akapital's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/99555/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/176373-energy-impoverishment-heading-back-to-coal?source=feed#comment-790527 790527
Individual choices in competitive alternative energy market may have the ability to counter the ineptitude, shortsightedness of oligarchy.

Some interesting side notes (at least I find them interesting):

1. Who stands to lose the most by higher energy costs? Those who use the most energy. And therefore, gov't and business, not individuals.

2. Although many find Global Warming a central issue here I do not. In other words, whether you believe it to be fact or fiction is in fact immaterial and as soon as we all agree to this the sooner we can concentrate on the real issue: Toxic Pollution. That is, I think we can all agree that industrial pollution is inherently bad, increases cancer rates, pollute air and water. It really does not matter whether it causes global warming. A more immediate concern is the alarming damage it is causing to all forms of life, human and otherwise.

To anyone who denies global warming, fine, but would you place your mouth on a tail pipe or condone dumping of chemicals in your drinking water or condone chemical or toxic exposure to the foods you eat?

I think we can all find common ground on minimizing environmental damage based on self-preservation at the very least!?]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:46:54 -0500
Individual choices in competitive alternative energy market may have the ability to counter the ineptitude, shortsightedness of oligarchy.

Some interesting side notes (at least I find them interesting):

1. Who stands to lose the most by higher energy costs? Those who use the most energy. And therefore, gov't and business, not individuals.

2. Although many find Global Warming a central issue here I do not. In other words, whether you believe it to be fact or fiction is in fact immaterial and as soon as we all agree to this the sooner we can concentrate on the real issue: Toxic Pollution. That is, I think we can all agree that industrial pollution is inherently bad, increases cancer rates, pollute air and water. It really does not matter whether it causes global warming. A more immediate concern is the alarming damage it is causing to all forms of life, human and otherwise.

To anyone who denies global warming, fine, but would you place your mouth on a tail pipe or condone dumping of chemicals in your drinking water or condone chemical or toxic exposure to the foods you eat?

I think we can all find common ground on minimizing environmental damage based on self-preservation at the very least!?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/176140-genetically-modified-crops-good-for-monsanto-less-so-for-you?source=feed#comment-788730 788730
The fact that most people don't care means nothing will be done to change this. Is it any wonder the rates of cancer continue to rise.

Monsanto is to agriculture what Lehman was to finance. Toxic stuff that in the end affects us all.

Also, all indications are that Monsanto gmo seeds will affect natural selection of crops (in the same way farm raised fish, salmon affect the natural salmon)...we are messing with millions of years of evolution. It aint going to be pretty...but hey maybe our kids will be better able to multi task using that third hand.]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:12:32 -0500
The fact that most people don't care means nothing will be done to change this. Is it any wonder the rates of cancer continue to rise.

Monsanto is to agriculture what Lehman was to finance. Toxic stuff that in the end affects us all.

Also, all indications are that Monsanto gmo seeds will affect natural selection of crops (in the same way farm raised fish, salmon affect the natural salmon)...we are messing with millions of years of evolution. It aint going to be pretty...but hey maybe our kids will be better able to multi task using that third hand.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/176140-genetically-modified-crops-good-for-monsanto-less-so-for-you?source=feed#comment-788729 788729
The fact that most people don't care means nothing will be done to change this. Is it any wonder the rates of cancer continue to rise.

Monsanto is to agriculture what Lehman was to finance. Toxic stuff that in the end affects us all.

Also, all indications are that Monsanto gmo seeds will affect natural selection of crops (in the same way farm raised fish, salmon affect the natural salmon)...we are messing with millions of years of evolution. It aint going to be pretty...but hey maybe our kids will be better able to multi task using that third hand.]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:12:24 -0500
The fact that most people don't care means nothing will be done to change this. Is it any wonder the rates of cancer continue to rise.

Monsanto is to agriculture what Lehman was to finance. Toxic stuff that in the end affects us all.

Also, all indications are that Monsanto gmo seeds will affect natural selection of crops (in the same way farm raised fish, salmon affect the natural salmon)...we are messing with millions of years of evolution. It aint going to be pretty...but hey maybe our kids will be better able to multi task using that third hand.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175358-is-the-other-oil-shoe-dropping?source=feed#comment-777702 777702
If you own or earn dollars, oil and gold are a good investment.

