Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

whereaminow (73.77)

BP and the Democrats - A Love Affair

Recs

29

June 15, 2010 – Comments (25)

I've been down this road with Progressives before. In fact, several vocal CAPS bloggers from the Left wondered where all the Libertarians went when the BP rig exploded.  My response, what does that have to do with libertarianism?  BP is a government granted monopoly (UK gov, in this case) that has operated with international immunity for a century thanks to its ties with the UK and US military giants. 

It gets worse. BP is also infamous for taking Leftist causes and selling them back to the Left for a profit, through the Progressive's own party  -  the Democrats.  BP is one of the original Climate Change lobbyists. 

(Riddle me this, if the climate change denialists all come from the greedy big energy companies, why are the big energy companies the leading lobbyists for climate change?  Enron, btw, was a leading proponent of climate change.  Maybe you're getting duped.  I'm just sayin....)

Believe what you want.  I can sleep easy at night knowing that Ron Paul can't be bought, that BP doesn't lobby to help his cause.  Obama?  Bought and sold like the whore he is.  And he came cheaper than his murderous predecessor, the traitor-in-chief George W. Bush.

While the Libertarians have been routing the NeoScum out of the Republican Party, the NeoConservatives have flocked back to the Left, an alliance they formed during the Nixon years - an alliance purely of convenience then, and purely as such now.  Didn't you know that they've been cozying up to Obama since day one of his adminstration, influencing the ever more hawkish rhetoric that comes from the Left?  Bombings in Pakistan now legitimate.  Assassinations of American citizens now sanctioned with Presidential blessing.  Paving the way for Israel's strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.  Standing idly by while Israel commits crimes against humanity on international waters.

So, I could care less what happens to BP from a political and ethical perspective.  They are going to fine, they just need to pay their whores in Congress and the White House a little better.

But I will buy stock in them within the next 6 months, because they will survive, even if every British citizen has to foot the bill (and believe me, that's where this is headed.)

David in Qatar

Once a Government Pet, BP now a capitalist tool 

Now that BP’s oil rig has caused the biggest environmental disaster in American history, the Left is pulling the same bogus trick it did with Enron and AIG: Whenever a company earns universal ire, declare it the poster boy for the free market......

Expect BP to be public enemy No. 1 in the climate debate.

There’s a problem: BP was a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a lobby dedicated to passing a cap-and-trade bill. As the nation’s largest producer of natural gas, BP saw many ways to profit from climate legislation, notably by persuading Congress to provide subsidies to coal-fired power plants that switched to gas.

25 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 16, 2010 at 12:12 AM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

I know this is not germane, but it is a pet peeve of mine, and you said this before.  It is COULDN"T care less. If you could, you would.  As for buying their stock, buy TOT instead.  Near lows, pays a sweet dividend, and nowhere near the liability BP has.

Report this comment
#2) On June 16, 2010 at 12:27 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

Gotcha. Will correct. My grammar gets worse every year.

I'm looking at all the oil sector plays, especially the ones that UL pointed out here. 

Thanks for the tip on TOT!

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#3) On June 16, 2010 at 12:30 AM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

Only downside with TOT is they pay their dividend in euros heheh.  But it is trading near levels when oil was at $30.  I used to own BP but switched out to TOT (glad I did).

Report this comment
#4) On June 16, 2010 at 1:01 AM, SockMarket (87.07) wrote:

If the neo-scum is getting routed, how come I keep hearing Newt Greengrich's name? He and Rove are about as bad as they get!

The only thing they are routing is truth. The republican party is spouting whatever they think will get them elected and it just happens to sound like good stuff.

It isn't really about parties anymore, it is about who spouts what rhetoric and who gets lobbied by whom. As I see it:

Democrats are the party of: technology, natural gas, commerical banks, and tax 'n spend.

Republicans are the party of oil (not specifically BP, but see HAL, XOM, etc.), defense contractors, investment banks and borrow 'n spend. 

for proof of the borrow and spend take a look at debt increases since Carter for Dem and Republican presidents. (Obama has broken the trend with his massive spending, but it is otherwise in tact).

 

Riddle me this, if the climate change denialists all come from the greedy big energy companies, why are the big energy companies the leading lobbyists for climate change?

Who, exactly, is a proponent of this? surely not the coal companies...or are they?

