Peak Oil: China vs. USA 64 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Anyone catch Steven Kopits’ article in Barron’s this weekend titled “A Global Portrait of Peak Oil”? In it, Kopits echoes thoughts I have written recently on how badly the US is being outmaneuvered by China with respect to energy policy. While US politicians and policymakers continue to hold meetings in Washington, DC in an attempt to solve a commodity problem (oil) with financial tom-foolery (it simply will not work), let’s look at what China has been up to:
- China lent Petrobras (PBR) $10 billion to fund the company’s offshore exploration in Brazil’s pre-salt oil fields. In return, China locks up long term oil deliveries from Petrobras amounting to 160,000 barrels per day.
- China lent money to Russian oil companies Rosneft ($15 billion) and Transneft ($10 billion) in return for oil supplies and a new pipeline spur to China. For China, the agreement locks up 15 million tons of oil (300,000 bpd) every year for the next 20 years.
- China and Venezuela have signed agreements and invested in a $12 billion fund to finance and develop oil projects, infrastructure and agriculture with a goal to boost Venezuelan oil exports to China from 330,000 bpd to 1 million bpd by 2015.
In each case, Chinese President Jintao met in person with the leaders of Russia, Brazil, and Venezuela to underscore the strategic significance of these deals.
What a contrast to the United States’ “strategy”. Brazil’s President Lula is often vilified on CNBC as being a “socialist and former lathe operator” (the tools on CNBC apparently dislike anyone who actually produces something tangible). With respect to Russia, the US supports a puppet on Russia’s Georgian underbelly and threatens to place a “missile shield” on Russia’s border. No foreign leader in the world has been as vilified in the US press like Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Now, one could argue the reasons and merits behind these US foreign policy initiatives and US media reporting. That said, it cannot be argued which policy has been more successful in locking up future oil supplies: China is winning. For a country that imports 65% of its oil, this is certainly bad news for the future of the United States. The US government uses money it doesn’t have to reward financial fraudsters with huge bonuses while China uses money it does have to buy oil. You tell me – which country is thinking logically and strategically about the future?
Despite US oil inventories at near 20-year highs and an economic contraction that can at best be described as “serious”, oil was recently trading over $50/barrel. Why?
Well, unlike the American people and US politicians and policymakers, oil traders have not forgotten the supply/demand fundamentals that led to $145/barrel oil prices last year. Total US crude oil inventories in March (excluding the SPR) amounted to 359,427,000 barrels (EIA). US consumption is currently running a little less than 20,000,000 bpd. So, as impressive as these large inventories are oil traders are well aware that they amount to a mere 20 days of US supply. At the same time, geopolitical risks have not disappeared and even a whisper of positive economic data causes oil prices to rise rapidly.
The onset of a summer driving season in which economically stressed Americans will be trading in their European vacations and world travel plans for trips in the family car could rapidly eat into US gasoline stocks. Does any rational person actually believe that low oil prices are anything but a temporary short term reaction to the extreme energy demand destruction caused by the current economic turmoil?
I have written so often about peak oil realities and my support for the natural gas transportation solution most of my SeekingAlpha followers must surely be convinced I am OCD. Guilty as charged. In my defense, I simply can’t find anything more important to write about! Until American policymakers address peak oil and our foreign oil addiction with rational policy initiatives, I probably won’t stop. Peak oil is the biggest threat to the American economy, our democracy, and ultimately the freedom of its citizens.
Rather than list all the facts and statistics of peak oil (again), this time I will refer the reader to an excellent peak oil summary sent to me by an old middle school acquaintance (whom I had a big crush on) who recently rediscovered me on Seeking Alpha.
This is a pretty comprehensive summary of the crisis we find ourselves in today. It also clearly shows why current cheap oil and gasoline prices are so dangerous for the United States. Cheap gasoline prevents good energy policy from being enacted.
I was reading an article by Seeking Alpha contributor John Peterson wherein he unveiled his “family reunion test” to evaluate cleantech investments. He boils his analysis down to a simple question: “How many of the people who attended our last family reunion is likely to buy this product or service at today’s price”? I grinned when reading this - it is very similar to my stress test with respect to proposed energy policy solutions to solve America’s peak oil crisis: “Will this policy allow me to pull my small Teardrop trailer to Colorado every summer for the rest of my life so that I can travel up and down the mountains and fly fish for trout in my favorite wilderness area waters”?
While America’s energy crisis cannot rely on any single solution, natural gas transportation consistently passes my stress test while most other proposals fail to do so. Does this indicate a bad stress test or a bad policy? You decide.
Rather than regurgitate the facts and statistics of peak oil, today I want to discuss the lack of an American energy policy. I was extremely critical of the Bush administration’s lack of a comprehensive energy policy and strongly supported Obama for President. To his credit, Obama has made some important changes in both tone and action by increasing support and funding for wind, solar and electric grid infrastructures. However, with respect to the vital issue of reducing foreign oil imports, Obama has been an extreme disappointment. He seldom misses an opportunity to mention “clean coal”. This is an oxymoron. Simply mining the coal degrades the environment. Burning coal emits twice the CO2 of natural gas. More importantly, coal’s particulate emissions are very toxic whereas natural gas has 0 (zero) particulate emissions (natural gas, or methane, is simply CH4). Anyone who doubts the hazards of burning coal for electricity simply needs to Google “Kingston coal spill” and read about one of the worst environmental disasters in the history of the US. This didn’t happen in the 1960’s or 70s, this happened in December of last year. “Clean coal”?
Pah-leeeeze. I thought Obama would be a bigger man than to support something like coal simply because his home state of Illinois is a major producer of coal. Apparently this is not the case. At the same time, has anyone heard Obama even utter the words “natural gas transportation”? How can one explain such behavior and policy?
I still cannot fathom why oil company executives have not come out in strong support for natural gas transportation. Not one executive of a major oil company has publicly and strongly supported Boone Pickens’ efforts for robust natural gas transportation policies. However, it’s not because they aren’t aware or don’t acknowledge peak oil. At last year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, ConocoPhillips CEO Jim Mulva said that worldwide oil demand will quite likely outstrip worldwide oil supply by 2015. Executives at Royal Dutch Shell and Amerada Hess have made similar statements. ConocoPhillip’s is one of the top 3 producers of US natural gas, so why hasn’t Mulva come out and fully embraced US natural gas transportation policies? Following COP’s purchase of Burlington Resources and its huge US natural gas reserves, and considering that huge shale supplies combined with an economic contraction have pushed natural gas prices below $4 on the NYMEX, how can one explain Mulva’s silence on natural gas transportation policies?
