Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Piffer OT - And Other Assorted Nuts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: arno who wrote (53545)	9/22/2000 8:10:29 PM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 63513

<<Nobody wants a refinery or tank farm in "their" backyard, too unsightly an dangerous, nor do they want drilling on government land. Can't drill in remote Alaska, nor off the coast of California, refineries are shut down because they can't meet EPA requirements>> Some of what you say is for good reason and other is due to a lack of planning. Refineries may be unsightly but everyone still drives a car. The point is we should have been doing all we could to build new ones and keep prices down when they were 12.00 per barrel. Instead, as usual, we wait until a problem happens and the tax payer is left holding the bag. The move to open the Strategic Reserve is purely political and will have zero impact other than the normal "feel good" BS that the Democrats sell so well.

To: arno who wrote (53545)	9/22/2000 8:52:34 PM
From: Lost1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 63513

Agreed on the OIL issue. IT takes years to go from hole in the ground to full scale operation. When times are good we have lots of money thrown at exploration..when oil is cheap it doesn't make good biz sense for these companies to produce at a loss. The problem comes when no one has the foresight to plan ahead. We're not talking about wheat..when the cash dries up by way of low prices the drillers pretty much shut down and lay off everyone I know this won't be a popular point, but the US gov would serve it's citizens much better if it were to subsidize producers and all the little guys and niches it takes to get the job done..from seismic companies to pipe suppliers to refineries. We do it with tobacco and to a certain extent with farms...it makes much more sense to do it with petroleum than tobacco IMO. No one wants a prison in their back yard either, but the alternative is not available now that Australia is a sovereign nation<g>

To: arno who wrote (53545)	9/22/2000 9:43:17 PM
From: SmoothSail	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 63513

arno: Excellent missive. While this country diddled Monicagate, the energy crisis was building with plenty of people howling about it a year and a half ago. Clinton rewarded Richardson for "interviewing" Monica for a job by appointing him Energy Secretary. While Richardson diverted resources, homes burned in New Mexico. While he conducted the Dr. Lee witch hunt - and he's the one who started it, Justice came in later - the energy crisis was in a boil. Now they're using a garden hose to put out a forest fire. What were his qualifications to run the energy department? Why was there never a policy? This is the strongest argument that Bush has IMO. What I find interesting is how the middle east, one way or another, has been a major participant in our elections. This goes back to the hostage crisis with Jimmy Carter. The old slogan "It's the economy, stupid" isn't going to fly this time. This time "It's da oil, da oil, stupid" and Gore is the one who's looking stupid and Bush, the oilman, is looking smart (truly magic and something only the democrats could have made possible). In deference to my son's request not to turn this thread into a political argument, let me say that I don't take sides - I think they're both a couple of bozos. But releasing our reserves is really really stupid and will end up costing Gore the election, IMO.