 

 

As for TOT they are fine from a monetary standpoint, but from what I have heard they are suffering from natural decline in their wells, which runs 4-7%/yr. This makes increasing production more costly than I would like it in any of my oil buys.

Report this comment
#5) On June 16, 2010 at 1:24 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

danielthebear,

You make some good points.  However, I was referring to "the intellectual and political 'persuasion' (as he once called it) that Irving Kristol launched and led."

People like Gingrich and Rove are just whores, plain and simple.  I don't believe them to care nor understand what neocon means.  Unless it means more power, which it does.

The founders of this movement:

Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Nathan Glazer, Daniel Bell, James Q. Wilson, and Seymour Martin Lipset

Today they include Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, David Brooks and many others.

These are people that have been wooing Obama.  Is this why the Left and Right look the same, while we are left bickering about imaginary dividing lines?

As for USCAP, you are right that coal is not on board,. Here are the founding members:

USCAP Members

This list is complete as of July 3, 2007

The 14 founding members of USCAP are:

Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar Inc., Duke Energy, DuPont Environmental Defense, FPL Group, General Electric, Lehman Brothers Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Center on Global Climate Change PG&E Corporation, PNM Resources, and World Resources Institute

In April, 2007 oil giant ConocoPhillips and insurer AIG joined USCAP. [4]

The following groups and companies joined in June 2007:[5]

American International Group (AIG), Alcan, Boston Scientific, ConocoPhillips Deere & Company, The Dow Chemical Company, General Motors Corp. Johnson & Johnson, Marsh, PepsiCo, Shell Siemens, The Nature Conservancy, The National Wildlife Federation

In July, 2007, two major U.S. automakers joined: [5]

Chrysler, Ford Motor Company

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#6) On June 16, 2010 at 1:36 AM, goldminingXpert (30.95) wrote:

I'm pretty sure Democrats (at least environmentalists) oppose energy in general. I don't think they are the party of natural gas.

Report this comment
#7) On June 16, 2010 at 6:20 AM, devoish (98.76) wrote:

Riddle me this, if the climate change denialists all come from the greedy big energy companies, why are the big energy companies the leading lobbyists for climate change?  Enron, btw, was a leading proponent of climate change.  Maybe you're getting duped.  I'm just sayin....) - hoplesslymisguided

Did you mean to say that energy companys are lobbying in favor of changing the climate?

If so, then yes the fossil fuel industry you are now rebranding as "energy companies" are the leading proponents for changing the climate, and apparently the environment of the Gulf of Mexico also. Unfortunately not in a good  way.

If you are trying to suggest that the fossil fuel industry has been leading a marketing campaign lying to us that the climate is changing due to their products being burned into the atmosphere in order to sell us renewable energy to prevent a  catastrophe that is not really coming then perhaps you shouldn't have spent all that time ranting about climate scientists.

If you are trying to suggest that the fossil fuel industry has spent more money advertising that the climate is changing as opposed to advertising that it is not, then you cannot count.

Whether or not a person refuses to see the evidence of a changing climate or denies that it is changing, whether or not a person believes that change is man-made or not, is not an imaginary dividing line.

Regards,

Grand High Exalted Mystic King Devoish

- who cannot believe the relentless stream of Bull S**t you are capable of delivering.

And yes, the fossil fuel industry in finished. It is just a matter of time. The greenwashing they have been doing to market themselves to the "left" will become real as they realize that they will have to actually become energy companys in order to survive. Most likely they will be very successful at doing so because they really do have the expertise and the finances to do so.

A refundable carbon tax would have been a less expensive way of pushing that process along than the continued destruction of the Gulf of Mexico, the Canadian Tundra, The Pennsylvania water sheds in search of hard to reach oil and gas, but the process is inevitable either way.

Report this comment
#8) On June 16, 2010 at 8:30 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

Wow King Devo, that's a lot of hatred.  I think we're all thankful you're not in charge. 

The only thing I suggested, very clearly in fact, is that big energy has been a proponent of climate change legislation since the beginning. 

Now, when you say the Fossil Fuel industry, you must mean the same thing, since that includes oil and gas, as well as coal.  You want them all to go down?  That's interesting.  So I guess you don't support Obama then, right?  You vote Green Party all the way? 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#9) On June 16, 2010 at 12:44 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

David,

When you see apparently incongruous allies lining up behind some good-sounding but potentially hideous cause, like USCAP or other such ventures, it does seem to be a violation of nature does it not?

