Michael Fitzsimmons

Comment Stream

Michael Fitzsimmons picture
174
Profile Articles (46)
Comment Stream
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:
    • Cheap Crude: A Flash in the (Oil) Pan
      i' back for another dose...

      optionsgirl: you're right, the 8 years of the republican bush administration has been such a success i must have lost my head! although you are correct that the democrats have majorities in the house and senate today, did you forget that most of the bush administration's disastrous policies were passed in his first term when republicans held both the house and senate and rammed through all their deregulation legislation? with respect to your assertion that the clinton administration neglected the threat from iraq, this is because there was not threat from iraq. do you honestly believe the iraqi war has been a huge republican success story? wrt to my despising bush, thank you, it is my right to despise him and my opinion that the 8 years of bush and republican rule will go down as the worst administration in the history of our nation. we've lost our constitution, our bill of rights, our capitalistic financial system, our standing in the world, and the middle class has been gutted. oh, and the economy is a disaster. other than that, it's been a huge success.

      chrisB: excellent point - if the US is going to fight oil wars, we must factor in the cost of those wars into the price of a barrel of oil.

      google fan: thanks for your support.

      Ed Man: well, i could be wrong about this. i read an article not too long ago which stated that there were some very "minor" spills associated with the hurricans but nothing of any consequence. i did not know about the "major" spill (as you say over 100,000 gallons), or, i never would have made that comment. if i can verify your reports (i will research this later), then i stand corrected and thank you for pointing this out. however, all that said, considering the strength of the 3 hurricanes, and that they hit damn near head on with the majority of Gulf of Mexico production and refining, i will still suggest that the oil industry has come along way from the days of old where they were having frequent oil spills even without storm activity. further, if we are going to allow the politicians to keep us addicted to foreign oil (which we have), we are going to have to suffer the environmental after-affects of such ill-advised policies. this means more drilling and more CO2 in the atmosphere. again, this is one reason why we need a comprehensive, long-term, strategic energy policy. nothing is more critical to the economic (and environmental) future of the U.S.A.

      inthemoney: i agree. the problem here is the nature of the commodity. it is still supply and demand (current, as opposed to future). and, as long as oil supplies meet demand "today", the cost of storage and the commodity will be priced accordingly. that was what i was trying to warn against in the article. if we face a year or two or three of deflation pressures, which i think is very possible, the demand destruction could cause oil to drift further lower still. so, people will get used to the low gas prices again and act, in my opinion, irresponsibly. then, when (and if...) the economy ever does come back, not only haven't we made any progress on transitioning away from oil, but we also will face a situation where newer production projects have been put on hold due to the low price and credit market. i fear the next oil price spike is going to make $145/barrel look like a bargain, although it could well be years before we see it. when it happens, if the US hasn't made any progress away from importing 70% of it...we're hosed, again (IMHO).

      old wizard: i agree, i am not happy with either candidate's energy policies as they are not comprehensive, not long-term, and lack the full strategic insights. that said, i simply cannot see rewarding the republicans with 4 more years after the last 8 years of fiscal, economic, foreign, tax, and domestic policy disasters. pickens is awesome, even if he would get rich on his proposal at least he has a plan that is rational, doable, and good for the country. however, the government could play a big role in this plan. just as the government's buildout of the interstate highway system paid big dividends and ended up, from an economics viewpoint, paying for itself many times over, so could the build out of the electrical transmission infrastructure. if we can't get the wind energy from the plains or offshore to the places that consume the electricity, it's all for naught. currently, there are big transmission issues on both the wind energy from the plains and the solar energy from the sw deserts. this is a case where the government should come in, put the energy department (if we actually had an energy department worth a damn) in charge of studying the problem, proposing the best transmission solution, declare imminent domain, and build the damn thing. it's exactly this kind of delay that is putting the US further and further behind in the race for alternative energy solutions, and thus deepening our reliance on oil from Saudi, Iran, Iraq, Russian, Venezuela and all our other "friends". anyhow, nice to see you commenting again.
      Oct 27 17:40 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Cheap Crude: A Flash in the (Oil) Pan
      hello all and thanks for the comments to my first article in some time. as usual, i like to jump in and comment on the comments:

      ames: you are correct, and the funds for solar and wind are already drying up as the credit markets continues its freeze out. more worrisome is that new oil production projects have been put on hold. this will make the next oil spike worse than this years.

