Barack OBAMA's Presidential ENERGY Plan !

During his 2008 Democratic National Convention speech, United States Presidential nominee Barack Obama unveiled some intriguing details belonging to his Presidential ENERGY Plan. Considering the FACT that this man has a 50/50 shot at becoming the next President of the United States of America, I decided to summarize some of his key ENERGY policy initiatives below for my future reference :


Curbing CRUDE OIL:
* 10 year Goal to END America's dependence on Crude Oil imported from the Middle East
* Domestic Crude Oil drilling is only a 'stop gap', it is not a long term solution


Tapping + Investing in Non-Renewable Alternatives:
* Will 'tap' Natural Gas reserves
* Will invest in Clean Coal technologies (government subsidies)
* Will "find ways to safely harness Nuclear Energy" (RTOB: not sure if that jargon means anything as U.S. Democrats have historically HATED the environmental risks posed by nuclear)


Investing in Renewable Energy Alternatives:
* Will invest $150 Billion over the next 10 years on affordable, Renewable Energy sources including 'Wind power, Solar power and the next generation of Biofuels'


Government Subsidies to the AUTO Companies:
* Will help (U.S.) Auto companies "retool so that the fuel efficient cars of the future are built at home in America."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Anecdotally thinking, I very much liked what I heard from Obama tonight on Energy. I especially appreciated the fact that he provided NUMBERS..and not just small numbers but pretty SOLID sized numbers (10 years...$150 Billion, etc.). I wonder what Republican nominee John McCain will have to say about his own Energy plan during next week's Republican National Convention. More specifically, I wonder if he'll provide NUMBERS like his Democratic counterpart. If NOT then you've got to read between the lines and believe that Obama will be the Higher Spender/Subsidizer of Alternative Energies vs. McCain. FORGET Beijing, Let the U.S. ENERGY games begin.



Data Courtesy: Barack Obama's 2008 DNC Speech (8/28/08).

CRAMER - Wind Is Future...Nat Gas Is Now

FYI, I found Jim Cramer's 8/06/08 Realmoney.com blog entry titled 'Wind Is The Future, but Nat Gas Is Here Now' to be both well-written and tremendously insightful..thus I'm including it below in its entirety for reference's sake.

For the record (and just in case you haven't picked up on it by now), I'm a strong believer in the below Natural Gas investing thesis because research shows the fuel to be the U.S.'s most practical and feasible solution for replacing/reducing dependence on crude oil-derived gasoline. Relative to gasoline, natural gas fuel is cheaper, cleaner, domestic and more abundant...what ELSE could we, as a people, ask for ??

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Cramer Blog
Wind Is the Future, but Nat Gas Is Here Now
RealMoney.com Columnist
8/6/2008 12:21 PM EDT
URL: http://www.thestreet.com/p/rmoney/jimcramerblog/10432123.html

" The attacks on T. Boone Pickens' plans -- everything from his integrity and self-interest to his quixotic nature -- just make no sense whatsoever. They hold no water at all. They are just wrong-headed. The people against him, the ones that call him a dreamer, are the ones who have done no homework and are deeply cynical. And if they don't keep their mouths shut, we will forever be addicted to foreign oil.

While much of what he has been saying is that wind power can be substituted for a lot of other power sources, the fundament of his plan is to get autos to be using natural gas. Put aside his interests -- believe me, he cares about them, but only so far as he has been the investor in alternative energy for years and thinks it can be profitable -- Pickens' true motivation is that the technology for what he wants to have happen is occurring right now. In fact, he reminds me of the visionaries at Intel (INTC) who saw that the power of a mainframe IBM (IBM) computer could be put in the size of a pen -- a legendary presentation by Intel founder Robert Noyce that was widely scoffed at but all came true.

Let's review the alleged pie-in-the-sky elements of Pickens' plan. First, wind power, which is clean and efficient and able to be integrated to the grid much more easily than the critics say -- ask Quanta (PWR) , which does it -- and can be used in far more than just Texas. We are blessed with windy areas that have no use otherwise, and you can build cheap towers, turbines and blades without much opposition. That's the opposite of the now darling technology -- nuclear -- which really has no hope in this country because of siting difficulties and NIMBY. We have the technology, we have the raw ingredients, we have the abilities, we could take wind to 20% of our power by 2030, as the Department of Energy says, but we could cut 10 years from that with subsidies.

