yank

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

Please provide solid proof that the Bush Admin was "anti-science". And leave out all the global warming garbage which thousands of reputable scientists still dispute. The Obama Admin is a complete disastewr whethe rits econ policy, scientific, or otherwise. We may not survive as a country until 2012. The Great "O" is a charlatan. A fraud, plain and simple. If you can't see that you are a moron.


On Apr 27 10:33 AM charliezap wrote:

> Comments from the top of my head, which could be disproved by research
> or facts.
>
> 1. I don't think that Big Oil is much interested in looking for oil
> onshore the lower 48 any more. Their main interest within the US
> is potential fields offshore or in Alaska. Virtually all of the smaller
> E & P companies are already focused on gas.
>
> 2. There's lots of gas out there. The issue is cost. You have to
> go deeper, into deeper water, or use new technology fracturing to
> get it out of the shale formations.
>
> 3. Let the market decide, yes, but we do need tax incentives and/or
> disincentives to steer usage away from energy sources that pollute,
> contribute to global warming, or lack security of supply. A carbon
> tax (or cap and trade) would solve a lot of problems. A) It would
> encourage conservation in the use of transportation fuels, B) it
> would push more power plants toward natural gas, C) it would reduce
> carbon dioxide emissions, D) it would push demand toward domestic
> natural gas and other domestic sources (including wind and solar),
> and would reduce reliance on imported oil, including from countries
> such as Venezuela, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia, E) it would improve
> the US trade balance, and, F) it would reduce the US federal budget
> deficit.
>
> 4. SemiFinal Comments: I don't think it is feasible to switch over
> to natural gas in the time frame proposed. It would take enormous
> amounts of capital for drilling and infra-structure. And there are
> so-called "environmentalists" who oppose everything that does not
> conform to their "ideal". Environmental opposition will slow down
> any solution.
>
> Final Comment: I don't see any point if firing Chu. I think the Obama
> administration has as good a grasp of the situation as any administration
> could. In fact, they will push science as part of the solution, in
> contrast to the prior administration, who were anti-science.

The Slippery Slope of Declining Petrochemical Demand

over 85% of the total products manufactured in the world are petroleum-based. So much for your comment that oil will go the way of the dinosaur. Some advice for you. Think before you speak.


On Apr 08 10:00 AM The Greatest Rip Off of our Time wrote:

> Oil needs to go the way of the dinosaur, it is a relic fossil of
> the past. New alternative fuels and energy sources are becoming more
> readily and affordable everyday and will replace oil as our energy
> source if we are smart as a species.

Your Oil Stocks Aren't Coming Back

The tech sector is touted by just about everyone as the "fair haired" investment theme. It's the same old story we were told right up to 2000 when the tech bubble burst. As for who cares about oil "demand destruction"? What cave do you live in? That is the "mantra" used every day by the shills at CNBC who have hated the energy/commodity trade forever. Your argument that previous sector winners can NEVER repeat their previous performance is the same tired Wall St. thinking that has generated a negative return in the S&P since 1999. Get over it.


On Feb 20 01:45 PM The Reformed Broker wrote:

> Yank,
> where did anyone on this post or thread recommend "buying tech stocks"
>
>
> are you kidding me?
>
> I dont tell anyone here to buy anything...is english your second
> or third language?
>
> and who is talking demand destruction? who even cares about that?
>
>
> i think you've misread the discussion or you're on the wrong page
> of SA

Your Oil Stocks Aren't Coming Back

I think it's a bit premature to say the energy sector trade is "done". Will we be walking to work tomorrow instead of driving? Maybe we will copy the Chinese and bicycle to work? That should work out well here in Miami with 50 inches of rain per year and 1/2 the year with a +90% heat index. The real issue here is manipulation. Do you think that the same Govt that regularly delivers contrived and inaccurate inflation (CPI/PPI) data would miraculously deliver accurate oil inventory data? If you do I have a bridge to selll you. As for the daily almost nauseating claim trumpeting "demand destruction" I did not see much of that in a late summer drive from Miami to New York and back (with gas at/near $3 gallon). In fact as I drove through several metro areas including Orlando, Atlanta, Charlotte, Wash, DC, and Philadelphia I saw nothing but "bumper to bumper" auto traffic. But keep telling me about "demand destruction". It sounds good anyway. As other posters have repeatedly said we are many years away from any viable replacement for oil as a transportation fuel. But the most important reason that the energy bull is NOT over is the continual generation of cash flow that companies you sneered at (like RIG and XTO) still manage to deliver. If the oil bull is over why would a company like Petrobras continue to spend billions on deep sea oil exploration? Keep buying Tech stocks thought. That should work well until the NASDAQ goes below 1,000 this year.


On Feb 20 10:08 AM The Reformed Broker wrote:

> ok
> so msft csco and intc had massive losses? show them to me.
>
> and btw, what happens to commodity prices over prolonged periods
> of time of overinvestment and overcapacity?
>
> I guess you and your portfolio are about to find out.
>
> not an oil bear, Ive just learned that when a sector/ trend is done,
> move on

Your Oil Stocks Aren't Coming Back

Couple of observations:
1. Oil producers can cut supply at a faster rate then demand can be "destroyed". Ergo, at some point prices will rebound.
2. Much if not all of this collapse has to do with a perverted, illogical rise in the USD. The USD bull is unsustainable. Unfortunately Mr. Cheney, "deficits do matter" when it comes to currency strength. USD strength is about to collapse in a major way.
3. CHK should have NEVER been bought at $70 as it violated the cardinal rule of value investing. Always buy a stock with a margin of safety (Ben Graham's 50% discount to full value rule). I can assure you that CHK is NOT fully valued at $105. More like the $70 price this buyer paid.

