Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Mr. Beebe,
You stated that you respect (1) one of your lawyers allot. Would that include Burr and Forman? The respect you have shown them by non-payment is that the kind of respect you’re talking about? Please share with us your meaning behind “Respect”. Is respect gained? Or Given? Please take a moment and expand on these questions. This is about John H Beebe the person, not the companies he is running.FROM THE IBOX This Board is for the PERSONAL thoughts and comments and opinions of John H. Beebe. The Board Name is used for descriptive and identification purposes only, not for investment related purposes.
While I am here asking questions on your personal Blog, let me continue,
Do you think that “Trust” is earned or given? Lets say, a company hires employees; they work hard during their time of work, should that said employee have the respect of management to provide said employee with a “Check” that he can cash at the bank and use to pay his/her bills and take care of their family? Should this employee “Trust” the management once the checks he/she and others have gotten have had problems clearing the bank?
Please Mr. Beebe, I would like to see your profound response to these questions. I am sure the Vision you will share will be “Respected”! by all. GLTY
Youse get my drift? All in my not so humble opinion!
I collect indians! LOL LOL LOL My Boyfriend is a Seminole Indian! And he approves this message! LOL
PRGL volume drying up and no interest from the investing community.
IMO just a diluting scam of a stock.
Well so much for PHGI and its shareholders who lost their shirt. I doubt anyone will go near PRGL.
I don't think so...
My guess would be that, following the fiasco with the "Canadian divvy" and John's not understanding the distinction between "over-the-counter" and real "exchanges"...he decided the blog idea was ill-advised.
Not to mention what seems to have been massive dilution since those days. One assumes he was driving the bus...
Interesting how this board hasn't had a posting in 9 months??? or are they just being deleted by the "moderator"? (like this message surely will be). TDWV sure is a barnburner of a stock, what great things have been done there to enhance shareholder value!
Cuppy
Touche'. Well said. Although I don't know if you are worse than a lawyer.........LOL. Actually, ours are not that bad, and I truly respect one of them.
lol, much worse than a lawyer...
I can't be hired to sway opinion ;)
oh, my...
sure--is "better"
but only marginally.
In context: yes, I appreciate the PR that follows-up on my questions about ex-date. I *think* I even understand the delay (i.e., very few seemed to grasp the point, lol)
however, imho, is not "kosher" to mention uplisting
and to an exchange when one simply intends a move from pinks to otcbb.
Given both incidents? I'd have to say somebody is confused...
make sense, or no?
LOL. Are you a lawyer? I thought my legal counsel was strict, wording wise, but this might take the cake? LOL Please don't send me a bill. :)
Okay Tex, here you go: (in both politically correct speech and legalese):
My point was that we are choosing to have full transparency, while we concurrently cease to remain "listed" or "quoted", by any "exchange" or "quotation service" that has several inherent, pre-existing challenges.
Better?
Now for those that have complained, "Well, you can do that and still stay listed on the Pinksheets now". My reply is, "No Thank You" with a nice, big smile.
I will go further and answer anyone else who might ask now or in the future why we are moving to the OTCBB:
Simple. Because we choose to be on the OTCBB.
John
". . . be listed on an exchange . . . "
John, OTCBB is not an exchange, fyi
Valuations and Speculation
I have noticed that the company that I run in my professional capacity has caused a stir since its announced move to the OTCBB.
One of the prime reasons for this move was for complete transparency and a fair and accurate audited book value of our company assets in compliance with Sarbanes - Oxley.
Another was to be listed on an exchange that would better reflect the true value of our assets with the investment community. The overwhelming majority of Pinksheet listed stocks, whether legitimate or not, are viewed with tremendous skepticism.
Much has been speculated, both positive and negative, about what the company I run in my professional capacity assets are worth. Some have argued the point that if we have a valuation of $xxx given, then it is worth $xxx. Some have said it should be $x due to known and unknown factors. Neither is the case. Any asset is worth what it is valued at, less a variety of several factors. Cost of production, depreciation, overhead, insurance, taxes, ect. and also governmental laws and regulations play a major factor.
One example would be an advertisement played on a broadcast station. Most people say "Air Time" is free, and while it costs nothing for the actual "time', there are many factors that go into making it cost something more than "Free". Electricity costs, insurance, equipment costs, labor costs, ect. all are factored in to the actual costs incurred of airing an advertisement. However, it does not mean that the advertisement is worth $0 to a company, or has a negative value either. The value is the difference between overhead costs and the price charged for the advertisement.
Another example would be a gallon of fuel produced. If a company makes and sells a gallon of fuel for $2.50, it does not mean the company makes $2.50 a gallon and it is worth $2.50 of net profit to the company. Production costs, labor, base material cost, insurance, ect all factor in to reduce the actual profit on the product produced. Again, though just because there are costs associated with production, this does not mean that the gallon of fuel is worth $0 to a company.