It is natural gas, though, that is the great conundrum, the great game-changer that few politicians and most pundits just don't get at all. The critics, like this Holman Jenkins in The Wall Street Journal, simply haven't done any research. They are using data and facts from 2003 and the industry has changed, changed to the point that the information from five years ago is valueless.

This is where the Noyce analogy comes in.

Every nat gas oil engineer and exec in the world knows that we have had 100 years' worth of natural gas underground in this country domestically -- not off the coasts, but within our borders.

And it has been totally inaccessible until five years ago. That's when drillers basically invented a new way to drill that makes it easy to get this gas out. It gets easier to get at every day, which is why you keep hearing about all of these "shales" that have gigantic finds -- just go look at Devon's (DVN) numbers today if you don't believe me. Look at the drilling! Look at the drilling that Chesapeake (CHK) is doing. I believe 100 years of nat gas -- which is two-thirds cleaner than oil including on the CO2 side, which is the most toxic pollutant -- is conservative.

So when you look at this fuel, you realize it should be used instead of gasoline as soon as possible. It is abundant, cheap, there are pipelines everywhere, it doesn't need to be refined, and it burns clean. What's lacking? Filling stations and cars. But not the technology for either, just the infrastructure.

Because of its newfound abundance, nat gas would be about half of the price of gasoline, which means that the payback for these new cars is quick. The opposite of SUVs.

Now, consider this positive that isn't being talked about enough: In Argentina, one-seventh of the cars run on natural gas. GM (GM) developed nat gas-compatible cars years ago, but because there were no filling stations and questionable reserves, the cars didn't take off. Remember, reserve worries, before horizontal drilling, were so great that Alan Greenspan held hearings on nat gas availability not that long ago.

Since then, though, we have solved the "questionable reserves" issue in spades. We have the distribution capacity, just not the filling stations. If you were Exxon (XOM) or BP (BP) you would build in the filling stations anticipating the coming surge here. If you were one of these ridiculous automakers, you would quickly put these cars on the drawing board -- right now there are kits to do it, and fleets already use it for buses and taxis in cities -- to meet the anticipated demand.

Of course, the politicians don't even know we have the abundance, hence the frustrating appearance by Chesapeake's Aubrey McClendon on Capitol Hill last week, where most lawmakers were amazed about the newfound abundance, one that doesn't need government subsidies or divisive votes by Democrats and Republicans.

In fact, the only real opponents of this fuel are the chemical companies that fear nat gas price increases, something pretty ridiculous given the abundance and the ability to import the stuff. That's the least of the problems we should worry about.

Wind and nat gas are the ways of the future, with nat gas the important bridge fuel for the next 20 years. We are so much closer to energy independence with cleaner energy than we have any time ever, but nobody cares, except the visionaries, the Noyces of this business: Boone Pickens and Aubrey McClendon.

I think it is only a matter of time before the cynics understand this (and I am not even including the peak power possibilities of thin-filmed base solar energy from First Solar (FSLR) , which is also using an Intel model to drive down the cost of industrial panels).

This future is here. It is investible and here. We can buy the nat gas companies that are drilling like mad -- Devon, Cabot Oil & Gas (hence why they missed the quarter) and Chesapeake -- and the company that makes the rigs that will make more drilling possible: National Oilwell Varco (NOV).

This is the single best theme in the market I know. It is why I stick with natural gas even as they have plummeted severely. I stick with it because I believe that under a new, more intelligent administration, this will all become obvious and the stocks will reflect this long-term thesis. "

At the time of publication, Cramer was long Cabot, National Oilwell Varco, Chesapeake, Quanta and Devon.

Data Courtesy: RealMoney.com + Jim Cramer

Highly NUKED - A Glowing France

While ELECTRICITY in the U.S. is 20% Nuclear, France relies on NUCLEAR energy to power 80% of its total country's electricity needs !