      jim jenson: agreed. hopefully the next president and congress don't read the same editorials in the WSJ that i have been reading lately...

      armistead: correct. note that everytime boone pickens gives an interview (as on 60 minutes last night), the interviewers spend more time focusing on his net worth and what his plan will be for his finances, as opposed to the specifics and need for his plan from a US energy security perspective. it's like when GE refused to run one of his ads on NBC (they gave in after pickens went public about it), it seems corporate america is lining up against pickens, even as GE sells him the wind turbines! why?

      stevebalmer: i can't take credit for the article's title, that was a SA editor's choice

      geophys: what exactly do we have now under bush? we have the federal government taking over banks, the mortgage industry, insurance, and autos. this is not socialism, it's fascism. at the same time, bush has doubled the deficit from $5 trillion to over $10 trillion, and that is not even counting the current bailout numbers, yet, we have absolutely NOTHING to show for this money. At the same time, it is your free-market entrepreneurship and hands off approach that has led to the US importing 70% of its oil, with very little alternative solution to protect us from the future. it's also led to the creation of the Hummer and fuel inefficient SUV's. wonderful free market stuff? no my man, disasters. there are times when governments are needed, that is why we have one. unfortunately, our government that last 8 years has been used to no good purpose. the republicans said we had no money in the budget to pay for health care, social security funding, or alternative energy. funny though, they had money to spend on the iraqi war, and now we have nothing to show for it but a mountain of debt that china and the asians can use to sink us in the future. when oil goes to $250/barrel, you'll be first in line to complain when the entire economy falls into the abyss and we are all back on the barter system with troops in the street. you're way of thinking about government's role (or lack of it) is extremely dangerous. just look what happened when government regulation was lifted in the financial markets? a few made billions, and the US middle class was gutted (and is being gutted every day...).

      Alex_G: there were some of us in the 1990's who were begging the government to raise taxes on fuel just as you propose. that was the time to do it when we had strong job growth, a strong economy, and balanced budgets. we should still do this, but as my blog's energy policy recommends, it should be done slowly, and very publicized. it will never happen though.

      the hand: i agree with most of what you say, however i differ with you on wind and solar being more expensive. if you take into account that we could keep the jobs making wind and solar infrastructure in the US, and keep the money to pay for them in the US instead of the oil money going overseas, i am not so sure it's that expensive in the long run. besides, wind and solar infrastructure, once built, is there. as oil rises in the future (and it will), this stuff will pay for itself many times over. i do however believe that a breakthrough is needed. one breakthrough that was discovered and is not being used is nuclear, and we need more of it very badly.

      oster: oh yeah, the oil shares could go down further, no doubt. if the worldwide recession turns into a depression (and it could), oil could do what it did in the depression where my grandfather just stored it in big tanks and waited until he could get something for it. however, i respectfully disagree the price in oil was mere speculation. it was some speculation, some drop in the US dollar, but mostly lack of abundant supply even as the price went to $150/barrel (!). that said, as i have said before, it is supply and demand, and if the world economy continues to crack, sure, oil could hit $50/barrel. demand in the US is off close to 9%, or 1.8 million barrels. as you say, it's down in europe as well. so, that extra supply, if it continues to be pumped, will build up inventories further and the price will come down. so, i don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying.

      isacc the terrible: i agree, isn't it "terrible". thanks for welcoming back, although i was very hesitant to write again. anyone who followed my earlier investment advice has lost as much money as i have. although i knew oil would come down, i never in my wildest dreams saw the financial chaos that we are seeing today, and the fascist takeover of the american financial system by the government. further, i NEVER saw the strength in the US dollar...and still don't understand why people are flocking to a currency backed by nothing but a mountain of debt and a government that is completely disfunction. it amazes me.

      mkreisel: yes, you said that. unfortunately, you didnt explain the coming financial meltdown in terms that convinced me that you were correct! so, yup, you were right and i was wrong and time for me to eat crow, and that's about all i can afford to eat right now.