Meanwhile, Conoco and BP are apparently going full steam ahead with the Denali natural gas pipeline to bring Alaskan natural gas to the lower-48. Wouldn’t it seem logical that COP and BP executives would be pounding the table to support natural gas transportation in the US in order to insure demand and price support for their investments and their product? Yes, of course these companies have large investments in oil exploration and gasoline refining, however, if they really believe worldwide oil supply won’t keep up with worldwide oil demand by 2015, they surely must understand the dire economic and social implications for the US, a country which uses 25% of world’s oil supply and imports 65% of it.
I mean, seriously, these men may well put profits ahead of country, but don’t these oil executives have children and friends living in the US? Do they have enough money to protect themselves in fortress behind barbed wire and security systems? What if they just want to go out and buy a pizza? Or, do they simply have an “escape plan” when the peak oil crisis sinks the US into chaos? If so, someone please tell me - where do they plan to move? Is it rational to think that the US with its huge military machine will go quietly into the night as we run out of oil to fuel our economy and our social institutions?
As I wrote in my last SeekingAlpha article, HR 1835 – The NAT GAS Act of 2009, was introduced on the floor of the House last week. It is exactly what the US needs in order to strategically counter Chinese moves to lock up worldwide oil supplies. This is a bipartisan bill and no, its not just Oklahomans and Texans! There are representatives from Colorado, Georgia, California, New York, Idaho, Hawaii and Florida (among other states) supporting and co-sponsoring this bill. Don’t wait for energy executives, Obama, auto manufacturers, or natural gas utility executives to place ads on TV supporting this bill – although they should be! Write a letter to Obama - demand that he not only support HR 1835, but accelerate its passage through committee to his signing it into law. You might also advise Obama to stop his idiotic support for “clean coal”.
The US’s 2.1 million mile natural gas pipeline grid is our country’s most strategic weapon in the war on peak oil and foreign oil imports. The grid is connected to every major metropolitan area and to 63,000,000 homes where over 100,000,000 cars and trucks could be refueled every night while their owners sleep. It can easily be supplied with America’s most abundant, clean, and cheap fuel: natural gas.
The US is bankrupt, so we can’t go around the world purchasing oil reserves like China is doing. So, we have a choice – we can either:
a) sink into to economic ruin or
b) solve our energy crisis using the only US fuel that is abundant, cheap and clean: natural gas
If energy executives are correct that worldwide oil supply won’t meet worldwide oil demand by 2015, we have no time to waste.
I have worked very hard over the past 5 years or so on developing my own energy policy. I tried (in vain) to get mainstream US financial media to publish it.
Despite the fact that I started this years ago when oil was about the same price it is today before moving to $145/barrel, and despite the wealth destruction of Americans invested in US equities, and despite the economic turmoil we find ourselves in today, not one financial media outlet (WSJ, Barron’s, Business Week, etc) published this energy policy. Sometimes I get the feeling there is a concerted effort by American policymakers, politicians, and media to bring the US middle class to its knees. They are succeeding.
From an investment perspective, it is clear reduced oil company E&P budgets combined with oil and gas reservoir depletion rates, are setting the stage for yet another peak oil price spike. It is quite likely the next spike will make 2008’s look like child’s play. There are a plethora of investment opportunities which will benefit from this peak oil scenario (in no particular order): ExxonMobil (XOM), ConocoPhillips (COP), Chevron (CVX), Schlumberger (SLB), Petrobras (PBR), StatOil (STO), Sasol (SSL), Occidental Petroleum (OXY), British Petroleum (BP), Transocean (RIG), and Diamond Offshore (DO). The largest price appreciation could well be seen by the producers off-shore deep-drilling equipment. Any or all of these stocks should be placed on your “watchlist” and bought on price weakness. There have been several opportunities over the past few months, and sure to be more in the near future, when each of these stocks have fallen to extremely low valuations.
Be ready at the next opportunity to jump in.
Full disclosure: the author owns STO, PBR, and COP.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 64 comments:
Here is another deal China signed on Mar 15, 2009 with Iran for $3.2 billion in natural gas.
www.latimes.com/busine...
You said, “thought Obama would be a bigger man than to support something like coal simply because his home state of Illinois is a major producer of coal.” Reality bites. Coal causes more problems than it solves. I too had high hopes for more change than we’ve seen, but hey, given the system politicians now work under, they can’t offend any big lobbies (coal, coal states) and expect to gain reelection. He would be politically crucified if he took a harder line.
The Chinese leaders appear to be brilliant, forward-looking people. They seem to be able to see through the fog of the moment and strategically plan for the future according to the facts at hand.
Fixated on the energy topic? Yeah, you might be OCD, but somehow the fire must be lit under enough people to make noise and effect change. The people who fought for this country’s independence aren’t around to make sure we keep it. We as a people seem determined to give it up. Spending ourselves into oblivion is one way. Energy dependence is certainly another.
I personally don’t like the term “peak oil”. It’s so easy for some folks to stop thinking and start arguing about the concept. Whether or not “peak oil” is the central cause of our energy problem isn’t an important argument. Peak or no peak, supply and demand or price speculation, all we have to do is look at the recent price turmoil in energy markets to realize that we’re not now in control of our destiny. And remembering where so much of the energy wealth flows should make us all shudder.
On the personal investment front we agree. I’ve owned ConocoPhillips shares for a long time, and Burlington Resources before the COP buyout. Fully a third of my portfolio is dedicated to energy related companies, Noble (NE) and Ensco International (ESV) among them. Why a natural gas giant like ConocoPhillips doesn’t generate more interest in expanding NG use is beyond me. I do believe that natural gas, and oil for that matter, won’t remain at give-away prices indefinitely. The long term outlook is clear.
-- R.
Why else would he refuse to drill and develop federal lands. The American public will believe anything the main stream media feeds them.
The biggest sand kick in the face was when Obama met with the head of Iraq and did not even insist that Iraq pay us back for the war costs by giving us oil equal to the cost of the war. Another gift for the Saudis.
