Blaine

Total Rating:
0 / 0

8 Comments

    • Sun Apr 13th 07:57 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Exxon Mobil: The Root of all Evil?
      Thank you for making my point. The oil price rises of 1973 and 1979-1980 led to inter-fuel substitution, such as the substitution of oil for gas, and conservation measures being implemented by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries as well as fuel-conserving CAFE standards (auto-mileage) that brought about a collapse in world oil demand.

      Saudi Arabia was faced with the no-win choice of either cutting production to maintain the official selling price or cutting prices and flooding the market. Between 1980 and 1985, Saudi Arabia cut production from 9.9 million barrels per day to four million barrels per day losing significant market share.

      By 1985, Saudi Arabia was tired of shouldering the full burden of price defense and looking on as its revenues declined. In September 1985, Sheikh Yamani, in conjunction with the Aramco partners, instituted a dramatic change of policy to regain Saudi Arabia's lost share of the crude oil market. Between August 1985 and August 1986, Saudi Arabian production increased from 2.2 million to 6.2 million barrels per day, and the spot price of many world crudes fell to less than $10 from their previous 1985 levels of around $26 to $29 per barrel.

      Hence, rising oil prices led to oil conservation and substitution; which led to reduced demand; which led to cutting production in an attempt to prop up prices; which led to lost market share; which led to increased production to recapture market share; which led to significantly increased downward price pressure.

      Sounds to me like fuel conserving standards and oil substitution in the form of alternatives is a pretty good thing.
      View article »
    • Sun Apr 13th 04:04 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Exxon Mobil: The Root of all Evil?
      The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming slammed executives from Exxon-Mobil et al. for their opposition to eliminating about $18 billion in tax breaks amid record profits for the industry. Several lawmakers, mostly Democrats, want to take the tax break away from oil companies and use the money to subsidize renewable energy projects. This is where we should be putting scarce resources, not into areas that don't need our help.

      In the mid- 1970's, Congress implemented CAFE standards to combat an oil shortage driven by the policies of OPEC. The standards raised fuel efficiency in American cars by 7.6 miles a gallon over six years, causing oil imports from the Persian Gulf to fall by 87 percent.

      The CAFE standards worked so well that they produced an oil glut by 1986. That's when the Reagan administration intervened to rescue America's domestic oil industry from gasoline price collapse. Reagan's rollback of CAFE standards caused America, in that year, to double oil imports from the Persian Gulf nations and to burn more oil than is in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

      If the United States had continued to conserve oil at the rate it did in the period from 1976 to 1985, we would no longer have needed Persian Gulf oil after 1985. Every increase of one mile per gallon in auto fuel efficiency yields more oil than is in two Arctic National Wildlife Refuges. An improvement right now of 2.7 miles per gallon would eliminate our need for all Persian Gulf oil!

      Yet the Republican Congress in 1995 made it illegal for the EPA even to study higher CAFE standards. The result is that America now has the worst energy efficiency in 20 years.
      View article »
    • Fri Apr 11th 15:53 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Thursday Outlook: Range-Bound Trading
      I think that this article by in the April 11 issue of the NY Times sums it up for me.

      According to a recent report by Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, if the United States had continued to conserve oil at the rate it did in the period from 1976 to 1985, it would no longer have needed Persian Gulf oil after 1985. Had we continued this wise course, we might not have had to fight the Persian Gulf war, and we would have insulated ourselves from price shocks in the international oil market. Fuel efficiency is a sound national energy policy, economic policy and foreign policy all wrapped into one. Every increase of one mile per gallon in auto fuel efficiency yields more oil than is in two Arctic National Wildlife Refuges. An improvement right now of 2.7 miles per gallon would eliminate our need for all Persian Gulf oil!
      View article »
    • Thu Apr 10th 09:02 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Thursday Outlook: Range-Bound Trading
      The oil embargo began during the Nixon administration, which did absolutely nothing and neither did Gerald Ford's. When Jimmy Carter became president, he installed solar panels atop the White House. He also championed nuclear power. He taxed oil company profits to fund renewable energy research. He created the U.S. Department of Energy. He introduced America to ethanol. Oil imports plummeted during the Carter administration. Renewable energy research skyrocketed.

      Pres. Carter submitted a 104-page energy plan to Congress with 113 specific proposals. Builders were required to use more insulation. Appliances, refrigerators in particular, became more energy-efficient. Homeowners received tax credits to heat water with solar power and the speed limit was lowered to 55 mph to conserve gasoline.

