Peak oil coverage on CNBC
Posted by Leanan on November 4, 2007 - 10:03am
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: CNBC, matthew simmons, peak oil, Vijay Vaitheeswaran [list all tags]
CNBC had a lot of peak oil coverage Friday (November 2, 2007). Included were interviews with Matt Simmons (author of Twilight In the Desert) and Vijay Vaitheeswaran (author of Zoom!), which is under the fold.
Crude Realities
Running On Empty
(Clicking on the images will take you to YouTube to see the videos. An experiment, to see if it runs more smoothly than embedding them here.)
nice to see a real PO guy on the MSM (simmons)
They put Simmons on at 5am and the we got plenty of oil guy on at 7am
I find it just astounding that otherwise reasonable and intelligent people like Joe Kernen don't get off their butts and do some basic homework. Man-o-man denial and laziness is just astounding. His comment at the end about why the Canadian tar sands will save us is so typical of lazy TV personalities. Simmons didn't rebut with laser focus on the key issue: flow rate. The primary rebuttal to anyone that speaks of Canadian tar sands as our savings grace is that they will never likely flow beyond five million barrels per day in production given the problems that come with mass production (energy use, needed water, ability to process tailings and conduct production in such a way as to not totally write-off Alberta as a sacrifice zone, etc.
I forget the name of the woman anchor that introduced the segment, but she's got to know the story (and hides her knowledge well). Afterall, she spent a whole darn week in China with T Boone Pickens.
Oh well. In a twisted way, it's easy to make the argument that it's good the mass media is still in obfuscation mode. But the arguments cut both ways.
-ziggy
Well, I'm amazed to see the headline "peak oil reality" on the MSM.
I don't think there's going to be a sudden moment when everyone "wakes up" to peak oil. Acceptance is going to come gradually. They'll have "both views," and not take a side, and reality will eventually win over. OPEC will gradually admit that they can't increase production. Traders will realize $40 oil is never coming back. Etc.
Until one day, it's the people saying peak won't be until 2040 who are the quacks, and we won't know quite how it happened.
Simmons is fond of quoting oil in price per cup. He uses 15 cents per cup to show how cheap it is compared to anything else of any value. He must not have checked out agricultural commodities. A pound of corn which is more than a cup sells for about six cents locally. How is it that as oil prices rise to $300 that agricultural commodities can remain priced so cheaply? If they do, ethanol/biodiesel production will continue to expand.
Critics of oil sands, ethanol, biodiesel often complain that these are not a cure all as promoted by some advocates. It is not necessary to have a cure all, silver bullet type solution in the early stages of post peak oil where the decline rate is relatively small. Some conservation brought by higher prices (finally) and increased production of tar sands, ethanol and biodiesel will partially mitigate peak oil effects initially. I think that is what is happening now in that gasoline prices are slow to follow crude oil's lead to new highs.
No, practical, corn is not six cents per cup.
There are 128 cups per bushel.
Corn, according to Friday's close, is 3.77$ per bushel.
3.77 divided by 128 equals .029453125. Let's call it 3 cents per cup. I would say that that is substantially less six cents.
If you remember correctly, he said that nothing "worthwhile" is priced less than fifteen cents a cup.
While food seems very "worthwhile" to me, others apparently find that not to be the case.
http://www.populistamerica.com/stop_calling_me_a_doomer
If you ground that corn up and packed it into a cup to remove most of the air volume, does it make a difference?
:-)
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)
Since oil and natural gas based fertilizer are among the main inputs into corn, the price of corn is going to go up with the price of crude oil. Since is takes at least 5 barrels of oil and gas to produce ethanol with the energy equivalent of 6 barrels of oil, the cost of ethanol is going to go up a lot, too.
Most fertalizers are made of Natural Gas. If oil rose to $300, but NG stayed at $7 MCF, or even doubled to $14 MCF, food price increases will be much less than you think.
PartyGuy,
Only nitrogen fertilizer is made out of natural gas. Phosphorus is mined from phosphate rock deposits mostly located in Florida in the US and potash is from strip mines in New Mexico in the US. Its hard to call one-third of the fertilizer requirements "most fertilizers are made of natural gas".
Another big source of nitrogen fetilizer is bird guano. Mostly in the US agribusiness manure is a pollutant in water run-off although some is composted and sold in garden supply stores. Its a real wasted asset.
