dsrtwriter

Chevron: Spending Cuts Coming in 2010

Both comments are right on. Any drop in oil consumption by western nations converting to "green" will be more than offset by the large world population seeking a better life, a small car, a home with heat, etc..If one realistically examined the unsubsidized costs for developing solar, wind, biofuels, ethanol (eg. grow crops, use them for ethanol,cause world food prices to rise, use more fertilizer for the ethanol crops, thus increasing runoff contamination of our streams, attendant loss of fish stocks, etc.,etc), petroleum actually still remains a critical energy source.

Are there no environmental impacts from covering our deserts with solar farms? Is there no energy input to making the solar panels?
The same argument for wind applies.

Now this is NOT to say that we should not increase the use of these alternate sources to nibble away at the full dependence upon oil, but oil and natural gas are here for a long time.

Second comment is spot on with regard to carbon recycling.Human efforts to build carbon sequestration dumps via tax moneys and taxes on production pale in comparison to what the Earth can do.

Yes, we have significant CO2 emissions from human activity in this century. At the same time, we do not have many active volcanoes spewing massive C02 as in eons ago.Somehow the earth has handled the volcanic age (that is why we have dinosaur fossils in Montana, which was once tropical).

Nobody really knows whether increases in CO2 ultimately lead to global warming or to a future ice age.The volcanic history of the world would give the possibility of an ice age as an equal outcome.

Problem is, it takes millions of years for these impacts to play out.
Even a one hundred year history of record keeping does not answer the global warming argument.

Now don't get me wrong, I will concede that glaciers are melting, but I don't buy Al Gore's hysteria that the oceans will rise massively and kill millions. But when you are espousing a new religion, you need to have a story for Armageddon to get people's attention. Gore does this, and makes a little money for himself along with it.

Believe me, if I could buy a solar or wind system at a competitive price, non subsidized by government, I would love to reduce my dependence on oil. It would be great to be off the "grid".

In the meantime, I will keep my oil and drilling shares, considering the over hyped other equity junk on the market. For those hoping for many green jobs in the U.S., such as Obama and Pelosi, they might want to read a little more; most of the solar and wind technology is being manufactured in Asia. The large wind turbines being erected in the Midwest are made in Vietnam.

How to Invest in Peak Oil

only the U.S.,with already some of the cleanest technology for emissions, is embracing the "cap and tax" rules. China, Russia, India, etc. will continue to be major users of petroleum, coal, etc..
It seems we are not allowed to compete in this country.We will be able to buy goods made in China/India duty free, but our own companies face cap/tax/unions/health care/etc,etc..Not a way to restore our industrial base.

Peak Oil: China vs. USA

You neglected to add that China has been buying interests in the oil sands of Alberta, and could well make more investments in Canada to assure a supply of oil. I guess in a few years we will be commuting to work in Rickshaws to reduce our carbon footprint (very Obama), while the Chinese drive around in cars.

I agree with you that natural gas is a "natural" especially for our trucking industry, as Boone Pickens has advocated.
Unfortunately, just as you are, Pickens was infatuated with Obama who tells everyone what they want to hear, and he has disappointed on the natural gas front.

It just goes to show that when you vote for someone who makes you feel good be careful what you wish for. Barack talked a big game on electric cars, but how much have you heard about nuclear power to provide that electricity?

No matter, we all feel good, we are post-racial, etc. that's what matters.

The Bull Case for Big Oil

I agree with your thesis here.COP is always touted as trading at a "discount" to the majors such as CVX or XOM.

Problem is that it always trades at a discount, so unless you think it will become more of an equal and the discount will disappear, no reason on this basis to favor COP.

XOM is always cash rich, but to me it is like one of those midwestern quarterbacks, predictable,not too creative.

I favor CVX as a better combination of innovation, good dividend, and it is still a very healthy major oil company.

Trying to Catch a Falling Dollar

very well written analysis without hype. Sensible advice.For those of us not versed in options, a further explanation of the puts and their cost/benefit by an example would be helpful.But I agree that at this point some dollar cost averaging into dividend stocks makes sense. I would also add NOV as a company which has seen its share price savaged by hedge selling, despite great fundamentals. Also FWLT.
Fine, let them drift down more, they won't go to zero, and with dollar cost averaging of existing positions it can pay to go against the crowd.

Is Valero a Better Buy than Exxon Mobil?

Clearly one of the issues is that the global warming religion crowd in this country also combines their fervor with a "punish America" fervor.
Rationality or reason is not tolerated.

The reality is that petroleum and other fossil-based fuels are plentiful in this country if we have the will to use them.Unlike ethanol, these fossil fuels represent organic energy already created millions of years ago, requiring no fertilizer inputs, no irrigation water, and no competitive use of our food producing land.

Today's cars need to work on better mileage, which is certainly achievable.The emission standards today have resulted in actually very clean emissions from the tailpipes of modern vehicles.

But for the environmental fanatics,oil is bad, no matter what the facts. Sure, lets grow corn,dump the phosphate fertilizers on the land, kill the undersea life in the Gulf, etc. to get the massively subsidized ethanol.

Electric cars- a great idea. When will we hear Al Gore and his flock demanding the construction of the nuclear reactors we need to create the electricity for these cars? Never.

And of course it is ok for China to pollute the skies for some time in the future, after all it is "their turn".For a country that has overpopulated itself to the point of requiring a "one child per family" rule,private auto transport should not even be in the cards. They should focus on public transportation.

