Loading...
Symbols:
Get Seeking Alpha Free Stock Alerts by Email!
Get Free Stock Alerts by Email!
Transcripts
- Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc. F3Q08 (Quarter End 09/05/08) Earnings Call Transcript
- General Electric Company Q3 2008 Earnings Call Transcript
- DragonWave Inc. F2Q09 (Qtr End 08/31/08) Earnings Call Transcript
- Emmis Communications Corporation F2Q09 (Qtr End 08/31/08) Earnings Call Transcript
- Audiovox Corporation F2Q09 (Qtr End 08/31/08) Earnings Call Transcript
- Robbins & Myers, Inc. F4Q08 (Qtr End 08/31/08) Earnings Call Transcript
- Total System Services, Inc. Q3 2008 Earnings Call Transcript
- Tortoise Capital Resources F3Q08 (Qtr End 08/31/2008) Earnings Call Transcript
- Intraware, Inc. F2Q09 (Qtr End 08/31/08) Earnings Call Transcript
- LTX-Credence Corporation Business Update Call Transcript
-
Editor's Picks
-
Most Popular
- PIC: Market Rewards Insurers That Avoided Risk
- Venture Debt Firms: Crunch Time and Opportunity
- Exxon Mobil Appears at Lower End of Valuation Range
- Crocodile Tears and the LIBOR-OIS Spread
- Geopolitics, Politics, and the Financial Crisis
- Apocalypse Dow: The Search for Scapegoats
- Full list of Editor's Picks »
- Cramer Should Be Suspended »
- This Isn't a Bottom, It's a Disturbance in The Force »
- Bulls Take a Stand - Cramer's Stop Trading! (10/10/08) »
- Where We Go from Here: Best and Worst Cases »
- Sirius Shares Priced Like Stamps »
- Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News »
- Prefer a Yield - Cramer's Lightning Round (10/10/08) »
- 5 Reasons Stocks Will Keep Falling »
- 60% of Google Employee Stock Options Are Drowning »
- Back Room Deal? - Cramer's Mad Money (10/10/08) »
- Midstream MLPs Crashing, Present Opportunity »
Trading Center
Hedge Fund Jobs
Job Seekers: Search jobs by category, get job alerts by email or live feed, apply online See full list of jobs »
Employers: See all recruitment options, get applications online or by email Post a job »
AviGandhi
17 Comments
Sarah Palin: Wall Street's Candidate
Sarah Palin: Wall Street's Candidate
I agree, it's terrible that the governments of the countries/regions that we extract oil from demand the majority of the profit for their people. I mean, it's not like those natural resources, by the nature of geopolitics, belong to the people of those areas. I mean really, if an expanding third world country started a coal company and wanted to mine coal in the world's richest reserve, we'd totally let them in an not tax them at all! Honestly, government officials in places like Nigeria, Kazakhstan, etc. that require bribes to sell their peoples' resources to us with little return for those whose' interests they are supposed to be protecting are so corrupt - we Americans have the right to take everything away from everyone else in every other country because they're all inferior. Those officials should know that and just GIVE US the damn oil!
What I'm saying is that you're an ignorant moron.
Hydropower: The Renewable Energy Elephant in the Room
In the early 1900's, the river running through the Hetch Hetchy Valley, what many call "the second Yosemite" was dammed and the entire valley was flooded - an apocalypse for what would otherwise have been as beautiful and valuable a resource as Yosemite, Yellowstone, Glacier, and any other National Park one can think of.
For this reason, true environmentalists don't believe hydro is an effective solution to the energy problem.
Exxon's Record Taxes, Capital and Exploration Spending in Perspective
Furthermore, Exxon should be taxed higher; it is making it's profit off of natural resources that don't actually belong to it, but to the people in other countries. We would never let Saudi Aramco drill in the U.S., but we're perfectly happy with Exxon drilling everywhere else in the world, and bitch about how high the taxes it pays to other nations are.
Finally, the negative externalities incurred by Exxon's business strategies and products incur even higher costs to society - environmental damages to our air and water, pollution of rainforests, coastal habitats, and other natural ecosystems, and human rights abuses in Africa.
It's ridiculous that Exxon makes so much money not by actually creating a technology of product that allows the world to move ahead (as oil did, say, 75 years ago) but by stealing natural resources from other peoples in other nations and selling them at inflated prices while putting on a campaign of misinformation to make us all believe that a) we need oil and b) Exxon is doing everything it can to keep oil prices down.