We fought the war for oil and didn't even get that. What a joke.
longoil: the chinese are simply kicking our butts. we fight oil wars and go broke, the chinese use their US dollar reserves to lock in energy deliveries for years in the future. now we find out our idiot Energy Secretary Chu is "agnostic" about natural gas. i swear to god congress and the administration seem to be working as hard as they can to completely obliterate the middle class in this country.
respirate: well, thanks for the compliments, but i occaisionally "lose it" on here and today, i must admit, i am in a real foul mood after reading the quote from the energy secretary. wrt clean coal, first of all, there is no such thing! second of all, even is there was, how does that solve our foreign oil addiction? answer - it wouldn't! so, clean coal fails on both objectives, yet Obama and Chu support it, while they are "agnostic" on natural gas?! my god, what is happening to this country? wrt the chinese, i believe the big difference is that the chinese gov. is run mainly by engineers, and the US is run by professional politicans and lawyers. we get what we deserve by electing idiots that wouldn't know a BTU from a SUV. and yeah, i am OCD on this stuff...we just have such idiotic policies and idiotic leaders i am beginning to think it is all intentional to simple crash the country so they can rape, pillage, and plunder the middle class. meanwhile, the middle class doesn't understand war has been declared on them and continue to watch sports and glorify athletes and movie stars, drive their SUV's, and relish the current low gasoline prices. did i mention i was in a foul mood? you're right in that peak oil can bring on argumentative discussions, but, you're also right, and i usually point out, the real issue isn't whether we have "peaked" or not, the real issue is can worldwide supply keep up with worldwide demand. as we saw in 2008, that answer is, yes, but barely, so prices will soar. at some point in the next 5-10 years, the answer will be "no", and the US will have no natural gas transportation policy, and then all americans will be supremely controlable because they will have lost all their freedom of movement, and all their other freedoms will follow...and our democracy will evaporate. did i mention i was in a foul mood? wrt Mulva taking a position on nat gas transportation, i cannot believe he doesn't. i really used to like the guy, now i am not so sure about him after overpaying for origin and whatknot. i wrote COP a letter asking why no support for nat gas trans, and i got an email back saying they do support it. i replied, ok, show me a press release, and i never heard back from them. i haven't heard mulva say one thing about it. astonishing considering COP's reliance on nat gas revenues and price.
long_on_oil: well, i dont know about the saudis owning obama (although they definitely owned both bush's...), regardless, obama and his idiot energy secretary apparently prefer sending American energy dollars to saudi for oil over sending it to american farmers, landowners, and investors for american produced nat gas. btw, i don't remember bush asking for oil in return for iraqi war expenditures..and it was his idea in the first place. afghanistan will be obama's disaster.
These countries (with maybe the exception of Brazil) will renege in heart beat if they end up with prices anywhere near what we have seen.
On Apr 09 06:25 PM ripskii wrote:
> The Chinese have the advantage of focusing on their near and long
> term self interests, while not attempting to run the world. We have
> had no coherent energy policy for our nation for many years and it
> seems this disease is contagious. Natural gas use for transportation
> is only one of our great failings. We have bungled nuclear power
> generation development even more seriously. Very little work on that
> front has occurred since the IFR nuclear reactor development project
> was shut down in 1994. When much of the work required to effectively
> change direction on energy requires 5 to 10 years or more (longer
> than most political terms) one wonders how we will ever avoid a serious
> energy crisis. The current alternative energy efforts while admirable
> will only supply a small quantity of the energy required for our
> future. Perhaps our system requires a crisis to institute the changes
> needed to solve these problems. Unfortunately our history contains
> numerous examples of this behavior.
so what else is new?
> jack
Let's face it, in the future when the oil wars do occur we will all know what we are fighting for.
I agree 100% on natural gas. We have to wean ourselves from oil and we must declare a national emergency to switch our trucks and autos to natural gas. The government can give a tax credit to help. Let's see if we continue to sit on our hands 4 more years...my bet is, we will.
One thing is true: Investors should have a large portion of their portfolios in the enrgy sector; then maybe they can yeild "enough money to protect themselves in fortress behind barbed wire and security systems"
We all know its not a single strategy, but a roll up of all options enabled by technology - which the West clearly leads...
This, incidentally, is why Big Gas labeled Ms Palin's plan for gas "politically astute but economically ignorant". Wouldn't you have said the same thing if you were in their place? Who would choose to be a millionaire if they could be a multi-millionaire? And this business of protecting themselves behind barbed wire and all the rest. I met a gentleman in Italy who lived in one of those communities, and he told me he couldn't get enough of it.
And yes, somebody has got to explain to somebody else that a sensible energy policy has got to be put together.
On Apr 10 10:18 AM Iconoclast421 wrote:
> I'm not sure why you're so big on natural gas. You do realize that
> oil, natural gas, and coal are all peaking at the same time? This
> happens because of price arbitrage. So they all tend to move as one.
> At least with oil we get a lot more warning and predictability. With
> natural gas we can lose 10% of production in a year and not even
> see it coming.
I agree with you that natural gas is a "natural" especially for our trucking industry, as Boone Pickens has advocated.
Unfortunately, just as you are, Pickens was infatuated with Obama who tells everyone what they want to hear, and he has disappointed on the natural gas front.
It just goes to show that when you vote for someone who makes you feel good be careful what you wish for. Barack talked a big game on electric cars, but how much have you heard about nuclear power to provide that electricity?
No matter, we all feel good, we are post-racial, etc. that's what matters.
I also wonder why executives are not getting on the bandwagon for natural gas trucks and busses. Natural gas is an excellent interim reduction on our importation of foreign oil, buying us time to develop and implement cleaner alternatives. If we can't get enough natural gas from the US then at least we can import it from Canada...much better than from the middle-east!
I'm going to read HR 1835, and write to my congressmen. It's so easy to do these days using the internet.
Interesting theory you have there. Since you enjoy reading people's feedback history so much, I suggest you look at my feedback history more carefully and you will see my jump into the Top 20 to do with the nearly 50 positive feedbacks I have gotten from my comments on James Quinn's article on $200 oil over the last day.