Bob Ebersole
Nitrogen fertilizer is the "dominant" fertilizer of the three nutrient fertilizers you refer to. Approximately 85% of all ammonia used in the US is used for nitrogen fertilizer, a substantial amount as anhydrous ammonia. At more than $500/ton, it has gotten quite expensive.
Phosphorus (as phosphate) and potassium (as potash) while "mined" also require substantial treatment to turn to suitable agricultural products. That means energy.
In addition to the phosphate mined from Florida (the highest point in Florida is actually a gypsum stack from the phosphate rock processing), you also have substantial deposits in eastern NC (Aurora, PCS Phosphate) and eastern ID (Soda Springs). In the case of the Eastern ID deposits, the rock is either hauled by dedicated haul road (the trucks on this road have the right of way when the cross "ordinary" roadways) or pipelined to the phosphate plant. PCS Phosphate in Aurora is the single largest phosphate mine in the US ( if not the world).
All "manures" tend to be high in nitrogen (and phosphorus) but there is a transportation/cost issue with the weights required for commercial agriculture.
I believe he often compares it to the cost of water...
I'm not sure that his argument is that it should cost more than water, which i would disagree with, but that it should be at least at parity with water.
Really? You don't think that crude oil, which takes hundreds of millions of years to form, and fairly rare geological structures to preserve until today, made from millions of years' worth of sunlight, shouldn't cost more than something that falls freely from the sky?
--C
No. It will come like a thunderbolt.
Or thermonuclear cloud.
See Missing Nukes: Treason of the Highest Order
By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
11/02/07 "Global Research"
Every oil discovery/production watershed has been acompanied
by a Major SocioEconomic Event.
Every one.
We are now moving off the plateau and ito the Olduvai
Gorge.
Two Events are happening now:
1) Fallon was in Pakistan Friday.
"According to an Inter Services Public Relations statement, Admiral Fallon also called on Vice Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Kayani at General Headquarters and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Tariq Majid at Joint Staff Headquarters, Rawalpindi, and discussed matters of professional and mutual interest with them.
It was the first interaction of the US Centcom chief with the two top military officers of Pakistan after their elevation. Though officially there was no word about the details of the talks, defence sources said that terrorism, Waziristan and the Swat situation and increasing suicide attacks on security forces were part of the discussions. online/staff report"
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\11\03\story_3-11-2007_pg1_9
The last factual story you'll be getting from Pakistan for awhile.
"“The situation in Pakistan’s Tribal Areas, Afghanistan, the ongoing operation in Swat, joint military exercises and other issues of professional interest were discussed in the meeting,” Sajjad Malik reported diplomatic and government sources as saying.
The president said the operation against extremist elements in Swat was continuing and peace would soon established there.
Fallon lauded Pakistan’s efforts in the elimination of terror and said that the US would continue to provide assistance to Pakistan."
2) I said that Mexico's oil production had essentially
stopped US Exports.
Confirmation:
""The storms have forced the closure of three of Mexico's main oil ports, preventing almost all exports and halting a fifth of the country's oil production. It has a strong economic impact" Calderon said in an interview.
The storm did not spare the Bay of Campeche, Mexico's main oil producing region and home to more than 100 oil platforms.
Overall, the region normally exports about 1.7 million barrels of crude daily. Since, most of the production remains shut down, it would mean that Mexico's output would drop by 2.6 million barrels a day."
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009043379
It will not come back.
Citigroup on Monday will announce that it's insolvent.
From elaine supkis. This Great Dame rocks:
Schumer And Feinstein Betray Constitution And Voters
November 3, 2007
Elaine Meinel Supkis
Thanks to Hitler and 2,000 years of persecution of the Jews by the two other religions they gave birth to, we can't talk reasonably about the Jewish people. I was Mrs. Levy for many years plus I come from, on my father's side, a German/Jewish background. Hitler would have killed me if he could. So I have a right to talk about the Jewish situation in the United States. The sudden reversal over the Jewish Attorney General nominee by two Jewish Senators, Feinstein and Schumer, shows clearly how Jews in our governemnt are sticking together even in the teeth of severe disapproval of the voters at large in their own states over any issue concerning power of Princes.
Hell's Gates open .
Arkansaw of Samuel L Clemens
A couple of links for the stories you noted.
Missing Nukes: Treason of the Highest Order
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7158
Bond Insurers Are Going Bankrupt Now
http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/money_matters/2007/11/elaine-meine...
Also, make sure to read Doug's piece this week.