Precious metals are another example. While a company may have $xxxx of reserves in the ground, it does not mean the company is claiming to have net assets of the same amount of reserves they have. Extraction costs, labors costs, insurance, taxes, and compliance with local, state and federal government laws and regulations all factor into the net value. While it may cost $xx to extract the precious metals out of the earth, it does not mean that the precious metals in the earth are worth $0 to a company.
Also, with respect to any precious metal reserves that a fully reporting company may own, an audit is required to give a valuation for book value. There are accounting regulations and formulations that go into what a company can book the asset for on its balance sheet in accordance with accepted industry standards and GAAP.
Pinksheet listed stocks are ripe with speculation, both negative and positive. At times, neither are anywhere close to the actual truth.
My personal opinion is that when you find yourself in an environment you don't particularly care for, you chose a different environment to work in. It does not make sense to try to change an environment that you ultimately have no control over. If you walk down a dark alley and do not like the circumstances that it brings, then walk down a different alley that has more Light.
Most everyone feels better in the Light. There are those however, who prefer things to be darker than what they really are or need to be. There are also those who will be upset that you have chosen not to walk down their dark alley anymore.
Not me.
I prefer the Light. Light and transparency have a way of bringing clarity to all things. You can build solid, positive, long lasting things with the Light.
As always, don't buy into any Hype, or any Bashing. They are two sides of the same coin.
John
It seems so, but I really hope not. The sudden mass covering of all those gold short positions really got my attention as well.
Here is one piece of the perfect financial storm...
http://www.thestreet.com/s/hedge-funds-hit-the-wall/newsanalysis/wallstreet/10371431.html?puc=google....
Email This Story Print This Story
Hedge Funds Hit the Wall
By Mark DeCambre and Liz Rappaport
Staff Reporters
7/31/2007 4:58 PM EDT
Click here for more stories by Mark DeCambre
The Most Read Stories From TheStreet.com
1. Apple Sinks on iPhone Cutback Talk
2. Top 10 High-Yield Dividend Stocks
3. Wednesday's Analysts' Upgrades and Downgrades
4. Three Retail Stocks to Own Now
5. American Home Burns Down
Sign Up Free
Trading Center
Zecco.com
Fidelity Investments
Charles Schwab
Options House
Fisher Investments
TD AMERITRADE
July couldn't end soon enough for most investors, but hedge fund watchers say the worst could be yet to come.
Hedge funds have bet heavily on the junk bond market, which just completed its worst month in five years. As some heavily leveraged funds count up their month-end profits and losses, some observers fear they know all too well what will follow.
"Having amplified returns on the way up, leverage now amplifies the declines," writes Jeffrey Rosenberg, head of credit strategy research at Bank of America. He adds that "month-end marks and tightening of leverage terms now challenge hedge fund liquidity -- potentially leading to an existential crisis for many."
July ended with a thud for stocks. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 146 points Tuesday after earlier being up as many as 138 points. Much of the swing took place after the market learned of the latest casualty tied to the collapse of the subprime mortgage business, American Home Mortgage (AHM - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr - Rating).
American Home shares plunged 89% after the lender told investors it was seeking an orderly liquidation of its assets, following a series of margin calls that essentially put it out of business.
American Home's plunge came a day after the implosion of a much bigger player, Sowood Capital Management. The hedge fund collapsed under the weight of different issues -- specifically a widening of credit spreads, or the difference between the yields on safe government debt and risky corporate securities.
But even if this week's blowups aren't explicitly linked, market observers say they point to a coming reckoning for credit-oriented hedge funds. Rumors are already flying about more hedge funds meeting with huge declines for July, and bid lists circulating through the bond markets.
"This stuff is more widely held than just a handful of firms have reported," Peter Goldman, managing director at the money management firm Chicago Asset Management, says of distressed debt. "I would be surprised if there weren't more skeletons in the closet."
While credit markets have rebounded this week after Citadel Investment Group swooped in Monday to buy the credit assets of Boston-based Sowood, the Sowood story is not so different from the story of the two Bear Stearns (BSC - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr - Rating) hedge funds that collapsed in June.
Sowood's demise may provide credit investors with more information about how risk is being repriced in the market, and it may also be a harbinger of more collapses yet to come as month-end margin calls from prime brokers are likely to roll in.
"We're definitely worried about month-end performance issues for hedge funds," says Paul Ocenasek, high-yield bond portfolio manager at Thrivent Financial for Lutherans.
The end of the month is when hedge fund managers mark to market their investment to holdings -- meaning they value them on the basis of the prices of comparable transactions. They report their performance to their counterparty lenders, or prime brokers. If they've lost enough money, the prime brokers can demand more collateral. This is what led to blowups of Bear Stearns hedge funds and to Sowood's declines.
With July having turned into an even worse month for the credit markets than June, investment managers may soon have to face the music. Money manager Jeremy Grantham told Bloomberg that credit-market declines may force as many as half of all hedge funds to close in the next five years.
The Merrill Lynch High Yield Master II Index had dropped 3.86% in July through Monday's close. That made July its worst month of the year, bringing the asset class into negative return territory for the year. July 2002 was the last time the high-yield market saw as big a loss.