      X-15: i totally agree we should be fully utilizing natural gas and that is why i am a big pickens fan (whether he makes billions on the idea or not).

      jgold: yes, obama has said he will do that. however, it was tried before and didn't work. as jim mulva said on COP's conference call last week, the major oil companies have fiduciary shareholder responsibities. if they are taxed at higher rates, they will simply cut back on exploration and production expenditures. the oil companies are in the driver's seat here, and as much as i like obama, i have been banging his campaign with emails about how bad an idea windfall profits taxes are. my gut tells me obama will just remove some of the tax breaks oil companies are getting now.

      scotterz: you are exactly correct about iraq, and i wrote an article awhile back explaining why bush and cheney went into iraq and it had nothing to do with terrorism, WMD, or "freedom", but with oil. not only does iraq have some of the largest un-tapped oil reserves, but most of the oil is high quality and is under pressure, so it is not necessary to install the pumping equipment as in saudi for example. that said, even taking future iraqi oil production into account (and i agree with you on this point), the depletion rates of mature reservoirs combined with increasing demand (assuming at some point we actually have a functioning world economy again), and the worldwide supply/demand problem will soon raise its ugly head again and the US will be hosed (again).

      longoil: thanks, good to see your words again. i doubt very seriously you will see obama back Hummers and low CAFE standards. he has said over and over again in the debates that if the US government gives bailouts to the big 3 (congress pushed this through under the radar screen while debating the $700 billion bailout), that this money should come with the restrictions that it is ONLY used to fund fuel efficient automobile re-tooling and manufacturing. i think he would hold their feet to the fire on this. totally agree with you on higher CAFE standards and lower mph laws (both are in my energy policy).

      jack gordon: i agree. the war in iraq was (and is) a US national disgrace and complete waste of money.

      CLH: very nice comment. unfortunately, you apparently didn't read my energy policy (there was a link to it) where i state strongly the need for the US to build nuclear power plants. i don't mind constructive criticism, but jeez man, at least get your facts right before you start throwing stones. with the "uneducated leftist" remark, does that mean that you believe that last 8 years of "educated conservatism" has been beneficial for the US. if so, this proves who the uneducated is.

      fred banks: well, i only voted one way, and i assume you know my pick. that said, both candidates could use some mentoring when it comes to a comprehensive, long-term, energy policy.

      thanks all.
      Oct 27 10:55 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Peak Oil - Are We There Yet?
      Great article. Not only are you correct in that worldwide oil supply will not keep pace with worldwide oil demand, your investment conclusions are also correct (assume the bush administration's economic team doesnt completely implode the US financial system, in which case nothing but gold, chickens, cows, and a garden will work...and perhaps a few rifles and shotguns). however, in the big picture, your statement about energy policy is the big idea. the US needs a strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy like this:
      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.
      Sep 20 15:15 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • The Case for Natural Gas Powered Transportation
      paulk8756: everyone's price of refueling will depend on where they live, the variability of nat gas wholesale prices, etc. etc. the example calculations i made were based on the price of nat gas at my house. a public refueling station would likely be higher since there would be retail profit incentives for the business. i very well understand the savings of crude oil as it was pretty much the point of my article was it not? also, obviously a NGV is not for everyone and one certainly wouldn't buy a NGV if they didn't have access to natural gas refueling. i am not suggesting it is the solution for everyone. what i AM suggesting is that it is a practical, doable, cost-effective solution for many but we are prevented from this solution because of the auto and oil industry lobbyist that want to keep us locked into oil. we need ALL alternatives to the gasoline powered automobiles: electric, nat gas, and hybrid. please don't put such a narrow spin on my article by inferring that i suggest everyone switch to nat gas powered vehicles. i certainly did not say that. before you ask it i "follow you", go back and read my article again where i address the refueing issue. your comments almost suggest that you didn't read the entire article. did you? it's a chicken and egg story, you cant sell the nat gas car until you have the refueling infrastructure, but no-one will invest in the infrastructure until you have the car volume. that is why i suggested:

      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...