Electricite De France (...not listed in the U.S. but trades publicly in France on the Paris Stock Exchange with a $100 Billion marketcap...), manages all 59 nuclear power plants in the country and is France's largest electricity generation and distribution company. 'EDF' was founded/formed by the government in 1946 and then made public nearly 50 years later as a limited liability company in 2004. Per year end 2007 company filings, France's government still owned a majority 85% stake in the energy company. According to Wikipedia, Electricite De France'a grasp is far-reaching and not just restricted to France..in 2003 the company produced about 22% of the total electricity consumed by the European Union (The EU).

* Anecdotally thinking, I'm not the biggest fan of nuke energy because I'm STILL not convinced We (as a PEOPLE) have found ourselves a safe, clean, fea$ible and repeatable way to permanently dispose of its RadioActive WASTE (by-products of the process used to create/generate nuclear energy). FYI, reading Wiki's entry below did NOTHING to assuage my recently coined condition of 'nuke nervousness' :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste

With that being said, clearly the NUKE story has some traction and fundamentals in its favor..and not just record high Crude Oil prices (although that is HUGE). Nuclear energy is THE cleanest burning major alternative fuel. According to the June 2008 issue of The Economist, "Nuclear reactors are the One PROVEN way to make carbon dioxide-FREE electricity in large and reliable quantities that does not depend (as hydroelectric and geothermal energy do) on the luck of the geographical draw."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Also, just for the record + in another concerted effort to mention something else unique/notable about France's economy, France is the #1 Tourist destination in the WORLD. According to the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), France entertained 82 million unique tourists in 2007. The 2nd and 3rd most popular international tourist destinations were Spain (60 million) and the U.S. (50 million).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

* FYI, COAL is the Largest source of Electricity for the United States, fueling about 50% of the country's total power needs. Per my 6/25/08 post titled 'U.S. Electricity Consumption By Source' :

1. COAL -- 50.0%

2. NATURAL GAS -- 20.3%

3. NUCLEAR -- 20.1%

4. HYDROELECTRICITY -- 6.0%

5. OIL (PETROLEUM) -- 3.6%

Data Courtesy: The Economist, Wikipedia and The UNWTO

An Interview with the President of IRAN

On July 28th, 2008, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sat down for a television interview in Tehran with NBC's Brian Williams. I highly recommend accessing the transcript of the pretty fascinating interview using the MSNBC link below...(if you're looking for the REAL thing - a webcast of the TV interview - you should also be able to find it using the below link).


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25887437/


* M.A. on Iran's Relations with the U.S. --> "Well, this question which I am asking from American statesmen, when it comes to the Iranian people, what road do they want to choose? What approach? For more than 50 years now the policy of American statesmen has been to confront the Iranian people. And our people, to a large extent, have become acclimated with this situation, and we have tried to work around it. Today, we see new behavior shown by the United States and the officials of the United States. My question is: Is such behavior rooted in a new approach; in other words, mutual respect, cooperation, and justice? Or this approach is a continuation in the confrontation with the Iranian people but in a new guise? If this is the continuation of the old process, well, the Iranian people need to defend its right, its interests as well. But if the approach changes, we will be facing a new situation. And the response by the Iranian people will be a positive one...I think that if this process is continued by the American government in the not-so-distant future, the situation will change. This means for the Americans to recognize the rights of the Iranian nation, recognize the rule of law, and also recognize a fair and just situation which needs to prevail. These are not difficult demands. I believe that American politicians, statesmen, should not be very much affected by the prevailing media environment. If they want to change their policy towards Iran, well, they have to announce that and take actual steps towards that. I think that this benefits the American government, and it serves the interests of all of us. We'll welcome such an effort."


