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: Umunhum who wrote (126036)	11/28/2009 1:02:42 PM
From: Bearcatbob	6 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206085

Umunhum, I totally agree with you posting. It was well written and unemotional. There is though perhaps another way to profit from possible regulation. That is natural gas. There is absolutely no way any meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions can be achieved without a complete economic train wreck without increased utilization of natural gas. The resource is there, the distribution system is there, and in many cases the infrastructure to convert it into electricity is there. I am past 60 and have largely given up on how to save the world as it seems on an auto pilot to self destruction despite my best efforts. The key is to profit from policies - good or bad - and preserve the family nest egg - be it ever so meager for our children and grand children. Natural gas may be cheap now - but it absolutely has to rise. Even if it does not rise hugely the added demand will require lots of drilling and business for the service companies. As for the oil sands - here is a link to an op ed in today's G&M. I think it says it all. theglobeandmail.com

To: Umunhum who wrote (126036)	11/28/2009 1:55:25 PM
From: LoneClone	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206085

Yawn... I don't worship at either your church or that of the other guys. Another board was created for you guys to post this stuff. Please post it there instead. LC

To: Umunhum who wrote (126036)	11/29/2009 3:12:45 PM
From: ChanceIs	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206085

RE: Global warming; cap-and-trade impacting oil prices. Bingo. I track it very closely and think it very relevant to crude prospects. Personally, I don't think that cap-and-trade has a snowball's chance in the bad place of passing. I was down at a conference at the American Enterprise Institute a while back. It might be worth an hour to take in the video replay - or listen to the podcast: Smoke, Mirrors, and Greenhouse Gas Control AEI Geoengineering Project The U.S. Senate is girding for battle over greenhouse gas control bills, and legions of diplomats are preparing to assemble in Copenhagen to debate a new accord on climate change to replace the Kyoto Protocol. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency grinds relentlessly forward in its plans to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. None of the options being considered resembles the simple carbon tax proposals deemed by economists to be the least expensive method of controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Why? What is causing reformers to tackle the most expensive environmental task ever attempted with policies known to cost far more than necessary? Will the result do much to help the environment? aei.org The hall talk was very interesting. One bond specialist from a major trading institution opined that the carbon market was proving to be much too volatile. From that I interpreted that margin would not be made available for carbon futures. Expressed differently, Schwab just sent me an email telling me that if I wanted to continue to use 10X levered ETF's I would have to put up 100% cash. The huge bond market doesn't support cap and trade. Bill Gross will tell Obama at the last minute to can it. Remember also that bonds are huge investors in utilities and they don't want their balance sheets confused even more with margin requirements for carbon futures. Also of note, the current bills are full of review cycles. One person told me that Southern Corporation gladly endorsed the senate version because it would take 20 years for anything to take effect. Remember New Source Review - introduced in 1977 and finally settled in 2006. Someone else opined that a simple carbon tax is alive, but cap-and-trade would first have to fail in the legislative cycle - which it will. Put on your cynical hat. Cap-and-trade is a stealth tax. The pundits in the formal portion of the conference plainly stated that none of the politicians wanted to be identified with raising taxes. If cap-and-trade is passed with impossible implementation strictures, then Congress gets credit for saving the polar bears w/o doing any real damage. But cap-and-trade won't even get that far. Be sure that the banks don't like it - except the carbon trading side. What they don't like they won't finance. They don't like Obama leaning on the Canadians about all of the carbon coming from the oil sands. Hard to see them financing more mammoth Canadian bulldozers. Ever consider shorting municipal bonds? You know that the states are in trouble, don't you? An indication of their desperation is this Bloomberg article which makes explicit the true nature and purpose of Global Warming: States Mull ‘Plan B’ Carbon Market as U.S. Climate Bill Falters By Simon Lomax Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Cash-strapped states in search of new revenue may establish their own “cap-and-trade” program for greenhouse gases covering more than half the U.S. economy if Congress doesn’t set up a federal emissions market. ………….. $250 Billion in Deficits The regional cap-and-trade programs offer the states a new revenue source as the U.S. economy emerges from the worst recession since the Great Depression. States are working to close $250 billion of deficits and “won’t fully recover from this recession until late in the next decade,” the National Governors Association said Nov. 12. bloomberg.com