If you burn gas, a position in oil stocks, producers, distributers, etc. is a nice hedge against your consumption of gasoline. You may have to pay more at the pump but your investment in oil goes up.

For anyone you has any significant use of gas/oil as a daily part of there lifestyle/energy consumption an investment in natural resources is a no brainer investment. If the price of oil goes down you benefit, if it goes up you benefit.]]> Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:28:01 -0500
If you own or earn dollars, oil and gold are a good investment.

If you burn gas, a position in oil stocks, producers, distributers, etc. is a nice hedge against your consumption of gasoline. You may have to pay more at the pump but your investment in oil goes up.

For anyone you has any significant use of gas/oil as a daily part of there lifestyle/energy consumption an investment in natural resources is a no brainer investment. If the price of oil goes down you benefit, if it goes up you benefit.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/171384-oil-20-a-barrel-or-200?source=feed#comment-747034 747034
A rising dollar will merely keep oil prices (in dollars) in check.

A fallng dollar, oil remains a great hedge.

The third way, that nobody see coming is alternative energy coming on board.

So keep averaging down on any fall in oil, keep a position in alt energy, and that should rationalize any price your paying at the pump.

But what do I know, I am just a kid from Brooklyn...]]> Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:16:53 -0500
A rising dollar will merely keep oil prices (in dollars) in check.

A fallng dollar, oil remains a great hedge.

The third way, that nobody see coming is alternative energy coming on board.

So keep averaging down on any fall in oil, keep a position in alt energy, and that should rationalize any price your paying at the pump.

But what do I know, I am just a kid from Brooklyn...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/171093-gold-and-oil-the-new-mecca?source=feed#comment-744338 744338
1. Off of historical highs, so timing is ok
2. Hedge against dollars if you hold dollars
3. Hedge against rising fuel costs if you use fuel

If price of my oil investment falls then the silver lining is that I pay less at the pump everyday and my dollars are worth more. When oil goes up I can rationalize paying more at the pump because my investment in oil goes up.

As for gold, this is an investment that I really do not understand at all and therefore I am not in it. Neither long nor short gold. Shiny stuff but what is it good for? I would rather invest in something that has use value. But hey I guess that's my loss.]]> Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:57:32 -0500
1. Off of historical highs, so timing is ok
2. Hedge against dollars if you hold dollars
3. Hedge against rising fuel costs if you use fuel

If price of my oil investment falls then the silver lining is that I pay less at the pump everyday and my dollars are worth more. When oil goes up I can rationalize paying more at the pump because my investment in oil goes up.

As for gold, this is an investment that I really do not understand at all and therefore I am not in it. Neither long nor short gold. Shiny stuff but what is it good for? I would rather invest in something that has use value. But hey I guess that's my loss.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/170132-arianna-huffington-new-media-outlets-must-prove-commitment-to-truth?source=feed#comment-743100 743100
The very effort to label news or media as truth or objective is the most eggregious example of spin/ideology (e.g. Fox News).

Of course culture and ideology at its most eggregious examples are easily distinguished but the majority of situations are gray...the modus operandi of any observer/reader should be guarded. A critical education seems inocuous (sic) in this regard.

The problem is not that we believe everything we read/watch, but rather, for the most part and on the whole we mostly read what we believe.

The distinction between mainstream and peripheral sources itself may be a sort of referendum of votes on versions of the truth.

But don't take my word for it...]]> Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:19:15 -0500
The very effort to label news or media as truth or objective is the most eggregious example of spin/ideology (e.g. Fox News).

Of course culture and ideology at its most eggregious examples are easily distinguished but the majority of situations are gray...the modus operandi of any observer/reader should be guarded. A critical education seems inocuous (sic) in this regard.

The problem is not that we believe everything we read/watch, but rather, for the most part and on the whole we mostly read what we believe.

The distinction between mainstream and peripheral sources itself may be a sort of referendum of votes on versions of the truth.

