Fred W

Global Warming: Investment Implications

It is a simple risk/reward calculation...the "risk" is simply not worth the "reward". Earthquake, suitcase nuke...? Trying to equate one time events that are actually insignificant in the "bigger" scheme of things is worthless to the discussion.
Billions and trillions of taxpayer money...1 trillion equal 1000 billion so making that jump is about a coherent a leap as your earthquake/nuke drivel.


On Aug 20 10:47 AM Swashbuckler wrote:

> We can "what if?" things all day long. " What if" a suitcase nuke
> goes off in LA or Manhatten? Or an earthquake separates CA from the
> USA. Sometimes it is better to wait for legitimate evidence before
> obligating billions or trillions in taxpayer funding.

Global Warming: Investment Implications

The REAL answer is that we DON'T know the answer. But you must ask yourself, "What is the penalty for being wrong?" On one side of the coin you have the possible downside of dramatically slow economic growth and large shift toward efficiently using of resources.
On the other side of the coin you have the potential for global catastrophe and the beginning of another dark age.
There are no credit default swaps to hedge global warming--no-bail outs possible. If it happens, we are stuck with the carnage.
So, do you feel lucky?
OR are you just planning on dieing before any of the real downside risk shows up?

Is Natural Gas About to Break Higher?

You can't have it both ways. All of these "bad" market conditions are well known, and as such, can be reasonably assumed to be priced into the market.
The "unknowns" are what will drive the price of NG. (Weather and the fate of GHG legislation)
NG will not be "given" away...low prices result in lower price movements even if they are perceived as "big" percentage moves. 10% of $3 vs. 10% of $8 equates to a $0.30 or $0.80 movement in price...almost a 300% change in deltas


On Jul 20 09:50 AM Evanbobh wrote:

> And why would gas prices, which trade on the Nymex and are linked
> to options, futures, etc, go higher just because the stock of a driller
> or producer was driven up artificially? This makes no sense - particularly
> when there are 2-3 bcf/day (about 6-8% of US production) excess production
> capacity in the Rockies. Only a very cold winter, an increase in
> the economy, and a few more rigs shutting down will actually drive
> the prices up.

A Natural Gas Centric Strategic Long-Term Comprehensive Energy Policy

Glad that someone else sees what is actually happening here.
Pickens is simply supporting switching to NG in order to drive up the value of his wind assets/plans (by increasing the price of electricity) When the price of NG turns it will make oils' run-ups look tame.


On Apr 25 10:00 AM dcb wrote:

> If it is logical and makes good policy I can assure you the vested
> interests will kill it. Or they will kill it so they can buy it up
> then adopt it (is that what is going on with natural gas now)

Chesapeake Energy CEO in Questionable Compensation Deal

Fool or shill? You are one or the other.


On Apr 05 08:44 PM Factzplz wrote:

> I represent 44,000 shares of CHK and I approve the bonus, as McClendon
> has earned it, hands down.
>
> CHK is the most undervalued company I have ever invested in my 46
> years in the market. The value would never exist if it were not
> for McClendon's vision, ethics, and determination.
>
> Rather than criticize this transaction, quit being so lazy and research
> what he accomplished, and what shareholders will reap in future years.
> I am confident that if you do your homework you will find a jewel
> among the gas stocks.
>
> CHK is great only because of McClendon.