Speculation or supply and demand is secondary to the fact that the average American still has to deal with the bubble. However likely we will see a return to $4 per gallon gas, will consumers be better prepared next time around?
Oil Stocks: Where Can You Find Black Gold? [View article]
Stabilization of crude? Why not then your salary? Or the size of your car, house etc etc. Let free markets decide. Of course since OPEC is a cartel, our crude markets are not free. Perhaps we should figure out a way to break up the cartel. Why do you never hear talk about that?
On Jan 09 10:23 AM Whippet wrote:
> Nice comment, Michael66. While I agree with all of your arguments, > most of these technologies and recent discoveries only break even > (some even lose) at current crude prices- I would use your same arguments > as support for a long term stabilization in crude prices in the $60-80 > range. And there most likely will be another spike in the near term > (that is, once the current supply glut is exhausted) due to the current > freeze in capex by the majors. Until the new discoveries you speak > of are brought online (Brazil's discoveries, while enormous, are > under extremely deep water and will not be developed until demand > for crude is established again at a higher level) they offer no supply > support.
New Nuclear Plants Not Viable Without Government Support [View article]
Recall the old 70's adage; more people died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car than from Nuclear Energy. Nasty I'll admit but I do not see where we have a choice but to go Nuke. In Pa,electric rates will rise 40-80% by 2011. Perhaps you'll take a second look once you energy bills double, triple....
On Jan 10 10:37 AM bjohn13 wrote:
> I would be willing to spend money to actively support new nuclear > facilities from being built. Sure, nuclear energy is a non-carbon > producing energy source, but is it green? I hardly think so. In the > new terror-laden world, does our nation need more targets? Pundits > claim that there have been no major nuclear catastrophes in almost > two decades, but all it takes is one.
In doing some research on BA strike, I found extensive reporting on a Socialist Workers site. I can only hope this accelerates use of robotics and plant operations in non-union states.
'D' Is For Dreadful Dreary Deflation [View article]
I'll admitt I am a bit of a nimrod when it comes to economics. Please explain how lower interest, housing and energy costs are bad for households. Especially fixed income folks. I can speculate that downward pressure on wages could in part be the answer. Comments?
I was smart enough to accumulate $700,000 in 401-k savings by age 45. Now at 54, my portfolio is <$300,000. Does make you wonder about buy and hold to say the least, If I had to do it all over again I probably would have done something in real estate.
World Wrestling Entertainment, Frontline: High Yield Dividend Payers [View article]
i have owned NAT\FRO for >10 years and have enjoyed nice div. and price appreciation. that said, i sold most of my positions in both......will buy them back soon.
Sort by:
Latest | Highest ratedWhat Really Caused Oil to Boom? [View article]
Oil Stocks: Where Can You Find Black Gold? [View article]
On Jan 09 10:23 AM Whippet wrote:
> Nice comment, Michael66. While I agree with all of your arguments,
> most of these technologies and recent discoveries only break even
> (some even lose) at current crude prices- I would use your same arguments
> as support for a long term stabilization in crude prices in the $60-80
> range. And there most likely will be another spike in the near term
> (that is, once the current supply glut is exhausted) due to the current
> freeze in capex by the majors. Until the new discoveries you speak
> of are brought online (Brazil's discoveries, while enormous, are
> under extremely deep water and will not be developed until demand
> for crude is established again at a higher level) they offer no supply
> support.
New Nuclear Plants Not Viable Without Government Support [View article]
On Jan 10 10:37 AM bjohn13 wrote:
> I would be willing to spend money to actively support new nuclear
> facilities from being built. Sure, nuclear energy is a non-carbon
> producing energy source, but is it green? I hardly think so. In the
> new terror-laden world, does our nation need more targets? Pundits
> claim that there have been no major nuclear catastrophes in almost
> two decades, but all it takes is one.
A Buy & Hold Forever Dividend Stock Portfolio [View article]
Boeing Heading the Way of GM? [View article]
Picking Some Stocks to Survive This Market [View article]
why not list entire S&P 500?
'D' Is For Dreadful Dreary Deflation [View article]
Stocks for the Long Run? [View article]
United Technologies: Dividend Raised 20% [View article]
Stock Analysis: United Technologies a Buy at These Prices [View article]
The Light at the End of the Tunnel Is Energy Efficient [View article]
World Wrestling Entertainment, Frontline: High Yield Dividend Payers [View article]
Frontline's Weakness May Portend a Spill in Tanker Stocks [View article]