I suggest you get you facts straight before making baseless accusations.
longoil
i have always found you helpful. when you disagree i pay attention as you seem reasonable and intelligent to me.
someone did a number on me one weekend awhile back. i lost about 150 ups. i can't imagine wastng the time to do that.
i make it a point to leave my posts alone. if someone makes a direct answer in opposition to me i leave their post alone too. after a few days i started easing back up so that was kind of gratifying.
Natural gas is too easy and too cheap. It might actually help improve the standard of living and then people might not need Obama anymore.
Greenies want you at home in front of the TV (a smaller one -see California legislature bill to ban large screen tv's as energy wasteful) and away from the wilderness areas that belong to the animals and Sierra Club.
I know, wild rants from an old guy. But, I do hope some of you wake up to what is really happening as the VP said "no crisis will go unused".
I never said that alternate energy solution were not viable, but just noted that they alone will not supplant all the energy we use from present sources in any reasonable time frame. To see the scale of the problem read the Scientific American article that describes what it would take to make solar a major source by 2050.
www.sciam.com/article....
It is quite clear that we must intelligently use all our resources in the best way and that is the entire point of this article. Natural gas is just one of several resources that need to be used more effectively now while we move toward a total sustainable energy system. Big changes are required and business as usual will no longer come close to addressing our impending energy problems. We also need to move forward on advanced nuclear reactor technology as an additional component of energy production which solves both the long term nuclear waste and the carbon dioxide production problems.
www.nationalcenter.org...
On Apr 10 01:30 PM longoil wrote:
> User 357469,
>
> Interesting theory you have there. Since you enjoy reading people's
> feedback history so much, I suggest you look at my feedback history
> more carefully and you will see my jump into the Top 20 to do with
> the nearly 50 positive feedbacks I have gotten from my comments on
> James Quinn's article on $200 oil over the last day.
>
> I suggest you get you facts straight before making baseless accusations.
the picture you portray for china vs USA is not limited to fossil fuels. it is generally true for MOST commodities[needed desperately for a growing/develping set of emerging countries]. i invest a large portion of portfolio in the topic, so my current sensitivity is keen. a good example is in the uranium area. china, india, japan and many newbies[with french assist] are establishing long term investments/commitments for fuel and reactor component parts. all loooong lead time items. meanwhile the USA is doing what[?] on nuclear. nothing firmly committed; best can do for added reactors at current nuclear sites--2018/2019.
but we're knocking the socks off wind and solar. which means we're about keeping up with rest of world in the 2-3 % impact range.
oh, and forget not dirty coal! the USA wants to stop all effort. china turns on several new ones each month. where are USA coal companies focusing growth? asia and EU.
the entire situation with china reminds me of the small child playing with rag doll. lot's of attention/use until fully grown. then rag doll gets tossed in corner. other more adult tasks to manage by grown up child. who is which? could we be raggedy ann or andy? a needed friend whose bill you pay until you grow up and find the old friend no longer fits your needs or lifestyle.
I have been knocked out from the top 20 several times in the last several weeks in a matter of minutes with over 20 negative feedbacks in one barage as has happened to Fireball. I am surprised a "cyber Columbo" like yourself hasn't noticed that as well.
Personally, I don't care what you think. If my feedback drops to negative 1000, I will continue to post freely my views and opinions as I have in the past regardlessly of what you or other cyber bullies have to say. Some people agree with my views, some don't.
By the way since you pride yourself as cyber sleuth, I noticed you also wrongly accused Pacman1947 as well. Several weeks ago, when I noticed my feedback dropped suspicously by 20 point in a 15 minute period, I noticed the same thing happened to him.
i didn't know when i entered previous remarks, but interesting article in this day's SA under ENERGY[MONEY MORNING sourced] concerning renewal of nuclear in USA and rest of world.
On Apr 10 04:47 PM longoil wrote:
> User 357469
>
> I have been knocked out from the top 20 several times in the last
> several weeks in a matter of minutes with over 20 negative feedbacks
> in one barage as has happened to Fireball. I am surprised a "cyber
> Columbo" like yourself hasn't noticed that as well.
>
> Personally, I don't care what you think. If my feedback drops to
> negative 1000, I will continue to post freely my views and opinions
> as I have in the past regardlessly of what you or other cyber bullies
> have to say. Some people agree with my views, some don't.
>
> By the way since you pride yourself as cyber sleuth, I noticed you
> also wrongly accused Pacman1947 as well. Several weeks ago, when
> I noticed my feedback dropped suspicously by 20 point in a 15 minute
> period, I noticed the same thing happened to him.
>
>
Like you I have been around a few years. You point out a critical issue that no one else (author and commentors included) seem to grasp. A great deal of our inaction on an energy plan can be traced to the environmentalists. They are the responsible parties for the lack of exploration and drilling on "big oil's" existing leases. They are the ones preventing a nuclear power solution to electricity production (Harry Reid, anyone?). They are the ones filing lawsuits to prevent grid construction, pipeline infrastructure, LNG, and on and on. Any energy policy to have any chance of success is going to have to limit the envoronmentalists. And that, given the track record of the last two decades; is just not going to happen.
Buy oil companies. Buy US oil and gas royalty trusts.
On Apr 10 03:00 PM realold wrote:
> A great article/rant and lively feedback. I agree with much, but
> think everyone misses the point. Obama represents the most liberal
> and extreme green elements of society. Their shared goals include
> as little use of energy as possible, reduced standard of living and
> mobility to "save the earth".
>
> Natural gas is too easy and too cheap. It might actually help improve
> the standard of living and then people might not need Obama anymore.
>
>
> Greenies want you at home in front of the TV (a smaller one -see
> California legislature bill to ban large screen tv's as energy wasteful)
> and away from the wilderness areas that belong to the animals and
> Sierra Club.