But don't take my word for it...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/170514-america-the-nanny-state?source=feed#comment-740505 740505

On Nov 02 11:31 AM bob adamson wrote:

> Mr. Quinn focuses on the US medical health insurance debate as a
> metaphor for the larger debate over the role of the state in the
> economic life of a nation. The following tries to put some context
> into that larger debate.
>
> Since the current economic crisis came to a head last year there
> has been an important division between the centre left and centre
> right on how to respond to the deep downturn and where ideally to
> be headed coming out of it. The left wants to protect employment,
> incomes and employment benefits and rebuild public infrastructure
> and social and environmental programs to both maintain and rebuild
> better balance (economic, social and ecological) and social equality;
> these being the measures of a healthy and sustainable economy and
> society. The right wants controlled ‘creative destruction’ of wasteful
> public and private social and economic institutions and accelerated
> shifting of economic focus to the healthiest sectors of the private
> sector promoted by deregulation and a lowering tax and public debt
> burden coupled with a greater embrace of globalization; these being
> the way to greater growth and individual freedom. This division was
> temporarily masked in the third quarter of 2008 and the first of
> 2009 as almost all embraced the need for short term stabilization
> of the investment banking sector and shock stimulus of consumption.
> Now that (perhaps prematurely) it appears that the crisis phase has
> past, the right increasingly calls for a return to their core agenda
> while the left continues to see the need for both short term stimulus
> and a longer term drive to achieve the balance and equality described
> above. This debate is now front and centre.
>
> Mr. Quinn presents a more red blooded Libertarian version of the
> right agenda. Logically under that version there would have been
> no fiscal and monetary intervention last year to save the investment
> banking sector and the general economy from a deflationary collapse
> and something rather more than creative destruction would have been
> given free reign to reset the economy and society on the course to
> what purist Libertarians of a right political orientation would see
> as a freer and better state. It should be acknowledged, however,
> that such a choice is as much a policy of social engineering as anything
> proposed on the centre left or left.]]> Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:12:18 -0500

On Nov 02 11:31 AM bob adamson wrote:

> Mr. Quinn focuses on the US medical health insurance debate as a
> metaphor for the larger debate over the role of the state in the
> economic life of a nation. The following tries to put some context
> into that larger debate.
>
> Since the current economic crisis came to a head last year there
> has been an important division between the centre left and centre
> right on how to respond to the deep downturn and where ideally to
> be headed coming out of it. The left wants to protect employment,
> incomes and employment benefits and rebuild public infrastructure
> and social and environmental programs to both maintain and rebuild
> better balance (economic, social and ecological) and social equality;
> these being the measures of a healthy and sustainable economy and
> society. The right wants controlled ‘creative destruction’ of wasteful
> public and private social and economic institutions and accelerated
> shifting of economic focus to the healthiest sectors of the private
> sector promoted by deregulation and a lowering tax and public debt
> burden coupled with a greater embrace of globalization; these being
> the way to greater growth and individual freedom. This division was
> temporarily masked in the third quarter of 2008 and the first of
> 2009 as almost all embraced the need for short term stabilization
> of the investment banking sector and shock stimulus of consumption.
> Now that (perhaps prematurely) it appears that the crisis phase has
> past, the right increasingly calls for a return to their core agenda
> while the left continues to see the need for both short term stimulus
> and a longer term drive to achieve the balance and equality described
> above. This debate is now front and centre.
>
> Mr. Quinn presents a more red blooded Libertarian version of the
> right agenda. Logically under that version there would have been
> no fiscal and monetary intervention last year to save the investment
> banking sector and the general economy from a deflationary collapse
> and something rather more than creative destruction would have been
> given free reign to reset the economy and society on the course to
> what purist Libertarians of a right political orientation would see
> as a freer and better state. It should be acknowledged, however,
> that such a choice is as much a policy of social engineering as anything
> proposed on the centre left or left.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/35230?source=feed#comment-733987 733987
Meanwhile, CNBC let's try and think deep thoughts. Bail outs bad, regulation good. Yes, we can have two ideas running through our mind at the same time.]]> Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:30:25 -0400
Meanwhile, CNBC let's try and think deep thoughts. Bail outs bad, regulation good. Yes, we can have two ideas running through our mind at the same time.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/168486-how-does-ethanol-react-to-deflation?source=feed#comment-727611 727611 Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:58:14 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/163934-energy-myths-for-the-21st-century?source=feed#comment-695879 695879
Well, people might counter, that is simply a distribution problem or the simply necessity of inequity. But wait, are not those key variables of the equation? So too it is with Oil production, supply, and demand. I think that point ought to ring polemical to any audience today should you wish to wake people up from their slumber and as Kafka wrote "have the effect of an axe on the frozen sea within."