Road to Ruin
by Doug Noland
I pose the following question for contemplation: How much would the Chinese government, with their $1.4 TN stockpile of chiefly dollar reserves, be willing these days to pay for the necessary energy resources to sustain their economy and stem social unrest?
http://www.safehaven.com/article-8752.htm
This one by Mish is a MUST READ. This week we just might see the whole banking industry go "Caster's Up" as we say in the IT world.
Downward Spiral of Deep Junk
by Mike Shedlock
Buckle Up folks.
John
http://www.safehaven.com/article-8758.htm
Thank you very much.
I read them. Robert Rubin to be head of Citigroup.-calculatedRiskblogspot
Unloading Toxic Waste Mortgage Backed Securities: “We Americans Were Very Clever”
November 2nd, 2007
http://cryptogon.com/?p=1555
Arkansaw of Samuel L Clemens
Iran already has twelve nuclear capable cruise missiles purchased from the Ukraine right after the Soviet Union broke up. There is no evidence that they got the warheads by some other channel, but on the other hand they were highly motivated and Putin visited there just a few days back. Would they arm the Iranians to resist U.S. aggression if they had plausible denial? Yes, I think things are getting that crazy ...
Why is it that Mexico's oil exports will never increase again? Its a temporary shutdown because they can't dock their ships, much less load the oil and then ship it to the US.
Looks like the storm rolled over a few rocks and some doomer trolls popped out. Beware all!
Hmm - let see what the export rates are same day next year?
We all know Mexico is on a plateau/decline trend. They stated very specifically that the 1.1 million bpd that was exported to the US and has been halted completely will not come back. Are you suggesting they had a national 33% decline last week and thats it?
Mexico has just taken a Katrina sized or larger hit in Tabasco. Their emergency services are much less capable of handling such a thing than our own poxy FEMA, their people are under the gun due to declining remittances from the U.S., and the government is under the gun from declining oil revenues.
So they need the oil revenues they used to have in order to upgrade their plant to maybe get the oil revenues they used to have, and before they do that they need the oil revenues they used to have to bail out Tabasco ... but their oil is both declining and now shut in.
Does the U.S. tap the SPR to cushion for the missing oil, or does our incompetent government fail to execute again, or does it purposely fail because TPTB in the oil business want the Mexican direct investment block lifted?
I'll go back under my rock now ...
What's scary is trying to find news about the flooding.
You can't.
Anyone think that PEMEX has fixed this yet?:
Tabasco state officials said the pipeline had exploded, but that there were no deaths or injuries. The unnamed brigadier-general who spoke to a few Jewish journalists in Toronto on October 22 had his remarks posted on the Canadian Jewish News Web site. [19] Tabasco officials also reported that there was an explosion at a gas pipeline in the city of Huimanguillo, about 50 kms (30 miles) west of Villahermosa late Tuesday, but that the blaze had been brought under control by employees of the state-owned oil company, Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex.[9] MEXICO CITY Dozens of residents of an oil-rich capital on the Gulf of Mexico coast were evacuating their homes Wednesday after a river overflowed and began rushing through cracks in a containing wall following a week of rainstorms, Mexican news media reported Wednesday.[9] Gov. Andres Granier urged residents to evacuate the city where floodwaters reached the rooftops of homes.[5]
All the water that comes in has to be pumped out." Mr Granier said ..."
Or this?:
A 10in (25cm) natural gas pipeline sprung a leak after flooding apparently washed away soil underneath it, but it was unclear if other facilities operated by the state-run Petroleos Mexicanos were damaged.
Arkansaw of Samuel L Clemens
Peter Tertzakian, Chief Energy Economist for ARC Financial Corporation based in Calgary, Canada examined the potential of Canadian oil sands in Canadian Oil Sands - Myth and Reality (2006):
“As investment in the Canadian oil sands ratchets up, so too do the myths and expectations. Some are speculating that this secondary and synthetic oil resource is the cure-all for the world’s growing addiction to oil, a resource that soon will be producing more than Saudi Arabia. Others are taking the argument further and viewing oil sands as the magic bullet that will pound the price of oil back down to U.S. $40/bbl or less. Don’t bet on any of it.
