Niagara Bill Posted February 15 Posted February 15 1 hour ago, sherpa said: The US has no need for energy supply from anywhere else. It might choose to use those sources, but it has no need to do so. Wrong...it needs heavy crude, natural gas, wood and electricity from outside its borders. 1
sherpa Posted February 15 Posted February 15 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said: Wrong...it needs heavy crude, natural gas, wood and electricity from outside its borders. We are not going to waste time talking about this, but the US is drowning in LNG, and is achieving remarkable and financial efficacy in sources that are non combustible, including LNG, on site production, and thus absolutely not dependent on grid deliverance, which is the single weak link. Your claim is not indicative of someone who knows what is recently going on. I am pleased to have been financially rewarded by being "wrong," per your claim. Do a six month chart of Bloom Energy, (BE). Find out what they do and where they are going. Edited February 15 by sherpa 1
Niagara Bill Posted February 16 Posted February 16 5 hours ago, sherpa said: We are not going to waste time talking about this, but the US is drowning in LNG, and is achieving remarkable and financial efficacy in sources that are non combustible, including LNG, on site production, and thus absolutely not dependent on grid deliverance, which is the single weak link. Your claim is not indicative of someone who knows what is recently going on. I am pleased to have been financially rewarded by being "wrong," per your claim. Do a six month chart of Bloom Energy, (BE). Find out what they do and where they are going. You must know more than economists and are a rich Sherpa. Make sure you read up on Texas refineries and the need for heavy crude. If Canada stopped supplying tomorrow it would cause a war. Trump is looking for someone to beat up on. 1 1
Hank II Posted February 16 Posted February 16 8 hours ago, sherpa said: I'm actually learning the easy way. I actively trade energy markets and I am aware of what is available. The point being, again, the US does not need outside sources for it's energy needs. Period. Please excuse my ignorance on this subject, bur if there is a finite amount of oil on the planet would it not make sense to deplete the middle east and Russia first and hold onto ours?
sherpa Posted February 16 Posted February 16 21 minutes ago, Hank II said: Please excuse my ignorance on this subject, bur if there is a finite amount of oil on the planet would it not make sense to deplete the middle east and Russia first and hold onto ours? Nothing ignorant about it. There may well be a finite amount of oil on the planet, but that doesn't matter. We have an immense supply on natural gas that could supply us for decades. But even that is underpinned by the technology we have to provide energy without combustion, which means non polluting, and have scores of very recognizable corporations using this technology to produce on site energy, which takes the grid dependence out of the equation. There is an accelerated movement in this area as AI energy dependence becomes more evident. We also have the capability to use hydrogen as a completely clean energy source. We may choose to use conventional sources for the time being, as the infrastructure is in place and convenient, but we are not Germany at the outset of Russia's Ukraine invasion, facing a major supply problem. Energy as a weapon is no longer a threat to us. 1
sherpa Posted February 16 Posted February 16 1 hour ago, Niagara Bill said: You must know more than economists..... Invalid premise. It wasn't economists who figured out how to provide electrical power to the space shuttle, which didn't have the ability to deploy massive solar panels, which the Intl Space Station does. It was physicists and chemists, and that's where the answers come from.
Beast Posted February 16 Posted February 16 15 hours ago, Trump_is_Mentally_fit said: What has he been successful at, in your view? Off the top of my head….. Billions and billions being saved by DOGE. Our failure of an education department will be done away with. The border is way more secure and we are getting violent illegals out of our country. Men are no longer allowed to compete in women’s sports. DEI will be a thing of the past. Hostages in Gaza are being released. Iran is being neutered as we speak. 2
JaCrispy Posted February 16 Posted February 16 19 hours ago, Trump_is_Mentally_fit said: https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/trumps-shock-and-awe-month-7a9 The words “shock and awe” describe the first month of the second Trump administration pretty well, it seems to me. It’s been a blitzkrieg of executive orders, mass firings, violations of laws and norms, wanton cruelty for the sick, destitute, and hungry, and performative administrative chaos as far as the eye can see — all designed to paralyze and stun what’s left of the opposition. And front and center: a drug-fueled, sleep-addled billionaire, commandeering the Oval Office, offering half-baked political theories, threatening judges with impeachment, tweeting at the pace of an adderall-addicted gamer, and holding press conferences with a toddler on his shoulders, where he tells the world he cannot be trusted to tell the truth. I guess there are some people who find all this deeply impressive. I’m sorry to say that, despite agreeing with some of Trump’s policy planks, I don’t. Which brings me back to “shock and awe.” You may recall those words were also once used by a previous administration, huffing its own fumes, bent on breaking norms and boldly declaring a new era. We know now, of course, how the Iraq War ended. And it’s beginning to look as if Trump 2.0 will have something like the same result.
All_Pro_Bills Posted February 16 Posted February 16 (edited) The way I see it Trump has abruptly brought an end to what's been about a 75 year trend in the growth of government and people that this system is sucking dry are happy and people that benefit and depend on it are not happy. All they can do is raise concens about suffering orphans and widows as mentioning their real concern which is their mid-six figure lifestyle that's been generously funded by the taxpayers making much less won't play well. Edited February 16 by All_Pro_Bills 1 2
4th&long Posted February 16 Posted February 16 25 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: The way I see it Trump has abruptly brought an end to what's been about a 75 year trend in the growth of government and people that this system is sucking dry are happy and people that benefit and depend on it are not happy. All they can do is raise concens about suffering orphans and widows as mentioning their real concern which is their mid-six figure lifestyle that's been generously funded by the taxpayers making much less won't play well. No one gives a ***** how you see it. You're a *****en idiot.