>
> I know, wild rants from an old guy. But, I do hope some of you wake
> up to what is really happening as the VP said "no crisis will go
> unused".
ripskii: i agree the US needs nuclear now(unfortunately) because we have boxed ourselves into a corner, but nukes alone won't really signficantly reduce foreign oil imports as related to transportation. at least not significantly over the next 5-10 years. with respect to long time frames, that is yet another strength of natural gas transportation: the pipeline grid already exists! all we need are NGVs and refueling devices and stations. both of these could be accomplished in months, not years. of course, that assumes we have a real "energy secretary" instead of the putz we are apparently stuck with. grrrrr... as far as a crisis, man, if $145/dollar a barrel oil and $4.50/gallon gasoline and a full blown economic crisis that has brought our financial system to its knees doesn't do it, what will it take? i fear our "leaders" are working hard at adopting policies (specifically energy policies) to enable an even worse disaster than we have already have...stock up on can'd goods...
blu: i dunno about that...my understanding is china will pay market prices for the oil in every one of the contracts i mentioned. in that case, why wouldn't the suppliers sell the oil to them? china has the money to pay. it's the US that's bankrupt and may be the country that gets screwed in the next price spike. many countries that currently ship crude to the US are looking to buddy up with china as they see the US as an economically risky consumer. who can blame them?
User357469: hey, i am all for wind and solar. however, please explain to me how these sources are going to significantly reduce foreign oil imports (and the associated CO2 and particulate emissions) over the next 5-10 years? it ain't gonna happen! as i have written in the past, the folks who i term to be "environmental purists" (alt energy and 100% EV's or nothing) are actually undermining their own goal of reducing CO2 and toxic particulate emissions because their policies are keeping us addicted to foreign oil, and ignoring the benefits of abundant, clean, and cheap US produced natural gas! they are playing a fools game because they lump natural gas into the "fossil fuel" category. this wrong headed ideology mixes the solution (nat gas) with the problems (coal, oil) and is illogical, counterproductive, and very polluting. as far as the GOP being war-mongers, i agree, but apparently obama wants to be the same as he is just going to replicate bush's idiotic iraqi oil war with an oil war in afghanistan because US foreign and military powers think they can get a pipeline to the indian ocean through afghanistan to get caspian sea energy to market. "military intelligence" is an oxymoron up there with "clean coal". see my articles on the caspian sea energy issues:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
jack: exactly. and who would have thought the US would move toward fascism under a so-called "GOP conservative"? we live in an "animal farm" world of double-speak.
Terrya: come on, like the bush's aren't in bed with the saudis?? pah-leeeze. the king was in the carlyle group with bush sr. and his buddies and we all know what operation they planned and executed, and how they profited on it by going short the S&P500 in the days prior to the "operation", and then again on the war that followed.
TimMiles: yeah, that's what everyone is telling me in personal emails: obama has only been in office a few months. i don't buy it. his insistence on pushing "clean coal" defies the logic and common sense i know the man has - i saw him debate, he's not stupid. so, his support of "clean coal" and his "ignorance" on natural gas transportation is therefore *intentional*. his failure to fire energy secretary chu after chu's idiotic "agnostic" comment on natural gas is pathetic. obama's is simply repeating the BS rhetoric of past president's: "we're gonna reduce foreign oil imports". oh yeah, how are you gonna do that with an energy secretary that doesn't understand natural gas is america's most strategic weapon in order to actually ACHIEVE ACTUAL REDUCTIONS in foreign oil imports? there is no other solution for the US over the next 10 years. nope, obama is proving to be more of the same pathetic "leadership" of the US. sure, his tone and candor are a big improvement, but look at his handling of the economic crisis. puts shapiro in to head the SEC?? after madoff? LTCM? milken? please...that little group in NYC that runs all these fraudulent financial schemes need to be put in JAIL, not into positions of authority where they are simply tools to milk the middle class of their weath. obama is a huge dissapointment. the war in afghan? please, more of the same old US failed foreign policies. pickens has been great, but have you ever heard obama even utter the words "natural gas transportation"? answer: NO. reason: he's too busy saying "clean coal"!! what idiotic energy leadership. they want to see the US on its knees, and that is exactly where the US is heading. meanwhile, we have ABUNDANT natural gas resources. it's just insanity.
palmer: well, after 8 years of bush and the religious idelogues i wanted to see someone who could think. obama clearly was a logical thinker in the debates. the mistake i made was thinking he really would *change* things. he has not. financial, energy, and foreign policy - the 3 things the US needed to change, aren't changing materially one iota. the powers that be want to see the american middle class brough to their knees perhaps even their graves. they are, and have been, very successfull over the last 10 years.
long_on_oil: oh yeah, i agree bush is one of, if not the, worst presidents in US history. that said, i believe obama's policies are on pretty much the same track. you say, in the "future' when the oil wars do occur? with all due respect, they are going on now. that is what iraq and afghantistan are all about. did you read my earlier article on caspian sea energy (link was given in a comment above). THAT Is what afghanistan is about..not poppies..or even terrorists....it's about caspian oil and nat gas - although the US obviously doesn't know what to do with the plentiful nat gas it already has!! how moronic is that?
Gravity: yeah, i am ranting alot...in a foul mood over our boob of an "energy" secretary who apparently doesn't understand america's biggest energy resource! i also view the "Phill" as a symbol of american freedom. that device was key, and the mere fact Fuelmaker is in bankruptcy speaks volumes about the lack of strategic US energy policies. it's a disgrace.
iconoclast: that is just the point, natural gas is NOT peaking. read robert hefner's book "The Grand Energy Transistion". if that doesn't convince you. simply look at the increase in natural gas supplies as the shale production came online over the last couple years (go to the EIA website). the haynesville shale alone could prove to be one of the biggest nat gas fields in the WORLD. plus, look at the huge nat gas reserves in russia that will come online when COP and BP finish the denali pipeline to the lower-48. with all due respect, you simply aren't armed with the facts to support your statement that nat gas is peaking. it is just the opposite: supplies are growing and are ABUNDANT. now, i do agree that the highest quality coal in the US has been mined and has peaked. we are now about to enter into secondary coal production, which is going to produce coal that is less efficient, more expensive, and worst of all - much much polluting.
banks: thanks. wrt alaskan gas, i think both the nat gas pipelines and the plans for LNG terminals, both of which i supported, totally underestimated the amount of natural gas contained in the shale discoveries made over the last couple years. this is the brilliance of robert hefner: he predicted these huge reserves were there back in the 70's, and testified to that effect in congress. but they ignored him and thus, the big and disastrous move to coal.
telemorph: that is simply not a true statement. go to the EIA website and educate yourself. such posting without facts is very harmful to the country and thank god you have only made 1 comment so far. all you did with that single effort is embarass yourself.