The big mistake is assuming that Canada’s vast oil-sands reserves can be turned into large production volumes in a time frame and a manner similar to conventional oil. On more than one occasion recently, I have heard people talk about oil-sands production reaching 10 million BOPD [barrels of oil per day] by the middle of next decade. Here is the reality: If all announced projects come on line on time, then Canadian oil-sands production may reach about 4.1 million BOPD by 2017. But the probability that everything goes according to plan, and that all projects are on time and on budget, is next to nil. The region is remote, with major stresses and strains because of a perennial shortage of labor, services, equipment, and materials. Logistical problems are acute and it is well documented that the situation is going to get worse. One doesn’t need a spread sheet or calculator to figure this out. Merely recognizing that Fort McMurray is a small, remote town that is at the end of a very long (and still narrow) highway should tell you that the technical challenges, let alone social issues, are daunting. Pushing more than U.S. $65 billion worth of steel, equipment, and labor—and that is only the direct investment that is expected over the next 10 years—up this constricted highway is akin to pushing a herd of elephants through a door.
The realistic estimate for what level of total production can be achieved by 2015 is no more than 3 million BOPD, which is only an incremental 2 million BOPD greater than volumes being produced today. So, putting things into perspective, what is likely to be achieved in the Canadian oil sands over the next 10 years is roughly equal to a little more than one year’s worth of global oil demand growth (emphasis added). Certainly, it is no panacea for the world’s growing addiction to oil or for mitigating U.S. energy dependence.”
According a study by the Canadian National Energy Board, “Canada’s Oil Sands, Opportunities and Challenges to 2015: An Update” (2006) [the Canadian National Energy Board is the energy department of the national government of Canada], there are significant obstacles in reaching the production goal of 3 million barrels of oil per day by 2015:
“The rate of development will depend on the balance that is reached between the opposing forces that affect the oil sands. High oil prices, international recognition, geopolitical concerns, global growth in oil demand, size of the resource base and proximity to the large U.S. market, and potentially other markets, encourage development. On the other hand, natural gas costs, the high light/heavy oil price differential, management of air emissions and water usage, insufficient labour, infrastructure and services are concerns that could potentially inhibit the development of the resource. There is now a clearer understanding that large water withdrawals from the Athabasca River for mining operations during the winter could impact the ecological sustainability of the river. As well, it is uncertain if land reclamation methods currently employed will be successful. These issues have moved to the forefront of environmental concerns. Regions associated with oil sands development enjoy several economic benefits but at costs to the social well-being of the communities, including a shortage of available housing and stress on public infrastructure and services. There is currently a limited supply of skilled workers in Alberta, and this tight labour market is expected to continue in the near future.”
And, when the U.S. experiences natural gas shortages, which could happen with any cold winter, the oil sands will have reduced natural gas for processing the oil sands.
Tertzakian and Simmons sure do differ with Vaitheeswaran.
Vaitheeswaran said that the problem with oil "is not scarcity, it is concentration" and also that the oil sands have more oil than Saudi Arabia, so we have plenty of supply.
There are no fundamental issues driving the high price of oil, according to Vaitheeswaren. Supply is not a problem at all. The high prices are only due to geopolitical and technical concerns, and so the price of oil could easily go down as well as up from here.
Vaitheeswaren also blamed "resource nationalism" for high price. This makes it sound a bit like "they won't sell us our oil at prices we like and let our companies profit from it along the way." So we are the victims of Russia, Venezuela, the Saudis, Iran, and so forth?
Vaitheeswaren bubbles on about "look to unconventional" as a solution, specifically look to the Canadian oil (tar?) sands." Tough to produce and expensive to turn into gasoline? No problem, says Vaitheeswaren, "you give me a price point, and I'll give you the gasoline." there it is, the economist's oversimplification: walk up to the tar sands with a big enough bag of money, and all our "supply" problems vanish overnight.
Finally, Vaitheeswaren confides that we'll just be leaving lots and lots of the oil in the ground because we will come up with much cheaper and better sources of energy. Nice and neat, in a pretty package, and in time for Christmas, too?
Vaitheeswaren ought to have been preceded by a Disney fantasy theme song like "when you wish upon a star" and followed by another like "someday my prince will come."
Did Vaitheeswaren present the best economist's cornucopian ideas? I think that he did, but that it is becoming apparent that the flaws of our corrupt crony capitalism are starting to show.
MSM economists look more like carny hawkers and snake oil salesmen with each passing day. It is so obvious, so glaring, that I think even people who are not used to thinking may really suspect that wishful thinking is not what capitalism is supposed to be about.
At any rate, Simmons made more sense than Vaitheeswaren, and the analysis of the tar sands from Tertzakian show that Vaitheeswaren's optimism is simply wishful thinking.
LOL!
Vaitheeswaren noted that the resource nationalism is directed against the multinationals located in the US and GB. I've wondered the same thing, and also speculate that as soon as the army and mercenaries leave Iraq, then the Export Land phenomena willl really kick in and they won't be able to buy much crude except where there are joint ventures in refining like the Saudi's with Motiva/Shell in Deer Park (Houston).