      Sep 16 11:50 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • The Case for Natural Gas Powered Transportation
      Ok, here's the sample calculations everyone's been banging me on:

      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.
      Sep 14 22:13 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • The Case for Natural Gas Powered Transportation
      thx all for the great feedback. for those interested, here is the website pickens recently broadcasted to his "army" so that YOU can send in a fairly automated way, your congress person and senator an email voicing your support for nat. 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!
      Sep 14 16:03 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • The Case for Natural Gas Powered Transportation
      Thanks for your comments. As usual, I like to jump into the fray....

      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.
      Sep 14 00:00 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Political Energy Policy Just for Laughs
      The only solution to the massive oil induced energy crisis in the US is a strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy:

      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....
      Sep 12 13:06 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Oil: The Inconvenient Truth
      longoil: yeah, palin scares the hell out of me. i hear she's another religious right winger (what happened to the mccain that said the religious right was an "intolerable influence" on US politics? the latest quote i have heard from palin was her response to american efforts in iraq: "yes we should be in iraq, it's god's plan". bill maher quoted that on real time the other night. anyone who thinks like that just scares the hell out of me.

      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....
      Sep 10 15:03 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Whither Oil Prices?
      by 2015, we'll see oil at $300/barrel.
      Sep 07 18:22 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Oil: The Inconvenient Truth
      Mmarrkk: your reason a) about a global market has absolutely nothing to do with the lack of a US energy policy that should be aimed at reducing oil consumption. wrt reason b), anyone who thinks the US can make up the 15 million barrels of day we import from foreign sources can be made up by drilling offshore and in alaska is smoking something. that said, i am for drilling, but as Boone Pickens says, that debate is *missing the point*. the point is, for the sake of our economy and national security, we need to be *transitioning away from oil*.
      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.
      Sep 07 18:11 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Royalty Trusts: Maintaining Income in a Volatile Market
      steve: let me ask you this question: what is better, to save 5% or so on your tax rate and have the US dollar drop 40% and inflation running at 6%, or, paying a little bit more in taxes, having a strong currency, and paying less toward inflation. the US stock market is showing that the bush tax policy and virtually every other bush economic policy is a complete and utter failure of fiscal responsibility. net-net: the US investor is taking it in the shorts. bigtime.
      Sep 07 18:01 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Oil: The Inconvenient Truth
      mwrjr: under your assumptions, the "market" should have fixed the US's 70% dependence on foreign oil, and would have developed an alternative to the gasoline powered internal combustion engine and the distibution networks to fuel this alternative solution. unfortunately, a government "hands-off" approach has exascerbated the problem by letting the auto and oil lobbyists keep the US addicted to foreign oil. the net effect has been:

      - $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).
      Sep 05 14:14 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Oil: The Inconvenient Truth
      henarl: i hear what you are saying and understand it first hand. i lived in san diego from 82-90, and it was a great time to be there. but i left when it got real crowded and took more than 1/2 hour to get to the beach. now, it's a friggin zoo down there. that said, the indiscriminate dumping on a state that is responsible for so much innovation (i suppose we disagree on that) and means so much to our economy doesn't seem fair to me. it also doesn't seem fair to dump on their politicians which see the environmental destruction due to auto emissions first hand and are attempting to lead in the battle against them (since the bush adminitration has used the EPA and even the supreme court *against* a cleaner environment). i just believe a little more objectivity is needed. besides, i know some places in cali that are so beautiful it makes my head swim. i miss those places.
      Sep 05 11:55 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Oil: The Inconvenient Truth
      Wadhamite: i mention ethanol in my energy policy, in fact, i suggested we abolish the ethanol *mandates*. don't get me wrong, i am all for using ethanol. however, the mandates are causing:
      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!!
      Sep 05 10:49 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