User13958: yeah, canada no doubt has huge energy reserves in the tar sands. but why in the world would we want to tear up the earth with huge caterpillar trucks and dozers, dig out the bitumen, boil it using large amounts of natural gas and wasting huge amounts of water, only to extract a low quality crude that needs further refining to make gasoline, when all along we could have simply used natural gas to fuel the vehicles in the first place?! this is the height of foolishness. all that said, i believe canada's currency will once again strengthen against the US dolllar. not only does canada have large timber, oil, nat gas reserves, and minerals they also have alot of gold and silver and an excellent banking system that makes the US's look like a bad imitation of monopoly or some other cheap board "game".
dsrtwriter: rickshaws...funny..i want one (and more importantly, a driver). obama low carbon? that doesnt jive with his support for "clean coal". and you're right, obama just doesn't "get" natural gas, either that or he is just continuing the war on the middle class that started 8 years ago when bush was elected. it is a war they (and congress) are winning. i dont care what his color is, but he is a big big dissapointment. it's all more of the same old wash. DC bs.
macsmart: well, the US has all the natural gas it needs to power not only transportation but electric generation (replacing coal) home heating, and industrial. america quite simply has abundant nat gas reserves. yes, please read HR 1835 and tell your congressmen!! that said, after chu's comments, what's the chance that the obama administration, with their clear lack of a realistic plan to reduce foreign oil imports, will support this? what a sad response to $145/barrel oil. US leadership is simply pathetic. as jim rogers said, we better all learn how to speak chinese.
User357469: do people really care about such meaningless things as comment ratings?? can all you guys deal with this comment ratings issue on someone else's article? i'd like to stick with energy related issues...
realold: with all due respect, i beg to differ. there was nothing "liberal" about obama's appointment of shapiro to lead the SEC (more fascism started under bush). there is nothing "liberal" about obama's intent to ratchet up the war in afghanistan (more conservative oil war policy). there is nothing liberal about "clean coal" (more toxic polluting of america. obama was *supposed* to be different: but when the rubber really hits the road he is not. that said, i totally agree with your comment "nat gas is too easy and too cheap. it might actually improve the standard of living..". that is right on target.
User357469/longoil: come on guys, please move this comment stuff offline or at least out of my articles' comment section.
fran: once again you raise a very good point, as china's efforts are not limited to energy. china is picking up strategic mineral assets the world over. china's economic leadership is superior to the US. in fact, i would go so far to say that the US is so weak, the chances of china getting its wishes for a world currency to replace the US dollar as the world's defacto reserve currency will happen sooner rather that later.
bobco23: i believe the lack of a US energy policy goes much deeper than just the "environmentalist" explanation. that is too easy and an unsufficent theory. look at bush, he wasn't an environmentalist, yet his energy policies were the worst ever (ethanol mandates, no support for natural gas transportation, etc. etc) and kept us addicted to foreign oil like no president in history. fighting oil wars have nothing to do with environmentalist, and this was bush's defacto energy policy (i.e. steal the oil). no my friend, it has more to do with our own government *intentionally* declaring war on the middle class. that is the root of the problem. it's an historically repeated theme...france, germany...concentrate the wealth in the hands of a few and weaken the population. then rule them with an iron hand (fascism). of course, as we saw, germany and france did not have pleasant end games. btw, another point to disprove your theory: environmentalist, if they *really* were about clean air and clean water, environmentalist would be strong SUPPORTERS of natural gas. instead, they support policies that actually keep us addicted to foreign oil and coal. it's oxymoronic, just like obamas "environmental" mantra of "clean coal".
I think if you really care about alternative energy, you should focus your SA efforts on more proactive activity like posting some productive comments in support of the subject.
I think most of us on SA are all for alternative energy (like myself, Fitzsimmons and countless other authors and commentors). Reality is alternative energy only provide 5% of the world's energy mix, with the other 95% coming from oil, gas, coal & nuclear. It will take 50 years before alterantive energy dominates the global energy mix. I am deeply concerned about peak oil, but I see nothing wrong from profiting from the inaction of Bush, Obama and others politicians on the alternative energy front.
Only those who have a vested interest in current oil and coal technologies will make such a ridiculous and untrue statement. Several countries already have reached near 20% of their energy needs through Wind and Solar Power not to mention other environmentally friendly sources. In fact, when it comes to wind and solar power as a viable energy source, the US is way down on the list primarily because of the lobbying done by the criminals in the oil business who are paying off our politicians to not encourage alternative energy technologies.
FYI, Sweden has jumped froward with plans on eliminating most of its oil needs by 2020.
Oil phase-out in Sweden
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Energy development
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
List of countries by electricity consumption
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
My numbers come from two sources:
1) United States Energy Information Agency
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/a...
2) BP (British Petroleum) Statistical Review (2008)
www.bp.com/productland...
You will probably disagree with my second source, but the first one is as good as it gets.
On Apr 11 04:18 PM longoil wrote:
> User 357469,
>
> My numbers come from two sources:
>
> 1) United States Energy Information Agency
> www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/a...
>
> 2) BP (British Petroleum) Statistical Review (2008)
> www.bp.com/productland...;contentId=7044622
>
>
> You will probably disagree with my second source, but the first one
> is as good as it gets.
I know you are anti-Republican, anti-oil, anti-nuclear, etc.
But anti-government (even with Obama in charge) too ??
The EIA was launched in 1977 by Democratic president Jimmy Carter at the height of the energy crisis as an INDEPENDENT goverment entity operating under the following legal framework.
By law, EIA's products are prepared independently of policy considerations. EIA neither formulates nor advocates any policy conclusions. The Department of Energy Organization Act allows EIA's processes and products to be independent from review by Executive Branch officials; specifically Section 205(d) says:
"The Administrator shall not be required to obtain the approval of any other officer or employee of the Department in connection with the collection or analysis of any information; nor shall the Administrator be required, prior to publication, to obtain the approval of any other officer or employee of the United States with respect to the substance of any statistical or forecasting technical reports which he has prepared in accordance with law."
On Apr 11 05:20 PM longoil wrote:
> User 357469,
>
> I know you are anti-Republican, anti-oil, anti-nuclear, etc.
> But anti-government (even with Obama in charge) too ??