* Iran's Nuclear Enrichment Program --> "What is there for us to bargain over? Over our own right? The rights of other peoples? Our own independence? No. We can cooperate in an environment which benefits all. All will benefit from such a environment. And there is no need for any party to lose out. In a fair setting, everyone will benefit...we are not working to manufacture a bomb. We don’t believe in a nuclear bomb. We also think it will not effect political relations. The Zionist regime (referring to the U.S.) which you refer to earlier has an arsenal of hundreds of nuclear warheads. Has this arsenal helped the Zionists to prevail inside the conflict inside Lebanon? No. Again, did nuclear arms help the Soviet Union from falling and disintegrating. For that matter, did a nuclear bomb help the U.S. to prevail inside Iraq or Afghanistan, for that matter. Nuclear bombs belong to the 20th century. We are living in a new century. We think that when it came to the nuclear issue, an inappropriate measure or action was taken. Nuclear energy must not be equaled to a nuclear bomb. This is a disservice to the society of man. Nuclear energy is very beneficial and very clean, by the way. All nations must use it. A bomb, obviously, is a very bad thing. Nobody should have such a bomb. If there are parties that claim a bomb is a bad thing, it’s only appropriate for them, as a first step, to destroy their stockpiles. Destroy their bombs and allow clean energy to be utilized by all. I ask you if today, 1,000 nuclear power plants were up and running, would we have seen an increase in the price of oil? I am sure we wouldn’t have had such high prices which is affecting the economies of all countries. It has created problems for their economies. Nuclear energy is a renewable energy. It’s clean. It’s environmentally friendly and all nations must possess it. And there should be a very concrete, if I can use the word, set of regulations, a fair set of regulations which will control the activities of all nations to supervise things, without discrimination. To supervise without discrimination. Allow nations to have access to such clean energy. There are parties, which have bombs themselves, and they have nuclear energy as well and unfair basis and on a discriminatory basis, they are preventing other people — other parties, from utilizing clean nuclear energy."


* The WW Price of OIL --> " Well, a fair price — this has to be determined inside the environs, if I can use the word, of economy. We think that the market should be free and — these commodities should compete in a free setting or conditions. At the moment, the situation is not realistic. It is rather manufactured and the prices are not realistic as a result. Well, I can’t give you an exact figure right now (for the 'Fair' price of Crude Oil) because the market is not a real market. Some powers are manipulating the prices inside the market. Do you really think that the price of oil is the end result of a healthy competition inside the market? It’s not."


* The Future of Iraq --> "Well, in a long-term approach, I believe that the Iraqi people will overcome, prevail over, in other words, their present problems. But in the immediate future, everything depends on the behavior as shown by the American government. If the American government and officials take up a rational, a humanitarian approach, the conditions inside Iraq will improve very quickly. But if not, if they want to impose their will on the nation of Iraq, historical precedence tells them that they will not abide by this. And they will resist. Under such conditions, obviously the Iraqi people will incur some damages. But by the end of the day, they will prevail. They will succeed. But the main damages will be incurred by those parties which decided to disrespect the Iraqi nation."


* Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is running for Re-election in 2009


* Iran is currently experiencing inflation of about 20%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RTOB on the Significance of GEOpolitics :

While this is not a political blog(site), it is a fact that Politics and related decision-making from those in Power can often directly impact the prosperity and investing climate of a region. In today's increasingly Globalized (and therefore vulnerable/sensitive) world, some geopolitical issues can become derisive enough to threaten the collective relations and prosperity of SEVERAL regions.

If the U.S. were to go to war with Iran (Pick A Reason, Any Reason - 1. Iran won't quit its nuclear enrichment program and is probably developing nuclear bombs, 2. the President of Iran is a sworn enemy of Israel and has stated many times that he plans to 'wipe Israel off the map', 3. Iran continues to fund Anti-American violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.), expect the Global Economy to suffer some Painful and Widespread 'SHOCKS'. Given the fact that Iran is one of the world's largest CRUDE OIL producers (and given the fact that Crude Oil is one of the World's most common and relied upon input materials), a WAR between the 2 countries would create a pretty large mess in terms of disrupting the current functioning of our Global markets (Can you say Economic HeadWIND ?!...More like Economic HeadHURRICANE !).

While I do not believe the U.S. is headed to war with Iran anytime soon (Pick a Reason, Any Reason - 1. that little war in Iran, 2. that little war in Afghanistan, 3. that little housing recession in the U.S., 4. that little deficit, etc.), the possibility still exists and for that reason I chose to reference the recent television interview with Mr. Ahmadinejad above.