Ocenasek notes that the last time the market sold off on hedge fund trades gone bad was after the junk-ratings cuts of General Motors (GM - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr - Rating) and Ford (F - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr - Rating) in 2005.
"But there is a lot more leverage in the system now than even two years ago," Oceanasek warns.
Ocenasek remains cautious on the credit markets, citing what he says seems like forced-selling pressure. He believes the sellers in the market are unloading some of the higher quality securities in order to meet margin calls, rather than really adjusting for risk by selling the weak credits and loading up on quality.
"The recent declines have been steep, kind of breathtaking," he says.
P.S. A Special Message from Dave Morrow, Editor-in-Chief
Jim Cramer hits the nail on the head when he says, "Most Wall Street houses don’t cover the under-10 sector. Yet, it’s where most independent investors want to be." That’s why I recommend TheStreet.com Stocks Under $10. Our pros scan this fast-moving sector daily to find the low-priced stocks they believe have the biggest profit potential. Take advantage of our Free Trial offer and check it out for yourself.
and this !!
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/hedge-funds-slam-the-bag/2007/08/02/1185648060034.html
Hedge funds slam the bag
*
* Email
* Print
* Normal font
* Large font
Tom Petruno
August 3, 2007
AdvertisementAdvertisement
SOME hedge funds that have incurred losses on risky securities are closing the gate on investors who want their money back, a move that could further undermine confidence in already shaky financial markets.
Temporarily barring withdrawals, though legal, also could do damage to the image of the hedge fund industry, which in recent years has attracted hordes of well-heeled investors seeking high returns.
The industry has mushroomed to 9,500 funds with $US1.7 trillion ($2 trillion) in assets.
"Psychologically, separating people from their money is generally considered to be a hostile way to behave," said Ron Geffner, a partner at New York law firm Sadis & Goldberg.
Fund managers say withdrawal limits protect their investors by preventing sales of securities at deeply depressed prices. But some analysts say news of hedge fund suspensions could prompt nervous investors in other funds to demand their money back, fearing that the gate could slam shut on them in the next few months, should stock and bond market losses deepen.
Such a scenario also could hurt investors who have no money in hedge funds, because forced asset sales could drive markets overall lower.
Brokerage Bear Stearns, which has shut two hedge funds that owned mortgage-backed bonds, has told investors in a third fund that it will keep the $900 million portfolio going - but investors will not be able to cash out for the time being, a spokeswoman confirmed.
An Australian hedge fund manager, Absolute Capital, last week told investors in two of its bond-focused hedge funds that it had barred the door to withdrawals until October 25.
Given the "general lack of liquidity" for certain securities, "a temporary closure of the funds is the best defensive measure to protect the longer term interests of our investors", Absolute Capital said in a statement.
The decisions highlight a key difference between hedge funds, which are largely unregulated investment portfolios, and conventional mutual funds: mutual funds by law must be willing to honour redemption requests in full as soon as they are received.
Hedge funds, by contrast, typically can fully or partly limit investors' right to flee, both in terms of dollar amounts and by restricting redemptions to specific dates. At most hedge funds, the manager "has great flexibility in terms of how much of a withdrawal request they will honour", said Jay Gould, a partner at law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman in San Francisco.
But hedge funds faced an inherent conflict of interest if they tried to keep going even as investors sought to pull money out, said Marc Freed, a manager at New York's Lyster Watson Management, which picks hedge funds for clients.
"The hedge fund says, 'We think it's in your best interest that we keep your money'," Mr Freed said.
Los Angeles Times
http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/articles/2007/08/02/state_pension_system_takes_hit_in....
* ome >
* Business >
* Your Money
The Boston Globe
State pension system takes hit in hedge fund collapse
Loss of $30m dwarfed by Harvard endowment, which had $250m erased
By Christopher Rowland, Globe Staff | August 2, 2007
The Massachusetts state pension system lost $30 million with this week's collapse of Sowood Capital Management LP, the first evidence that public money also went down the drain when the $3 billion Boston hedge fund lost more than half its value in July.
Article Tools
* PRINTER FRIENDLYPrinter friendly
* E-MAILE-mail to a friend
* RSS FEEDSYour Money RSS feed
* RSS FEEDSAvailable RSS feeds
* MOST E-MAILEDMost e-mailed
* REPRINTS & LICENSINGReprints & Licensing
* Share on DiggShare on Digg
* Share on Facebook
* Tag with Del.icio.us Save this article
* powered by Del.icio.us
More:
* Business section |
* Latest business news |
* Globe front page |
* Boston.com
* Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail |
* Breaking News Alerts
It is the second hedge fund closing to take a toll on the state's $50 billion pension fund in less than a year. In September, the state lost more than $50 million when energy-oriented hedge fund, Amaranth Advisors LLC, shut its doors.
Sowood liquidated its fund and sold its remaining assets to Citadel Investment Group LLC on Monday.
The biggest loser so far appears to be Harvard University, which is maintaining an official silence on the issue. Harvard's endowment lost at least $250 million, which is half of the original $500 million it invested at Sowood's inception in 2004.