When an oil company spends twice as much on share buybacks as on exploration and production, there is something wrong. Exxon is great for shareholders, but terrible for the world - and it's not paying enough in taxes to make up for it.
How Evil is Exxon-Mobil?
I doubt this quarter's tax distribution was any different.
More Bad News for the Anti-Ethanol Crowd
When a panel of international scientists, business leaders, and politicians come together to review the literature and make conjectures (as they do in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), you can bet that whatever they reproduce will be as honest, independent, and untainted by political desires as possible (though the results were actually toned down by pressure from China). When Bush's administration, on the other hand, publishes a report, you can bet there are some land mines laying around. I mean really, despite the fact that the USDA said it was urgent to "reduce greenhouse gas emissions," what the hell have they been doing OTHER THAT SUPPORTING BIOFUELS?
One leads to another. Of course they're going to say that biofuels aren't responsible for the food crisis - they're touting them as the solution to a much bigger problem!
Obama Clueless on Oil Economics
Back to the question at hand: the article posted above.
I wholeheartedly agree on the windfall profit idea, though if he were to reinvest the tax revenue into developing electric cars (like the sweet sweet Tesla) that are affordable to the masses (unlike the sweet sweet Tesla), it could have middle-to-long term benefits.
Relating to ANWAR and offshore drilling, though, I think you're wrong. ten years from now, I would argue that we will be past our need for oil. Furthermore, Clinton prevented drilling in ANWAR because of what ANWAR is: a wildlife reserve. Drilling in the region (as well as off state coasts) would devastate ecosystems there. Using the "it'll take to long" argument, at least in Clinton's case, was to get bear-hating oil lobbyists off his back. And you're right: 500,000 BPD would do approximately jack-shit to alleviate our energy problems. At this point, more oil/gas is no longer a solution. It's time to get creative.
To others commenting on this article:
Paultaut: Sort of like our President, who won't do shit about Darfur, Tibet, and Myanmar is now?
Pachanguero: Thanks for contributing intelligently to the discussion. Your points are well thought out and eloquently expressed. Just one question: in what way does Obama "have special interests up his ass" that McCain doesn't?
Waiting for Action: In what way do we EVER control U.S. producers?
Brian Pursley: Obama doesn't believe in dependence on foreign oil, he believes in abandoning oil. You can't be dependent on foreign oil when you have windmills and clean-coal plants powering an electric grid that then powers the car you plug into the socket in your garage. And let's be honest; if Iraq had no oil, we wouldn't be there (Darfur, anyone?) so McCain, in wanting to stay in Iraq, is the biggest proponent of dependence on foreign oil.
Energy Sector Is Approaching Negative Seasonality
Givargi, despite your credentials, your ignorance astounds me. The amount of energy you claim is put into oil is not actually part of the energy one gains by burning it - in fact, your argument proves that oil, like corn-based ethanol, took far more energy in than it gives out. The energy that is expended when we burn oil is ONLY the energy that was in those plants and animals that died and decayed; the energy of the sun is NOT what's in oil, it was just used to MAKE the oil, just like natural gas is used to MAKE ethanol.
That said, SunPower just yesterday achieved an energy efficiency of 23.4%; First Solar produces panels at a cost parity with modern coal plants ($1.10 per watt, or $1100 per kilowatt installed) and EMCORE's concentrated photovoltaics can produce at efficiencies as high as 37% (albeit only with direct sunlight). The solar industry is growing, my friend, and oil production is declining. You can argue sentiment, but you can't argue with these companies' own numbers. Solar is already nearly as efficient as oil/natural gas/coal (more so, in EMCORE's case). Now it's just a matter of getting people who are afraid of change up onto their walkers so they can go with the flow.
Oh, and the Rockefeller heirs would beg to differ about oil's long-term viability - just check out their press release regarding their demand for Exxon Mobil to separate the roles of CEO and Chairman.
Big Oil Asks: Where Will Tomorrow's Oil Come From?
While I agree that peak oil is an issue, I believe you're harping on it for the wrong reasons. Why must we fear how either peak oil or global warming will "drastically change the entire economy"? What's wrong with making technological progress?
We've relied on fossil fuels since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Now that the Nuclear Age, the Space Age, and the Computer Age have come, don't you think it's high time we move on to a source of energy that is cleaner, longer-lasting, and ultimately more efficient?