Most companies seek long-term sustainable profitability (for the most part) but with the slithering tentacles of government throughout prodding, pushing, and even in some cases (where the government may have additional influence, perhaps through ownership, a la BP and others) direct authority - toward some politically desirable objective - at least from some persepctive. Who's pushing/pulling them together? Love affair? No. Strange bedfellows? Sure.

Energy companies, transportation companies, commodity companies, and political action groups all together? What could they possibly have in common aside from spitting out watermelon seeds at the annual "we are not in any conspiracy convention" - after all we all know Geroge Clooney would never join any cabal ... oh sh!t!

Conspiracies always seem so far-fetched, and I much prefer to believe in simpler reasons for things being more believable - a la Occam's razor - but this stinks. Like bad country music ...

Or is it just that the K.D. in K.D. Lang stands for King devoish? Sh!t x 2. Maybe that's too conspiratorial ... I should just believe that it's a trail of broken hearts and not oil spilled in the gulf... or just maybe I've been reading MoneyMcBags too much.

I'm confused - and that says a lot.

Known as the hung over nzsvz9

Report this comment
#10) On June 16, 2010 at 2:25 PM, ChannelDunlap (< 20) wrote:

Hey dave.  Way to clip the last bit of that Wikipedia article.

Members leaving

In February 2010

BP America, Caterpillar Inc. and ConocoPhillips

all left the lobbyist collaboration and are not members anymore.[6]

Report this comment
#11) On June 16, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Rehydrogenated (35.26) wrote:

David,

With all due respect, I think your confusing lobbying on climate change issues, and lobbying FOR climate change. These companies aren't lobbying for stricter laws, they are lobbying so that the laws, which are inevitable at this point both from international and domestic pressure, are written in their favor. 

Do you think the banks that are spending millions lobbying on financial regulation issues are lobbying for strict financial regulation? Or do you think they are lobbying for financial regulation with loopholes they can abuse? 

Is it possible that these energy companies will get "environmental" laws passsed that are beneficial to them or dupe us with cap n trade? Sure they can. But just because large companies have outsized (and growing) power to influence new laws doesn't mean that energy companies created "climate change". Although I will agree that they are now trying to hijack the political process and "sell it back to us at a profit". 

Report this comment
#12) On June 16, 2010 at 3:23 PM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

The Club of Rome claims to have created the push for climate change legislation.  I'm not saying they did.  I'm just saying they claim to have.  Take that however your mind allows.

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill ... All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."  - See here, pp. 104-105

The Club of Rome is a global think tank that deals with a variety of international political issues. It was founded in April 1968 and raised considerable public attention in 1972 with its report The Limits to Growth. The club states that its mission is "to act as a global catalyst for change through the identification and analysis of the crucial problems facing humanity and the communication of such problems to the most important public and private decision makers as well as to the general public." [1] Since 1 July 2008, the organization has its headquarters in Winterthur, Switzerland.

According to its website, the Club of Rome is composed of "scientists, economists, businessmen, international high civil servants, heads of state and former heads of state from all five continents who are convinced that the future of humankind is not determined once and for all and that each human being can contribute to the improvement of our societies."

There are a lot of people out there, who think they are quite powerful and better than you (whether they actually are is another issue), that push agendas long before they reach our dinner table.  

That's not a conspiracy theory. This people are simply insane and rich - a bad combination.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#13) On June 16, 2010 at 3:27 PM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

From a reviewer on Amazon:

"This open but conspiratorial plan acknowledges that there is no hard scientific data supporting "the idea" of global warming, although it asserts there is agreement (among whom?) about general "trends." [Page 50]. However, "the idea" serves as an excellent means of rousting all planetary citizens to become united under a kind of new religion whereby each individual is willing to sacrifice for the good of the whole -- in order to save humanity. "

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#14) On June 16, 2010 at 3:32 PM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

And to answer your question:

Do you think the banks that are spending millions lobbying on financial regulation issues are lobbying for strict financial regulation?

YES!!!!

New regulations always benefit big business.  They know it is too costly for smaller competitors to comply with it.  They get to write it as well, so it's a double win.  Fewer competitors and rigged rules.  What's not to like?  