Friday was the first time I've heard MSNBC discussibg the deppletion rate amoung the multinationals, noting that both ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco were down 2% on crude volume. I haven't looked up if this is the annual rate or 2% for the quarter, which would make 8%.
IMHO this is huge. It might be time to sell our stock in the old seven sisters survivors. Bob Ebersole
Simmons & Tertzakian - experienced practical realists with knowledge of technology and geology. Constraints and model minded.
Vaitheeswaren - experienced journalist, with upside potential focus and aim to passionately instill optimism.
Both are needed, but for facts, I'd go with Simmons any time of the day. For rallying speeches with Vaitheeswaren (only if based on Simmons&Tertzakian type analysis though).
Well SamuM, I checked the ExxonMobil earnings report that was released Friday. Liquids production was off 111K barrels a day, 2% from the level at the first of the year, blah blah, blah...except for blah blah blah the production was really up 5%...
I'm selling the XOM and BP stock I just inherited, and buying Apache and Petrobank with the money. Petrobank has developed the THAI system of in situ combustion reviewed here about 2 months ago that looks as though it will make Alberta Tar sands very profitable, while Apache is the largest independent producer redeveloping domestic production in the US. Their production grew by 15% so far this year, no BS and no excuses and no stock buy-back .
Guys, all BS aside, is there a particular discount broker that you'd care to recommend as cheap and easy to work with? My email is my name all lower case and run together twothousand four at yahoo.com.
Bob Ebersole
Bob,
I've been happy with Fidelity. www.fidelity.com You can open an account on line and after you send them a check to set up a core account and then you can buy and sell most any stock or mutual fund you want. I'd minimize the amount of money I keep in their money market fund though because I think it has a large subprime/ CDO exposure.
Does anyone know of any canadian oil trusts that I can research?
I have some but want to increase my holdings to protect myself from the decliningg US$ and bump up my oil holdings more.
The Canadian trusts I currently own have 10 %+ dividend yields and the income is paid in Canadian $'s. I think they will perform well even as Canadian tax laws change and am interested in learning more about them.
all bs aside oilmanbob, wouldnt you be wise to diversify, hold some of the bp and xom and buy a slate of smaller co.s you may be right on the thai system, but i am sceptical, given what little i know about insitu combustion.
i have a few shares of tlm (talisman) which i bought when they announced they were getting out of the tar pit. take a look at their projects worldwide. of some concern though is their recent appointment of an ex bp refining guy as ceo - do they plan to get into refining ? i hope not, maybe it is lng. their recent press releases seem to telegraph that they are considering acquisition(s).
i also have a few shares of bowvf (bow valley) and tga (transglobe). a domestic co that i have held before that may be right up your alley is phx (panhandle oil and gas). they have minerals in every corner of the us of a.
I didn't quite understand how that relates to what I wrote, but thanks for the tip (I was just reading THAI backlog yesterday).
Sorry, no tips on discount brokers from me (I don't have a US account), but perhaps the following might be useful to you:
Barron's 2007 Online Broker Review: How the Brokers Stack Up
A more important point to me than production is reserves... if production goes up but reserves go down, the company will go bust pretty soon. Of course they all will eventually do this, but in the long run we are all dead; meanwhile, we want climbing reserves for at least a few years.
So, I first look for companies with climbing reserves, and I don't count tar sands - high reserves but surging costs. I also don't count reserves xom is booking - they are replacing high value oil reserves with low value ng in qatar, far from markets.
Futher, I stick with E&P's, the large integrated oil co's (IOC's) have too much concentration in refining, a poor investment as we slide over po... less oil to refine, and anyway persian gulf are building new refineries to handle heavy oil (SA) or because internal facilities cannot handle internal demand (Iran.) As they send their crude to new refineries they will be exporting product, not crude, so non opec refining operations will be under increasing stress.
I stick with US, don't trust canada's changing tax laws, canada much more liberal than US... they will never restrict exports on account of nafta, but taxes are not restricted. Higher taxes are how russia/venezuela confiscated energy assets. Higher taxes in canada have already begun, trusts can no longer acquire new fields under the same favorable tax regime, and this is why drilling for ng has slowed there.
I use a formula to compare US E&G's... note that only in the us can you find sufficient data, so far trust worthy, to do the calc:
JKEP = Reserves/production x net/EV
All of this info can be found in the Yahoo finance pages.
