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 : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (14621)	11/7/2002 11:49:02 AM
From: energyplay	Respond to of 206093

Hi Cnyndwllr - Good to hear from you. Let me address the political side first - I think most of the Republican power brokers favored Riordan, but a significant faction of the registerd Republicans favored Simon. Davis spent a lot of money pushing the issue that Riordan was soft on abortion, and I thibnk the Republican establishment was caught flat footed - too complacent to foresee this tactic by Davis, maybe too complacent to deal with it. This gets me to your conclusion that there is something deeply wrong with the Republicans in California by a slightly differnt path. So there is not effective check on Democratic party power by the Republicans. Their (Dems)Gerryamndering of Gary Condit' house seat is an example. "Whatever it is that we are doing as a country to generate candidates like Davis and Simon, we need to find a way to change it. We couldn't even generate one, much less two, outstanding candidates for the last presidential election. " Ever since the press and public decided that they had a right to examine the lives of every public figure under a microscope, and publicize every "flaw" based on political correctness, the pool of candidates for public office has shrunk, leaving us with far fewer candidates. I don't see any solution to this any time soon.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (14621)	11/7/2002 11:58:11 AM
From: energyplay	Respond to of 206093

Fear of low cost Iraq oil reduces drilling - I think your analysis is right - "From the oil front, I wonder if no one wants to go out on a limb and commit major resources to drilling when it seems we have oil people running our policies. I don't have any question that Cheney-Bush and their backers have always viewed oil as possibly the most important strategic concern they have for the future they see for this country. If their policy is to assure that Iraqi oil fields will soon be opened up to western drilling, what does that do to the long and mid-term plans of the majors and the mid level exploration and production companies if there actually are virgin fields in Iraq where the lifting costs are around a dollar? If all the "Saddam is a threat to our safety" talk is rhetoric designed to justify the use of American forces, at the cost of American lives (but not their kid's lives) to "liberate" oil for our future needs and break the power of opec, it would be financial suicide for any company to commit to a long term E and P plan. Better to wait and save their bucks for the bonanza to come, or at least avoid committing serious capital when $25 dollar oil could become less than $15 dollar oil. " Some of the same fear is happneing in Natural gas, driven more by the huge storage numbers. Since Natual Gas is much harder to import by ship, I expect we are looking to a gas run up. Also, for many fields the oil and natural gas liquids provide a significant economic boost -10-30% of revenue for many wells. If oil drops to $15, that cuts the part of the revenue stream, even if gas is at $3.50. Finally, most people tend to avoid extendign their economic commitments under uncertainty - and Iraq provides lots of uncertainty. I expect the reduced drilling in natural gas will support a price run up for the next 18 months - this winter and next. So I have a big commitment to energy trusts, and will be looking at E&Ps and maybe a driller.