Miranda's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/149227/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/70501-looking-for-solid-returns-from-big-oil?source=feed#comment-134680 134680
I know that BP talks a big game in alternative energy investment, and it is investing in jatropha, but a lot of it has been for show. And I'm not overly fond of STO. But it does make an interesting option for people who are interested in carbon neutrality and want a slice of the Big Oil pie.

Over time, all the oil companies will likely increase. I simply pointed out (and I'm not an investment professional) that in fundamentals BP seems to have more of a problem than many other Big Oil companies.]]> Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:52:12 -0400
I know that BP talks a big game in alternative energy investment, and it is investing in jatropha, but a lot of it has been for show. And I'm not overly fond of STO. But it does make an interesting option for people who are interested in carbon neutrality and want a slice of the Big Oil pie.

Over time, all the oil companies will likely increase. I simply pointed out (and I'm not an investment professional) that in fundamentals BP seems to have more of a problem than many other Big Oil companies.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/68435-exxon-mobil-diversifies-into-the-hybrid-car-market?source=feed#comment-128325 128325 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:19:42 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/64623-do-biofuels-harm-more-than-they-help?source=feed#comment-117853 117853 Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:46:31 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/64623-do-biofuels-harm-more-than-they-help?source=feed#comment-117152 117152
Thomas: I have to agree with you about subsidies. It's a great way for pols to cater to their Big Ag supporters while at the same time pacifying environmentalists by saying: "Look, we're supporting the fight against dirty, polluting oil!" It also gets them in with those who are looking at energy independence as well. Too bad they skate over the fact that they are also giving big subsidies to oil companies as well...]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:40:32 -0500
Thomas: I have to agree with you about subsidies. It's a great way for pols to cater to their Big Ag supporters while at the same time pacifying environmentalists by saying: "Look, we're supporting the fight against dirty, polluting oil!" It also gets them in with those who are looking at energy independence as well. Too bad they skate over the fact that they are also giving big subsidies to oil companies as well...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/64623-do-biofuels-harm-more-than-they-help?source=feed#comment-116485 116485
Jatropha, though, does not destroy topsoil. It actually turns bad topsoil into something usable later. And, unlike corn ethanol, is fairly efficient.

And yes, CO2 does help plants. Unfortunately, too much of it can be harmful. Too much of nearly anything can be harmful. And when what takes the CO2 from the air is being destroyed by clearing, it can be a problem.

Global warming, though, is not something I am overly concerned about. I see it as a red herring. Rather, pollution and the quality of the air we breathe (and the attendant health issues) is more of an issue for me. But the pols want us focused on a global warming debate. Why? Because air pollution and air quality is something we can work on, and something that requires actual action. Global warming by humans can't really be proven definitively at this time, so focusing on a debate forestalls having to take action.]]> Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:42:22 -0500
Jatropha, though, does not destroy topsoil. It actually turns bad topsoil into something usable later. And, unlike corn ethanol, is fairly efficient.

And yes, CO2 does help plants. Unfortunately, too much of it can be harmful. Too much of nearly anything can be harmful. And when what takes the CO2 from the air is being destroyed by clearing, it can be a problem.

Global warming, though, is not something I am overly concerned about. I see it as a red herring. Rather, pollution and the quality of the air we breathe (and the attendant health issues) is more of an issue for me. But the pols want us focused on a global warming debate. Why? Because air pollution and air quality is something we can work on, and something that requires actual action. Global warming by humans can't really be proven definitively at this time, so focusing on a debate forestalls having to take action.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/64623-do-biofuels-harm-more-than-they-help?source=feed#comment-116306 116306
As for the chicken analogy -- I'm not sure about the point, but we aren't on a desert island (thankfully) and there are other things we could be developing instead of just using oil until it's gone. I think a complementary solution could be used. Perhaps feed some of the cereal to some of the chickens, and eat a mixed diet of chicken and cereal, slowly weaning one of the chicken. (Since the chicken will be gone anyway.) Of course, with both chicken and cereal, it is possible to get more of both. Chickens lay eggs and cereal can be planted and harvested. You can't get more oil.]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:53:46 -0500
As for the chicken analogy -- I'm not sure about the point, but we aren't on a desert island (thankfully) and there are other things we could be developing instead of just using oil until it's gone. I think a complementary solution could be used. Perhaps feed some of the cereal to some of the chickens, and eat a mixed diet of chicken and cereal, slowly weaning one of the chicken. (Since the chicken will be gone anyway.) Of course, with both chicken and cereal, it is possible to get more of both. Chickens lay eggs and cereal can be planted and harvested. You can't get more oil.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/63068-exxon-mobil-does-it-again?source=feed#comment-115280 115280
I don't agree with the "values" of XOM, in the sense that they don't see beyond profit and obeying the letter of the law and the minimum required in circumstances. Yes, XOM did what was necessary at the time. But no more than that. Going to court, while it is their right, and I think it's fine for them to do it, is a way of avoiding "going the extra mile."

But that's my opinion. I agree that XOM is a good investment choice, but I don't like the way they do things, so I won't invest in the company. You disagree. And you will probably make more money than me if you decide to invest in XOM at some point.]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2008 12:24:14 -0500
I don't agree with the "values" of XOM, in the sense that they don't see beyond profit and obeying the letter of the law and the minimum required in circumstances. Yes, XOM did what was necessary at the time. But no more than that. Going to court, while it is their right, and I think it's fine for them to do it, is a way of avoiding "going the extra mile."

But that's my opinion. I agree that XOM is a good investment choice, but I don't like the way they do things, so I won't invest in the company. You disagree. And you will probably make more money than me if you decide to invest in XOM at some point.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/63068-exxon-mobil-does-it-again?source=feed#comment-115189 115189 money.cnn.com/magazine...)

You're right. XOM doesn't have to try and promote better environmental practices. But for investors who care about that sort of thing, simply meeting minimum standards and efforts to avoid paying for the damages it caused in the Valdez spill equals a horrible record. (Just because a company meets the absolute minimum required by law, and just because a company isn't breaking any laws doesn't mean its doing any good; it just means it could -- and probably would -- be doing worse.)

After all, what you consider horrible is subjective. And that is my point. If profits are ALL you care about in a company, Exxon is the way to go. ]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2008 05:38:42 -0500 money.cnn.com/magazine...)

You're right. XOM doesn't have to try and promote better environmental practices. But for investors who care about that sort of thing, simply meeting minimum standards and efforts to avoid paying for the damages it caused in the Valdez spill equals a horrible record. (Just because a company meets the absolute minimum required by law, and just because a company isn't breaking any laws doesn't mean its doing any good; it just means it could -- and probably would -- be doing worse.)

After all, what you consider horrible is subjective. And that is my point. If profits are ALL you care about in a company, Exxon is the way to go. ]]>