What’s the Right Price for Oil?

It's not just Japan that is ahead of the curve with more fuel efficient cars. In Europe and the UK they have been producing Minivans (diesel) that get 35-40 mpg for at least the last 10-15 years. Those are mileage figures we would love to have here in the USA. But instead our automakers here in the USA sat on their hands. And now we as taxpayers have to bail them out? I'm sick of this charade.


On Feb 12 12:50 AM Teutonic Knight wrote:

> To the Daily Reckoning,
>
> I would like to offer a different perspective from the title of your
> article, if I may.
>
> Instead of debating, or even defending the "right" price for oil,
> isn't it time that we, American, wake up to cease our addiction to
> cheap oil?
>
> If indeed we had learned our lessons from the early '70s Arab oil
> embargo crisis, and started to build energy efficient cars like the
> Japanese did, we would have been in much better shape today. We spent
> about something like a little less than $1T each year importing oil.
> Imagine if we had succeeded in conservation, and invested in converting
> to renewable energy, the money saved would have gone a long way in
> paying down our national debt, and in cleaning up the environment.
>
>
> The truth is we don't want to, unless we are forced to, on top of
> other political and economic reasons that the readers only know too
> well, and which I do not want to elucidate here, after listening
> to the Bankers on Capital Hill this morning.
>
> In my view it has to do with our culture too. i could recall in the
> roaring '60s gas was so cheap selling for 33 cents a gallon. The
> Japanese being a island country with almost no oil reserve and production
> at the time, everyone knew from childhood the high cost of gasoline
> and the need to conserve. As a result they have been way ahead in
> building more energy efficient cars.
>

OPEC and Production Cuts: Why Now's the Time to Buy

""Valuations might get better"-
You have to be kidding right? RIG, NOV, and others are trading at P/Es of 3 or 4, with a PEG ratio of 0.3 It doesn't get any cheaper than that. Basically, these cos are being valued at $15 oil. As you say that will never happen. Yes sentiment is poor. But much of that is tied to the strong US dollar (USD). I cannot see the current rally in the USD as being sustainable. When it cracks oil prices will adjust upward.

Oil: The Inconvenient Truth

Fitz:
Agree with you 100% about how undervalued the oil majors are. STO at $27 is indeed ludicrous. We are talking about one of the largest oil cos in the world backed by significant Govt of Norway holdings. When we see a company like DVN trading at a price/cash flow of 5 (The S&P avg is 12.3) growing their earnings at 30-40% annually you know that traders have lost their minds. I don't know what to think but the cynical side of me is starting to believe we are seeing manipulation ahead of the November elections. It was not too long ago (summer of 2006) where we saw oil prices taken down by some curious moves by investment banks (Goldman Sachs re-weighting of its commodity index). Why would they do that 3 months before a mjaor election? It was no accident. This time we are seeing a repeat performance with an orchestrated attack on oil prices so November voters see some relief at the pump before going to the polls. All of this must drive the oil cos crazy because it has nothing to do with fundamentals and makes their operational planning that much more difficult. Anyway you look at it, energy stocks are extremely cheap and undervalued right now.

Yank

Nationalizing Oil: Well-Intentioned, But Wrong

Agree with most comments. What's really pathetic is politicians like Dick Durbin sanctomoniously trying to put the big bad oil cos on a guilt trip with his irrelevant and idiotic question, "Don't you care what you are doing to the American people?" No, Sen. Durbin. When trying to fix blame for this fiasco you don't have to look any further than your own mirror. It is YOU and your idiotic colleagues on Capitol Hill that has caused this mess. Not the oil companies. Not the speculators. Not the hedge funds. You and your incompetent legislators that now enjoy the lowest approval rating in Congressional recordkeeping history.

Russian Energy and U.S. Implications

Great posts. Someone mentioned financial stress in every sector (more than likely related to this credit mess) as being a major problem. What's really disturbing is when you examine how we got into this "credit" problem many people figure it was just too much money chasing too few goods. But the reality is that you can trace the current meltdown to one absolutely disastrous (what else is new) decision by Congress in 1999. Back then in all their "wisdom" they decided we could do without an obscure law called the "Glass-Steagall Act" (GSA). Essentially GSA was passed in the early 1930s in a depression-era move to keep the different financial sectors apart in their business dealings as a means of protection for the consumer. So basically back then insurance companies were restricted to selling life insurance, annuities, etc. while banks were limted to loans, checking accounts, etc. When GSA was abolished in 1999 all bets were off as it set off a "frenzy" of activity by all financial cos. including investment banks, brokers, insurance cos. etc. Now virtually "anyone could sell anything." You can imagine the type of mischief that produced along with some good old-fashioned greed thrown in. Anyway, today we are reaping the disastrous consequences of that decision where banks have no idea what is on their balance sheet or how to properly value an asset. What a complete unmitigated disaster brought about by our misguided, incompetent boobs that run Washington.