Michael Fitzsimmons

Comment Stream

Michael Fitzsimmons picture
174
Profile Articles (46)
Comment Stream
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:
    • Oil & Gas Equipment & Services ETF
      I think the oil service sector is the #1 investment option for investors today. I cannot make a case for any of these stocks being over-valued at current prices. The outlook for energy is so bullish, the outlook for a sane energy policy in the US so bearish, that these companies will out-perform the overall broad market averages by leaps and bounds for years and years to come. Oil has become the new world currency (replacing the weak US dollar), and these companies are the printing presses of this currency. They actually have more power over the US economy right now than the Federal Reserve. This will continue until the President and Congress:

      1) acknowledge peak oil
      2) adopt a rational energy policy to deal with it.

      Here is a good start:

      seekingalpha.com/artic...

      All that said, oil services funds/ETF's sometimes have violent corrections to shake out the weak-of-heart. These can happen any time and there is no sense trying to time things. Just buy em and hold em.
      May 18 10:38 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Russian Energy and U.S. Implications
      I had cut-n-paste issues with this article. Let me finish a sentence that was "lost in translation": ".....or perhaps just Russian government officials asking themselves why pump all out now when we can wait a year or two and get double the number of US dollars per barrel."

      sirlacksalot: i am not suggesting we change ALL auto transportation to natural gas. the magnitude of the energy crisis facing the US means will we need ALL types of energy we can get for the transportation arena: NG, electric, biofuels, etc and yes, oil. The promising thing about natural gas is that there are huge supplies the world over, and if the US had a clue we'd be building the LNG terminals on both coasts now to support its importation. The same people now who are refusing licensing and construction of these terminals (for instance, in the northeastern US) will be the very first people who complain about high natural gas prices while watching their frozen breath from inside their homes.

      May 18 10:29 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Government Inflation Data at Odds with Reality
      Like most out of the Bush administration - you cannot believe anything. Certainly the government has a vested interest in fudging the inflation numbers:

      - allowing the Fed to cut interest rates so they can bail out wall street by letting them pay back their debt with ever cheaper dollars

      - keeping the inflation indexes lower so that I-bonds and other government issued inflation protected securities don't have to pay higher interest rate yields.

      i though i was so smart a few years back when i realized peak oil was going to drive oil prices skyrocketing higher and therefore inflation would scream. so, i bought a small position in i-bonds. what a joke. my theory was, of course, correct. but i never figured the government would be so blatant about fudging the inflation numbers. our government is a house of cards, and the last 8 years have been "lost years" in terms of anything regarding economics:

      - biggest deficits in history
      - biggest drop in the US dollar's value in history
      - no energy policy to deal with peak oil

      this is why i am no longer a republican. the republican party is a complete joke, and there is nothing conservative about these guys. it is the most RADICAL government in the US history. we will be lucky to recover. not sure it's possible. one thing is for certain, if we don't get a sane energy policy soon, as in now, we're toast!
      May 16 10:06 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited
      peakoil.com/
      May 15 06:37 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited
      Ignorance is bliss, so one of us should be happy in the years ahead. Since the two of us obviously have diametrically opposed opinions, I suggest we touch base with each other in 1, 3, and 5 years from today's date. We will compare the price of oil, its impact on the US economy, and the state of the world in general. It will be very clear which of us was correct in this debate.
      May 12 12:08 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited
      pursley: the fact that individual reservoirs peak is the MAIN issue, and the basis of the proven peak oil theory. worldwide oil production is losing 4 million BPD due to depletion rates at reservoirs which have already peaked, and these depletion rates are increasing every year. here are the facts:

      1) peak oil reservoir theory is sound, proven, and accepted in the oil industry
      2) a majority of existing elephant fields in the world today have already reached peak production and are in decline
      3) the number of new elephant fields discovered in the last two decades have dropped dramatically. of the new discoveries, the oil is in deeper water, under more rock, and far off-shore making the economies of producing the oil more expensive
      4) conclusion of facts 1-3: since the major fields of the world have reached peak oil and are declining, and since the rate of discovery of new elephant fields have slowed, and since the demand side of the equation with china, india, russia, and the middle east will grow it can only lead to one common sense action:

      ***** a comprehensive US energy policy *****

      To do otherwise is simple stupidity and will lead us into an economic abyss from which we will never recover. We still have time (not much...) to deal affectively with this issue. However, people who think there is plenty of oil out there and nothing to worry about are the main problem in affecting action. It doesn't even matter that oil is at $126/barrel, the US dollar is dropping like a rock, the economy is in tatters, inflation is raging, and we have men (and women) dying in Iraq. You are whistling past the graveyard sir.
      May 12 09:13 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited
      pursley: you say: "I do know this - Peak Oil theorists have been around since 1859 and they've been wrong 149 years in a row."

      Hubbert, the father of the peak oil theory, used his theory on oil reservoir production curves to predict, in 1956, that US oil production in the lower-48 would peak between 1965-70. He was absolutely correct. The peak oil theory of INDIVIDUAL RESERVOIRS production curves, has been absolutely correct in predicting the depletion decline rates in (again, i have to state these fields, because you continue to ignore these important facts) prudoe bay, the north sea, the mexican cantrell fields, and now in a few of the largest reservoirs in saudi arabia.

      The theory of peak oil does NOT say, as you keep repeating, that worldwide production of oil has peaked TODAY! That is the interpretation YOU are putting on "peak oil".

      If oil is sooo abundant, and easily produced (as you appear to think), why are major oil companies toiling away in canada with huge trucks, digging up tons and tons of tar sands, processing them with huge amounts of steam, etc. etc. in a very costly process? Are these companies just stupid? I suggest if you know where all the easily accessable huge supplies of oil are that you imply, go get a job at these oil companies! They will make you a very rich man because you are obviously much smarter than all their geologist.

      I am *still* waiting for you to name one oil reservoir of any size that has not followed the production curves predicted by Hubbert. You keep saying peak oil theorists are and have been wrong, but all the evidence is against you and, if you cannot name a reservoir that proves the peak oil production curve incorrect, i will assume, by default, that it is because you cannot name one.
      May 11 20:34 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited
      pursley: i never said oil production had peaked. what i did say, and continue to say, is that despite all the abundant oil you apparently believe is out there, that:

      **worldwide oil demand will outstrip worldwide oil supply by 2015**

      and that oil prices will skyrocket, with catastophic effects to the US economy if we do not adopt an energy policy to protect and prepare us from the effects of peak oil.

      peak oil HAS occurred: it has occurred in every large oil reservoir that i know of (i am still waiting for you to name one oil reservoir where it has not happened). the north sea, prudoe bay, mexico'c cantrell fields, the largest fields of texas and oklahoma.

      you seem to believe that because the US doesn't drill in ANWR or elsewhere that that is the main reason for supply/demand problems. do you think the rest of the world isnt trying to find oil? can you not acknowledge that the rate of discovery of elephant fields in that last 20 years has slowed dramatically in spite of increased techological advances? i mean come on, they are processing tar sands for christsakes. if oil was so abundant and easily obtained as you seem to believe, surely, someone somewhere in the world would find it in spite of US policy. i stand by peak oil. and it is happening now. if you dont like my rhetoric or explanations, just watch price. people have been arguing with me since oil went over $50/barrel. the best evidence i have of my correctness is price. oil is at $126/barrel now, and is oil is now the world's reserve currency (supplanting the US dollar).
      May 11 13:14 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited
      pursley: ok, you win. oil is in abundance, production is heading higher, and oil prices will fall. the US has no worries about energy, and therefore there is no need to adopt an energy policy. i will sell all my oil and energy investments because all of the oil constantly being generated "deep in the Earth's mantle and crust" will be easily developed and brought to market. sounds great. i cannot believe i get myself so worked up over a "non-problem"... i wish i had exchanged emails with you years ago. thanks for educating me!
      May 11 12:28 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited
      pursley: 85 millions barrels was supposedly (according to some sources) the worldwide production rate for the last 12 months. if you want to make a big deal between 85 & 86 million BPD, have fun with that.

      if the jack field in the gulf is so easy to produce with existing technology, how come chevron isn't pumping now at $126/barrel?

      lower-48 oil production peak because the biggest reservoirs in the lower-48 hit peak production, and declined dramatically, just as the originator of the peak oil theory predicted (almost to the exact year).

      the "peak oil" theory is a theory about production rates on a SINGLE oil reservoir, it is not a "global" theory. "peak oil" means as a SINGLE oil reservoir hits it's peak production level, production then begins to decline, and the depletion rates can be quite dramatic. here is the definition, as you apparently need to read it:

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      there is nothing in this definition that says that worldwide oil production will not increase! in fact, i myself, if you have read my articles, agree with those who say worldwide oil production will come close to reaching 100 million BPD maximum. obviously, that is an increase from today. the point you see incapable of understanding is that oil prices, just like other commmodities are set by supply AND demand. and demand is growing! china, india, russia, the middle east. all the slackening of the demand in this country by the recession we are in is being gobbled up as fast as possible by countrys that are growing.

      if you want to continue to believe that there is an inexhaustible supply of oil, and that the US economy is not endangered by the realities of oil supply and demand, and that you actually know what the peak oil theory is, then, put your rose coloured glasses on and stick with your ideology. meantime, oil is at $126/barrel, has increased by 5x in 8 years, the US dollar is dropping like a rock, and so is the US economy. meanwhile, the trade deficit continues to be massive since we are sending all our money to the middle east.

      Peak oil theory is a fact, it has been proven in the world's largest reservoirs over and over and over again. In fact, there is not one elephant reservoir in the world that I am aware of for which the theory is not true. If you are so sure that peak oil is NOT valid, please name me a major oil field in the world today that has NOT followed the peak oil reservoir theory.



      May 11 11:00 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited
      thanks again for the comments. the author responds:

      CrossingtheT: unfortunately i agree with you - americans, when it comes to energy policy, only seem to respond to pocket-book pain. equally unfortunate they usually respond in an incorrect fashion! i agree that gasoline in the US is too cheap, and that is why i proposed *increasing* that taxes on it, gradually over time to encourage movement away from it. the tax receipts going directly to alternatives.

      ozzy43: one of the reasons for a central federal government is to tackle problems that society or industry cannot tackle (financially, logistically, or otherwise) on its own. examples are: stopping hitler, the manhattan project, the interstate highway system, and collecting and spending the money on these projects. an energy policy to prepare and protect the US against the realities of peak oil is every bit the challenge of these other endeavors, if not more so. if government doesnt lead the way with policy and tax iniatives, what is your solution? if you tell me "free market capitalism", i will tell you that "free market capitalism" is exactly what has put us in the dire straits that we are in today. that said, i AM a capitalist...unfortuna... even with oil at $126/barrel, i don't see the capitalists solving the problem. sure we have some wind and solar developments, but not nearly on the scale or the rate of deployment necessary to get us where we need to go by 2015 (or earlier in my view). ever watch CNBC? all those guys are in denail of peak oil, because they know the truth: if the equity markets were made aware of it, they would be contracting in a big way. yet, to ignore peak oil will make the contraction much sharper (and more dangerous) when it finally comes. the US government *must* be a leader on energy policy. if you continue to disagree after this explanation, i would love to see your solution - please write back and explain with more detail than your "cute teddy bear" analogy.

      charliep: hey, i am all for the farmer! but arent farmers having a good time at the moment? land prices and crop prices are at all time highs? i am not against ethanol per se. my problem it's the bush administrations only sustaintive energy policy, and it is a mandate that is keeping gasoline prices artificially low, which continue to send the wrong message to america. americans think they have some kind of divine right to cheap energy which prevents us from taking a rational look at energy policy. with drought, higher demand for protein from developing markets, and population increases, i believe the american farmer will do very well in the years to come w/o huge ethanol incentives from the government. in the long run, not addressing peak oil will make costs for the farmer skyrocket: fertilizers, fuel, water, everything.

      ozzy: interesting post you made. wrt oil formation, i have never bought the theory that oil is mainly decomposed dinosaurs which some have theorized. at 85 million barrels a day production, that would be a helluva lot of dinosaurs! i do believe that oil is constantly being formed. however, not nearly at the rate we are pumping it, and seldom in the large elephant type reservoirs with which we need to be discovering it in order to economically produce it. i totally agree that there are many people who come up with theories to contradict peak oil, starting from the point that they WANT to contradict peak oil (regardless of the true facts).

      user145964: you are against government involvement like some of the other fellows. please, what is your solution? perhaps you guys prefer paying $10 or $20/gallon for gas with a US currency that continues to drop in value. because that is exactly where we are headed by doing nothing. part of the problem with the lack of a US energy policy, is that investors around the world can see that the US is exposed to peak oil more than anyone else. why invest in that a currency whose country using (and imports) more oil than any other nation on earth (25% of total oil production, with only 5% of the world's population). this is not sustainable.

      user 169490: i am not against localized power, and state and local municipalities should be encouraged to use it if feasible. however, there are some technical details wrt financing, distribution, load shifting backup, payment etc. etc. that i am not sure i would agree are easily solvable. i think local distribution and supply are great for industry, and i think homeowners that can live off-grid should be encouraged to do so. that said, electrical power to supply alternatives to the gasoline powered internal combustion engine are going to be, simply put, *massive*. the figures i have seen show that not only is nuclear pretty much a central part of the solution, but that the grid must be built out to support delivery of these extra MW of supply to power transportation. look at france.

      shopa: the idea for smaller, lighter, more fuel-efficient cars is exactly what a pentagon study back in the late 70's concuded during the oil crisis (however, it was a political crisis, not peak oil supply/demand). once the arabs turned on oil production and delivery to the US, oil dropped, gas dropped, and the pentagon report was shelved. wrt your extended rear bumper, have you concluded that most collisions are from the rear? the biggest problem to acceptance of small fuel efficient vehicles today is that people feel insecure when passed by a gas-guzzling hummer or likewise huge tuna boat. that is yet another reason to tax the hell out of such huge vehicles. if everyone drove a smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient vehicle, perhaps the insecurity issue would somewhat be negated. however, we will see gasoline prices force people to shift to smaller more fuel efficient vehicles - whether they want to or not.










      May 10 14:07 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited
      frflyer: thanks for your comments. wrt taxing the oil companies, i agree they no longer should get the tax breaks and subsidies, they can easily fund E&P on profits. that said, some of the proposals now are to tax "windfall profits", and this makes no sense. the oil companies have a responsibility to their shareholders, so they will simply cut back on E&P and we'll get less oil! since the US has started so late on a comprehensive energy policy, less oil will make the economic impact that much harder. this is bad policy. besides, what about profits at google? health care? let's tax it all. bad policy. we need more oil, and we should be drilling more, not less IMHO. it's not fair to tax oil producers when the real failure has been the US governments lack of an energy policy. this is what has made the oil these companies produce so invaluable! if we're going to tax anything, tax the gasoline like europe does. now you are actually doing something to discourage indiscriminate gasoline usage, promote conservation and alternatives. that is the tax that should be levied. it should be gradual, and increase over time so citizens and policy makers can see exactly what is coming in the near future and plan for it.

      you talk about 2050 for an electric grid...man, we don't have that much time. sure, we need to plan for the future however, the CEO's of conocophillips, hess, and shell have all spoken publicly recently and said worldwide oil supply/demand d-day is 2015 (!). from the work i have done, i see no reason to doubt this, and if anything, i think it will happen earlier, perhaps 2013. if oil is $125/barrel now, what will it be in 2015? we are facing economic chaos very soon! that is why on a scale of urgency, peak oil simply dwarfs global warming and alot of other concerns, including your concerns on nuclear. i used to be against nuclear too. the bottom line to me is if we fall into economic chaos, it won't matter how "green" things are, it will be a very dangerous world to live in. that said, you don't have to sell me on solar, wind, geothermal - any alternative, i'm sold man!! we will need them all! however, just a back of the envelop calculation of the energy needed to replace 25 million BPD of oil at peak oil depletion rates - i mean think of it - we will need ALL non-oil energy sources, a huge buildout of the electric grid, and yes, nuclear to refuel the plug-in autos. the real problem here, from my view, is one of urgency. we simply started too late, and the last 8 years have been critical, and a total loss. had we made more progress to this point, perhaps i would go back to being anti-nuclear. at this point, i don't see that we have any alternative since the amount of energy needed is so huge. that said, i'm not even sure we can get new nukes online in time. it has just been a total failure of leadership by the US government when it comes to an energy policy. one thing is for certain, we have no time to lose.

      chuck: i did mention nat gas powered transportation, as well as electric cars and electric mass transporation. why are you bangin on me man? i am on your side. in my previous articles, i mentioned Project Better Place's electric car work in israel and denmark. i mentioned boone picken's company that supports nat gas powered fleets. i mentioned honda's nat gas auto. i have looked in the right places...

      May 10 00:08 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited
      thanks for your comments. as usual, the author like to make the comment section a two-way conversation:

      wrt natural gas: the lower-48 and canadian production trends are not encouraging. that is why it is important to build the nat gas pipeline from alaska to the lower-48. also, i keep forgetting to mention LNG terminals in my energy policy - we need to license and build more of these! new york recently denied an application, and don't you know they will be the first ones to complain when nat gas prices begin to take off like gasoline prices are now. we need to be able to import LNG on both east and west coasts. i did mention nat gas as a transportation fuel. boone pickens is focusing on nat gas fleets, where the refueling infrastructure is more feasible. honda has a nice nat gas car, and there is a fairly cheap adapter owners can attach to their nat gas lines at home to refuel it. read about it here:
      automobiles.honda.com/.../

      pursley: so, the fact that the peak oil theory was predicted, and has been verified, for the largest oil reservoirs in alaska, the lower-48, the north sea, and mexico mean nothing to you?? the facts are this: currently worldwide oil production is ~85 million BPD. now, out of this, worldwide production must find an additional 4 million BPD of NEW oil every DAY just to keep up with the depletion rates existing fields to STAY at 85 million BPD. sure, there have been some elephant fields discovered lately (the first in a long while...) by chevron in the gulf, and two in brazil. however, all three of these fields are in deep water, deep rock, far from shore and existing infrastructure, and will take technology not existing today to bring into production and delivery. this will take 5-10 yr minimum. by that time, depletion rates at existing large reservoirs will be even greater than today. meantime, demand in china, india, russia, and the middle east will continue to grow. i mean, are you serious? this is a "liberal political conspiracy"? what are you smoking? actually, maybe you should smoke something. please, go online and look at the production rates of alaska's prudoe bay. also check mexican production at the cantrell oil field. check also north sea production depletion rates. not to mention the first verified peak oil theory, the US lower-48! man, get a clue. sorry to be so harsh, but you are so blinded by ideology you forgot to check your facts.
      May 09 23:42 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Is Oil Bubbling Over?
      Regardless of the trend in oil prices, what your chart clearly shows is that energy related stocks are currently great investments.

      Long term, the realities of peak oil are clear. Sure we can (and should be) drilling in ANWR and off our coasts, and that will certainly help keep up with worldwide depletion rates. However, what the US government, media, and citizens need to do to prepare and protect the US from its biggest national security threat (peak oil) is to:

      1) acknowledge peak oil (no problem can be solved until it is first acknowledged). forget the talking heads on CNBC and elsewhere, peak oil is a fact, and peak oil realities are here NOW.
      2) craft a US energy policy to prepare and protect us from peak oil.

      Here is a damn good start:
      seekingalpha.com/artic...

      I posted this on April 4, 2008 and oil was around $100/barrel. It's up nearly 20% since then, and now trades at $124/barrel. Still, no word from the President or Congress on an REAL energy policy.

      So, oil will go higher. Stick with ConocoPhillips, nat gas stocks, and inflation hedges. The US simply doesnt have a clue at the crisis it is facing.


      May 08 17:25 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Is Warren Buffett Missing Something?
      SuperDon: yup, that youtube video is the segment i saw on CNBC and mentioned in my article. what i attempted to point out is that if Buffet truly believes in peak oil, the investment in Wrigley puzzles me. i believe in peak oil, and i must say that investing in chewing gum might not be my last choice, but it's definitely toward the bottom of the list. i can't say that carpet or bricks would be near the top either. now, railroads, or ConocoPhillips is another story - it's in the right industry segment, and its earnings and stock price are moving in the right direction. but like i said, who am i to second guess buffet, and, as i also pointed out that it's MARS who really bought Wrigley's, not Berkshire. Buffet is the financier and will take a minority stake in the subsidiary. still, i just gotta think there are better investments for BRKA shareholder's than chewing gum. the other point i tried to make was buffet has given alot of money to worthy causes. if he believes in peak oil, then surely he must know that it is absolutely the biggest national security threat to the US. in that case, why doesn't he use his influence, power, and money to prod our incompetent US government to 1) acknowledge peak oil, and 2) adopt a real energy policy to deal with it. he seems content to make money while waiting for the US to go down the tubes. i think harry truman would have given up the money and done what is right for the country. it's just an observation, but it was the main point i was attempting to make with the article. thanks for your comments.
      May 06 16:33 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article

Michael Fitzsimmons is a Top 100 Commentor

  • 303 Comments, 61 , 24
  • Total Comment Stream rating - = 37