Not only would this address the peak oil problem, it would also address the climate change problem that Fitzman spurns but making them non-issues. I agree that corn-based ethanol is the wrong way to go, but no one seems to realize that 21 of the 36 billion gallons of ethanol per year mandated to be produced by 2022 must come from CELLULOSIC sources. That's independent of food prices and, with companies like Bluefire Ethanol developing processing plants that not only turn landfill waste to fuel but also derive 70% of the facility's power from methane released by decaying heaps of trash, it's also independent of oil/gas prices.
Oil is a terrible long-term investment. It's time for investors to start being flexible, and to realize that the future isn't in black gold - it's in green fuel.
Exxon Mobil: The Root of all Evil?
Exxon Mobil: The Root of all Evil?
My main question for you, then, is: where do you propose the money to fund these bright minds come from? If not from the profits of companies who are imposing negative externalities on consumers, then where? The principle is the same as forcing tobacco companies to pay for tobacco education ads like "Truth".
Yes, for a while, there will be some price shocks, and there will be some pain. But with the pain of higher gas prices will come the character of driving more fuel efficient cars, updating and using stagnant and archaic public transportation systems, and an eventual transition to forms of technology that will allow us to drive however much we want without worry about the financial or environmental impacts.
Look at our Socialist comrades in Europe: they have the Eurorail and incredible subway systems in every city, their bus systems are well-used and efficiently function, and their cars are clearly not compensating for their "johnsons" - the things are half the size of an American sedan. I agree that the macroeconomic conditions in those countries are less than ideal elsewhere, but in the specific instance of transportation, taxing and spending is exactly what they have done, to enviable effect.
Exxon Mobil: The Root of all Evil?
Exxon Mobil: The Root of all Evil?
Where will the money for these "decent heads" come from? Are you expecting bright minds to go to solving a difficult problem without good money paying their salaries and funding the equipment needed to do the research? Because that's far more "communist" than the Democrats you so eloquently (and ignorantly) put down.
What needs to happen is an evening of the field. In the same way that globalization has opened the doors to economic growth in previously decrepit nations (did you ever go to India in the early 90s?), a shift in funding from energy sources that do more damage to the world economy (in real costs) to energy sources that do more good will open the doors to new, cost-efficient forms of power.
As for ethanol, I agree that corn-based ethanol is a terrible form of energy, from an economic and social standpoint. But not enough dialogue (or money) goes toward cellulosic ethanol. Bluefire Ethanol has licensed a technology that allows it to use methane from decaying landfills to power plants that turn the waste in the landfills to ethanol. No corn, no food prices. Tell me how that is a bad idea.
And since when is Great Britain "socialist"?
Exxon Mobil: The Root of all Evil?
However, it does amaze me how those associated with the oil industry are so damn terrified of change. Does anyone envision a future powered by petroleum? I for one see solar buildings, trash-based fuels, and fields dotted by windmills.
Is clean energy such a bad thing? Why not push for a shift towards fuels that don't cause acid rain, smog, or greenhouse gas emissions? Why not push for technologies that don't require ridiculous amounts of fuel that will eventually run out?
Oh right. Change is hard. Boohoo, Exxon will lose some money. BP will lose some money. Chevron will lose some money. Boohoo, their profits will go to making the world cleaner and towards giving human technology the ability to stand the test of time. Boohoo, you who are invested in Big Oil will lose money.
Except you're investors. Change is a market reality. Spending money to achieve change is also a market reality. How many major, large-cap, high-profit companies were born out of Kennedy's push to reach the moon before the Russians (and his subsequent spending of billions of government dollars)? How many people laughed at Ford for selling the Model T for such a low cost?
Maybe if fools who are too blind or too scared to take a leap and realize that change is what has driven the American economy since its inception open their eyes to see the tremendous possibilities for economic growth (and investor gain) in the alternative energy industry, then money will flood these companies and they'll have the same advantage that Exxon has for its own R&D: lots and lots of money.
Then we'll see which energy solutions are really more viable.
It's Now 'Official': Ethanol Is a Scam
I hope people eventually stop talking about how bad "ethanol" is and start talking about how bad "food-based biofuels" are. Fortunately, you don't need food to make all biofuels - and it's these energy sources that will revolutionize our society.