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#15) On June 16, 2010 at 4:01 PM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

You can claim that I took the following quotes out of context, but, um, what could possibly be the context?

Jacques-Yves Cousteau, environmentalist and documentary maker: "It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable."

John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal: "I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems."

Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University population biologist: "We’re at 6 billion people on the Earth, and that’s roughly three times what the planet should have. About 2 billion is optimal."

David Foreman, founder of Earth First!: "Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."

David M. Graber, research biologist for the National Park Service: "It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."

Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome: "My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem."

Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation: "The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man."

John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club: "Honorable representatives of the great saurians of older creation, may you long enjoy your lilies and rushes, and be blessed now and then with a mouthful of terror-stricken man by way of a dainty!"

Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."

Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

(That guy totally sounds like devoish, admit it. Devo, are you Muarice Strong????)

Ted Turner, CNN founder, UN supporter, and environmentalist: "A total population of 250–300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."

Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."

So, um, yeah, context.. right?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#16) On June 16, 2010 at 9:38 PM, devoish (98.76) wrote:

Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

(That guy totally sounds like devoish, admit it. Devo, are you Muarice Strong????)

No, I am no Maurice Strong. As you know I support extending human life expectancy by reducing air and water pollution.

You, I know, support the continued murder of people through the unrestricted use of pollutants.

 - The Grand High Exalted Mystic King Devoish

Report this comment
#17) On June 16, 2010 at 11:05 PM, SockMarket (87.07) wrote:

david,

well put. thanks.

Report this comment
#18) On June 17, 2010 at 1:05 AM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@whereaminow,
"BP is one of the original Climate Change lobbyists."
Can you tell me where's the logical link between lobbying for climate/energy policy and the validity of climate science?
Are you telling me that people like Svante Arrhenius, Jule Charney, Syukuro Manabe, Roger Revelle, Charles Keeling invented ACC to benefit BP?

"if the climate change denialists all come from the greedy big energy companies"
Not all but a overwhelming majority of "skeptics" (including those with scientific credentials) are/were associated with fossil fuel companies or are/were fellows of think tanks lavishly funded by Big Fossil Fuel* to promote AGW denial.

"why are the big energy companies the leading lobbyists for climate change?"
Some big energy companies support market-friendly climate policies for a variety of reasons:
- Pressure from activist shareholders from SRI funds.
- Little downside from a carbon cap and price (e.g. utilities with few coal-fired power plants and lots of hydro and nuclear generation)
- Potential upside from the creation of new growth areas (grid upgrade, renewables, nuclear, investment in energy efficiency, CCS, etc)
- Greenwashing.
- Responsible upper management.
- Acknowledgement of the reality.
- Probable handouts from governments.

"Enron, btw, was a leading proponent of climate change.  Maybe you're getting duped.  I'm just sayin...."
Enron was a proponent of emissions trading as a favoured policy. BTW, the last year you were quoting ex-Enron guys as a source of authority on energy economics. Do you believe Enron only when it suits your ideological agenda?

"While the Libertarians have been routing the NeoScum out of the Republican Party"
The modern Republican Party is an alliance of neoonservatives, social conservatives, theocrats, business elites (also present in the Democratic Party) and libertarians. With each passing day, the GOP gets crazier. Dominionists, conspiracy theorists and other wackjobs are trying to get control of the party.

"the NeoConservatives have flocked back to the Left, an alliance they formed during the Nixon years - an alliance purely of convenience then, and purely as such now."
You got your facts wrong. In the Nixon years, sizeable elements of the far-left (mainly Trotskyists) became the seed of the modern neoconservative movement. This isn't surprising: people at opposing ends of the ideological spectrum often share many values, policy prescriptions and goals. While you present yourself as an anarchocapitalist, your writings show a significant dose of Marxist logic and post-modern rhetoric.

"Ron Paul can't be bought"
That may be true (crackpots can be ethical) but what about his son? It looks like his son want to cut government spending, except when it benefits his pocket. He reminds me of another person that inspired admiration from you.

"So, I could care less what happens to BP from a political and ethical perspective.  They are going to fine"
There's a significant chance that BP may end up bankrupt.

