Energy, Energy Service, Natural Gas &amp; Oil Sectors

Top 540. Jul 5, 2001 7:35 AM

» JenL_2 - Re: positive NG

In response to message posted by lcha:

Icha - You said...

Now, go back 2-3 years and show the returns on the energy sector. Compare those returns with the S&P and, better yet, the tech sector.

How's this....

<img src="http://chart.bigcharts.com/industry/bigc... XNG XOI&comp=TEC:171602&rand=9559" width=527 height=316>
Oil & NG Sectors vs S&P500 & Tech Sector 3 YR Chart

.....Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

Top 541. Jul 5, 2001 11:28 AM

» lcha - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: positive NG

In response to message posted by Rande:

No, the prevalent attitude in the energy business is that ENERGY is the enemy. It's hard to have warm fuzzy feelings about a consumer that dislikes to despises you. Your anti energy attitude is not unusual and that is a problem energy has when it comes to deal time.

Remember the article on how ElPaso Gas got the CA pipeline contracts. CA didn't care a lick that El Paso was losing their butts several years ago on the deal and were more than willing to let El Paso go bankrupt at the time. Great partner! CA seems willing to suck the life out of their business partners when they can and then scream when the deal does not go their way.

As for a deal that encourages production and conservation. Do you mean production off CA coast. Well,no. Do you mean production off Florida's coast. Well, not there either. Do you mean production in Alaskas SACRED area. God no, not there. I thought so. Meanwhile, we are supposed to find 19M barrels of oil and 61BCF of NG EVERY DAY.

Conservation. What a joke. High prices are the ONLY thing that gets Americans to conserve. How come CA didn't reduce their energy consumption 12% last year? If they had the high prices this year would never have happened. When prices drop, you watch, the hot tubs come back on and the SUVs are back on the road.

Consumers thought 79 cent per gallon gas and $1.2/MCF NG was a fair price. The consumer didn't care at all that oil companies were shutting down wells, folding companies and laying off 100,000 workers because of those prices. The energy industries only hope now is that, having seen $10/MCF NG and $2.00/gallon gasoline, $4 NG and $1.50 gasoline might seem fair.

Yep, I've got a pretty cynical attitude I know. Maybe when consumers come to grips with our long term energy situation they will give a little more respect to an industry they totally depend on. Maybe then energy can get a CONSISTENT fair price for its product and all will be happy. I'll probably retire before then.

-- posted by lcha

Top 542. Jul 5, 2001 11:40 AM

» Rande - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: positive NG

In response to message posted by lcha:

Hopefully, there are some senior people somewhere in the industry who have a less combative, us-against-the-world approach.

-- posted by Rande

Top 543. Jul 5, 2001 12:30 PM

» lcha - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: positive NG

In response to message posted by Rande:

Hopefully, there are some senior people somewhere in the industry who have a less combative, us-against-the-world approach.

I hope so too. My employment contract, required as part of the sale of my company several years ago, expires July of 2002. It might be a good time to try something different.

-- posted by lcha

Top 544. Jul 5, 2001 2:39 PM

» JenL_2 - Re: positive NG

In response to message posted by lcha:

Hopefully, there are some senior people somewhere in the industry who have a less combative, us-against-the-world approach.

Good post above Icha - I don't find your approach "combative" at all - rather I think you've hit the problem spot on. Besides this thread is supposed to be about investing in the energy sector, but it always seems to turn into a debate on the morality of the energy suppliers.....Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

Top 545. Jul 5, 2001 7:22 PM

» way2go - Re: Re: positive NG

In response to message posted by JenL_2:
Good idea Jen- Rande- how about keeping your political views on the political thread and just use this one for investing comments- I think we all know you don't recommend investing in this sector...I also enjoy Icha's point of view...

-- posted by way2go

Top 546. Jul 6, 2001 6:38 AM

» lcha - Re: Re: Re: Re: positive NG

In response to message posted by Kirk:

Thanks for the support folks but Rande is not going to run me off and I don't want to run Rande off of this thread either. I think Rande's views on energy issues are representative of a LOT of people out there. I've actually gotten to enjoy the opportunity to try to articulate an energy industry point of view and Rande has been very good at providing the point-counterpoint interaction on the subject.

I really believe we are going to experience many more "energy crisis" in the next decade that will finally wake us up to the fact that we are relying on a dwindling, non-renewable resource for our energy requirements. Hydrocarbons are becoming harder and more expensive to find, especially in the U.S., and our thirst for these hydrocarbons is increasing. As our dealings with OPEC has shown over the past 30 years, for the U.S. to rely on foreign sources for our energy needs is dangerous, costly and over time will diminish the strength and wealth of this country.

Most of the large oil companies of the world are national oil companies. Our home grown oil companies are competing with these national companies. That's fine, but to have an American public that views its energy companies as the incarnation of evil and petitions our government to treat energy companies as such will severely hamper our ability to compete in the world arena for our finite hydrocarbon resources.

In the end, developing renewable sources of energy is the only way to go. Conservation will give us more time to do this but it is not THE solution. Having an energy informed public will help us do both and having a good discussion is the facilitator.

-- posted by lcha

Top 547. Jul 6, 2001 6:57 AM

» Rande - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: positive NG

In response to message posted by lcha:

Icha,

I've enjoyed the debate too, and your insights from the industry perspective. The debate may get heated, but hopefully nobody is taking any of it too personally and everyone learns something. One thing's for sure -- I'm not a fan of sector betting, but if you're going to commit to a sector you should at least have a darned good reason for doing so. That means lots and lots of research and a thorough knowledge of what you're doing and why. And there's nothing like a good debate when it comes to examining your position. If you're honest, you are either forced to reevaluate your position and change your view OR you find your position reinforced. Much better than having smoke blown up your you-know-what when it comes to important issues you care about, even if your toes get stepped on once in awhile.

Anyway, there's always a multitude of factors that affect any industry or sector -- macroeconomic, microeconomic, political, stakeholder concerns, etc. Would seem kind of silly to split a thread into all the different relevant sub-components and issues. Though it might generate more clicks. smile

-- posted by Rande

Top 548. Jul 6, 2001 10:06 AM

» KLR - STRANGERS IN THE NIGHT??

Do you think these are the same executives that "do not know each other, have no knowledge off each other, don't even recognize each other and have barely even heard of each other"...when it comes to anti-trust matters??

"Hey Joe, lets get together with Bill and talk about it at the game?" Nah!!

12:53pm 07/06/01 [ENE, DYN] ENRON, DYNERGY EXECS BUY INTO HOUSTON NFL FRANCHISE

-- posted by KLR