Reserves are published by each co once a year, usually in advance of their annual report, and is usually shown on the profile page.
Production and net are released with each quarterly report, the former on the headline page that links their quarterly statement and the latter on the income statement page.
EV changes daily with the stock price, and is asually shown on the statistics page (if not, add market cap to debt and subtract cash on hand for EV)
As an aside, the first term, reserves/production, = life in quarters.
The calc is an attempt to guess total future earnings based on present resource price, (life in quarters x net/quarter), and then compare this with EV. It is obviously better if total future earnings at least equals current EV, so better if the result is at least 1.0. The calc is conservative to the extent that reserves grow with time and if resource price climbs, but non conservative to the extent that cost to produce the reserves, or taxes, increase with time.
Note that, while the market always likes to hear of increased production, the formulae does not like increased production because the co is simply pumping out its reserves. Far better to have increased earnings with decreased production, a neat trick when you can do it. Remember, production is the top line, income is the bottom line.
Most US E&P's are under 1.0, some substantially under. Of course, if you think company X is about to develop a profitable new field, then you might accept what you hope is a temporarily low value. One of my invesments, GPOR, is one such, hopefully will have improved production/reserves/earnings end 07 as it brings on line its new hackberry field.
My energy investments are ARD/GPOR/OXY (oils) (the latter my only energy multinational), and GMXR (NG). GMXR has suffered this year with low ng price, but this price is being pulled higher by high oil price and, even with high storage, ng price normally climbs as cold weather approaches.
Even with po, which may or may not be here now, this is not IMO as good a time to invest in energies as when I began early 2005. We are going into a recession next year, IMO deeper and longer than either of the last two because banks' ability to loan is coming to a stop... the dot.com crash in 00/1/2 took the S&P500 down 50% over 30 months, and the recession in 91 also took 30 months to bottom, down 40%. True, in the seventies oil never declined in spite of three recessions, but you cannot expect energy to do as well when demand declines. We are already seeing a flight from small caps, real estate/financials are crashing... I have already reduced my energy exposure from 100% to 50%, moving into gold (AUY, anticipating more dollar decline) and the short side of the market, BEARX (mutual, picks weak companies, easier in falling markets, no leverage?), SRPIX (mutual, bets against builders, no leverage), and SKF (shares, bets against financials, about 2x leverage.)
Pesonally I think the market crash began oct 9 (DJI/S&P500), might bottom late spring 2010 if not worse than last time, OTOH we will likely be peaking or past peak then, recovery may be slow. The financials are in free fall, some of the biggest may go under. We'll see... but IMO its time to be increasingly defensive.
Picking brokers is not as important as picking sectors and companies, and deciding whethre to buy or sell... but, if you are doing the picking, you certainly want to minimize your brokerage fees. TD waterhouse is probably best of the low priced brokers, they have a lot of offices, have decent PC software, I think they charge $8/trade.
Good luck.
well your formula has certainly put you into a mix of companies and if you bought all in '05, you are standing tall. i have to question your assumption about canadian and us taxes. to my knowledge canada is not considering a wpt. i favor canadian co.s over us, because us co.s seem to be overvalued when compared to canadian.
Bob. I've been using Schwab and they charge me $10.00 to $15.00 per thousand shares of stock I buy and sell. They have a terrific American staff who will help you understand everything from margins to bank linkages.
The only thing I can complain about is that they only pay 1% on stock that I short. When I was a market maker, they interest on my shorts was 5%. So it goes.
Thanks for the tip on PBT. I've made 32% in 3 months. Email me if you need more muscle on your local project.
Dave on MEANDER
Hi bob,
I use Ameritrade, can trade anything for a low commission. I am now out of all majors with the exception of of RIG Transoceanic- deep-water drilling) and CVX (Chevron).
Yes, I like APA (Apache-argh, did not buy last dip, should have expletive deleted).
Of the 7 sisters I think CVX has been making the best moves lately. They seem to have the best awareness of the situation. RIG has serious upside potential still IMVHO.
Looking at a small wind turbine manufacturer, AWNE. Have played it before, not in right now, may be time again soon, not sure yet.
Best of luck to everyone making enough moola to pay this winters heating bills.
www.Interactivebrokers.com
Cheap, professional and very secure with personal code generating device. Trade about everything but T and M bonds.
Haha, I immediately thought of the Thurston Howell III illustration from Nate's keypost yesterday.
| The problem will solve itself.
| But not in a nice way.