But hey maybe its just me that has an overabundant need for drama... ]]> Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:09:22 -0400
Well, people might counter, that is simply a distribution problem or the simply necessity of inequity. But wait, are not those key variables of the equation? So too it is with Oil production, supply, and demand. I think that point ought to ring polemical to any audience today should you wish to wake people up from their slumber and as Kafka wrote "have the effect of an axe on the frozen sea within."

But hey maybe its just me that has an overabundant need for drama... ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/163905-the-top-10-acquirers-in-greentech?source=feed#comment-695846 695846 Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:32:39 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/162972-oil-cad-correlation-tested-long-side-to-benefit?source=feed#comment-688188 688188
Granted you would get better returns knowing which emerging markets grow but if you simply invest in oil (or energy related in general) you don't have to worry about picking the "winners" per se as oil will benefit. Just as oil took a huge tumble when the global economy supposedly came to a screeching halt last year, as it has ramped back up oil has had a nice run. So not only is it a hedge on the dollar but is a nice way to get some global exposure, especially if you are in a fund like JINRX or another global energy fund which includes stocks like CNQ and PBR.

I am also a proponent of alt energies and though you don't get the same US dollar short I think there are some great global solar investments.

Again, nice article.]]> Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:51:48 -0400
Granted you would get better returns knowing which emerging markets grow but if you simply invest in oil (or energy related in general) you don't have to worry about picking the "winners" per se as oil will benefit. Just as oil took a huge tumble when the global economy supposedly came to a screeching halt last year, as it has ramped back up oil has had a nice run. So not only is it a hedge on the dollar but is a nice way to get some global exposure, especially if you are in a fund like JINRX or another global energy fund which includes stocks like CNQ and PBR.

I am also a proponent of alt energies and though you don't get the same US dollar short I think there are some great global solar investments.

Again, nice article.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162709-growing-fears-in-oil?source=feed#comment-686433 686433
That is certainly a fact that I will not dispute but to put in context oil is well below its all time high. But perhaps both of those price points (both the all time high and the price as of Jan 1) are anomalies. And that is why the short term oil trade is befuddled me thinks.]]> Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:41:26 -0400
That is certainly a fact that I will not dispute but to put in context oil is well below its all time high. But perhaps both of those price points (both the all time high and the price as of Jan 1) are anomalies. And that is why the short term oil trade is befuddled me thinks.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/161966-the-economic-impact-of-the-g20-ending-oil-subsidies?source=feed#comment-682662 682662
I also happen to agree with most of the premises and conclusions of the author. Subsidies for fossil fuels are no longer giving us a valuable return on our investment. We need to diversify. Some might argue that it is not even a choice; we have to diversify.

I think the diversification argument holds as true for the individual investor as well as our gov't energy policy. We will see that played out in the coming years.]]> Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:47:56 -0400
I also happen to agree with most of the premises and conclusions of the author. Subsidies for fossil fuels are no longer giving us a valuable return on our investment. We need to diversify. Some might argue that it is not even a choice; we have to diversify.

I think the diversification argument holds as true for the individual investor as well as our gov't energy policy. We will see that played out in the coming years.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/32745?source=feed#comment-682637 682637
I think the question that you really want to ask is will big money shift from Wall St. to finanancially reward genius of other fields (teaching, science, new technologies, etc.)

I do not believe that is likely however because of some very basic fundamental believes (that I don't personally share) of our society.

For example, we live in a society that appears to financially rewards great sport talent over teachers. But upon further inspectiion who is actually doing the rewarding? The private sector is giving out the big rewards. But that does not mean that they are attracting the best talent. They are simply attracting people that want to make money. Meanwhile tax payers certainly do not want to pay teachers more money for teaching their kids.



On Sep 18 11:51 AM Annualgain wrote:

> High IQ's on Wall Street? Where?]]> Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:35:01 -0400
I think the question that you really want to ask is will big money shift from Wall St. to finanancially reward genius of other fields (teaching, science, new technologies, etc.)