>
> The EIA was launched in 1977 by Democratic president Jimmy Carter
> at the height of the energy crisis as an INDEPENDENT goverment entity
> operating under the following legal framework.
>
> By law, EIA's products are prepared independently of policy considerations.
> EIA neither formulates nor advocates any policy conclusions. The
> Department of Energy Organization Act allows EIA's processes and
> products to be independent from review by Executive Branch officials;
> specifically Section 205(d) says:
>
> "The Administrator shall not be required to obtain the approval of
> any other officer or employee of the Department in connection with
> the collection or analysis of any information; nor shall the Administrator
> be required, prior to publication, to obtain the approval of any
> other officer or employee of the United States with respect to the
> substance of any statistical or forecasting technical reports which
> he has prepared in accordance with law."
longoil: of course i concur with you 100%.
User357469: please take some of your time and sit down and look at how much energy is contained in the 390,000,000 million gallons of gasoline the US burns every DAY. now, sit down and look at the amount of energy in a wind or solar array (and i support both of these). now, you tell me how, over the next 10 years, we are going to sigificantly reduce foreign oil imports using these alone. it simply isn't possible. without utilitizing our US natural gas reserves, this country is headed for an oil and energy crisis that few people can even conceive of. just for one minute, try to comprehend what the US will be like when people can't buy or can't even aquire at any price, gasoline for their cars...i mean, just think about it.
longoil: i wish more americans would take a look at the energy statistics on the EIA website. i look at them all the time and they quite simply scare the *@#% out of me.
User357469: you don't trust the EIA website? that is illogical, because the energy data shown on the EIA website paint a most dire picture of US oil supply and consumption. perhaps your man chu should take a look at the data..after all, he IS the energy secretary (and a boob at that).
longoil: i feel your pain. some people just will find any reason they can to stay addicted to foreign oil. it's absolutely amazing to me.
User357469: and i feel sorry for the future of our country when people like you want to keep us addicted to foreign oil as we head into the era of peak oil. if you only knew how dangerous your attitudes are and the dire consequences which will be the result of your thinking and "energy policy" crafted by people like bush, obama, and chu.
starkoski: yes, thank you very much. i keep trying to tell people the US, under bush, and now continuing under obama, made a big big turn in the direction of pre-WW2 germany. the glorification of the military to fight idiotic wars, the concentration of wealth away from the middle class to a small and select group of insiders, the reduction in the power of the US constitution and bill of rights, and finally the corporate takeover of the gov with under the table money and the control of the media. what we need is for the 50 states to call a constitutional convention, keep the US constitution and bill of rights, and start over. the people who are against natural gas transportion simply don't understand that control of oil (gasoline) by the government, without viable transportation alternatives (realistically), will be the final mechanism of control over american citizens. that will mean the end of "freedom" as we know it and we will all be living in an "animal farm" world. people don't think it can happen here, but there are very powerful forces working toward that end right now. bush, obama, and energy secretary chu are among those working to see it happen. it's fascism, pure and simple.
I see that many feel the same, but there are many socialist around and they are either in denile or stupid.
how can anyone take seriously an article with so many run-on sentences, grammatical errors, and incongruent transitions?
sorry, but i can't.
try taking a freshman writing course and then get back to me.
blonde molly
ps: i would really have hated to see this article before SA's editors got hold of it!!
The US uses a different model -- namely, purchasing supplies on the open market. This model works every day and has for decades. So China's deals don't "lock up" supply or somehow deprice the other players. Each day is a price competition and supplies are allocated to the highest bidder. China will pay the same price as everyone else does. There is no advantage in having more contracts. If one has money, one can access oil. Period.
As fo peak oil, I am in the skeptic camp (see Morris Adelman and US shale gas story to understand how high prices create resources). But I fully undersatand and apprciate the arguments. Assuming that we do experience inexorable decline in the medium- and long-term, the question is what really happens. Prices will rise (the idea of demand outstripping supply is ridiculous and irrelevant in an environment where people pay for commodities). It wil be very painful, but people will adjust their behavior. There are massive gains to be had from efficiency and alternatives, and those flowers only bloom under high oil prices. It is not the end of the world. And US consumers will not be in nearly as much pain as the poor of the world. It is they who will suffer most from the high oil prices (which are pretty inevitable given the retrenchment in investment activity going on).
There might be some hope out there. I found another politican, Dan Burton out of Indiana, that also advocates a more detailed energy plan (than that joke posted on the White house website). The link to his webiste is:
burton.house.gov/issue...
He has got the right idea, but the missing element in his plan is Natural Gas. You might want to send him the link to your energy plan and some of your NGV articles to enlighten him.
He also has an interesting Youtube video on the USA and Hyperinflation. He does a scary comparison between modern USA and 1920's Germany & Zimbabwe
There might be some hope out there. I found another politican, Dan Burton out of Indiana, that also advocates a more detailed energy plan (than that joke posted on the White house website). The link to his webiste is:
burton.house.gov/issue...
He has got the right idea, but the missing element in his plan is Natural Gas. You might want to send him the link to your energy plan and some of your NGV articles to enlighten him.
He also has an interesting Youtube video on the USA and Hyperinflation. He does a scary comparison between modern USA and 1920's Germany & Zimbabwe
longoil: thanks for the burton links - i'll check him out.
And as for your comment to me: "User357469: and i feel sorry for the future of our country when people like you want to keep us addicted to foreign oil as we head into the era of peak oil. if you only knew how dangerous your attitudes are and the dire consequences which will be the result of your thinking and "energy policy" crafted by people like bush, obama, and chu."... you clearly have a reading problem to add to molly's list of your inadequacies. I would like for you to point to just one of my posts that even remotely suggests that I support foreign oil importation. In fact quite the contrary, all of my posts regarding energy clearly promote the moving away from oil and into alternative energy solutions, which contrary to what some (you included) would like us to believe, can be achieved with few if any major problems. Sweden is doing it. And if Sweden can do it, so can America, once it no longer listens to big business and is no longer controlled by their pro-oil crap.
On Apr 13 02:17 AM Michael Fitzsimmons wrote:
> blondemolly: i'm sorry you find reading my articles such a painful
> experience. i'm an engineer - not an english major. after 61 articles,
> you're the first and only person to comment on just how bad a writer
> i am. lucky for me, most readers prefer to concentrate on the subject
> matter rather than my incompetent writing style. that's just fine
> with me.