Securities regulators working for Secretary of State William F. Galvin sent a letter yesterday asking Sowood for an explanation of how the fund, which was run by former star Har vard endowment manager Jeffrey Larson, lost so much money so fast. Galvin was unavailable yesterday, said his spokesman Brian McNiff. In the past, Galvin has questioned the prudence of investing state pension money in risky hedge funds.
The executive director of the state Pension Reserves Investment Management Board, Michael Travaglini, confirmed the $30 million loss but defended the investment. Hedge funds represent only about 5 percent of total Massachusetts pension investments, he said.
The money the state lost on Sowood was indirectly invested through Arden Asset Management LLC, of New York, a so-called "fund of funds" that invests in hedge funds. Similarly, last year's Amaranth losses were incurred through the use of funds of funds.
"The autopsy on Sowood won't be complete for some time, but obviously we will be working with Arden to determine what if anything we should change about our existing program going forward," Travaglini said.
Sowood was invested in corporate bonds and related securities that have been weakened by failures in subprime mortgages. The fund borrowed heavily to buy its investments -- a strategy that increases potential rewards but also increases risk. It could not meet its obligations to lenders when the value of its holdings plummeted.
Instead of dumping its investments at fire-sale prices, which could have triggered a broader sell-off in debt markets and produced even more fund failures, it cut its deal with Citadel last weekend. Terms were not disclosed.
"We are very sorry this has happened," Larson said in a letter to Sowood investors who lost their $1.5 billion.
Specialists looking over the wreckage said that whatever safeguards Sowood had in place didn't work to prevent massive losses.
"These guys were a victim of problems in the subprime market that bled over into another market," said Timothy W. Mungovan, a lawyer in the alternative investment division of Nixon Peabody, a law firm with offices in Boston. "I don't think that we've seen the last fund failure as a result of problems in bond markets."
Seesawing prices in the stock market also are giving hedge funds a tough ride, as the ripple effects widen.
Tudor Investment Corp.'s Raptor Fund, managed in Boston, lost 9 percent in July as stock prices fell worldwide, Bloomberg News reported yesterday.
"We've had an extraordinary withdrawal of liquidity from the credit markets that's affected every type of paper. The nervousness from the credit markets is spilling over into the equity markets," Virginia Parker, who helps oversee about $1.8 billion at Parker Global Strategies LLC in Stamford, Conn., told Bloomberg.
Christopher Rowland can be reached at crowland@globe.com.
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.
Dudette
Hmmm, I guess I was hoping for more passion and diatribe here....you still haven't told us what motivates you, what you believe in and what you abhor. Remember, this is what you promised us when you launched this thread.
OT. LOL. Your not alone in that opinion
All the best
Told the guys they paid too much for LT. should have let him go and keep Drew Brees. lol.. lol..jj..
"I am becoming very concerned that a economic "Perfect Storm" may be brewing here for us in the United States."
Ditto
And add this kind of story to the mix
This in yesterdays San Diego Paper
"Public agencies in California are facing an estimated $63 billion shortfall in pension obligations, according to a study released by the commission this month.
Meanwhile, the state's liability for retiree medical benefits – that is, the amount of money they'll need to pay for current retirees and current employees when they retire – is estimated at between $40 billion and $70 billion."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070728/news_1n28benefits.html
All the best
Rumors?
Despite tremendous request, I won't address the rumors that I have been inundated with the last couple of days in my professional capacity regarding the names of potential acquisitions. I legally could not even if I wanted to. For those of you who asked my personal perspective hoping to glean some information out that way: I won't do it in my personal capacity either.
My perspective is that it is best to not address or give any credence to rumors, speculation or innuendos of this type. Otherwise, you might have to spend all of your free time answering rumors and things can be misinterpreted. It reminds me of the joke that some of my friends would do as a game growing up. The game was usually a question(s) phrased in a way so that ANY answer the person gave in return could be easily misconstrued or taken out of context.
Back then it was just a game played among friends to tease each other. In today's world, it seems some people have taken this game to a skilled, new art form. Let me give you a simple, humorous example: a question like, "Hey, does your mother/father know you pick your nose"? is set up in a way to get a confirmation regardless if it is true or not. Whether you answer "Yes" or "No", you have opened yourself up to be taken out of context.
If you answer "Yes", then you have just confirmed that you pick your nose and your parents know about it.
If you answer "No", then you have just confirmed you pick your nose and your parents don't know about.
Either way, it can be interpreted that you pick your nose, whether actually true or not.
If you try to be smart and decide not to answer at all, it can be interpreted that there might be some validity to you picking your nose because you did not deny it. From my perspective, it is best not to play the game at all.
So for everyone who has asked, my PERSONAL advice and opinion is this: Don't buy into any Hype, and don't buy into any Bashing. They are merely two sides of the same coin.
Have a great weekend.
John
Thanks for asking for my comments on this subject.
First and foremost, Wow!!!!!