Data Courtesy: MSNBC and NBC

U.S. Electricity Consumption By Source

* 2007 U.S. Electricity Consumption By Source:

1. COAL -- 50.0%

2. NATURAL GAS -- 20.3%

3. NUCLEAR -- 20.1%

4. HYDROELECTRICITY -- 6.0%

5. OIL (PETROLEUM) -- 3.6%



------------------------------------------------------------------------

* U.S. Coal Consumption by Industry:



Data Courtesy: EIA

REF - BP's 2008 Statistical Energy Report

British Petroleum (BP) just recently released their annual WW Energy Report (aka the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2008) and inside are some interesting charts + data related to the WW Reserves + Consumption trends of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, Coal, Nuclear, etc. If you're curious (and you probably should be because ENERGY is inve$tible) then check out the impressive Adobe file per the below link:

http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929&contentId=7044622

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

*For reference's sake I'm including below a couple of the more interesting charts I found on page 42 of the report (Double-click the images for a much needed larger view...per the color key below, Grey = Coal...Blue = Hydroelectricity...Orange = Nuclear...Red = Natural Gas...Green= Crude Oil):

*A couple of notes/observations per the Above Charts + Report:

A.) Ranking WW 2007 Consumption by Source (from most to least):

1. Crude Oil - 36%

2. Coal - 29%

3. Natural Gas - 24%

4. Hydroelectricity - 6%

5. Nuclear Energy - 5%

----------------------------------------------------------------

B.) REGIONAL Consumption by Source Breakdown:

* CRUDE OIL accounted for: 51% of the Mid East's 2007 energy consumption...46% of South America's...40% of North America's...40% of Africa's...32% of Europe's and 31% of AP's 2007 energy consumption

* COAL accounted for: 50% of the Asia Pacific's 2007 energy consumption...31% of Africa's...22% of NA's...18% of Europe's...4% of SA's and 1% of the Mid East's 2007 energy consumption

* NATURAL GAS accounted for: 47% of the Mid East's 2007 energy consumption...35% of Europe's...26% of NA's...22% of SA's...22% of Africa's and 11% of AP's 2007 energy consumption

* NUCLEAR accounted for: 9% of Europe's 2007 energy consumption...8% of NA's...3% of AP's...0.8% of SA's...0.8% of Africa's and 0% of the Mid East's 2007 energy consumption

* HYDROELECTRICITY accounted for: 28% of SA's 2007 energy consumption...6% of Europe's...6% of Africa's...5% of NA's...5% of AP's and 0.9% of the Mid East's 2007 energy consumption

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C.) B.R.I.C, U.S. + Canada Consumption by Source:

BRAZIL: 45% Oil, 39% Hydro, 9% NGas, 6% Coal and 1% Nuclear

RUSSIA: 57% NGas, 18% Oil, 14% Coal, 6% Hydro and 5% Nuclear

INDIA: 51% Coal, 32% Oil, 9% NGas, 7% Hydro and 1% Nuclear

CHINA: 70% Coal, 20% Oil, 6% Hydro, 3% NGas and 1% Nuclear

UNITED STATES: 40% Oil, 25% NGas, 24% Coal, 8% Nuclear and 3% Hydro

CANADA: 32% Oil, 26% Hydro, 26% NGas, 9% Coal, and 7% Nuclear

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D.) Other Misc. Regional notes:

- The Asia Pacific region consumes much more coal than anyone else (by far)...about 50% of AP's total 2007 energy consumption was coal (as noted above, India = 51% and CHINA = 70% COAL!)

- Europe consumes more nuclear energy than anyone else...about 9% of Europe's total 2007 energy consumption was nuclear (North America runs a close second with 8%)

- Relative to their total energy consumption, South America consumes much more hydroelectric power than anyone else...about 28% of SA's total 2007 energy consumption was hydro power (mostly Brazil as 39% of Brazil's total 2007 energy consumption was hydroelectricity)

- The Middle East is almost exclusively reliant on Oil and Gas (surprise, surprise) with both fuels accounting for a total of 98% of the Mid East's energy needs in 2007

Data Courtesy: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2008

U.S. Energy Consumption by SOURCE

Per 2006 data from the EIA, U.S. Energy Consumption by SOURCE:

1. OIL --> 41%
2. Coal --> 23%
3. Natural Gas --> 22%
4. Nuclear --> 8%
5. Renewable (Solar, Wind, etc.) --> 7%


*Click the below images for a larger view:






Data Courtesy: EIA