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: Bearcatbob who wrote (44237)	5/21/2005 3:18:45 PM
From: ChanceIs	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 206144

Yes, "Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnn." What is important as investors is to understand the nature of government - that it can't act dynamically due to its own inertia. "W" campaigned on a new national energy policy back in 2000. Its only been five years in the making. I get such a kick out of ethanol. There is significant disagreement about whther or not ethanol costs more in energy to fabricate than it is released when it is oxidized. Given the apparent commitment to the fuel source, you would think that there would be complete agreement. Ahhh well. Where there is NO DISAGREEMENT is that it is a total loser financially. It is completely unviable without massive federal supports. Now I ask you. Doesn't it take corn to make ethanol??? Doesn't it take fertilizer to grow corn??? Doesn't it take natural gas to make fertilizer??? I don't know for sure about the energy balance, but the cost balance has to have moved from a loser to financial disaster. I bet a huge ethanol requirement is tucked in the Energy Bill. Bad news for America. Great if you own CHK, EPEX, etc.