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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sweet Ol who wrote (92582)	7/19/2001 8:01:34 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

John, I browsed the link you provided and saved the address. It looks quite interesting, but it will take some time to go through the research. There ought to be some real opportunities to come at this from a different perspective. Simmons' background is more conventional than mine. He has a MBA from Harvard; I have a MPA from Univ. of Michigan, with a doctorate in Urban & Regional Planning, after which I headed the energy conservation research program at The Urban Institute in Washington, DC (a think tank that has a slightly left of center orientation). However, my views on stocks come from over 45 years of active investing, the last 20 of which have been spent directing the oldest computer accessed, interactive investment advisory service. Art

To: Sweet Ol who wrote (92582)	7/23/2001 8:32:43 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

John, having reviewed some of the Simmons reports/speeches, I have a better idea of where he's coming from. The point of view expressed in his articles is pretty much standard stuff from an oil/gas industry perspective. The solutions he offers are also pretty standard, and one can see why the Administration would be comfortable with those solutions. As one who did a lot of research on energy alternatives, I think Simmons underestimates the role of conservation and alternative energy sources. During the late 1970's and early 1980's, when oil prices shot up drastically, the greatest strides in energy conservation were taken by businesses, both industrial and commericial, through the adoption of energy management systems and a variety of measures that drastically reduced their embedded energy costs. No comparable improvements were recorded in the consumer sector, mainly because of political resistance to such factors as better home insulation, more efficient location and size of residential structures, more efficient motor vehicles, etc. Simmons believes that very little energy savings would accrue from higher fuel efficiency standards--very little as a percentage of total energy consumption. I disagree partly on the basis of his data, which are questionable, and partly on the basis of the design issue. If you really want to save fuel, you shouldn't allow living--working situations that require people to spend an average of an hour or more on a daily commute. Just as businesses redesigned their operations to minimize energy costs, so can consumers, but very likely not without help from government in the form of setting standards and allowing the true costs to be absorbed directly by consumers (i.e., no subsidies to allow the present situation to continue). If the views of Simmons reflect the thinking in the domestic oil industry, then it is not surprising to me that a lot of analysts who subscribe to these views are overlooking the impact of rapidly growing worldwide demand for oil and natural gas. Anyone who would predict that oil and gas prices are going anywhere but up is, in my view, myopic. Art