The Naked Short Selling (NSS) topic sure has come A LONG WAY for being just a "conspiracy theory" that did NOT exist from a year or so ago (according to the SEC, NASD and others) to being acknowledged, entered into the record and discussed on the floor of the United States Senate.
That in itself is amazing. Naked Short Selling (NSS) does exist and is a problem. I believe that formal disclosure on this is good, however instead of just discussing it, proper corrective action needs to be taken. It does not do much good to just "discuss" a matter.
Mark my words, there will possibly be some "knee jerk" legislation or new trading rules that will come from this once it gets more public exposure. However, that may not necessarily be good for the long haul. You are probably saying, "What? How can you not agree that any action taken to stop NSS would not be good for the long haul"?
Let me share with you my concerns as a whole in a later post.
The topic: I am becoming very concerned that a economic "Perfect Storm" may be brewing here for us in the United States. All of this directly ties in.
John
Brilliant!
If there are 3 million shares of XYZ Company on deposit at the DTCC, people should not be able to short sell 4 million shares.
I trust this is NOT OT! I'm a little gun shy of OT lately.
John Beebe's views would indeed be appreciated on his blog or right here.
Congressional Record-Senate July 20. 2007
Any thoughts Mr. Beebe ?
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S9646&position=a....
Dudette
lets hope this is the landmark case that will set the stage for many who have been under attack.
Dudette
And, perhaps, for beseiged companies in general.
Wow, good news for OSTK....
Overstock.com Wins Ruling in Prime Brokerage Litigation
Wednesday July 18, 10:53 am ET
Court Gives Overstock.com the Okay to Proceed and Denies Prime Brokerages Attempts to Derail Exposure
SALT LAKE CITY, July 18 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Overstock.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: OSTK - News; http://www.overstock.com) announced today a favorable ruling in the lawsuit pending in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco against most of the largest prime brokerage firms in the country, including Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Goldman Sachs & Co., Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., Bank of America Securities LLC, Bank of New York, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse (USA) Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., and UBS Financial Services, Inc.
ADVERTISEMENT
On July 17, 2007, Judge John Munter of the California Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco ruled that Overstock and it co-plaintiffs have stated viable claims for market manipulation under California securities law, for common law claims for conversion and trespass to chattels, as well as for injunctive relief under California's Unfair Business Practices Act against the defendant prime brokerage firms based on those defendants allegedly executing naked short sales of the stock of Overstock with the intent of manipulating the market price for the shares of those companies' stocks. In addition, the Court granted Overstock (and its co-plaintiffs) leave to amend other of their claims for restitution under the Unfair Business Practices Act and for the common law claim of interference with advantage, to more specifically plead the factual basis of these claims.
In so ruling, Judge Munter rejected defendants' claims that Overstock's complaint is preempted by federal law and that 'phantom' shares are not created by naked short selling of a company's stock as a matter of law.
"This is a huge win for us," said Jonathan Johnson, Overstock Senior Vice President of Legal. "We are eager to start discovery and move this case to trial. The day we expose in detail the defendants' misconduct to a jury will be a good day for Overstock, its shareholders and the capital markets."
"As I listened to defendants' counsel argue that phantom shares don't exist because the SEC says they don't exist," said Patrick Byrne, Overstock Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, "I was reminded of Abraham Lincoln's favorite joke: 'If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?' 'Five?' 'No, four -- because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.' Defendants create phantom shares by facilitating naked short selling and other types of trades which result in failures-to-deliver. This is manipulative and illegal -- regardless of what the industry's all-too-cozy regulatory agency says. The battle to clean up Wall Street is only going to be won when it is brought to a jury of 12 Americans. Today was a giant step towards that goal."
The suit alleges that the defendants, who control over 80% of the prime brokerage market, participated in a massive, illegal stock market manipulation scheme and that the defendants had no intention of covering such orders with borrowed stock, as they are required to do, causing what are referred to as "fails to deliver." The suit also alleges that the defendants' actions caused and continue to cause dramatic distortions with regard to the nature and amount of trading in the company's stock which have caused the share price of the company's stock to dramatically drop. The suit asserts that a persistent large number of "fails to deliver" creates large downward pressure on the price of a company's stock and that the amount of "fails to deliver" has exceeded the company's entire supply of outstanding shares. The company is seeking damages of $3.48 billion.
To All:
For those of you who have continually questioned my personal belief on energy solutions and the way I have positioned the company that I run in my professional capacity; I think this should end your disagreement. Enough said:
Drudge Report Headline: Oil Industry Offers Sobering Outlook on Supply...
http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=6718453
Oil report's conclusion: Broad effort needed to satiate energy demand
By Jad Mouawad
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
WASHINGTON: It started with a simple question by Samuel Bodman, the energy secretary: "What does the future hold for oil and natural gas supply?"
The query was made in October 2005 in a one-page letter sent to Lee Raymond, the former chairman of Exxon Mobil and head of the National Petroleum Council, a federal advisory group representing the oil industry.
After nearly two years, Raymond has finally delivered his answer. The result is a colossal 476-page study entitled "Facing the Hard Truths About Energy" that involved 350 participants, suggestions from over 1,000 people, submissions by 19 foreign governments from Australia to Saudi Arabia, and dozens of subcommittees.