Sorry, that is politically incorrect judgementalism, I know. We certainly can't have that.

Canadian Crude Pushing South

I find it interesting that Canada seeks a better price in the "world market",that is only natural.

What Canada overlooks is the fact that there is only one country preventing all of Canada's natural resources from being outright expropriated by other nations through force (ie.China), and it is called the United States.

As a Canadian by birth, I know how my relatives and the Canadian media love to snipe at the U.S..Canada looks to world markets for its oil. But maybe a discount and an assured supply to its southern neighbor is fair compensation in view of Canada's naive or short sighted chronic underfunding of its military for its protection.

It is very topical, considering Canada's current concern over Russian claims on the Artic offshore oil areas.

"Who you gonna call" Canada, if Russia tries to move in on your Arctic resources?

I think it is called the United States of America.

Nationalizing Oil: Well-Intentioned, But Wrong

Unfortunately our political leadership mirrors what is increasingly developing as an unsophisticated "banana republic" electorate.As we descend from our first world status into second tier, populist campaign rhetoric and promises of freebies abound. George Bush makes speeches blaming us for our "addiction to oil" when the reality is that this nightmare scenario is the doing of stupid government over many years.

We just drive the cars to work Mr.President, we don't formulate policy.

On the other hand it is the same people drinking the global warming Kool Aid who banned drilling the massive offshore and Alaska Anwar reserves, which at least would give us a ten to fifteen year breathing room, not for hydrogen cars ( it takes equal energy to split water into hydrogen as to then get the hydrogen energy release to return it to water).

No, the eco Prius driving crowd (they can afford to buy the new cars, most people can't) opposes drilling here, and also opposes the massive need for nuclear power,which is the only real solution for electricity to power those electric cars which most commuters should be driving today. Burning natural gas and coal to make electricity for the "clean" electric car is just exporting emissions to a remote plant.

And speaking of natural gas, it is also extremely clean burning, but again, "fossil fuels bad, fertilizing crops for ethanol,creating phosphate runoffs to kill sea life in the Gulf, good"

The problem with liberals is that they are on perpetual searches for the free lunch, whether by nationalization (no,Maxine would not pay for the oil industry, she would have "our troops" take it over by force some bright sunny morning, probably make the workers produce under penalty of being sent to reeducation camps) or by banning domestic exploration to punish us all for driving fossil fuel vehicles.

They believe that we need to be punished with high fuel prices, that this will force us to alternatives. Problem is that their suggestions of wind and sun power are long term solutions which will not stand on their own without nuclear power and yes, still some use of fossil fuels.

But no worries, after all Obama is coming along with "change you can believe in"

Oil, Iraq and U.S. Foreign Policy: A Way Forward (Part II)

I will overlook the general ad hominum attack on the administration, straight out of the Democratic playbook, although as a true conservative I have many problems with administration policies, from the Dem/Republicans both ignoring the wishes of the people for a secure southern border,etc.

In fact, I applaud Democratic Senator Carl Levin's statements yesterday during the hearings with Defense Secretary Gates.Senator Levin properly points out that the Iraqi government is spending only about four percent of its multibillion dollar budget on reconstruction; it is hoarding the rest.

Iraqi oil facilities are now producing about 200 million dollars worth of oil every five days.

They are spending none of that money on infrastructure.

Instead, the U.S. continues to spend to build their schools, police stations, etc., plus paying Iraqi citizens "walking around money" to do jobs so they won't hang around street corners and shoot our soldiers.

You state that the "U.S.created this mess".

Oh I see. Under Saddam, and his wonderful sons, the people were free to experience various forms of torture such as being pushed off buildings for the amusement of Uday and Kusay.Women were free to be stoned to death in the street.

Sure, those were the good old days!

Well we did step in. I agree that we did not count on the Iraqis to be so "helpless" in helping themselves once freed, and the old rivalries came to the fore.

We have poured billions into that country to build an infrastructure (not rebuild, since Saddam did not provide the level of public facilities for his people that we are attempting).

It is however, testament to all those politicians, so fearful of leftist wackos' cries of "it's all about oil", that our administration has failed to tally an "oil bill" in oil value equivalents, to pay for the infrastructure money we have spent on this country which stands to be vastly wealthy from its oil.

How about paying back the loan,Iraq? Don't say that we caused the problem and we have to clean it up. You don't want to go back to a Saddam world,you enjoyed being liberated. It is just that you now do not want to pay up.

Sure, now it is all about oil. Even with conservation and alternate energy sources (such as ethanol which is pushing food and fertilizer costs through the roof).,we will need oil for years to come. Why should Iraqis be paying five cents a gallon for gasoline?

I agree with Senator Levin. No more money for building infrastructure.As far as I am concerned, forget about the U.N.,which did nothing except shake its finger at
Saddam for 17 ignored resolutions. We are entitled to value payment in oil for the value we have invested in that country.

It is just that the Iraqis are so lacking in character that they are banking the money and feel no obligation to repay us. As Senator Levin stated, one Iraqi general told our forces that as long as we keep paying for the rebuilding, they will take it.

Senator McCain is right. We may not be in Iraq for one hundred years, but unless we are willing to cede region to those nice regimes in China and Russia, we are going to be hopefully a resident gorilla in the region for many decades.