I do not believe that is likely however because of some very basic fundamental believes (that I don't personally share) of our society.

For example, we live in a society that appears to financially rewards great sport talent over teachers. But upon further inspectiion who is actually doing the rewarding? The private sector is giving out the big rewards. But that does not mean that they are attracting the best talent. They are simply attracting people that want to make money. Meanwhile tax payers certainly do not want to pay teachers more money for teaching their kids.



On Sep 18 11:51 AM Annualgain wrote:

> High IQ's on Wall Street? Where?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/32417?source=feed#comment-675893 675893
First off you are assuming a true premise, that humans are irrational. That may be true in some circumstances, but is it true across all circumstances and all the time? Smart people can do irrational things does that make them irrational? A .350 hitter can have a bad game does that all of a sudden make them a sub par hitter? Does the "irrational" description hold generally true and if so at what success or failure rate? If akin to baseball batters then maybe so.

Second, even if free markets fail because humans are irrational that does not then mean that regulation of those markets fails for the same reason.

One of the rationales behind free markets is human nature (if you believe in any such thing, that humans are innately or naturally selfish and that this has an overall beneficial effect for everyone, etc.). The argument for free markets is itself irrational but then the argument that they should be regulated does not then necessarily become irrational by virtue of this fact.

Thirdly, if free markets were a closed irrational system that were regulated from without (externally) then regulation could provide a sort of corrective mechanism immune to the irrationalism of that system. However, if both systems operate within a larger system of irrationalism (e.g. socio-political) which itself has no self-corrective system then all bets are off.

So to conclude, all baseball batters are sub-par and humans are not necessarily irrational but large numbers of them put in a certain context can surely ruin the world.]]> Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:40:52 -0400
First off you are assuming a true premise, that humans are irrational. That may be true in some circumstances, but is it true across all circumstances and all the time? Smart people can do irrational things does that make them irrational? A .350 hitter can have a bad game does that all of a sudden make them a sub par hitter? Does the "irrational" description hold generally true and if so at what success or failure rate? If akin to baseball batters then maybe so.

Second, even if free markets fail because humans are irrational that does not then mean that regulation of those markets fails for the same reason.

One of the rationales behind free markets is human nature (if you believe in any such thing, that humans are innately or naturally selfish and that this has an overall beneficial effect for everyone, etc.). The argument for free markets is itself irrational but then the argument that they should be regulated does not then necessarily become irrational by virtue of this fact.

Thirdly, if free markets were a closed irrational system that were regulated from without (externally) then regulation could provide a sort of corrective mechanism immune to the irrationalism of that system. However, if both systems operate within a larger system of irrationalism (e.g. socio-political) which itself has no self-corrective system then all bets are off.

So to conclude, all baseball batters are sub-par and humans are not necessarily irrational but large numbers of them put in a certain context can surely ruin the world.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/161001-what-s-the-u-s-s-energy-policy?source=feed#comment-672641 672641
So called increase tax on traditional fossil fuel is merely a move away from subsidizing these forms of energy and moving towards subsidizing others (e.g. DOE grants and loan programs for alternative fuels).

Traditional fossil fuels have benefitted from billions in subsidies from the US govt (Did we ever call this socialism?). The move from traditional to alternative fuel subsidies has really nothing to do with "global warming" per se. Global Warming is not relevant to the new energy policy as much as clean air, water, and price stablization. The introduction of alternate fuels (albeit at a snails pace) is intended to bring competetiveness and an attempt to level the geopolitical energy playing field.

Call it socialism, call it Carbon Cap, call it a bad idea, good idea. There is clearly a policy there. Many don't agree with it. Quite frankly I think many don't understand it. As with most things, generally those that don't understand it or agree with it stand most to lose by it; those that stand most to lose by it, don't understand it. Those who lives might be impacted by it, don't agree with it.

If only this whole paradigm could be as simple as the ole tv tube being replaced by HD....of course I want a cleaner clearer picture of the world...]]> Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:53:08 -0400
So called increase tax on traditional fossil fuel is merely a move away from subsidizing these forms of energy and moving towards subsidizing others (e.g. DOE grants and loan programs for alternative fuels).