The report, which was made public in Washington on Wednesday, was billed as one of the most comprehensive analysis of the global energy challenge.
In answering Bodman's question, it also provides a sobering picture of the energy problem facing the United States and the world. Most strikingly, some of the recommendations adopted by the petroleum council also probably far exceed what Bodman had in mind, or what the Bush administration is prepared to endorse.
Because the world's population is growing and living standards are rising worldwide, energy consumption globally is expected to jump by more than 50 percent over the next 25 years. But finding supplies to match that growth is going to be increasingly tough, and will require massive new investments in coming decades.
The council's report warns of "accumulating risks" to energy production, including rising geopolitical barriers, inflation in costs, dwindling petroleum engineers and growing constraints on carbon dioxide emissions. Although it does not say so explicitly, the subtext of the council's study suggests that high energy prices might be here to stay.
The study's release comes as frustrations grow over high energy costs and questions are raised over the security of U.S. energy supplies. Congress is currently considering a new law to bolster the development of alternative fuels and increase vehicle fuel efficiency.
The list of contributors to the report is a roster of top industry leaders and consultants, including senior executives from Exxon and Chevron. But the council also enlisted the help of private think tanks, academic institutions, banks, governmental agencies and a handful of nongovernmental groups, including the Alliance to Save Energy and Resources for the Future.
But while the council calls for expanding and diversifying traditional energy supplies - oil and gas, coal and nuclear power - it is also backs the development of alternative fuels, including biofuels like ethanol or gas-to-liquids.
"There is no quick fix" to the energy challenge, Raymond said at a press conference Wednesday. "To assume that we have the option of not pursuing one of the sources of energy is a fake choice."
There were other surprises. The petroleum council said that the U.S. government should take steps to reduce oil consumption. In fact, the report's first recommendation is a call for the U.S. government to moderate energy demand by increasing vehicle fuel economy standards, the main sources of growth in oil demand around the world, and improve energy efficiency at buildings and homes.
"The world will need better energy efficiency and all economic, environmentally responsible energy sources available to support and sustain future growth," the petroleum council's report says.
Perhaps the biggest surprise is that Raymond, who was well known for his skepticism of the causes of global warming when he was chairman of Exxon Mobil, has given his backing to a report addressing how oil companies should deal with carbon emissions on a global level. The report said oil companies and governments need to address carbon emissions and offers some suggestions for how the industry can help trapping carbon dioxide in underground reservoirs.
"It is a hard truth that policies aimed at curbing carbon emissions will alter the energy mix, increase energy-related costs and require reductions in demand growth," the report said. It said the U.S. government should establish a regulatory framework for managing carbon emissions, but did not recommend any specific policy.
Still, the bias toward the industry's view is not a surprise given the history of the council. It was created by President Harry S. Truman in 1946 to represent the position of the oil and gas industry to the federal government and recommend policy options, after their successful wartime collaboration.
End
So now even the Oil industry is on board with Biofuels and says openly we have an ever growing energy problem?
Perhaps I have not been so crazy after all.........
John
I saw on Bloomberg tv.The ceo said he was sorry.For what he did to Wild Oats.Guess that clears it up.Over and done with.FOFLMAO
I am aware of that situation. I appreciate the link. I am not sure what you are trying to communicate or the message you are trying to relay?
My posts were, and are done with clear public disclaimer and statements under my own name, and I clearly stated they were my Personal opinion. Just because I may be a CEO in my professional capacity does not strip me of my constitutional rights to free speech as an Individual.
In addition, unlike Mr. Mackey, my posts were not done under an alias attacking a competitor in an effort to run their PPS down so my company could acquire them at a cheaper price. The two are very separate issues.
Also, they are not even certain that Mackey did anything wrong legally going about it the way he did. It is an informal inquiry at this point.
It does look suspicious that a company's CEO would jump on message boards under an alias to attack your direct competitor you are trying to acquire. I believe that is the real issue here and this what I have been talking about. Did someone, in this case did Mr. Mackey purposefully try to manipulate the share price and public perception of a competitor for his own gain?
I don't know that answer. I think that is what the informal inquiry is for. I personally think the way Mr. Mackey handled his posts in this situation is on the unethical side, but that is just my personal opinion.
Clearly my personal opinion has no basis, bearing or standing on whether Mr. Mackey's actions were right or wrong. Welcome to the new information age.
Thanks again for the post. It is a great subject to address. I am done with my lunch now so its back to work.
John
You might wanna take a look at this:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=21342270
Just jumped on real quick tonight. I will post on this topic real soon. I am still working on my 30 min. presentation for tomorrow morning at the Southern Grain & Feed Convention.
Thanks for asking me to comment on this. It is a great issue to comment on.
Give me a day or two to get caught back up.
Thanks. Good night.
John
John,
Any thoughts now about post #80. Would be interested in your vision for the future.
FYI...its spelled Beebe..eom
You can't have any fun debating someone unless you respect them -- remember that.
