adbrite ads

Your Ad Here
Your Ad Here




Friday, November 14, 2008

Looks like the sellers are going to win the day here. Dow down 208 and the MLP which was up 5 points now is flat on the day.

Glad the week is over.


Anonymous said...

It is amazing watching the incredible fraud that this market has become.

As soon as the buying momentum stops, the bids disappear and the sellers attack the downside. MLPs are especially vulnerable as there is no depth to the MLP bid.

Anonymous said...

We're seeing some insider purchases, but we should be seeing more, if fundamentals are intact. Duncan usually buys all his names like clockwork, and hasn't been seen lately. I've never seen anyone at CPNO put up any cash, and they're considered one of the best mgt teams.

Anonymous said...

I agree. The insiders are frauds. If there is truly value in these names, they should be stepping up big time.

How can Cohen tell us the APL and AHD are cheap, yet he hasn't bought shares in ages? Another fraud.

Anonymous said...

That was an ugly close. Get ready for some bad news to come out this weekend, someone knows something. Retest and then a break beneath the lows...Great Depression II here we come!

Get your TARP out and cover yourself...

Anonymous said...

"That was an ugly close. Get ready for some bad news to come out this weekend, someone knows something."
Maybe you're right,

But maybe people don't want to hold stocks over the weekend because of fear of bad news.


Anonymous said...

I nominate "fraud" as the most popular word of the week by anonymous posters (assuming they are not all by the same person--which would, of course, make them...well, frauds).

Here are 3 suggestions to ponder this weekend:

1. For Joe, why not make this a subscription site and limit comments to subscribers? That would raise some cash and limit the discussion to people with skin in the game.

2. Also for Joe, if you don't like suggestion #1, how about requiring people to register before they can submit comments, thus eliminating anonymous posts.

3. For the rest of you, why not send something to Joe to show your appreciation for all of his hard work. Without him, we would not have this blog which most of us find extremely valuable. He has a donation link on the main page. Earlier this year, I sent Joe an amount equal to what I pay for some subscription newsletters, because that's how much I value his work. You don't have to give him as much, but certainly regular visitors really ought to consider sending him something.


joewxman said...

Thanks Bruce. I think that for starters i will begin to require readers to register if they want to post. I love the comments, the more the better! But i am getting a bit miffed by all the anonymous posts. I'm going to think about this over the weekend.

And for those of you who would like to buy me a would be appreciated and you can do so at the tip jar links on the side roll. Thanks...and thanks Bruce for your support!!!

Anonymous said...

EPA CO2 Decision Big Negative for Coal.


November 14, 2008, 5:15 pm
E.P.A. Decision Signals Trouble for Coal
By Kate Galbraith
CoalBuilding new coal plants is likely to take longer given a recent decision by E.P.A. adjudicators.

Environmentalists said that the coal industry was reeling following a ruling on Thursday by the Environmental Appeals Board, an independent body of adjudicators within the Environmental Protection Agency.

The decision — which responded to a Sierra Club petition to review an E.P.A. permit granted to a coal plant in Utah — does not require the E.P.A. to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, something which environmentalists have long sought.

Rather, it requires the agency’s regional office to at least consider whether to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, before the agency gives a green light to build the Utah plant. On a broader scale, it will delay the building of coal-fired power plants across the country, long enough for the Obama administration to determine its policy on coal, according to David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club.

“They’re sending this permit — and effectively sending every other permit — back to square one,” he said, adding, “It’s minimum a one to two year delay for every proposed coal-fired power plant in the United States.”

The decision references the landmark Massachusetts v. E.P.A. decision last year that declared carbon dioxide a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. That ruling, however, has not yet prompted the E.P.A. to act to regulate it.

It is the latest setback for coal plants, which emit far more carbon dioxide than natural gas or other power plants. Last year Kansas state regulators denied a permit to a coal plant on the grounds of its carbon dioxide emissions.

“Although a new administration could always have reversed course, this makes it easier by providing the first prod,” said Jody Freeman, director of the environmental law program at Harvard Law School. “And it’s a heads-up to the coal industry that stationary-source regulation of CO2 is coming.”

The coal industry put its best face on the decision. The ruling “merely says what the court has said — that the E.P.A. has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act,” said Carol Raulston, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, an industry group.

However, she said, before rulemaking occurs, the E.P.A. has to make an “endangerment” finding, which has not yet been done. An “endangerment” finding would involve the E.P.A. declaring that carbon dioxide is a danger to public welfare, and would lead to regulation.

“We still believe, as do many in Congress, that the Clean Air Act is not very well structured to regulate greenhouse gases, and that Congress ought to address this through legislation,” added Ms. Raulston.

Ms. Freeman said that this week’s decision was part of a larger debate going forward “over whether and how the Clean Air Act might be used to regulate greenhouse gases while we wait for new climate legislation.

“E.P.A. has the authority to impose limits on CO2 coming from sources like power plants through the normal permit process,” she continued. “And we may see this happen in the new administration.”

Anonymous said...


Interesting article. I had not seen it. Thanks.

I have been skeptical of coal for a while and, given the results of the election, I would think things are looking even worse for coal--nothwithstanding the fact that we get something like half of our electricity from coal generation.

Having said that, it seems to me that what is bad for coal is good for nat. gas. No matter how hard Obama wishes or how many times he says it, alternative energy is nowhere near able to substitute for even a tiny portion of our coal use. Nat. gas, however, could gain market share at coal's expense.

Long term, that's good for many MLPs--especially the beaten down G&Ps.

Ooops, there I go being a Pollyanna again! :)


PS Congratulations on the new job, Joe!

Anonymous said...


I agree that this is a positive for NG, however it's a negative for the economy.

Just what we need now is higher future electricity prices, and less construction of power plants.

Enviornmental purists may object to Nat Gas power plant's CO2 emissions as well.

The pipeline MLPs have a solid business model, if and when credit conditions ease. et's hope the easing begins soon.


Anonymous said...


I agree, but nat. gas is the only way, as a practical matter, to make any progress on their agenda. Without increased use of nat. gas they can't possibly reduce coal use.


Anonymous said...

Bravo to your "3 suggestions" post, Bruce! Good ideas all!

Come on MLP posters, time to buy Joe a beer. And if you're one of those anonymous whiny types, buy him a friggin' case...