I still think the war was right...saddam was a madman and violated UN resolution after UN resolution...just going to let him keep on? And he was genocidal. Why is genocide bad in one country but okay in another...on and on. Bottom line: I don't agree with him on everything and I'm sorely dissappointed in Bush. BUT, knowing everything that has happened and given the choice between him and Gore and/or Kerry, I'd vote for him again without a blink. The other two alternatives would have been horrible.
My financial situation has improved tremendously since he got in office. My salary is way up, my stock holdings and savings are way up, even accounting for inflation and the low dollar. I'm happy with the financial situation. Now, when they try and take the tax cuts away, we'll all be in a world of hurt.
Bottom line: I don't agree with all GOP'ers and everything they do, but I do agree with them some time. I disagree with the philosophy and the actions of all democrats. So, I despise McCain but will hold my nose and vote for him because the messiah is just a horrible choice. I philosophically disagree with all my heart on his tax policy, his health policy, his energy policy, his Iraq policy, his Iran policy, his social policy, his selection of bombers and crooks as friends, etc. I think the man is a catastrophe waiting to happen as it involves me and my family and my business and my state and my country. His voting record in the Senate bears out what he will be like as POTUS and it scares the crap out of me. McCain is a little better, but not much.
biofuels for planes...i like it as long as it isn't corn-based ethanol. no more burning food for energy. that's just stupid. Reply
The T. Boone Pickens Approach [view article]
yes, i sound almost like al gore; goodness gracious. ReplyThe T. Boone Pickens Approach [view article]
fitz - not sure you know how big things get implemented - you normally go to the individual wimp scenerio defense/roadblocks, etc.Electric conversion will continue in the US as it has occured elsewhere in the world for non-grassroot implementation. For instance, it will begin in industry (in transportation: like rails, busses, transport etc., as they have proven in the past to switch to electric and NG fork trucks, delivery vans, etc., rails, where there is in essence FLEET SERVICE, and eventually down to individuals) - you normally start with the selfish individual perspective.
Same for power generation - a Boone approach, if not utility, converts the majority while individual farm windmills and thermal solar panels comes at it from the other end, where willing minds and ingenuity prevail: roadblockers get left behind (and/or then want others to do it for them!). Reply
Friday Outlook: Commodities, Emerging Markets [view article]
What is the post for, people from Mars? We see the market (possibly too much), what we don't know is what it means. Your view on commodities is odd, commodities do tell a story on the economy and it seems more negative than you suggest; when commodities fall it is a clear indication of major economic slow down in progress. The truth is this market is blown around by news, rumors and, god forbid, naked short selling, but what is really killing us is the Congress. Turn them all out this year and try again. ReplyThe T. Boone Pickens Approach [view article]
fitz - i recognize you're doing the best you can. I DID work in the energy world for 30 some years. Now I have plenty of wind, only. If i had Boone's money (and energy) i'd work harder at getting us off of burning hydrocarbons, which is why I don't have any money. I'd keep us to keep our hydrocarbons and let the rest of the world fight for theirs, or convert, like we should. ReplyThe T. Boone Pickens Approach [view article]
What is disturbing about liberal arguments is the problem with the Standard Distribution Curve: the basic policy or direction is based on the majority of the curve yet all the noise and roadblocks come from the tails (2-5%).Now, I could use this same argument for alternative energy sources vis-a-vis hydrocarbons, except in this case we are looking for a paridigm shift from a problem area called wasted energy to efficient energy use (others call the argument high gasoline prices, high food prices, geo-political, world oil consumption demand, drilling restrictions, etc.,) and lose focus on what we are really about as properly envisioned by Swiss rails, French Nuc, Brazilian bio, German solar, etc.
Get out of the tails; get a grip. Reply
The T. Boone Pickens Approach [view article]
Duh, mmark - burning biofuel hydrocarbons in air and on water still leaves all the coal, oil, gas, shale, tar etc., in the ground. Reply'Pickens Plan' Comes in the Nick of Time [view article]
kebu77 - there are no CO2 emissions to solar, wind, etc. CO2's come from buning natural hydrocarbons. Don't burn them.I'm all for electrified steel-wheeled rail transport of good and people (totally electric; not diesel electric) except for in air and on water (burn biofuels).
