The PODESTA Group is just another DC lobby firm, like the NRA and hundreds of others. The CEO is a Republican. Since you brought up Clinton what about Trump? In Panama City, not long ago, I asked our tour guide about the huge new building. That's the Trump Ocean Club, he said, at 70 stories, the tallest building in Central America...a condo, apt, shopping and casino complex. Perhaps condo owners want to be close to the company that hid their assets. Makes it easier to make withdrawals I suppose.
I hope your not a backward looking chartist. The recent election in Iran won by moderates suggests some "negotiations" with the Saudi's, US, etc on reducing oil output may be feasible. Plus, even the Iranian mullahs would like more oil revenue. If that happens I would not want to be short KMI. But events like this are hard to predict.
"Berkshire also reported that it bought 26.5 million shares of Kinder Morgan, taking advantage of the 63% slide in the company’s stock price over the past 12 months. The Houston-based pipeline giant has been hurt by weakness in its carbon-dioxide segment and depressed commodities prices."
That's the headline but the under story must be that Buffet has concluded (1) the KMI accounting methods are reasonable and (2) the company controls incredibly valuable assets, and (3 )KMI is very unlikely to fail and (4) all that's needed is patience.
Interesting article today about this Oregon company. They just sold their first Gas PT2 Technology product to an Italian pipeline company. It measures gas quality inside the pipe. No US sales yet. It replaces 60 year old technology and is cheaper, much faster, and more accurate (they claim). Sounds worthy of further study. CUI is a NASDAQ stock trading today at $7.43.
it's not that simple. For example, Big oil benefits from a US military presence near most overseas operations, shipping at sea, and domestic facilities.. If an enemy attacks a US oil facility it won't be left to the company to handle. That government "subsidy" is hard to assign a value.
But more directly:
"From preferential treatment in the tax code to insurance liability caps, the oil industry still enjoys significant taxpayer subsidies. Our Green Scissors 2012 report identifies more than a dozen subsidies for oil and gas companies. Repealing the percentage depletion deduction, which allows independent producers a flat deduction of gross income from each well, would save the federal government $5.3 billion from 2012-2017. Repealing the last-in, first-out method of inventory for oil, natural gas, and coal companies would generate $18.3 billion in revenue for the federal government for the same period. If Congress repealed the deduction for intangible drilling and development costs in the case of oil and natural gas wells it would produce $8.4 billion in added revenue."
In the news today:
According to an expert: "An increasing number of Americans appear to believe that having a U.S. passport or long-term residency isn’t worth the hassle and cost of complying with U.S. tax laws,” Mr. Mitchel said.
Experts say the growing number of renunciations by citizens and long-term holders of green cards is related to an enforcement campaign by U.S. officials against undeclared offshore accounts. It intensified in 2009, after Swiss banking giant UBS AG admitted that it encouraged U.S. taxpayers to hide money abroad.."
I hope you aren't suggesting Obama WANTED to increase the national debt! Consider the economic situation when he took office...banks failing left and right, auto industry in the ditch, unemployment rising, mortgage defaults soaring, etc etc etc. Something had to be done!
The debt increase occurred while Obama was in office, but the blame? Don't blame Obama.
Don't blame you for not wanting to pursue this topic...because you are dead wrong. Just google the "Obama Oil Boom" from CNN.
Here is a snipit:
"Tthe Obama administration has NOT tried to block the growth in fracking.
This week it announced plans to allow offshore oil drilling along the Atlantic Coast from Virginia to Georgia. It would be the first time offshore drilling would be allowed there. The proposal brought criticism from Obama's usual allies in the environmental community and the oil industry complained that it didn't open enough offshore areas to drilling,"
Actually, your horse poo is old and tired and totally ignores reality, but not surprising..
For foreign attitudes toward the US read the findings of the Pew Research Center on Global Attitudes and Trends.
Oil production is up 96% because Obama hasn't tried to stop it. Drivers nationwide are benefiting from low gas prices. Plus, millions of additional acres offshore have been approved for drilling.
I guess you've forgotten the state of the US economy when Obama took office compared to today.
1. 7.9 million new jobs created
2. Unemployment rate lower than historical norms.
3. Oil production up 94%
4. Auto industry is alive and humming.
5. Job openings highest in 14 years.
6. New business starts up 20%
7. Lowest gas prices in years.
8. Purchasing power of weekly paychecks up 2.6%
9. Stock market near record highs.
10. And 81% of foreigners approve of the US
Does that sound like he's trying to sink the economy? Obviously things aren't perfect. For example the home ownership rate has declined. That may be because the banks are only lending to people who qualify for a home loan (unlike the situation in 2000-2005)..
On the subject of oil industry government subsidies... in 2015 Chevron paid out $8B in dividends to shareholders and received roughly that amount in government subsidies (the exact value of subsidies depends on how you define a subsidy). In other words US taxpayers paid the Chevron dividend.
I would hope a similar thing could be done for KMI. Shouldn't the government be paying the KMI dividend?
I suppose we should ask what impact, if any, the proposal would have on KMI, which is primarily a natural gas hauler. Would it speed the conversion to NG?
But if the response by Rep is any guide, it will never happen, just like efforts to eliminate oil industry subsidies.
No, not at the expense of those who work. Most people who drive also work. Lower oil prices have world wide benefits but obviously that doesn't include some oil workers and oil company stockholders like us. Industries that benefit include the airlines, trucking, plastics,utilities, etc.. Plus millions of drivers.. It's also deflationary and provides an investment opportunity...oil prices won't stay low forever.
Another downside of high oil prices is it funnels billions of dollars to Middle East countries and Russia, and slows the conversion to natural gas.
Everyone knows this stuff but that was not the reason for my original post. I was simply contrasting Bush Sr in 1986 with Obama today. Bush Sr lobbied the Saudis to cut production (to raise oil prices). Obama has not done that as far as I know. I believe it was because Bush Sr had close ties to Texas oil bigwigs. And that may also explain why the Saudis have advanced US weapons whereas other Middle East countries do not...
I made a very simple point in my post. In 1986 Bush Sr tried to convince the Saudi's to lower production (raising oil prices). Today, the situation is very similar but Obama has not done this (as far as we know). Yes, thousands of high and low paying oil industry jobs are lost. However, 200+ million drivers benefit from lower gas prices, including you, me, and virtually ever other American, especially the poor.. I think it clearly illustrates the priorities of the president...he prefers to help millions of Americans rather than help thousands.
There's always an upside and downside to government policy. Obama appears to favor car drivers and the trucking industry over the US oil industry...a true fat cat if there ever was one. There are 210M US car drivers (255M registered cars) and 3.5M long haul US truck drivers (and 15.5M trucks). Both benefit from low fuel prices. So, who's side are you on...the oil industry billionaires or the general public?
I thought the Rep were the free market gurus...let supply and demand in the market place set the price of oil. No government interference. No international negotiated agreements that set the price of oil at some artificial level.
Is it possible Obama believes in free market dynamics more than the Rep?