"The Club of Rome claims to have created the push for climate change legislation.  I'm not saying they did.  I'm just saying they claim to have."
Lyndon B. Johnson'a Special Message to the Congress on Conservation and Restoration of Natural Beauty, February 8, 1965:
"Air pollution is no longer confined to isolated places. This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels."
This conspiracy is thick.

"There are a lot of people out there, who think they are quite powerful and better than you (whether they actually are is another issue), that push agendas long before they reach our dinner table.  
That's not a conspiracy theory. This people are simply insane and rich - a bad combination."
- Every thing that calls into question unrestrained capitalism must be a conspiracy of the rich and powerful? Marxist logic, indeed.
- Could you please show us the fortune of, let's say, Donella Meadows?

"You can claim that I took the following quotes out of context, but, um, what could possibly be the context?"
The context is that none is advocating a genocide, forced sterilizations or other crimes against humanity in order to bring a stable population. Do you know that the most effective policies for population control are:
- Ending female illiteracy.
- Improving women's participation in the economy and society.
- Reducing child mortality.
- Economic growth.
- Safe retirement.
- Easy access to planned parenthood, contraceptives and sex education.
Do you disagree with any of the policies enumerated above?
Also quoting leaders of mainstream environmental organizations (Sierra Club, Greenpeace, WWF) or scientists (Ehrlich, Cousteau) with members of a radical organization (Earth First!) is disingenuous at best. Do you want to accuse them of being misanthropes?
Lastly, do you think that exponential growth can go on forever?

@goldminingXpert,
"I'm pretty sure Democrats (at least environmentalists) oppose energy in general. I don't think they are the party of natural gas."
Joseph Romm, a physicist who blogs for the Center for America Progress, a liberal think tank, says:
"I have been researching what may be the single biggest game changer for climate action in the next two decades — U.S. natural gas supply.  Last week I attended a workshop where some of the country’s leading gas experts presented the remarkable new projections for near- and medium-term supply and then answered questions from some of the country’s top energy experts.
The bottom line is staggering.  As one of the presenters put it, “If the current trend continues” for production of unconventional gas, then by 2020 “natural gas could displace half of the coal burning power plants.” If that is true, and the projections by the other experts were comparable, then natural gas alone could essentially meet the entire Waxman-Markey CO2 target for 2020 — without requiring gobs of new power plants to be sited and built or thousands of miles of new transmission lines.
There is simply no doubt that, other than energy efficiency and conservation, the lowest-cost option for achieving large-scale CO2 reductions by 2020 is simply replacing electricity produced by burning coal with power generated by burning more natural gas in the vast array of currently underutilized gas-fired plants (as I will discuss in more detail in Part 2).  Natural gas is the cheapest, low-carbon baseload power around."

@Rehydrogenated,
"With all due respect, I think your confusing lobbying on climate change issues, and lobbying FOR climate change. These companies aren't lobbying for stricter laws, they are lobbying so that the laws, which are inevitable at this point both from international and domestic pressure, are written in their favor."
You're demanding far too much of David's brain. He doesn't understand the difference between climate science, climate/energy/green policy, partisan politics and lobbying. He'll try to convince you that coal companies want a strong climate bill or that fossil fuel companies are vastly outspending green/alternative energy groups because they really want climate legislation.

"But just because large companies have outsized (and growing) power to influence new laws doesn't mean that energy companies created "climate change"."
David is a fan of non-sequiturs. Get used to that.

 

* The fact that fossil fuel companies sponsored contrarian scientists or divulged their findings says nothing about the particular merits of such research. The troubling fact is that once every skeptic doubt was put to rest with refined theory, better models and more/better evidence, those contrarian scientists mostly stopped doing any research and became lobbyists with a dubious aura of scholarship and replaced evidence with tortured logic, bad arguments, political hand-waving and conspiracy theorizing.

Report this comment
#19) On June 17, 2010 at 6:11 AM, devoish (98.76) wrote:

Lucas1985,

I am humbled. I merely called BS on Hopelesslylost. You detailed his BS very nicely.

Perhaps ChrisGraley and Hopelesslylost will nominate you to your own Kingdom. I warn you though, their titles suck, and as a potential King you may want to consider improving upon their shortcoming.

Regards,

The Grand High Exalted Mystic King Devoish

Report this comment
#20) On June 17, 2010 at 7:38 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

He debunked nothing.  

My points still stand.