Niagara Bill Posted February 16 Posted February 16 11 hours ago, sherpa said: Invalid premise. It wasn't economists who figured out how to provide electrical power to the space shuttle, which didn't have the ability to deploy massive solar panels, which the Intl Space Station does. It was physicists and chemists, and that's where the answers come from. Funding was just cut
Doc Posted February 16 Posted February 16 2 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said: The way I see it Trump has abruptly brought an end to what's been about a 75 year trend in the growth of government and people that this system is sucking dry are happy and people that benefit and depend on it are not happy. All they can do is raise concens about suffering orphans and widows as mentioning their real concern which is their mid-six figure lifestyle that's been generously funded by the taxpayers making much less won't play well. All those homes going up for sale in the DC area ain't a coincidence. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 16 Posted February 16 1 hour ago, Niagara Bill said: Funding was just cut please elaborate. Energy is obviously a major issue in Canada/US relations. If on-site LNG was the be all, end all to our energy needs, we wouldn't still be importing heavy crude. As you said, I see that the Texas refineries need it. I can't find any evidence that LNG is the answer to all our problems. In fact, the stock Sherpa mentioned is at 25, barely above its 5 year high (it did double to that level virtually overnight recently). So, funding was cut by whom for what...?
Taro T Posted February 16 Posted February 16 13 hours ago, sherpa said: Invalid premise. It wasn't economists who figured out how to provide electrical power to the space shuttle, which didn't have the ability to deploy massive solar panels, which the Intl Space Station does. It was physicists and chemists, and that's where the answers come from. Minor quibble, it was engineers that figured out how to power the space shuttle. 1
sherpa Posted February 16 Posted February 16 2 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: In fact, the stock Sherpa mentioned is at 25, barely above its 5 year high (it did double to that level virtually overnight recently). Not a meaningful comment, as these technologies develop rapidly and changes occur in the market extremely quickly. For instance scaling a newer technology develops very rapidly. With scaling issue getting solved, along with the undeniable perception that the US grid delivery system is no longer something companies who actually demand reliable power can count on, things change at warp speed, and that is going on now. AI data centers are the current catalyst, but there's a reason why AEP just signed a 1 gigawatt deal with Bloom to power those data centers. No years long political fighting to get a utility company built. Your own energy at your own site all the time. In addition, it is much cleaner, and even the CO2 released is concentrated and pure enough that Chart Industries just signed an agreement to capture the CO2 and re-purpose it. As well, this energy production is being developed at commercially viable and competitive prices, and is going to get cheaper. Either way, as these industries grow, dependence on politically radioactive public utility issues, unreliable grid performance, (see California every year, and Texas two years ago), the realization that these are very clean and not real estate hogs, as solar and wind are, we don't need to import energy anymore.
JFKjr Posted February 16 Posted February 16 7 hours ago, 4th&long said: No one gives a ***** how you see it. You're a *****en idiot.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 16 Posted February 16 (edited) 2 hours ago, sherpa said: Not a meaningful comment, as these technologies develop rapidly and changes occur in the market extremely quickly. For instance scaling a newer technology develops very rapidly. With scaling issue getting solved, along with the undeniable perception that the US grid delivery system is no longer something companies who actually demand reliable power can count on, things change at warp speed, and that is going on now. AI data centers are the current catalyst, but there's a reason why AEP just signed a 1 gigawatt deal with Bloom to power those data centers. No years long political fighting to get a utility company built. Your own energy at your own site all the time. In addition, it is much cleaner, and even the CO2 released is concentrated and pure enough that Chart Industries just signed an agreement to capture the CO2 and re-purpose it. As well, this energy production is being developed at commercially viable and competitive prices, and is going to get cheaper. Either way, as these industries grow, dependence on politically radioactive public utility issues, unreliable grid performance, (see California every year, and Texas two years ago), the realization that these are very clean and not real estate hogs, as solar and wind are, we don't need to import energy anymore. Sounds good. Also sounds like the market s unconvinced it's a panacea. But good for you if you doubled. I nearly tripled on Eli Lilly and their diabetes/weight loss drug and while a big deal, it's nowhere near as groundbreaking as what you say about this technology. And yes. I saw the chart deal. Was that around when it doubled? edit: The more I look at this, the more I ope you timed this just right. Otherwise, you're just speculating https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BE/?fr=sycsrp_catchall Edited February 16 by Joe Ferguson forever
dgrochester55 Posted February 17 Posted February 17 13 hours ago, 4th&long said: No one gives a ***** how you see it. You're a *****en idiot. This is precisely how more than half of the country feels about progressives and the legacy media, but that doesn't stop them from preaching their gospel of chaos and mediocrity every day. 1 1
sherpa Posted February 17 Posted February 17 On 2/16/2025 at 3:48 PM, Joe Ferguson forever said: The more I look at this, the more I ope you timed this just right. Otherwise, you're just speculating I have no interest in what you think about what I do. None. You don't have any idea about my timing. What I will say is that when you have an emerging technology that is delivering, people get interested. That interest leads to speculation. That speculation leads to trading opportunities, as the prices get speculative and more importantly, volatile. That speculative trading leads to opportunities in both the issue and its derivatives, ie., options. I love the technology. I really like the trading action.
Recommended Posts