Traditional fossil fuels have benefitted from billions in subsidies from the US govt (Did we ever call this socialism?). The move from traditional to alternative fuel subsidies has really nothing to do with "global warming" per se. Global Warming is not relevant to the new energy policy as much as clean air, water, and price stablization. The introduction of alternate fuels (albeit at a snails pace) is intended to bring competetiveness and an attempt to level the geopolitical energy playing field.

Call it socialism, call it Carbon Cap, call it a bad idea, good idea. There is clearly a policy there. Many don't agree with it. Quite frankly I think many don't understand it. As with most things, generally those that don't understand it or agree with it stand most to lose by it; those that stand most to lose by it, don't understand it. Those who lives might be impacted by it, don't agree with it.

If only this whole paradigm could be as simple as the ole tv tube being replaced by HD....of course I want a cleaner clearer picture of the world...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160336-countering-those-anti-peak-oil-types?source=feed#comment-670606 670606
As far as subsidies for oil, I don't have any literature per se and in any case I think historically the bulk of the subsidies have come in a variety of covert forms (e.g. various wars fought in the persian gulf for the last 20 years).

Interesting conjecture on the BP and Exxon Investments. I agree, it's a hedge against high oil. I would think the preferred alt investment from an oil company is going to be a liquid fuel that can be mixed and distributed along with existing fuel (gas, oil, diesel) infrastructure and I believe that both algae and biomass (both food and non-food grade) ethanol can be. I am only a proponent of the non-food grade type for the reasons you and others have pointed out (land and water uses).

Yes, following that analogy further, both the Food Industry and Drug/Pharma are feeding off eachother. One causes the disease and the other cures it. You can have your cake and eat it to. I think things will initially be the same with our fuel conversion....shades of green...gotta walk before we can run...

Again, thanks for the thoughtful dialogue.




On Sep 09 06:30 PM JeffDB wrote:

> On Sep 09 05:38 PM akapital wrote:]]> Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:28:20 -0400
As far as subsidies for oil, I don't have any literature per se and in any case I think historically the bulk of the subsidies have come in a variety of covert forms (e.g. various wars fought in the persian gulf for the last 20 years).

Interesting conjecture on the BP and Exxon Investments. I agree, it's a hedge against high oil. I would think the preferred alt investment from an oil company is going to be a liquid fuel that can be mixed and distributed along with existing fuel (gas, oil, diesel) infrastructure and I believe that both algae and biomass (both food and non-food grade) ethanol can be. I am only a proponent of the non-food grade type for the reasons you and others have pointed out (land and water uses).

Yes, following that analogy further, both the Food Industry and Drug/Pharma are feeding off eachother. One causes the disease and the other cures it. You can have your cake and eat it to. I think things will initially be the same with our fuel conversion....shades of green...gotta walk before we can run...

Again, thanks for the thoughtful dialogue.




On Sep 09 06:30 PM JeffDB wrote:

> On Sep 09 05:38 PM akapital wrote:]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160336-countering-those-anti-peak-oil-types?source=feed#comment-669487 669487
The analogous/comparable point is also apt because whaling was not stopped for the reason of extinction or high prices but rather because another source was "found."


On Sep 09 12:52 PM goldbug101 wrote:

> You are spot on with the efficiency argument.
>
> The issue with peak whale blubber, however, is that oil replaced
> whale blubber before peak whale blubber would have been possible,
> if such things are possible.
>
> Peak oil may or may not be a problem. The problem is that we won't
> know it's a problem until it's a problem!]]> Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:43:03 -0400
The analogous/comparable point is also apt because whaling was not stopped for the reason of extinction or high prices but rather because another source was "found."


On Sep 09 12:52 PM goldbug101 wrote:

> You are spot on with the efficiency argument.
>
> The issue with peak whale blubber, however, is that oil replaced
> whale blubber before peak whale blubber would have been possible,
> if such things are possible.
>
> Peak oil may or may not be a problem. The problem is that we won't
> know it's a problem until it's a problem!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160336-countering-those-anti-peak-oil-types?source=feed#comment-669482 669482
Why else would BP invest in a company like VRNM? That is a rhetorical question.