Huey
Very well said. There is enough turmoil in this world. Thanks.
Mr. Bebee,
I keep saying it, and I will repeat it, In today's day and times, seeing a person standup for what's legally and morally right not just for himself but those that put faith and trust in him is A BREATH OF FRESH AIR
I seem to have been how do I say this without busting the TOS here... ummmm It seems I am unable to post on the PHGI board at this time. For reasons that have no apparent merit other than, Because they can. I want no war either.. I have posted in support this company and its CEO and trust me, I will have the last word LOL, (You know what I mean by that Mr. Bebee LOL.)
Lets hope and Pray that the powers to be will allow us to build a Strong profitable Company without the Drama as what came to us this weekend. Until tomorrow, God Bless
Huey
Okay. I think it is time for everyone to cool off. Wow, what a response across the board to a simple request of fairness, non-discrimination and same Free Speech and Civil Rights.
I had no idea it would cause this much commotion. Our primary legal counsel, David L. McGee, who is a Fmr. United States Attorney and head of the US Dept of Justice's "Strike Force" has always told me "The guilty man flees when no one pursues".
There are several issues at work here relating to the SEC, FTC, 1st Amendment and also Civil Rights. It could get ugly. We don't want it to because we just want to focus on building an honest business.
From a business perspective, All we want to do as a company is this: Build a successful company without OUTSIDE PREMEDITATED INTERFERENCE OR MANIPULATION. Simple.
We did not come to 'stir the stick". The "stick" came to us unsolicited. We want to be left alone to build a successful company everyone is proud of, like we have done in the past.
Regarding PHGI - Don't buy into anyone's HYPE, and don't buy into anyone's BASHING. They are both two sides of the same coin. The company is what it is right now. We are not where we expect to be in a year from now, and we are not where we were six months ago. We are where we are right now. We DO NOT have a cure for cancer and we DO NOT perform miracles. We just work hard everyday to achieve our goals.
Many have said to me now, "You know they are going to try to take you down now. "They" are going to coordinate their efforts even more. You now have a Big Target on you". Also, 'There is a very infamous guy who was banned as a NASD trader suddenly popping up "predicting" your stock will go to .0001 a share".
Really? I wonder how he plans on accomplishing that? Through legitimate means somehow, and not illegal manipulation I hope.
It is amazing to me that someone could logically "predict' such a drastic decline in our share price through legitimate means. Here is why: He has not seen our internal business plan; he has never been to the biofuel site; he has never been to the gold mine; and never been to the radio stations. He also has never called or inquired directly about the company or done any due diligence to our knowledge.
This guy must be a great fortune teller or psychic! Maybe the greatest of all time if he is able to successfully predict the bankruptcy of our company out of nowhere and also by coincidence at a time when all of this came up?
We did not ask for this. All I will say is this, if people choose to place a "Target" on us now, then I hope they are FULLY prepared to come into the Light as well.
"Targets" work both ways, and we have a full legal team, who is extremely skilled watching everything. Oh, by the way, they also happen to be very skilled at investigating and prosecuting people who conduct these complicated type activities. We are not defenseless or standing alone.
Our simple request is this. Leave us alone to build our company honestly. Again, leave us alone to build our company honestly.
Perhaps before someone makes such negative baseless "predictions" about our company going bankrupt, they would like to check with F. Lee Bailey of the OJ Simpson Legal "Dream Team" fame. He thought he was bullet proof too, until he dealt with a certain United States Attorney at the time. Not a promise, just a fact.
I have a company to run in my professional time. This is about principle, fairness, free speech and civil rights. It was never my intention to Moderate any message boards. It was just to create them and then turn over the Moderating to others to get the jump on those who sought to harm the public perception of our company like they did on Silicon Investor. If others can create message boards about us, then we should have the same right to do so in a clearly defined, FULLY DISCLOSED and stated Personal capacity like we did.
Time to move forward and put this all behind us. We have a company to build. We intend and choose to be successful.
John
Because I do have a company to run in my Professional capacity. I can't spend all of my free time on message boards. I have a life and a family too.
They missed me this weekend with my having to deal with all of this stuff.
Time to move forward.
I don't know either. Leave them up. I sent them all, Dave, Matt & Shelly PM's stating we are not looking for a fight after the post and some PM's from them to me. We just want to be left alone and have the same rights as others.
It is what it is. I don't see the need to poke a stick in their eye about it.
Let's focus on the business at hand and moving forward on a positive note. We have far more than enough on our plate just building a successful business.
I think you should prolly leave Admin's posts alone lol. How come there are so many mods here for a personal blog?
Just for the Record,
As assistant moderator of this board I deleted the personal attack by Admin(Matt), TOS Violation two times just to have it reinstated by someone other than myself. Something very fishy going on here. This is certainly very strange.
Dudette
I was once told by a wise man:
"What you do speaks so loudly that what you say cannot be heard."