1. Big Energy leads the push for climate change legislation.
2. Increased regulations always benefit big business.
3. The Neoconservatives has always allied themselves with whoever is in power and ready to sell their souls.  The new whore is the Obama administration..
4. The Club of Rome claims they invented climate change hysteria,
5. Eugenicists want to curtail the human race drastically and many say they're will to kill humans to do it.

Lucas is a side show, who can't debate in his own words. He links to nonsense and attacks character, but offers nothing substantive.  In other words devo, he's your kind of court jester.

And he backs out of every climate change debate here when you press him on a topic.

David in Qatar

 

Report this comment
#21) On June 17, 2010 at 8:21 PM, ChrisGraley (31.73) wrote:

Wow, I'm glad I looked in this thread. Steven is attacking me in threads that I haven't posted in now! 

Don't get me wrong, I recced the post, but I didn't totally agree with it. I agree with it more than I agree with the rebuttals though.

Show me one post where I've nominated you for your own kingdom?

Show me a post where I even called you "King devo"? 

But go ahead and paint another false picture void of facts and then act like a victim when someone else credits you with acting like a monarch. 

I actually agree with lucas that nat gas is the best current hope of replacing coal. It's still way ahead of the renewables, but it's a fools vision to assume that it will totally replace coal and be sustainable even in the near future.

If oil is at the current $80 a barrel range,  Nat gas should be at $13 per thousand cubit feet,  Current oversupply has it at $5 per thousand cubic feet. Even at this ridiculously low price. Nat gas is still not as cost effective as coal. When oil goes up, so will Nat gas and even if oil stays where it's at, Nat gas will more than double when oversupply corrects. If we totally replaced coal, the increased demand in Nat gas would put the oil/ Nat gas ratio at about 80/30. That would be devastating anyone on a fixed income.

We can't dismiss Nat gas, because right now it's our best hope. (I have some arguments for nuclear that put it ahead of Nat gas though.) We need to find a combination of Nat gas and something else to smooth out the huge market swings. Even then, when it comes to Nat gas, if you want to make it work, you better be screaming "Drill, baby, drill!" Supply will need to  exceed a demand that will more than double.

 

 

Report this comment
#22) On June 17, 2010 at 9:13 PM, devoish (98.76) wrote:

We can't dismiss Nat gas, because right now it's our best hope.

Best hope for what?

Show me one post where I've nominated you for your own kingdom?

Show me a post where I even called you "King devo"? 

You compared me to Chavez after David nominated me. I thought you were seconding the motion.

I am glad you are not getting involved into poitics. Your restaurant floor needs sweeping.

Report this comment
#23) On June 17, 2010 at 9:19 PM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

devo,

I am glad you are not getting involved into poitics. Your restaurant floor needs sweeping.

Sweeping floors is far more noble. I would be honored to help Chris clean his. Politicians, and obviously you, only know how to dirty them.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#24) On June 17, 2010 at 10:31 PM, ChrisGraley (31.73) wrote:

Nat gas is our best alternative to coal right now. It's actually a better alternative to oil, but only if you increase the nuclear plants to replace coal. The hope is a less destructive energy policy combined with more domestic energy security.  It's what people who have a better plan than taxing people into compliance think about.

In my eyes, you would make a very good Chavez. While I point out that I can't hire a guy just to sweep my floors, you advertise that I'm too lazy to sweep my floors. It's avoiding the political fallout of the problem by dehumanizing the people that point it out. Castro was better at it, but you remind me more of Chavez.

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but you have to concede the comparison given your chosen path.

Still, I didn't call you a king and still, I didn't post in this thread until after you did. Maybe you thought you could attack when I wasn't looking or maybe you thought someone would think that you might be right if I wasn't here to argue. 

Now you'll try to save face by painting my response as hostile or non-productive. You get more creative every time that you do it, but I would rather that you would get more creative with actual solutions to problems. I'll more willing to debate if you could forget about being Chavez.

I still didn't call you a king and never called you "King Devo". Now if you don't mind, I have a floor to sweep. 

Chris, 

Report this comment
#25) On June 18, 2010 at 5:26 AM, devoish (98.76) wrote:

So does this mean that Lucas1985 does not get nominated to be a King by you fellas?

sigh...Its lonely at the top,

The Unparalleled Grand High Exalted Mystic King Devoish

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement