Loading...
Symbols:
Get Seeking Alpha Free Stock Alerts by Email!
Get Free Stock Alerts by Email!
Transcripts
- Butler National Corporation F1Q09 (Qtr End 07/31/08) Earnings Call Transcript
- Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc. F3Q08 (Quarter End 09/05/08) Earnings Call Transcript
- General Electric Company Q3 2008 Earnings Call Transcript
- DragonWave Inc. F2Q09 (Qtr End 08/31/08) Earnings Call Transcript
- Emmis Communications Corporation F2Q09 (Qtr End 08/31/08) Earnings Call Transcript
- Audiovox Corporation F2Q09 (Qtr End 08/31/08) Earnings Call Transcript
- Robbins & Myers, Inc. F4Q08 (Qtr End 08/31/08) Earnings Call Transcript
- Total System Services, Inc. Q3 2008 Earnings Call Transcript
- Tortoise Capital Resources F3Q08 (Qtr End 08/31/2008) Earnings Call Transcript
- Intraware, Inc. F2Q09 (Qtr End 08/31/08) Earnings Call Transcript
-
Editor's Picks
-
Most Popular
- 10 Reasons I'm Glad To Be Doing Business in America
- AMD Sheds Fabs to Keep Up with Intel
- Are Analysts Being Fooled By The Data?
- Auto Industry: Is Government's Loan Actually a Bailout, Payback, or Investment?
- Competitive Markets Don't Just Happen; It's Time to Regulate In the Public Interest
- The End of the BRIC Trade
- Full list of Editor's Picks »
- Why Cramer Should Be Suspended »
- The Bottom's Within Sight - Barron's »
- Bargain Buys For Patient Investors - Barron's »
- Back Room Deal? - Cramer's Mad Money (10/10/08) »
- Largest Bond ETF Now Trading At a Massive Discount »
- Is Gold A Sucker's Bet? »
- What Does Warren Buffett See in General Electric? »
- This Isn't a Bottom, It's a Disturbance in The Force »
- Paulson in a State of Panic »
- Jeremy Grantham: Stocks Still Aren't Cheap »
- The Crash of 2008 »
Trading Center
Hedge Fund Jobs
Job Seekers: Search jobs by category, get job alerts by email or live feed, apply online See full list of jobs »
Employers: See all recruitment options, get applications online or by email Post a job »
The FItzman
226 Comments
Peak Oil - Are We There Yet?
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
the clock is ticking, the US political "leadership" is a joke (and borders on criminality), and the US is even in a weaker economic position than we were before, yet NO progress on the energy front. we'll slowly decline into economic and social chaos unless something changes very very soon.
The Case for Natural Gas Powered Transportation
1) focus on bringing down the cost of the home refueling system by incentives and volume
2) identify strategic refueling locations along the interstate highway system to enable longer range trips
3) with 1 & 2 in place, enterprenuership will buildout more stations
jeez, i feel like i am repeating the article again...
The Case for Natural Gas Powered Transportation
from Honda's website, the GX tank holds 8.03 GGE @ 3600 psi
(GGE stands for "gasoline gallons equivalent)
from this EIA website:
www.eia.doe.gov/kids/e...
we see that:
1 gallon gasoline = 124,000 BTU
so the honda GX tanks holds 8.03 * 124,000 = 992,000 BTU
gas companies usually bill by therms, where 1 therm = 100,000 BTU
so let's call the honda GX tank 10 therms (9.92 rounded up).
my natural gas company currently charges:
$0.725 / therm (for the first 70 therms)
$0.665 / therm (for the next 70 therms)
so, to fill the Honda GX with natural gas at my house with a Phill would cost me:
10 therms * $0.725/therm = $7.25 (for my first 7 tanks)
10 therms * $0.665/therm = $6.65 (thereafter for the month)
so, let's call it $7 (average) to fill up the Honda GX with natural gas.
Honda quotes 225-250 miles per tank, let's call it 237 (midway), so
$7 / 237 = $0.03/mile
on the other hand, for gasoline on my truck (Toyota Tacoma 20 mpg on a good day!) i get:
$3.50/20 = $0.175/mile
so, the Honda GX, when compared to my Toyota Tacoma truck, in terms of fuel costs per mile, is more than 5x more cost effective.
now, this analysis does not figure in the cost of Phill ($3-4k installed last i checked), nor the rebate, nor the extra cost of the NGV (about $4k) and the time to recoup those cost. but those calculations are pretty straight forward and left for the reader and his/her particular vehicle.
but, in the big picture, the summary is this:
1) nat gas auto technology has been around for years
2) NGV's are more efficient and burn cleaner: environmentally superior
3) NGV's are more cost effective from a fueling perspective, even when the calculation is done with $3.50/gallon gasoline and a comparison vehicle that only gets 20 mpg
4) in terms of my Toyota Tacoma, the cost effectiveness is more than 5x. However, this truck is 4WD and has alot of power and towing capacity, which the Honda GX does not.
So, let's take a more equivalent car that gets say 30 mpg:
$3.50/30=$0.117/mile
and the Honda GX is still almost 4x more cost efficient.
The Case for Natural Gas Powered Transportation
action.pickensplan.com...
it requires your name and address and zip code...
now to the feedback:
dalivonia: you criticism is constructive and valid! i was attempting to do prior to my first article mentioning the CIVIC GX. i wanted to take a direct comparison in cost, fuel efficiency, and refueling cost in order to present the case. i wasn't able to do so at that time do to lack of specs on the websites. meanwhile, i did contact some folks who owned the GX and kit converted cars. they convinced me they were seeing between 1.5x and 2.5x more miles per $. this varies so widely due to the specific auto, and the fact that nat gas prices around the country vary wildly from the wholesale commodity price quote on wall street. all that said, some of the other feedback comments made me go back and check some of the websites i looked at beofre and i realized there is more information now and in some cases i missed some information the first time. the information is now there for me to do the calculations (i'm too lazy to do the nat gas at 3,600 psi calculation at the moment). i promise a consolidation of all the info in my next article on this matter (assuming SA doesn't get bored with the subject and publishes it), or, as a comment later on this thread. thanks.
johnsgordon: cheney seems much more interested in europes energy issues wrt BTC pipeline than he does with america's foreign oil addiction. then again, perhaps he is just trying to prolong europe's foreign oil addiction...that way, the powers that be will be able to control the peoples of both continents when oil gets scarce...
redbaron: thank you. yes, CLNE is focused on fleets which is the logical first step due to centralized refueling and the fact that trucks will have a most difficult time going electric. that said, i am making the case for more widespread use of nat gas autos, as in brazil, venezuela, italy and iran, for instance. there is no reason why not.
optionsgirl: thank you. i blew it and missed this in the FAQ. zow-ee, that's along time and on a par with re-charging electric battery powered cars. i am sure they could speed this up (it's just gas), but that would probably increase the price of the Phill and the auto.
here's the Phill website for those of you wanted to read more about it:
www.myphill.com/
paultaut: yes, but temporary as defined in decades. according to the EIA website:
tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav...
there are 64 million residential nat gas consumers, and over 5 million commerical users.
wrt who would do this conversion now, as i mentioned, not many. in my case, i void my Toyota warranty with a kit installation, an issue which I am going round-n-round with Toyota on (I want them to have a kit available). costs for kits vary wildly and who knows if they are competent? that is why i didnt quote and kit costs or manufacturers. next, the Phill, from my understanding, is $3-4k to purchase and install yet the rebate is only $1000 in most cases. next, the refuel problems. as i said those, there are solutions to all these if we just get our act together. i never said it was a panacea. what i have said is that the US needs ALL alternatives to gasoline powered transportation if our economy is to survive what oil prices will be doing in the next 10 years.
DanielNC: glad you support sending $700 billion a year (a number that is sure to grow) to the same people (iran, iraq, russia, saudi arabia...) in which you apparently want to wage war on! don't you understand current bush policy is funding both sides of the war as we go deeper into debt, our financial system is crumbling, and our standard of living declining?! this is simply insanity. it's the same answer i have to the Jewish support for bush and the republicans: do they not understand bush policy is strengthening their opponents much faster than it is yourselves (or, as pickens so elequently states: fostering the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world)? wrt batteries, let's look at facts: even the old nickle-metal-hydride batteries in the prius enable it to get 50 mph. wow, that really sucks huh daniel? my laptop's lithium-ion batteries let me work in my bed for an hour and a half at night without any wires attached. what a drag, huh? FYI: battery technology advancement in the last 2 years has been nothing short of phenomenal. is it fully ready for mass production cars yet? very close, but no. will it be? of course. you see, despite limbaugh and the like, science does exists. so does innovations that can help use move away from oil and clean up our air. i'm surprised you like nat gas though, most of pickens' republicans buddies are running like hell from him now. after all, nat gas aint OIL, and to be a real man, and a real republican, you gots to like OIL (the majority of it imported...)
longoil: liability is an issue i never really thought about, but thanks for bringing it up. that said, i assume that the Phill is under the same regulation oversight as say a nat gas hot water heater. besides, the engineering of shut-down valves based on pressure (i.e. leaks or bad connections) has been around since the turn of the century. the people i exchanged emails with that own the Phill simply love it.
harley: not our current president, and i can send you many examples where that is true. but let's keep this on nat gas transpo as every time i speak my political mind everything turns haywire. i agree we must make congress understand we support this (see my link above to contact YOUR representatives..). the only thing they understand is RE_ELECTION and we must make it clear that they will NOT be RE_ELECTED if they don't get on the stick!
Didz: i respectivefully disagree with your conclusions, however i do agree that the decline rates of existing fields are very high, and so too with canada. that said, check out this EIA data:
tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav...
we're pumping out more nat gas this year than last year, and much more than in 1980. now, we also now have two huge US shale deposits which new technology is allowing access and coming online. in addition, if our friggin government would just get behind and support a trans-canadian nat gas pipeline (as my energy policy suggests), we would have access to abundant nat gas from alaska. i have seen data that suggests that, even if the US put 50,000,000 nat gas cars on the highway, US reserves alone would power these for 30 years. that's a damn good start in the right direction. also, don't forget, LNG terminals on the coasts would allow importation. not so good if it is imported, but, in a future where i expect oil prices to skyrocket, access to cheap nat gas will be a better alternative.
paulk: thanks for your points, info, and support of NGV. and yes, i liked my idea of dealership refueling depots as well. i mean they can turn a profit on it! seems like a no-brainer to me.
fran: yeah, the problem i have with honda wrt GX is that they should make their website a one-stop shop with all the answers, costs, and comparisons with a gasoline powered car. in other words, do an example fill up comparison between gasoline and nat gas and do the mileage based on the combined city/hwy average. state the costs of the Phill purchase and installation (better yet, bundle it with the purchase of the car). etc. etc. even an engineer like myself could market that car and create a better website than what they have. heck, the first time i looked at their website, i didnt even see the 8.03 GGE (Gallons of Gasoline Equivalent, i suppose) spec, and i think they have added it since i jumped their case a few months back.
Iggy: heh heh heh, hilarious.
bobjou: well, sorry there aren't more specifics. read these comments. look at fran's site. USE GOOGLE. my next article though will have an refuel example and costs.
fran: thx for the site!
The Case for Natural Gas Powered Transportation
isaac: not that you mention it, a plug-in hybrid nat gas vehicle sounds like a wonderful idea and to be honest, i have never heard (nor thought) about it! what a great idea. i'm gonna have to google that one! wrt batteries, i don't know alot ... except that the electric vehicles on the drawing board now are planning on using industrial-strength versions of the lithium-ion batteries (similar to you laptop's) as opposed to the older nickle-metal-hydride batteries in today's prius, for example. the energy density, staying power, and performance of these batteries will be better. the next generation hybrids will be more like all-electric cars than today's prius, whose gas engine cuts in at speeds above 10 mph or so.
AlexS: bingo - that's exactly what i wanted to do with my Toyota Tacoma: dual fuel capability for flexibility and cost/benefit decision making. wrt dealership refueling, i have gone a couple rounds with the folks at honda...the number one excuse people have for not buying their nat gas car is refueling concerns, so what not somewhat alleviate that by having a 24-hr refueling station on site (run at a profit no less). maybe some day. i also think the gov. should give rebates for the "Phill" nat gas home fueling tool.
teejcee: i have not heard about the length of time to refuel, could you give me an estimate? certainly it must be quicker than recharging batteries on an all-electric car huh? (not that i am against all electric cars, i am not!). just curious is all...
mdmrjsds: yes, the energy density is lower, but it burns cleaner. wrt to the infrastructure, there are alot of nat gas pipelines throughout the country. there are alot of nat gas capable subdivisions (home heating). so, if most nat gas car buyers bought the home refueling tool, then basically (in my simple mind), all that would be needed is to outfit the interstate highway system with nat gas refueling points. it would be years and years before the nat gas demand would reach that of gasoline (but hopefully short). as fas as nat gas being gone, i disagree. oil will have critical shortages before nat gas. first, we have *alot* of nat gas in the US. with a transcanada nat gas pipeline and LNG terminals on both coasts (as my energy plan proposes), we could easily supply nat gas for transportation for US and foreign sources for 100 years. wrt electric vehicles, i am all for them. but, there are some problems with range, batteries, not to mention the infrastructure of the grid and the power sources it would take to power say 25 million vehicles every day. we need ALL alternatives to gasoline powered internal combustion engines. so, i am for ALL solutions: nat gas and electric and hybrid vehicles. coal is dirty to mine and to liquify (CTL), as far as i can tell. sequestion is a joke (how the hell do u pump CO2 into the earth and keep it there? perhaps i'm an idiot, but i don't get it).
as far as economics goes, i completely disagree with you. the economics of sending $700 billion to russia, iraq, iran, and saudi is my first argument. second, we are fighting wars to get the oil (we could have 100,000,000 prius' for what bush has spent on iraq..think about that for a second). the cost of nat gas cars is not higher, it's less!! you say we "have to be engaged", i agree, the rest of the world has been turning to wind, solar, and nat gas powered vehicles for years. unfortunately, we've had bush and so we haven't been. the last 8 years have been "lost". wrt gov being involved, i don't think the magnitude of the problem leaves us a choice. GM, Ford, and Chrysler have shown us what "free enterprise" has done in energy policy: hummers and SUV's. give me a joke. now these same automakers want $50 BILLION in taxpayer money to help them design the cars they should have been designing for the last 20 years. give me a break. capitilism in the US auto market is dead. apparently it will be socialised just as bush and paulsen did with bear stearns, fannie, freddie, and probably lehman brothers.
the hand: i agree on nat gas with you. subsidies, i'd like to see the gov give a rebate to help the consumer pay for the "Phill" nat gas home refueling tool. these are expensive now due to volume. after a year or two, take them away. the market needs a kick in the butt to get going. if bush can give bill gates and warren buffet tax breaks, we can give tax breaks to get nat gas cars going.
Political Energy Policy Just for Laughs
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
Failure to adopt something along these lines in the next year or so will be catastrophic to the US economy and our way of life as we enter an era of peak oil where worldwide oil supply will not keep pace with worldwide oil demand. For a country that imports 15 million barrels of foreign oil a day (and uses 21 million barrels), it should be obvious to any thinking human being what steps need to be taken, and taken very soon. The last 8 years have been a complete waste, and 2015 is d-day according to energy company CEO's. That is only 7 years away....
Oil: The Inconvenient Truth
aai & jamie: i feel your pain! as leeb wrote in his book, the financial analyst will ping pong back and forth between inflation worries and deflation worries. right now, the worries are deflation, and so commodities are being sold off indiscriminately (much to my personal pain). but what has really changed? has the US gotten off foreign oil? has oil really dropped that far? has the US developed a comprehensive energy policy? answers: no. hell, NBC initially refused to run boone pickens' commerical on the iranians converting their cars and trucks to natural gas(!). ever ask yourself why NBC (owned by GE) would do something like that?? answer: the same reason barron's, the wall street journal, and business week won't publish my articles on the need for and the specifics for a strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy....
Whither Oil Prices?
Oil: The Inconvenient Truth
as far as being in iraq, we could have 100,000,000 prius in the US for what that war has cost us (not to mention the cost in human life). comparing sadaam hussein to hitler to rationalize bush's takeover of iraq must have been a joke. you were joking...right??
henarl: i agree both parties suck. mccain, before he morphed into mini-georgie, would have been someone i would have thought more seriously about. but now that he has joined the bandwagon on bush's tax and religious right outlook (mccain used to say the religious right was an "intolerable influence on government), i can tell he is just another tool of the radical right. ron paul has some great thoughts on currency and getting back to the constitution. that said, how can he be so steadfastly republican when he has seen how the bush administration has basically ripped up the constitution. i find that very hypocritical.
Royalty Trusts: Maintaining Income in a Volatile Market
Oil: The Inconvenient Truth
- $700 billion a year (and growing) leaving the country and going into the hands of russia, iran, iraq, venezuela and bush's buddies the saudis
- raging inflation
- a huge drop in the value of the US dollar
- an economy (and S&P500) that are dead in the water.
what more do you need to see before you suggest we get a president and congress that will pass legislation to protect us against the biggest national security threat facing our country: our dependence on foreign oil and a future in which worldwide oil supply will not keep up with worldwide oil demand. honestly, i find your position on this issue illogical and very dangerous. your position matches bush's, with the exception of bush likes to put our troops on top of oil reserves. for the money he has spent on iraq, we could have put 100,000,000 priuses on the road and reduced our imported oil bill by 3-4 million barrels a day. or, we could have funded nat gas re-fit kit for ALL us cars and trucks and built the nat gas distribution network to re-fuel them. these are just examples, but show how important gov policies are to address the issue (versus fascism based lobbyist driven policies and militantism).
Oil: The Inconvenient Truth
Oil: The Inconvenient Truth
1) artificially keeping the price of gasoline down (bad)
2) dislocations in the food chain causing inflation and hardship on many producers of meat (bad)
johngordon: ok, thanks. i will follow up on this. my gut tells me, however, that the big problem with coal is its dirty - dirty to mine, dirty to burn, and dirty to process in CTL. i'll get back with you on this. the real dirty little secret about coal (besides the well publicized CO2 emissions) is the release of mercury into our water table. the problem is so bad, most municipal water districts dont even test for mercury in their feed water because they don't want to publish the results...
pursley: first i stated that CO2 in the atmosphere is bad, and you responded with "if you hate carbon you hate the environment" (!?). i responded with "i hate carbon?" and you come back with "since you have no problem with CO2.." Let me give you a basic chemistry lesson so we can at least debate with some level of intelligence here. carbon "C" and oxygen "O" are chemical elements in the periodic table. carbon dioxide (chemical formula "CO2") is what is emitted when gasoline is burned (about 19lbs CO2 per gallon of gas) and consists of two atoms of oxygen covalently bonded to one atom of carbon. just to be clear, it is the increasing CO2 levels and even more worrisome the exponentially increasting rate of "CO2"emissio... that are the problem. saying i don't like carbon is as idiotic as saying i don't like oxygen. here is a website that may help you understand "carbon dioxide" a little better:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
and here is an EPA website that will explain how much is emitted by burning one gallon of gasoline:
www.epa.gov/OMS/climat...
in the future, let's try to debate the issue without the remedial lectures on "the earth's climate always changes" and "photosynthesis&q... ok? jeez.
fineye: bingo!!
Oil: The Inconvenient Truth
pursley: what, now i hate carbon??? what an absurd argument!!! that was hilarious...unfortunat... i think you were actually serious!
the global warming naysayers are alot like the bush economic team: they keep telling you how great their policies are and want you to believe in more of it. meanwhile, the market tanks and every economic indicator is lousy. sure, give me 4 more years of this - i just can't get enough. duh! limbaugh and kudlow are worth all the millions the republicans spinmeisters pay them. the truth in this statement is that this election is even close after their policies have enriched the uber-wealthy beyond their wildest dreams while the middle class (and thus the county) disintegrates before your eyes. out goes all logical observation, in comes rush and larry. what a country.
Oil: The Inconvenient Truth
regeya: please pubish the numbers that back up your position. the numbers i have looked at show that US demand is being sucked up by other countries. recent auto and trucks sales data for china, india, russia, and the middle east show this is not a short term trend.
MarkSF: the non-believers don't believe the ice core samples showing historical CO2 levels and the exponential growth of CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution. i think limbaugh must have had a show debunking carbon dating.
johngordon: yes, and there is a company in south africa that has pretty much perfected this process (Sasol, SSL). unfortunately, i believe the process takes alot of water and is very dirty.
CT: although you are tardy to the party, you haven't missed much. we're back to debating global warming again and whether or not would should push california into the ocean because it's a worthless state. interesting it's usually these same folks who think bush is the best thing since sliced bread. wrt the states driving energy and environmental policy - you are SPOT ON there and this in itself is a testament to how lousy the bush administration's policies are on these two issues. i mean, the supreme court has even gotten involved because the bush admin declared war on california's right to legislate CO2 emissions in its state arguing that the EPA (environmental destruction agency) had the sole right to do so (!??). wrt a comprehensive energy policy, you cannot even get one published in any leading business magazine...even as the stock market and US economy go right down the bush led black hole....
miles: thanks buddy! please read and comment on my articles more often - i need the support!
fran: yes, history is a great predictor of the future. right now, bush policy looks frighteningly similar to pre-WW2 germany: propaganda, industry led government (fascism), militantism, government control of the financial system, and ultimate control of the population by not allowing non-gasoline powered transportation solutions. that will be the ultimate control mechanism: control of the gasoline every must have in the US to survive. that's why i cannot understand why the editors won't print my strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy. i find myself asking: don't these idiots have family, children, and people they love? why are they assisting the government in the ultimate control of their lives? to save their jobs i suppose. but that's no excuse. it's like all the people in the bush administration who keep silent on all the idiotic policies until they leave their jobs...then they write a book saying what an idiot bush is. but, when they could have tried to have a positive impact, they didn't, wanted to keep that job. as you say, we will all get what we deserve, and without a sane energy policy, i don't have to tell you what the long term impact will be. look at the economy today with $100/barrel oil...just imagine what it will be like at $200/barrel and eventually what it will be like when we can't even get oil (gasoline) because our country will be bankrupt and russia, iraq, iran, and saudi have all the oil and pay us back for years of dissing them.