And I have read Alan Drake's stuff: my conclusion is stop burning natural hydrocarbons AND go totally electric from free, forever energy sources like solar, wind, geo, hydro, nuclear, tidal, and biofuels; then we can still address the shipping effeciencies in transportation of Alan Drake. Again, stop using the coal and the diesel. Reply
The T. Boone Pickens Approach [view article]
Wow - look at all the comments! I love the passion and participation by you folks on Seeking Alpha. As always...I make the comment section "bi-directional&q... so, here goes:baron, CT: thank you.
bill james: i'm all for electric powered rapid transit. if not for the auto and trucking lobbyists, we'd have high speed bullet trains on both coasts. i added more to my energy policy on this due to your feedback.
User: please name some of the "real scientist" you are referring to. please leave out the MIT hack that is on XOM's payroll.
franklin: agreed.
Mmarrkk: thanks. the term "money sucking hypcocrits" could also be applied to the so-called "conservative&quo... republicans who have milked the US treasury dry the last 8 years on their fabricated war and financial hi-jinks. you have no problem with cheney or bush making money? at least we agree on COP.
Clearlead: agreed.
jlounsbury59: your issue #1 (referring to your website) is dead on. isn't it interesting to you guys that the people supposedly responsible for US economic policy (Bernanke, Paulsen) rarely speak about oil at all but are using the current economic "crisis" to increase their socialistic (i.e. governement) control over more and more of the financial system? it's very interesting to me that so-called "conservative&quo... republicans don't see this huge socialization of the financial system that is staring them right in the kisser.
CT: heh heh heh
oldoil: yes, we do have a few hundred years of science to help us. as an editor of EE Times recently wrote, Joseph Fourier (famous engineer who the Fourier Transform is named after) discovered the greenhouse effect in 1824. Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenious published a paper on the relationship between CO2 adn atmospheric temperature back in 1896. everybody talks about the "new" science behind the global warming discussion when in fact, it's not that new at all. what is new is the injection of massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere by man in the last 100 years. truck drivers ARE slowing down on the highways to conserve diesel (trust me, i just drove to and from colorado). btw, wind is cost competitive today in many parts of the world, and if you take into account the effects of what Pickens calls the greatest transfer of wealth in history (falling US dollar, inflation, national security), wind is a steal - and it's clean!
schminke: we agree on action, disagree that $725/billion US dollar exports to countries we supposedly are fighting on the "war on terrorism" is not "crucial".
PK de Cville: i disagree with your insinuation that OPEC can control oil prices by pumping more oil. the Saudi's main oil reservoirs have hit peak oil and the depletion rates are averaging about 6%/year. they are currently building the biggest industrial project (and most expensive) in the history of the world to get at a reservoir miles inland which has heavy and sour crude they have to pump sea water hundreds of miles and then pump it into the ground to recover this crappy oil. why would they be doing this if plentiful, abundant, and cheap crude were available? it's the same answer as behind the tar sands in canada: it's because oil AIN'T abundant, cheap, and readily available any more. therein lies the crisis for a country like the US that imports 70% of its oil and whose economy is dependent on it. thus people like Pickens and myself trying to wake up the US government, media, and citizenry. does your handle imply you own a pink caddilac coup de ville? just curious.
cal: thanks, and agree with much you said especially build out of the train tracks. remember, it was GM that bought up all the eastern seaboard trains and tracks and demolished them to force people to buy their cars. now look at the state of GM. wrt nat gas for autos, i believe Pickens is focused on fleets right now, for which the cost refueling and tank storage infrastructure issues can be mitigated. it's a start. there is no silver bullet. the energy crisis is of such a magnitude we will need ALL small solutions together. Repubs and Dems are both to blame and both almost completely useless, and have been since JFK was assasinated. we lost our soul as a country on that one and haven't gotten it back since.
naked: i'm doing the best i can man. if i had the resources of boone pickens, you'd see me doing a helluva more, that much i can guarantee you. what are you doing about it?
jerry: i agree we should be building LNG terminals on both coasts and in the gulf. it's in my energy policy:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
hypratt: the price of gasoline never went up inline with the price of oil - if it did, we'd be paying north of $7/gallon. wrt climate change, of course it happens all the time, but that is not what the debate is about. the debate is about wether or not man is impacting the normal cyclical Earth's climate change in a drastic fashion over the past 100 years by pumping in mega doses of CO2 into the atmosphere.
barnburner: agreed, cheney is pure evil.