      Carter boosted renewable fuel usage from 6 percent to 7 percent of the nation's energy demands. Oil used to generate electricity disappeared.

      But Ronald Reagan soon began killing off many of Carter's energy initiatives. Reagan halved the Energy Department's conservation and alternative fuels budget. Spending on photovoltaic research dropped by two-thirds. Under Reagan, Energy tax credits for homeowners disappeared. Reagan rolled back fuel-efficiency standards for cars and he had the solar panels atop the White House taken down.

      Today United States imports 12 million barrels of oil daily, or 60 percent of the amount consumed. Oil and gas prices are skyrocketing. The US imports twice as much oil as it did during Carter's final year in office. Ethanol, biodiesel, solar and other alternative fuels supply no more energy than they did in 1980. And the Bush administration has given no consideration to any action that would correct our growing crisis of energy.
      View article »
    • Fri Feb 22nd 11:35 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Thursday Outlook: The Inflation Con Game
      Sorry, the date on the NY Times article was February 22, 1995 - not 2008. It was written by Kenneth N. Gilpin.
      View article »
    • Fri Feb 22nd 11:27 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Beware of Core Rate Hypnosis: Pre-Clinton CPI Shows 7% Inflation (ETF: GLD)
      Sorry, the date on the NY Times article is February 22, 1995 by Kenneth N. Gilpin.
      View article »
    • Fri Feb 22nd 10:15 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Beware of Core Rate Hypnosis: Pre-Clinton CPI Shows 7% Inflation (ETF: GLD)
      David Fry falsely implies that the Clinton administration was responsible for the way inflation was re-calculated. It was factually Alan Greenspan and a grateful Republican Congress who created a shell game to slash $150 million form the Federal Deficit over five years. Greenspan suggested the change in 1995 as a way to trim cost of living adjustments to Social Security beneficiaries, other recipients of Federal benefit programs and retired Government workers.

      According to the NY Times, “Mr. Greenspan's proposal was greeted enthusiastically by Republicans on Capitol Hill. He appeared to offer a way out of one of their biggest quandaries: how to cut spending on Federal entitlement programs without a specific vote that would clearly tamper with politically sacrosanct Social Security benefits. It would also allow Congress to increase tax revenues at a faster rate without requiring a political death wish: a vote to increase income taxes. …Indeed, House Speaker Newt Gingrich went so far as to threaten to withhold financing from the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- responsible for compiling the monthly consumer price report since 1919 -- unless it changed its approach. (NY Times, Feb. 22, 2008)

      Truthfully, it was Speaker Gingrich and the 1990’s Republican Congress who are responsible. Even if Fry makes the meager argument that the President agreed to the changes proposed by Greenspan and the Congress, how is it that he cites Clinton, yet make no mention of Greenspan’s or the Republican Congress’s vast preponderance of responsibility? It should be more accurately called “The Gingrich/ Greenspan/ Republican Congress Rigging”. Those who would undertake journalism at the very least have an obligation for the accuracy instead of political bias.
      View article »
    • Fri Feb 22nd 06:19 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Thursday Outlook: The Inflation Con Game
      It is a completely false assertion that "Clinton and Company" changed the way inflation was calculated. It was factually Alan Greenspan and a grateful Republican Congress who created a shell game to slash $150 million form the Federal Deficit over five years. Greenspan suggested the change in 1995 as a way to trim cost of living adjustments to Social Security beneficiaries, other recipients of Federal benefit programs and retired Government workers.

      According to the NY Times, “Mr. Greenspan's proposal was greeted enthusiastically by Republicans on Capitol Hill. He appeared to offer a way out of one of their biggest quandaries: how to cut spending on Federal entitlement programs without a specific vote that would clearly tamper with politically sacrosanct Social Security benefits. It would also allow Congress to increase tax revenues at a faster rate without requiring a political death wish: a vote to increase income taxes. …Indeed, House Speaker Newt Gingrich went so far as to threaten to withhold financing from the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- responsible for compiling the monthly consumer price report since 1919 -- unless it changed its approach. (NY Times, Feb. 22, 2008)
      Truthfully, it was Speaker Gingrich and the 1990’s Republican Congress who were responsible. Does David Fry intentionally misrepresent the facts or is he just uninformed? Those who would undertake journalism at the very least have an obligation for the truth; and hyperbolic slander has no place in legitimate publications, even if they are online. One should only hope that Mr. Fry is not as cavalier with his investing advice as he is with the truth.
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»