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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (124647)	9/24/2000 1:04:22 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1570211

Joe, FWIW, the first article in Barron's today said they thought that the sale would have a much bigger effect than expected because of 1. contrary opinion (everyone says the opposite) 2. its light crude requiring less refining 3. there's a lot of oil in tankers which will come ashore the second the price starts dropping 4. the exaggerated effect of the futures market Petz

To: Joe NYC who wrote (124647)	9/24/2000 1:08:09 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 1570211

Joe, RE:"But Al Gore cares about his election more than about some silly energy conservation program." Maybe Scumbria will sign on with Al. Their Energy Conservation program will consist of praying for Global warming. Jim

To: Joe NYC who wrote (124647)	9/24/2000 1:23:56 AM
From: BubbaFred	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570211

Note the supply and delivery time (i.e. shipping). Buying time is correct, but it is also the proper course of action to release some of the emergency reserves. Don't forget higher supply is on its way, say in two more weeks. The increased supply has been in the works for several weeks. It takes time to get the infrastructure refitted for higher output. Note the domestic wildcat wells are still capped and there has been no plan by any of the majors to start them because they know the high prices will not last long enough to make it worthwhile to start the wildcats. The reason is as stated above - more of those light sweet crudes are on their way. There is no assurance the forthcoming supply will actually get here. Iraqqi Satan husein may decide to stop Iraqi oil. For what? To help Bush?, or to try prevent Lieberman from becoming the next Vice President? We'll see. As of now, partial release of the reserve is a good and calculated move, politics or not. If it is not used now, when will it ever be used? Probably only when there is national emergency, in which case, it will only be used by the Dept of Defense military equipments. IMO, the decision is an enlightened one, and good for the national economy. Also check XOI. There is strong negative divergences showing for the last 2 months, in both daily and weekly charts. I don't have the crude oil futures data, but I am pretty certain they show the same story.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (124647)	9/24/2000 3:20:40 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1570211

Off topic, Joe! <Expensive oil is an energy conservation program in and of itself. But Al Gore cares about his election more than about some silly energy conservation program.> Actually, I have now decided that this is a politically brilliant move for Gore, if you subscribe to the very liberal point-of-view. Think about it. The government releases some of the reserves, thereby lowering prices (ideally). Not only will this allow the underprivileged to afford heating this winter, but it will also buy a little time for the government to spend more tax money on researching alternative energy sources. In other words, government handouts will help people deal with the oil shortage until government can single-handedly figure out a real solution. On the other hand, the conservative point-of-view would be to "leave it to the market." As oil prices rise, people will be forced to conserve, and there will be more incentive for businesses to invest more R&D in alternative energy. The problem with this approach is that the underprivileged pretty much get it in the shorts. I personally don't mind spending $2.00 per gallon, but many people would. Also, there's no guarantee that businesses will move any faster than government in investing R&D in this field. A few may even try their very best to resist such efforts, especially those which stand to lose the most. So it's your classic debate between "trickle-down theory" vs. "tax-n-spend." Heck, and I didn't even talk about how OPEC fits into both the liberal and conservative points of view. Tenchusatsu P.S. - Gas in Korea cost like $3.75 per gallon, and that was back in late 1998 when oil was "cheap." Yet traffic jams there are still very heinous. Even a 350 km trip from Taegu to Seoul during "Korean Thanksgiving" took 12 hours. After suffering through that, no longer does the traffic in Portland and Seattle bother me anymore.