Mmarrkk: your last comments on the "messiah"...... you not noticed what bush has done to your US dollars, your savings, and your tax monies? wake up man! jeez...i am sooo tired of bush fans acting like he has been good for their net worth and their private investments! he has been DEATH to them. wake the heck up man.
edcava: Pickens doesnt hide the fact that he has these investments, in fact, he pounds the table on them. what is wrong with making money AND doing something good for the country. it's like the gore argument about his plane's CO2 output or whatever. it's like people can't see the forest for the trees.
Mmarrkk: yeah, and their energy plan was so good that oil went up 5x during bush's administration. so much for strategy. the problem was iraq: they took millions of barrels off the market at the same time china was ramping up imports bigtime. then, the speculators put a "geo-political&qu... risk premium on oil due to US militarism. wait until israel of the US goes into iran if you want to see real fireworks. that will make iraq look like a day at disneyland....
cswalker: never thought of that before, thanks.
CT: i hope your optimistic view holds...but it is way too early to say we have met this challenge. i think it's a real horserace...time will tell. so far, US energy policy is a disaster and other than Pickens, i see few signs that people out there "get it", which is simply amazing when one considers the oil war, oil at $125, US dollar dropping like a rock, S&P dropping like a rock, etc. etc.
johns: i expect the oil wars will move into both poles at some point, it won't just be china...it will be russia, canada, and the good old USA.
naked: we need an electric car and electrical infrastructure in order for that to happen. i'm all for it..but it takes time...and not everyone can buy an electric car solution the day they go to market.
johnsgordon: agree with that statement. it's like when people say "boy, good thing gore didn't win" i immediately think yeah, boy, the markets, the economy, and the US dollar have done simply GREAT under bush (not!). it's like people have ideological blinders on. i personally don't know how US fiscal, foreign, and domestic policies could have been more screwed up than what bush has done if a president had TRIED to create worse policies. which the cynic in me asks the question: perhaps it ALL has been on purpose??
bot feeder: agree that target is not realizable. he gets over enthusiastic at times, which is one reason he is so divisive. the pickens approach will have a better chance.
bot feeder: agreed that technology is key. that's why i wish we had more money going to engineers and research than in the money sink-hole of iraq. Reply
The T. Boone Pickens Approach [view article]
Regarding alternatives and leaving Hydrocarbons in the ground: anyone come up with an alternative solution to air transport? I haven't heard of any so until that happens, we'll have to produce some volume of hydrocarbon.We should look at wind but wind isn't a consistent source so it will always have to have back up, either in battery storage or alternative source (like nat gas or coal). Electric for cars/trucks/buses/trai... sounds good but for a while its going to be very expensive and the conversion of the entire infrastructure will take time. So we will have to wean ourselves off of gasoline/diesel and over to electric. But it is possible. But it will take time. A lot of people can't afford to go out and buy a new electric car. They'll wait until their old beat up gasoline car breaks down. Heck, I own TWO suburbans but won't trade one of them in 'cuz I won't get jack for it in trade and don't feel like shelling out $20,000 to $30,000 for a new car. I drive about 600 miles per month and even if I find a car that gets 40 mpg and gas is $5/gallon, that's less than $200 in savings per month. Not enough to justify spending that kind of cash.
Now, I'm sure the O-messiah will probably propose that he STEAL / CONFISCATE money from the rich and give new hybrid cars to all of the "working class" for free. So hey, maybe that's my ticket! Oh, I forgot I actually earn a salary so I won't be qualified as "working class" as per their definition. Just like I didn't get a stimulus check, Hope credits for education, deductions for IRA's, or full value for my tax exemptions or deductions. Marxists! Reply