Don't worry though your precius Oil will be ok (I am long oil myself) Oil will stil fetch a high price for a long time to come...THE POINT is this (and very few people are getting it) this is not a matter of either/or, the smart money is on both sides, Oil and alternatives because (as with most things in life) we reacted too late, we're going on a diet after we have already been diagnosed with diabetes and heart disease...we won't be quitting oil cold turkey, it will be a long time coming.



On Sep 09 01:33 PM JeffDB wrote:

> On Sep 09 01:25 PM akapital wrote:]]> Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:38:16 -0400
Why else would BP invest in a company like VRNM? That is a rhetorical question.

Don't worry though your precius Oil will be ok (I am long oil myself) Oil will stil fetch a high price for a long time to come...THE POINT is this (and very few people are getting it) this is not a matter of either/or, the smart money is on both sides, Oil and alternatives because (as with most things in life) we reacted too late, we're going on a diet after we have already been diagnosed with diabetes and heart disease...we won't be quitting oil cold turkey, it will be a long time coming.



On Sep 09 01:33 PM JeffDB wrote:

> On Sep 09 01:25 PM akapital wrote:]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160336-countering-those-anti-peak-oil-types?source=feed#comment-669060 669060
Oil companies are hedging and positioning themselves for the inevitable. And that is why we will likely see a hybrid oil/gas/ethanol fuel in widespread use as we transition away from oil. A hybrid fuel (85% biomass, non-food grade ethanol) can use the current infrastructure (distribution, vehicles, etc) and this is happening now. There is already 10% ethanol in most gas and this is the most likely scenario.


On Sep 08 08:24 AM bartpr wrote:

> peak oil is here. make no mistake. why would bp commit to finding
> oil in the gulf that is 35000 ft down from the well hed to suface.
> is it becuse they like the challenge and have nothing beeter to do.
> no, its because they have no choice. the easy stuff has been used.]]> Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:25:53 -0400
Oil companies are hedging and positioning themselves for the inevitable. And that is why we will likely see a hybrid oil/gas/ethanol fuel in widespread use as we transition away from oil. A hybrid fuel (85% biomass, non-food grade ethanol) can use the current infrastructure (distribution, vehicles, etc) and this is happening now. There is already 10% ethanol in most gas and this is the most likely scenario.


On Sep 08 08:24 AM bartpr wrote:

> peak oil is here. make no mistake. why would bp commit to finding
> oil in the gulf that is 35000 ft down from the well hed to suface.
> is it becuse they like the challenge and have nothing beeter to do.
> no, its because they have no choice. the easy stuff has been used.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159556-are-we-headed-for-a-green-world-or-business-as-usual?source=feed#comment-658825 658825 Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:05:18 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/147584-oil-to-retest-40-barrel-by-year-end?source=feed#comment-578980 578980 Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:56:13 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/142424-repaying-tarp-and-the-myth-behind-taxpayer-money?source=feed#comment-567445 567445 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:12:24 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/140183-is-oil-going-the-wrong-way-or-do-we-need-to-adjust-our-perceptions?source=feed#comment-521978 521978
1. Peak Oil
2. Supply Destruction when oil is sub-50
3. Foreign Demand will far eclipse any decline in US demand
4. Falling dollar

Of course I am not betting the farm (already lost it), but a could chunk of change.]]> Thu, 28 May 2009 17:19:44 -0400
1. Peak Oil
2. Supply Destruction when oil is sub-50
3. Foreign Demand will far eclipse any decline in US demand
4. Falling dollar

Of course I am not betting the farm (already lost it), but a could chunk of change.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/137821-checking-in-on-oil-s-fundamentals?source=feed#comment-505584 505584 Fri, 15 May 2009 14:00:00 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/135621-biofuels-no-there-there-government-should-focus-on-other-alternatives?source=feed#comment-492799 492799
I'm invested in both oil and alt fuels and believe both have a long run ahead. We shall see...]]> Wed, 06 May 2009 17:49:08 -0400
I'm invested in both oil and alt fuels and believe both have a long run ahead. We shall see...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/132313-is-it-possible-the-current-recession-was-caused-by-oil-prices-not-housing?source=feed#comment-473473 473473 Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:21:12 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/131075-an-end-to-cheap-water?source=feed#comment-464749 464749 Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:18:45 -0400