Nite nano
Thanks, Matt for the clarification finally. I we asked was for fairness, not a fight or confrontation. Also, I think it is more professional that you refrain from calling me names in the Public Response and swearing at me like you did in the PM. I think it constitutes a "Personal Attack", but of course you are Free to express your opinion and while I am a paid member, it is your board.
By the way, you allowed Google and a few other companies to have a board before they were officially trading yet. I don't see why you wouldn't allow a Perihelion Canada board the same right, but as Dave said in a PM - It is your "house" and you can do what you wish.
Understood.
What's a 'whacktard'?
A whacky retard?
That's double jeopardy isn't it Alex (Trebek)?
So all the boards that were set up pre-IPO should have actually been deleted since they weren't publicly traded yet?
I just got done removing all the crap out of my inbox that you wrote to me this weekend.
You're a fricken whacktard, dude.
Just so it's clear why I removed your other boards.
One isn't publicly traded yet.
The other was set up to attack users on this site.
The only reason I'm letting this one slide (for now) is because it now reflects just your name AND it's in a premium category.
I'd suggest you take your bat and ball and find a new park to play in.
Posted by: gerlac68
In reply to: None
Date:7/15/2007 12:48:55 AM
Post #of 89
A Friendly reminder to all posters....
Posted by: JHBEEBE
In reply to: BuyTex who wrote msg# 22
Date:7/14/2007 4:00:56 PM
Post #of 74
On topic is responses to what my BLOG post comments are.
Posted by: JHBEEBE
In reply to: None
Date:7/13/2007 12:51:45 AM
Post #of 75
Perspective
July 11th, 2007 by John H. Beebe
I have been receiving a fair amount of feedback about my perspectives shared in this Blog. Some of the responses to my comments have been interesting to say the least. I do appreciate the feedback and your thoughts and comments. From my perspective, each new generation of Americans, and of humanity as whole is given the inspiration to take action in the face of the challenges of that time. I have started to outline ONE of the main challenges we face collectively, that of our nation’s energy dependence on foreign sources. One division of our company is focused on providing cost effective solutions to this challenge that will utilize our vast infrastructure already in place.
From a broader perspective, I believe that there are principals at work that we may or may not fully understand, but we have a “gut feeling” and instictively know them to be true on some level. These principals have a way of reshaping our thinking and in the process they reshape our experience of the world, and what we perceive can be accomplished.
During Galileo’s time, the idea that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe (literally) almost cost Galileo his head. It is documented that as a result, Galileo was silenced and forced into obscurity for the rest of his life. Despite this, Galileo’s ideas and discoveries changed the way we all think about the world, and our very relationship to it. The very nature of these ideas and discoveries change each of us whether we fully understand it or not. The ideas that influence us today are no less revolutionary than they were in Galileo’s time. These ideas will create solutions that will cause a change of our way of looking at and working with our world, much like in Galileo’s day. Just look at what the Internet has done to change our world in less than a single Decade.
Like most people on this planet, I am neither a formally trained scientist, engineer or mathmetician. The understanding and knowledge I have of certain principals at work mentioned in the first paragraph would more aptly be described as “intuitive” and an ability to understand and comprehend certain future trends before they come to pass. The realization of these trends and principals currently at work in our world has caused myself and others to shift our perceptions. This would be very similar to those living in the post-Galileo world who had to to shift their perspective of their relationship to the universe.
We are heading into new territory, where new solutions are being created that are intended to overcome the challenges we face in a rational, positive manner. You may agree or disagree with what our Vision and ideas are. Some of you have expressed scepticism (and even some hostility) at our company’s goals and our Vision. Looking back in history, this appears to be a natural reaction of some people. Despite someone’s reaction at the moment, I believe on some principal level, much as with our Founding Fathers Vision, everyone is coming to the understanding that the time for positive change is on our horizon.
Dudette
love this part:
"As part of the civil complaint, Rocky Mountain Energy terminated all business operations and had all of its corporate assets liquidated so that shareholders who had lost money in the scheme could be compensated, according to court records."
Now if they can pass the leg to go after personal ill-gotten gains...
Followers
|
17
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
175
|
Created
|
07/12/07
|
Type
|
Premium
|
Moderator Eight Eagles | |||
Assistants |
THIS BOARD IS CLOSED
This Board is for the personal thoughts, comments and opinions of John Beebe and is used for descriptive and identification purposes only, not for investment related purposes. THIS IS NOT A FORUM FOR DISCUSSIONS RELATING TO ANY COMPANY OR BUSINESS. ANY SUCH POST(S) WILL BE DELETED. PERSONAL ATTACKS, OR ANY VIOLATION OF THE TOS WILL RESULT IN IMMEDIATE DELETION. The posts and opinions expressed herein are governed under "Free Speech" and DO NOT necessarily reflect the views or opinions of any company, management, directors or any affiliated companies. Nothing posted herein is intended to pertain to any specific company or business, or is to be considered as material, relevant or relating to any company. Nothing here is to be construed as investment advice. These comments are the PERSONAL opinion and perspective. This is an expression of personal opinion. Any authors and contributors to this do not necessarily represent the viewpoint of any company.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |