Michael Fitzsimmons

Comment Stream

Michael Fitzsimmons picture
174
Profile Articles (46)
Comment Stream
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:
    • Natural Gas Transportation Is a Win-Win Technology
      hello all - thanks for reading and commenting on my thoughts. as usual the author would like to jump in and comment on the comments:

      leh: wow, a fervent supporter - thank you! :)

      bluesmoke: what i find very interesting is, in case you haven't noticed (it has been reported more-or-less under the radar) is that the major oil companies in the US (XOM, CVX, COP) have been peeling off and selling most all of their retail gasoline station businesses. i believe they have realized that the period of cheap gasoline is over, and they don't want future political ramifications of actually owning the stations any longer. so, they merely refine and sell the gasoline into the retail markets now.

      bob lunn: zow-eee, another positive response? i must be dreaming...after my last article, i am still pulling the arrows out of my back ;) wrt building out the natural gas station infrastructure, i analyzed this a bit and figured if each local natural gas utility was responsible for building a few natural gas refueling stations in its local service area the cost would be minimal to them (and easily recouped if the NGV's were available). the biggest cost would be the land to build on, however, if they made agreements with existing service stations, most of which already have room for a new pump or two, then the cost is very minimal. this is what we should be doing, with government tax breaks and encouragement. if we can spend $700 billion on the fat cat bankers and wall streeters, we can spend $500 *m*illion on a great project like this.
      but it is chicken and egg, we need the NGV and the refueling stations. so, it has to be a strategic iniative with the long-term goal in mind (reducing foreign oil imports). thanks.

      Mmmmark; thank you, i have been flooding obama and his staff with emails for a year on this issue and it is really dissapointing that they are not listening (see, i *do* criticize democrats too!). with respect to his economic team, i am really impressed with them (especially compared to bush's..) except for on energy: specifically, this issue and windfall profits taxes. however, neither is dead yet and i am working hard by writing articles like this one to address both. despite all the recent headlines, energy is still the most vital issue facing american economics (and equity markets). as far as a "real oil and gas man" in this administration, i have had enough of them the past 8 years. they have been a complete disaster in terms of energy policy and foreign where we have gone bankrupt fighting an oil war and have nothing to show for it except body bags and debt and alot of mentally ill returning vets. if you don't believe in global warming, i guess i'll rank that along side your continued support of bush's policies: you simply are not looking at the facts.

      fred banks: pickens is dead-right about NGV and wind power. unfortunately, the media is way too happy to write about the losses of his energy hedge fund and are using that as an excuse to say he was wrong about NGV and wind. he was NOT wrong. pickens is a true patriot with respect to energy policy, and if people still don't "get it" wrt of our funding both sides of the "war on terrorism" by importing 70% of our oil, then they simply do not understand economics nor national security issues. you say nat gas transportation is far from certain? how so? fleets have been running successfully on natural gas for decades. nat gas cars and trucks have been in use all over the world for decades. we produce natural gas here in the US. exactly what is the problem (other than refueling stations and availability of the cars, which is what my article addresses)?

      jerrydd: your point that i neglected to mention the cost of electricity to run the Phill is a good one, and very constructive. that said, nat gas is still economical and if you want to include the cost of that electricity i suppose i could offset that by the fact that refueling in the garage negates having to tool into a gasoline filling station. trucks and buses are already running on natural gas around the country, so that has already started. to make a significant dent in foreign oil imports, we must get the NGV into the hands of the middle class and have the refueling stations. that is the focus of the article - if government is going to start "spending projects" to help get us out of this economic hole, NGV and the infrastructure to support them would be a strategic move that not only would create jobs, but long-term economic dividends. i agree, we don't need 4000lb cars to move around 1 person, it is simply unsustainable.

      longoil: thanks yer support! and of course we are in agreement on the strategic long-term comprehensive energy policy, however, i have gotten *zero* feedback from any politician (local, state or federal) on it, so i have decided to attack each piece of it at a time. currently, i am trying to figure out why my local natural gas utility CEO won't even discuss the issue with me. i know he can't be out golfing, it is rainy, cold, and supposed to snow here later today. btw, it was bush who implemented the ridiculous ethanol mandates, and on one occaision i heard obama say, correctly, that alternative biofuels should be used "when economical" and not have mandates places on them to distort their use, especially when it is a new field under development. i dont think we should bypass NGV's altogether, we should be embracing them as quickly as possible!

      stephanie: well...thanks for the comment...first off, i never said "completely alternative of NG", this is simply not possible, not economical, and unrealistic. we will be using oil for decades to come. not everyone can buy a new electric, hybrid, or NGV anytime they want (especially in a post-bush economy). however, we should be making strategic efforts to reduce foreign oil imports as quickly as possible, wouldn't you agree? wrt nat gas usage, i don't agree with your comments. the US has huge nat gas reserves, and the new technology and new shale discoveries (marcellus, haynesville shales) have huge potential. on top of that, if the US ever wises up and builds the trans-canandian alaskan-lower 48 natural gas pipeline (as my long term energy policy has been suggesting for years now), we will have enough natural gas to last for a half century. in addition, LNG terminals allow us to have extreme flexibility on importing natural gas as well. it is truely is a win-win situation for america. the reason your dad's field in texas was shut down in the 1980's was because the sauid arabians pumped the hell out of their fields and drove down the cost of crude oil to put everyone else out of the oil business and grab market share. this is yet another reason not to keep our economic future in the shackles of foreign oil producers, agreed?

      jerrydd: ok man, got it the first time ;)

      isaac the great: great minds think alike my man!! i only wish you and i were billionaires like buffet, gates, or the google guys, cause if i had that kinda money, i would make our dreams HAPPEN. i want my country to survive....

      onedip: good point about flex-fuel, however, flex-fuel vehicles that run on natural gas as well as gasoline require two fuel tanks since the nat gas has to be stored under higher pressure. you would flip a switch to change from gasoline to nat gas. straight NGV are the most efficient, cost-effective, version. however, yeah, i have nothing against flex-fuel vehicles and in fact they are mentioned in my strategic long-term comprehensive energy policy:
      thefitzman.blogspot.co...
      although there i use the term "open fuel standards"

      fireball: sorry to hear you are still a fan of bush economic and foreign policy. apparently the current situation isn't enough evidence to convince you that he has been the worst president in the history of the country (please read the comments i made in the article prior to this one). you are again being sidetracked (pastor) by unimportant issues that the republicans use rush limbaugh (gay marriage, abortion, etc. etc) to keep your eyes off the real issues (the theft of your tax payer money and bankruptcy of the US treasury to give the ultra-rich even more money while taking away your individual liberties at the same time). the so called "conservative republicans" (in actually fascists) prey on people like yourself in order to propagate their madness on the country. all that said, i am so glad at least you are happy with the state of the union after 8 years of bush. you may be the only person left who is (outside of paulsen's wall street buddies)
      Dec 11 13:39 pm |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Americans Forget High Oil Prices Too Quickly
      conservative republican (historical definition): a person who supports small government, fiscal discipline, individual rights and freedoms, separation of church and state, just and respectful foreign and domestic policy.

      if george bush fits this description, i will eat my hat.

      everyone here seems to forget, i am a *true* conservative republican of the form of the above definition. the reason i have been supporting democrats for the last 20 years is because modern day "republicans"... have abandoned the definition above and democrats have moved closer to it. people get so attached to labels and ideology they get stubborn and forget to *think* and observe what is really happening. historically, that is how countries fade into the history books as failed experiments. we are currently losing what america is supposed to be due to the extreme hypocrisy of the last 8 years, and americans not recognizing it for what it truly is: a disgrace and an abomination.
      Dec 11 12:56 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Americans Forget High Oil Prices Too Quickly
      MMmmmark: the bush folks have taken theivery to new levels and orders of magnitude above any previous adiministration, republican or democrat. they doubled the deficit (quadrupled after the bailouts...) and we have NOTHING to show for it. where did all the money go? fraud in katrina, iraq, the bailout by "i report to no one but bush" paulsen. isn't it interesting that they put paulsen, the main proponent of the financial deregulation that caused this crisis, in charge of its management? and who did they put in to administrate the dishing out of our tax payer money to the bankers and wall streetes? naomi klein reported that it is the same guy who was in charge of dolling out money in iraq!! we are still trying to find those billions. any objective, impartial, non-ideological look at the facts can conclude only one thing: bush and his administrations have been an unmitigated disaster to the middle class, the US long-term financial health, and the democratic capitalistic society we are supposed to be. look what is happening now: all financial and banking power is being concentrated in a very few large institutions (which are stealing tax-payer money as we speak). how do you think this bodes for the future of "freedom" in america? not good my friend.

      yes, of course totota and honda have factories in the US. but the technology and the engineering come from japan. only through innovation and technological leadership will the US compete against the millions (billions?) of engineers and scientist being turned out in china, taiwan, japan, korea and india. see, that is the problem: china is being managed by engineers in government, the US by corrupt politicians. the US used to be an engineering based country...now we are financial services, marketing, and hollywood. unsustainable...

      the "treason" remark was tongue in cheek about the auto makers, not so with bush. i think he should have been tried for treason: outing of a CIA agent, the flight out of the country for the saudis without CIA/FBI vetting, and for the patriot act which was treasonous with respect to his not keeping his oath to uphold the constitution.

      wiz: i have criticized the democrats before (for instance, clinton not raising fuel standards for cars and trucks) and i have already criticized obama for his mention of windfall profits taxes on oil companies and his lack of a natural gas transportation program. that said, the economic statistics i point out in this article on the bush jobs records, deficit, and market returns are facts. instead of reading the article for its substance, bush fans tell me these *facts* are incorrect and call me "revisionists&quo... so, yeah, i get upset. when ideology blinds people (as in pre-WW2 germany), and rush limbaugh controls peoples' minds, that is a very serious thing. so, yeah, i go on the offensive. you bet. there is NOTHING "conservative republican" about bush. nothing. and his 8 years have been the worst presidential performance in the history of our country. i can't even believe with all the facts that are now in people even want to debate this. it is a debate i am glad to have because the facts are so over-whelmingly in my favor. in fact, it borders on the ridiculous for anyone to defend bush's economic, tax, and foreign policies.
      Dec 11 12:42 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Americans Forget High Oil Prices Too Quickly
      the author is back for more...

      fireofenergy: all for solar therma - the cost and transmission issues just need to be solved as part of a broader, long-term strategic energy policy. a much quicker and beneficial short-term fix would be natural gas vehicles.

      Mmmark: i would add to your list of contingencies making the bailout dollars contingent on the big 3 producing nat gas vehicles for sale in the US along with manufacture of a nat gas home refueling appliance.

      longoil: as you point out, the current financial downturn is exactly why now is the time to build out these alternative energy infrastructures. oil and steel prices are down, so build now while it's the costs are cheap!
      agree on your points and wold add to 3) that it is the corn ethanol *mandates* that caused all the disruption in the food market. let's use corn ethanol, but eject the bush administrations mandates on the number of gallons per year. just use it when it's economical. bush's only alternative energy policy was, like everything else he touched, a disaster and only caused massive food inflation. with respect to 4), china was recently in brazil to invest $10 billion to get at the 80-100 bilion barrels of oil petrobras recently discovered. btw, PBR is a screaming BUY.

      professor banks: wouldn't worry about peak oil? hmmm...perhaps you havent been paying attention? iraq and afghan wars won? did we get the oil? did we slow down terrorism? the iraq war has done nothing but bankrupt the US and destroy our credibility throughout the world. we didn't get the cheap oil from iraq that bush said would finance the war, and in fact the taking off of the market of iraqi oil at the precise time chinese and indian oil demand went up was one reason for the huge spike in oil prices over the past 4 years. as far as clinton goes, i don't care if you like him or not. please look at the article for the economic statistics of clinton admin vs bush. those are not opinions, they are facts.

      wiz: the economic statistics presented in the article are not opinions, they are facts. if you are happy with the job growth during bush's years as he spent us into bankruptcy, well, i am happy for you. personally, i see absolutely nothing to show in return for the quadrupling of debt. if you are happy with the tax policies that gave hedge fund managers the ability to make hundreds of millions of dollars without being taxed, well, i hope your hedge fund is doing well. if you are happy with the performance of the S&P500 and your investments under "business savy" bush, well, great. if you like the transfer of wealth from american tax payers to the uber-wealthy who sit on their ass and get the money, great. the verdict is in: bush's economic policies have been an unmitigated disaster. in my opinion, anyone who thinks otherwise is just blinded by ideological hypocrtical arguments.

      Mmark: bush folks haven't made as much money?? have you not been paying attention? pah-leeze....you guys simply aren't being objective about the facts. next to the transfer of american dollars to foreign oil producers, the next biggest transfer of wealth in history has taken place during the last 8 bush years (from the american tax-payer to the uber-wealthy). wake up folks.

      optionsgirl: long time no see. actually, it was american policy makers i was mostly referring to (my title was "How Soon They Forget", but i guess SA editors chose to change it). as far as fascist republicans go, at the rate we are going, how long will it be before i cannot pontificate on here? they can already tap our phones, letters, and email. they can already intern us without legal representation. perhaps you are happy with the erosion of personal liberties and the bill of rights by the patriot act, but me personally, i despise that document and the fascist republicans who wrote it. what drove up the price of corn was bush's idiotic corn ethanol mandates. there is nothing bad about corn ethanol...what is bad is dumb-ass mandates that caused huge disruptions in the entire food chain. another wrong-headed bush policy that still has not be rescinded. i love what obama is doing to change how the government works. i like almost every move he has made so far (except his neglect of natural gas powered vehicles and infrastructure). you can long for the days of bush and mccain all you want, i can't wait to see the jack-asses leave washington dc. hopefully, for good. wrt revisionist history, the jobs data, debt data, and performance of the S&P quoted in the article are facts. if your ideology has blinded you to the point where you cannot believe facts, well then, tune in rush limbaugh, you'll love him. to separate political action from economics is foolish. glad to see you are shorting the indexes after 8 years of your brilliant president. that speaks volumes doesn't it? you are welcome to give me a SA thumbs down, but you know i'll never stop criticizing ridiculous political economic policy. perhaps you should write a SA article defending bush and the republicans...then i can comment on yours :)

      fredbanks; old mccain was a good man. the mccain after the "bush power" made him change every single policy was simply mini-bush and that is why he lost. you blame clinton for the iraqi war? now that is rich.

      fireball: YES, i would love to see a true conservative party that would abide by the constitution!! and yes, it is time to buy oil stocks and energy in general. it's the only long term play left in america unless we adopt a strategic comprehensive long-term energy policy. as far as the muscle car goes, well, they'd be cheap to run in the short term...

      kezorm: thanks for the quote! note none of my republican detractors mentioned it. but, right on with your comment! note also obama's efforts on publicizing the minutes of govenment meetings (obviously non-security related) on the web at change.gov/ what a breath of fresh air after the secrecy of bush/cheney! and yes, please underline the last statement. nice to see someone agrees with me on the evils of bush economics.

      a.pamerjr: oh, american car companies can build electric and hybrid vehicles. the problem is that fought hire fuel standards with all the money they could shove at their lobbyists in washington dc and then made and strongly promoted hummers and SUV's. it was not only an unpatriotic strategy that benefited the saudis, iraqis, iranians, and russians it was also terrible economics and environmental policy. that is why all of the "big 3" CEO's should step down (fired!) as part of any bailout agreement.

      longoil: see my previous comment to palmer. if the big 3 CEO's were politicians, i'd have them up for treason (right next to bush). i think it would be a big mistake not to have american car companies able to build the electric, nat gas, and hybrid vehicles we so badly need. that said, it's a management issue and new blood is obviously required. that said, if the politicians dont get on the natural gas vehicle issue (including obama), new leadership wil also be required there as well.
      Dec 10 13:08 pm |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • The Case for Making Bigger Cars
      as bill maher called sarah palin, you must be a cat 5 moron. for a country that imports 70% of its oil, your suggestion that the "big" 3 continue to focus on fuel-inefficient vehicles in the US, which is exactly what has bankrupted them and led to huge market share losses is simply moronic. what GM and Ford should be doing is:

      1) making nat gas powered cars and trucks and be telling congress to authorize money to incentivize the buildout of nat gas refueling stations along the interstate highway system
      2) make their US factories be able to build the same fuel-efficient vehicles in the US that they are selling in europe and in asia (succesfully i might add)
      3) reducing product lines and shutting down those factories
      4) fire their current CEO's and marketing chiefs for pushing the unpatriotic hummers and SUV and spending billions in lobbyists money to pay congressmen to reject higher fuel efficiency standards.

      the big 3 executives wear USA pins and speak about freedom and patriotism when all the time they are working for oil producing countries like russia, iran, iraq, and mostly saudi arabia. this is complete lunacy. if the US doesn't adopt a sane energy policy like this one:

      thefitzman.blogspot.co...

      we are simply hosed economically. the "big 3" could be part of the solution, if they continue to refuse to help the US throw off the shackles of foreign oil, then to hell with em. honda and toyota will do it for them...
      Dec 08 20:46 pm |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Americans Forget High Oil Prices Too Quickly
      thanks for all the comments. as usual the author likes to jump into the fray....

      longoil: thanks for the compliment. wrt to all the bailouts...i find it real interesting that all my friends, congress, and the jerks on CNBC didn't say squat about the $700 billion that went to bailout bear stearns, AIG, CITI, lehman, etc. etc (it was *necessary* to prevent systemic financial risk), but then we have a critical industry to help us solve our foreign oil problems, keep middle class people employed, and could be a big creator of jobs and wealth, and everyone goes haywire.

      nerfer: good point wrt to low energy prices under clinton. that said, he also didn't start an unnecessary war and had a common sense tax policy. that said, clinton too backed down to the auto unions wrt higher fuel-efficiency legislation. i agree totally to point 2)....i would go further in that when i lived in austin, you never found a more "freedom" loving "patriotic" group of folks in your life...but boy, don't touch their SUV's...it's lunacy.

      space cedet: it appears we agree - politics and economics are inseparable, especially in the US. wrt change, all i can say is pester your political representatives (locally, statewide, and nationally) to get on the stick wrt energy independence - especially nat gas fuel cars and trucks which would be the quickest way to reduce foreign oil importation.

      kirk french: i suppose that was tongue in cheek...are you referring to the chummy relationship between the house of bush and the house of saud? if so, no doubt about that. all you have to do is point to the plane that bush authorized to take flight after 9/11 (during the airspace "lockdown") carrying the saudis out of the country. not only did he authorize it, but he lied about it in a press conference, then finally admitted it did take place after reporters presented evidence of it. can you say treason? if we had impeached him then and there, we wouldn't be in half the trouble we are today.

      socialism: dead wrong that the CEO's of GM and Ford should step down? pah-leeeeze. they show up to congress wanting $35 billion of my (and your) tax-payer money with no presentation, no plan, and no answers to the questions? did you WATCH that performance? if there was ever incompetence on display, that was it! yeah, GM and Ford have some fuel-efficient cars, we agree there. the problem is, they sell most of them over seas! you can't even buy a ford nat gas vehicle in the US, but you can in europe and asia. why? because GM and Ford (and their well-payed lobbyists...) have bent over backwards to promote Hummers, SUVs, and other idiotic vehicles in the US to protect their short-term profit margins. meanwhile, toyota and honda have taken market share away almost every year for decades. you want to reward these guys with your tax dollars? jeez man, wake the heck up. why should obama pay for nat gas stations? because:

      1) it would be the quickest way to reduce our foreign oil bill
      2) nat gas supplies in the US and alaska could power our entire transportation needs for 60 years
      3) nat gas burns cleaner than gasoline
      4) it would allow the auto makers to make and sell nat gas vehicles
      5) it would create jobs that are REAL
      6) it would create an entire new industry in the US
      7) it is STRATEGIC

      get the government out of the way? isn't that what we did with the de-regulation of the financial markets? oh yeah, that worked out great. you forget, it was the government that BUILT the interstate highway system. seems like now the government, by placing a tax on gasoline and building the nat gas refueling stations, could ensure that Americans could travel on this interstate highway system on AMERICAN energy!
      btw, i hate labels...liberal, greens, etc. etc. you listen to too much rush L.

      Wadhamite: you're right to worry about china. they are not only sitting on mountains of foreign reserves, but they could put the US out of business anytime they want by just dumping our treasuries on the market all at once. did you happen to notice the news blurb today about china investing $10 billion in brazil with petrobras to get at some of those 80-100 billion barrels of oil they recently discovered? this is where the bush bankruptcy of the US really hurts the US...we can't compete with china's ability to invest around the world in the strategic minerals, energy, and other strategic elements that keep an economy strong.
      Dec 08 20:38 pm |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • The Economics of Political Spin
      dear bullschtick: i am glad you have found happiness with the politics, policies and economics of the bush administration. you may be the only person left.. i can only assume you are:
      1) one of the billionaires benefitting from bush's tax policies
      2) one of the well connected benefitting from bush's "bailouts"
      3) smart enough to have removed all your money from US stock and bond markets.
      regardless, congratulations. you are a member of the "chosen few". btw, it doesn't bother me at all that you aren't reading my "crap". it's all over your ideological head anyhow.
      Dec 07 19:00 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Gold Price Conspiracy?
      kdubb45: i understand your point...all currency seems kind of humorous doesn't it? that said, humans are drawn to gold because it "looks" great and is somewhat scarce. gold has been used to barter for needed goods since the beginning of recorded time - indeed, it was even brought to the baby jesus (that is if you believe what bill maher calls the "bible mythology"). so, yeah, gold is good for something in any economic time..including the worst of times....to barter with in order to obtain something you desire.
      Dec 07 18:52 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • When Will the Auto Industry Reach a "Better Place"?
      wiz: well, all you can do is what i do - write to your president elect, your senators and representatives and local politicians. write to your natural gas provider and and the car manufacturers. blog. talk to your friends. write letters to the media for publication in the WSJ, Barrons, etc. etc. join picken's "army". it's a hard road, and not very rewarding...but if enough people do it, perhaps we can effect real energy policy.

      longoil: yes, you mentioned him before i am read up on him. he's trying. but just like jim garrison...anyone who points out the obvious is placed into the "looney bin".

      marte: you assume because something isn't commercially viable it is because it cannot be commercially viable. this is the flaw in your logic. do you think the refuel appliance (the "Phill") would cost $4000 if it was not a single sourced item? do you think NGV would have a cost premium if they were built in quantity? do you realize that on a mile per mile basis the Honda Civic cost half of a gasoline powered vehicle when gasoline was $4/gallon? less now that nat gas has come down a ton. you seem to believe i am suggesting that ALL vehicles be NGV. i am not. however, do you understand the impact of what a few million NGV would do for the trade deficit and unfunded terrorists from oil producing countries? you seem to think that the government cannot be successful with NGV encouragement, but you seem to not comprehend the fact that YOUR government has kept you addicted to foreign oil and you seem ok with that even while the financial consequences are staring you in the face everyday. we have huge nat gas reserves in the US lower-48 and alaska. we could also import LNG from many non-OPEC sources. if your solution is to stick with foreign oil until "the market" takes care of "the problem", then you are correct, i am not impressed with your solution nor your logic. you should run for congress - you'd fit right in with that crowd (and probably get some big oil lobby money under the table....).
      Dec 02 22:09 pm |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • When Will the Auto Industry Reach a "Better Place"?
      Ames: no, i am not a communist...i am a capitalist with a brain. you seem to forget that it is GM that is coming to the government to ask for MY (and your) tax-payer money. i don't care if GM sells more cars than anyone on the planet. i DO care that they are near bankruptcy and continue to sell cars that keep america addicted to foreign oil, and that is simply killing our economy. i lived in austin, tx for 12 years, i KNOW the texas mentality (it's been in the white house for 8 years now...). you are the same people that spout the right of americans to drive whatever they want, then want to go to war in the middle east to steal the oil that we don't have to support your way of life. you support sending money for oil to countries like saudi arabia (real 9/11 folks....), russia, iraq, and iran and then you want to have wars to fight them. don't you understand that you are funding both sides and it is bankrupting the country? look at the result, you call me a communist, but then you dont seem to understand that it is under your man Bush in which the government has taken over the mortgage market, as well as the banking, insurance, and financial system. who is more communist (or fascists), me, or you?

      the proclaimer: i would love to see more details. my email address is on my blog, please send me more details. i have a background in physics, so i could probably hang with it...if i cannot, i wil ask questions until i understand. meantime, you guys should get busy and commercialize it and become, as i said, the richest men in the world.

      wiz: iran has the world's largest reserves of nat gas, so i am sure that is one reason, and the refineries is another. but, i am sure they also want to sell more oil to the market, and the US is glad to oblige. brazil has a real energy policy, and they have boats loads of oil reserves which will be tapped. they too are ready and willing to sell oil to the market knowing the US will continue to suck it up. it's just economics. we can either do something about the fact that we use 25% of the world's daily oil production, have 3% of the world's reserves, and buy 70% of our oil from foreigners, or, we can ignore it, wait for "lights out" in 2 or 3 years, and face what will probably be the largest standard of living change any country has experienced since Germany at the end of WWII. you are already starting to see the changes $145/barrel oil has had on the US equity markets. if we do nothing about our oil addiction, the next time oil spikes will simply have disastrous consequences if we don;'t have the alternative transportation solutions available that i am advising. you will see ames' hummer abandoned in a ditch cause poor old ames won't be able to buy (find?) the gasoline he will so badly need to support his addiction to idiotic transportation means.
      Nov 29 09:56 am |Rating: 0 -1 |Link to Comment |View article
    • When Will the Auto Industry Reach a "Better Place"?
      thanks for all your comments. once again, i will jump into the fray....

      longoil: well, it's congress that will legislate and fund any big 3 bailout and i am very dissapointed at the conversation Congressional leaders are having with big3 on terms. i mean, they are asking the big 3 CEO's for a "plan" when it is most obvious the big 3 CEO's are incapable of any strategic thinking except what to do with their millions in salary in bonuses. as i said, Congress is giving them tax-payer money, and therefore Congress should dictate the terms. like your thoughts on light rail, but not sure we want to get big 3 involved in that..we'll be lucky enough to get fuel efficient alternative vehicles from the idiots.

      holstrom: thanks for your support. contact your congressmen and let them know what you think.

      geranz: yes, exactly! NGV (both cars and trucks) exist and have existed for years...just not so much here. google NGV and read the articles on all the NGV's in Utah for example. a "single sourced" manufacturer of the "Phill" speaks volumes doesn't it? in my mind, we won't make any progress on NGV until the interstate highway system NG refueling infrastructure is built out. again, to me that is a no-brainer.

      Marte: i have compared the cost of NG versus gasoline in a previous SA article, and it is embedded in the comments of this article:

      seekingalpha.com/artic...

      the only thing i neglected to do was add the cost of electricity to run the Phill, which is a good point, but i doubt seriously it changes the economics that much. if NG vehicles are such a bad idea, why are oil *exporters* like brazil and iran buying and converting a large percentage of cars and trucks to run on it? what happened to the electric recharge station in cali? GM killed the electric car (and their future). read about that here:
      seekingalpha.com/artic...
      as far as the electric grid goes, read my strategic long-term energy policy and you will see that i mention modernizing and building out the electric grid as well as the sources to feed it: nuclear, wind, and solar.
      you criticize my solutions as not being "real", but you offer no solutions of your own, and suggest we keep importing 70% foreign oil. the only sign i see as a result of your comments is that you don't "get it" and prefer the current situation. you are as enlightened on energy matters as george bush, and the verdict is already in on that "strategy". try writing again and giving some concrete policy solutions and perhaps i will give you another chance. as it is, i am simply not impressed.

      epiac1216: thanks...i appreciate your comment after the prior one from marte.

      mark goldes: if what you suggest is true, i suggest you raise some capital and start a business based on it. you will soon be the richest man in the world.

      User 223007: NG is abundant and there are studies that indicate american supplies (***american supplies*** - what a concept!) alone could power ALL transportation in the US for 60 years. you can't say that about oil. other studies indicate that worldwide natural gas reserves dwarf US reserves. so, why, exactly, is natural gas such a "monumentally&quo... dumb idea? what is monumentally dumb is relying on a resource (oil) in which we import 70% from our enemies, send the money out of the country, destroy the air, fight wars to aquire, and see the price go to $145/barrel and continue to do nothing. what is your plan stan?

      theproclaimer: yes, i too hope Mark contacts me when his miracle vehicle is available.

      wizard: i concur and well said! i don't like the spending on new roads and bridges either..they should be building out the nat gas infrastructure, the electric grid, solar, wind, and nuclear and mass transit. new roads when we are depending on foreign oil to drive on them is ridiculous.

      kunst: heh heh. well, some people think there is a heaven (and hell), but me, well, i'd like to make the best of my time on this planet while i am alive.
      Nov 27 09:51 am |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • No Silver Lining for Precious Metal Bugs
      The reason there are no 1oz American eagles or Canadian mapleleafs for sale (or, few and far between and very expensive) is because the governments don't want the small investor to have anywhere to hide these days. however, inferring that gold hasn't worked is also incorrect...gold has doubled since 2005...name another asset that has? there are very few. with the printing presses of the US hard at work giving yet more wealth to already uber-wealthy bankers and wall streeters, we know that inflation will rise down the road to heights previously not seen in the US. other than gold or oil, where exactly do you recommend investors put their cash? cash is king? please...perhaps now..while the US dollar is rising due to a "flight to quality"..yeah, right. but, the market always does what it has to do to insure the fewest number of people make money...so...all the people merely holding US dollars will be caught with their pants down. and those holding those 1 oz gold coins that you disdain will at least have something to barter with when the bottom falls out of the silly-assed financial system which is backed by nothing, and continues to shift hard working americans tax monies to the "chosen few". there is a name for the "socialism for the rich" which bush has entrapped us: it's called fascism.
      Nov 25 14:13 pm |Rating: +2 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Monday, November 24: Week in Review
      the CNBC hosts and commentators you speak of have a very precise agenda: concentrate wealth amongst the most well connected, and gut the American middle class. as you mentioned, GE (which owns CNBC) has seen a huge decline in stock market value under george bush, yet joe kernen and larry "goldilocks" kudlow still gush their support for bush and hourly discredit democrats and clinton (under which GE, the middle class, and the markets thrived). also, since GE builds the turbines for pickens' plan, why did GE initially refuse to run pickens' ad about cars in oil exporter countries such as brazil and iran being converted to run on natural gas? i can't even watch CNBC any more. along with bush, CNBC, FOX, and the WSJ must share in the responsibility for moving the US from a democratic capitalistic country to out-and-out fascism. it's disgraceful, but media is power, and the very few are using this power to concentrate wealth into their own hands at the expense of hard working american taxpayers. in itself, this is not very surprising. what is surprising is the American electorate's refusal to understand what is happening, rebel, and take action to prevent it. obama is a step in the right direction..i can only hope we don't experience JFK part 2. yes, i am a cynic...how can any thinking person watch what has happened to the US over the past 8 years not be?
      Nov 24 15:12 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Buffett Increases Stake in COP - Smart Move!
      Mmmmmark: as usual when you and i get into politics and economics, i have extreme difficulty following your logic. for instance, you first say "tax cuts with increased spending is a disaster" then you say "I still like GW". i have a hard time correlating those two, especially that anyone can say they still like GW and be taken seriously. the verdict on W's economics is in: we are in the worst financial position since the great depression. i also take it you have no problem with the bailouts that bushies paulsen and bernanke had for wall street and bankers (hundreds of billions) yet have a big problem with 50 billion for the automakers that employ hundreds of thousands of people across the country and with whom if we do not get hybrid, electric, and nat gas vehicles supplies we will next be sending all our money to foreign car producers as we do now for foreign oil. it's humorous for me to hear bushies call obama a socialist when the bush adminstration has so far taken over the national mortgage market, the financial markets, as well as the banking and insurance industries. this is the epitome of socialism, albeit "socialism for the rich" (and thus, combined with our military - which is growing bigger every day cause no one can find a real job - it is fascism). read up on it, enlighten your mind as opposed to feeding your fixed ideology which causes you to still like a man that has been the worst president in the history of the U.S.A.
      Nov 19 14:10 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Demand More for Your Auto Bailout Dollar; Oil Patch Should Bounce Back Long Term
      Kirk: thanks for the kind words. also, good point about my comment that every vehicle be 40 mpg...what i meant, and should have said, is that every "consumer" (i.e. not commercial, as in trucks) should be electric, hybrid, or nat gas and get over 40 mpg. it is also true that it is not realistic that commerical trucks be electric, however, large trucks can easily run on nat gas. in fact, commercial fleet markets are the perfect place to start for nat gas because of centralized refueling depots. also, the US auto manufacturers aren't in the trouble they are in because of their commercial vehicle business...they are in the trouble because of their approach to the consumer market.
      Nov 19 08:52 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article

Michael Fitzsimmons is a Top 100 Commentor

  • 303 Comments, 62 , 24
  • Total Comment Stream rating - = 38