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.

Expect a New Direction for Crude Oil

The current fad of investing in "green technology" reminds me of the internet mania. Oil is in a correction, maybe it will drop into the mid fifties/barrel, but 50-75 will be a trading range for some time.If indeed we are in a long term glut of oil, then why is Brazil, the ethanol giant, investing in drilling its offshore reserves? Are major drillers and bidders of oil leases simply stupid? Haven't they listened to Al Gore?

While it is refreshing to see renewed enthusiasm for improving solar and wind technology, oil/natural gas will remain the mainstay of our energy use for some time. Nuclear would be a great option for electrical generation, but the greenies don't like it.

There are compelling values in the oil patch which now would be best approached with an averaging down strategy. I would still prefer to have some of my money in solid oil companies than in the U.S. dollar.
for a longer than three month time horizon. If oil drops into the fifties, I will double down on my oil holdings.

Energy Stocks Stumbling

I appreciate Mr.Miller's brief resume to support the credibility of his comments. The only reason this nation is not yet embracing natural gas as an extremely viable alternative is the current religious zealotry that is the global warming movement,the Copenhagen conference, etc.. It is "in" to be for wind and solar, and "out" to be for anything emitting carbon, no matter how clean.

Wind and solar are fine as a component, but we have a long road to go.Wind and solar won't run our trains or cars. Nuclear is a great option for electricity; the fact that Obama,Gore and others are not touting it reflects not the merits of its clean electricity promise, but again,nuclear does not fit into the "green" religion.

I guess it takes a long time for fanatics to return to reality; it took the Soviets most of the twentieth century and impoverished their nation.Hopefully we will recognize the environmental merits of natural gas soon. We could convert the trucking fleet rapidly.

Bespoke's analysis is valid. We are seeing better prices for entry into these energy stocks.The market has a very short term memory.I am holding my NOV,CVX,ATW, and CHK is again looking interesting (I sold at $26). Maybe they can stay out of favor for a while while we average in.

It is ironic that most of the world's carbon emission reflects the recycling of what were once live,organic plants and animals. The plants built themselves on CO2, animals ate the plants, and the result is now petroleum. All the CO2 that was taken in by these organisms and currently sequestered in coal, oil, natural gas, once was back in the atmosphere. And yes, we have had 25 ice ages, there were once tropical plants in the Arctic and elsewhere.

I apologize for digressing, but while it is a worthy goal to reasonably control emissions, we are foolish in the Western world to abandon our valuable domestic resources of natural gas, coal and oil, to lose the opportunity for tremendous job creation in these industries.

The current domestic economic policy of the Obama administration would be tragic if resulting from zealotry and incompetence. It would be a cruel war against America if it is intentional. You will have decide the motivations. I have my own suspicions.

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.

Chevron Is the Future - Cramer

Cramer is "right" but probably only because he has been reading my and others comments on SA!

Cramer has always been a booster of COP as a "value play", but in one of my recent posts, I noted that the "value gap" between COP and CVX /XOM has always stayed, so the market assesses COP differently.

I also noted that CVX is innovative, it plays the game like a West Coast quarterback, while XOM plays like in the Midwest.
So in this case I agree with Cramer because I believed in CVX before his "endorsement". In fact I like CVX in spite of his endorsement!

In fact, come to think of it, it almost puts me off when he gets behind a stock, it is like a curse!! Not in this case, though.

Five Best Energy Companies According to Market Cap

pautaut may be right about Obama. If he really looks to Chavez as a role model it is going to be a harsh slap in the face for his adoring fans,(I mean voters, would be citizens, whatever).

I do fear that Obama's advisers, however they may know better, will take their cue from El Jefe. Obama, a neo marxist from a privileged background, I fear does believe in the destruction of capital and possiblly individual freedom as a step in our progression to a failed state.He is sure working on it. Any move to tax further the domestic industry would only serve to enrich his tyrannical friends in Venezuela and the Middle East.

Well, then I guess that is the point, it works for him, and after all, the country is now all about him.

Five Best Energy Companies According to Market Cap

CVX is the quality sleeper here.

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.

Cramer's Stop Trading! Dow Doomsday Scenario (3/6/09)

You know, there is a time when Cramer would be better just keeping his mouth shut. Who knows where things are going.

What does he want- credit if his lowball predictions are right? Maybe they will be higher, maybe lower, the fact is that he has no idea, so he should just shut up already.

Cramer's Stop Trading! The Oils Fall Down (1/9/09)

once again, Cramer is a contrarian indicator

Will Oil Stocks Stay This Cheap?

The first comment,suggesting that the input costs for oil exploration are indeed flexible downwards with a weakening economy, again ignores the fact that we are running out of "easy oil" reserves.

There is plenty of oil in more challenging areas, such as deep water, and of course, the oil sands of Canada.However the research and technology input costs required to extract this are predicated upon an assumption of an oil price range which will justify these costs. These input costs do not drop in price with a weaker economy; instead, if oil prices drop, these projects stay put on hold, and we continue to finish off our exploitation of easy reserves.'

If anything, it means that a weak economy ,with weaker oil prices, defers the needed exploration and development of large reserves which are more expensive to exploit. So unless we rapidly develop alternatives for petroleum products, for everything from cars to plastics,we may indeed face a huge spike in oil prices in a couple of years.

It can spike up just as rapidly as it has fallen.

Of course, one of the lessons that the OPEC countries should have but likely have not learned, is that there is a sweet spot in oil prices where we pay more and they do well. They got greedy, and when President Bush (reflecting our desperation due to no drilling in the U.S.) asked Saudi Arabia to increase volume, they were not enthusiastic.

The result? Consumers cut back, demand dropped (temporarily) and the price plunged.

It seems to me that a healthy price for oil, to encourage exploration and a decent rate of return, is in the 95-110 dollar a barrel range. But ultimately the market will determine whether we swing from $55 a barrel soon, back to $180 a barrel in three years.

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.

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.