And another thing 357469, why is it when you are engaged in an arguement with someone your feedback goes up by 3 points and you adversary's goes does 3 point all within a 2 minute period ?
On Apr 13 03:17 PM Black Gold wrote:
> 357469, blondemolly/ It is very easy to critize, but hard to do.
> I suggest since you guys are such experts on energy issues that you
> write your own articles for SA and Michael can critize them. The
> difference between you and Michael, is that you guys complain endlessly
> and do nothing whereas Michael identifies problems and proposes solutions.
> Michael, I appreciate your articles and the time spent writing them
> that could be better spent fly fishing.
>
> And another thing 357469, why is it when you are engaged in an arguement
> with someone your feedback goes up by 3 points and you adversary's
> goes does 3 point all within a 2 minute period ?
You're right. You don't understand. In fact you either did not even read what I wrote, or else you have a major comprehension problem. So let me try and make it a little simplier for you to try and grasp one more time.
1. I DO NOT support buying foreign oil
2. I DO NOT support staying with ANY oil as primary source of energy
3. I DO support alternative forms of energy such as Wind, Solar, Electrical and NG
I see you are somewhat surpised at Obama's actions...thinking he "a better man". Well, some of us have been saying for a long time that "The Change" is nothing more than another politician and politicians are all the same. They don't take the high road. They take the road that either gets them the most votes or the most campaign contributions. Obama is just a politician, albeit a very inexperienced, liberal politician. From a big coal state. People raked Bush over the "coals" for being an oil man from an oil state. Well, Obama is a coal man from a coal state. enough said.
Keep it up buddy. One day, someone in power will grasp this concept of NG usage. Hopefully, it will be before our country goes down in flames!!!
Coal, 48%, Natural Gas, 21%, Nuclear, 19%, Hydro, 6%, Petroleum, 1.6%, Biomass, 1.3%, Wind, 0.76%, Geothermal, 0.36%, Other Gases. 0.36%, Other Renewable, 0.33%, Solar, 0.014% .
This frames the scale of our problem and shows that even huge increases in the popular very small quantity producers such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal will not quickly replace the current largest producers.
www.census.gov/compend...
www.eia.doe.gov/basics...
390,000,000 gallons of gasoline per day. so, from a realistic standpoint, how can the US reduce this number and thereby reduce foreign oil imports? in other words, we can build all the solar and wind we want (and i support that), but electricity from solar and wind is not going to signficantly reduce the gasoline consumption in the US over the next 10 years because EVs aren't here yet in signficant quantities, and they won't be for some time. so, we can keep putting all our eggs in the solar and wind basket (and keep burning foreign oil and spewing CO2 and particulates into the atmosphere), or, we can acknowledge reality and realize that natural gas is the only fuel the US has that can be scaled up and delivered to the transportation sector to meaningfully reduce foreign oil imports. now, this doesn't mean i don't support wind and solar and EV's - i do: they are in my energy policy and i have written articles on project better place and so forth. also, please note that my FAVORITE vehicle is the one toyota could make but refuses to: the natural gas/electric hybrid camry. this car could be a game-changer and literally save the US from the economic, environmental, and national security problems it faces due to its foreign oil addiction in a peak oil world. that said, toyota isn't going to make the car because US gov policy doesn't support nat gas transportation.
ripskii: thanks for the data. i think if people sat down and looked at data like you posted, plus the oil and gasoline data on the website i just posted perhaps they would get a realistic grasp on the magnitude of the energy challenges the US faces. perhaps they would understand that wind and solar and EV's aren't going to make a significant dent in foreign oil imports over the next decade. and therefore, perhaps they'd understand that supporting only wind, solar, and EV's is therefore de facto support for continuing foreign oil addiction and for the "environmental purists" out there, continuing to spew CO2 and particulates into the atmosphere. meanwhile, we sit here with abundant, clean, and cheap natural gas reserves that could be used for transportation. i do think i am OCD on this issue, but that's because no one yet has proven to me why the logic behind nat gas transportation is faulty.
Mmmark: thanks for your support.
I have cross-checked the EIA data many times with non-USA sources like ASPO (Colin Campbell et al.) and the numbers are legitimate. One only has to look at the EIA data during the Bush-Cheney era for 2003-2008 and the supply side plateau confirms peak oil theory. If there was a conspiracy wouldn't Bush-Cheney have covered up the plateau that the EIA data explicitly shows.
I am really starting to see why you having a hard time selling the NGV solution. Check out the energy plan by Steven Pottle.
www.pottleplan.com/Hom...
He advocates an interesting comprehensive energy plan, but is anti-NGV and anti-Pickens Plan.
You have convinced me many months ago that the Fitzsimmons plan (i.e. using existing NG infrastructure and new NG sources from tight and shale reservoirs) combined with the Picken's plan (i.e. using wind to displace NG generated electricity and fuel cars with the saved NG) is the way to go.
Keep up the good fight !
With respect to validity of EIA data they are generally pretty good and can be cross checked against EIA data in many cases. The one area where they are suspect is in the area of oil and gas reserve estimates. They report data from the USGS for this area and it is well known that USGS is very optimistic on these numbers.
Fitz: you may think you are OCD over these issues, but when one considers the magnitude of the challenges and the consequences of failure to resolve them we should all be OCD!
Longoil: I looked at the Pottle plan you posted. It looks on the surface to be more of our current policy stressing using more oil and coal with only moderate efforts to these sources of energy which is our major problem. I found the proposed role of oil, gas, coal, utility executives, government regulators and investment bankers the same concept as placing those responsible for our current dilemma in charge of the solution. Isn't this what we are now doing with our financial disaster? I wouldn't expect any fresh thinking from this group. Note there was only passing mention of nuclear energy and not a thought to move to new developments like the IFR reactor which solves so many problems. Business as usual it what I see there. Even the idea as proposed by Pickens is dismissed as too radical although they mention the problems I've outlined with it.
which is this: if a person can't (or hasn't) learned basic writing skills, then how can i trust his energy conclusions.?
i am definitely no expert in energy. don't claim to be. and wouldn't dare write an article on something i'm so ignorant about.
but i'm sure going to put my trust in someone who shows he has a basic educational foundation, and fitz shows quite the opposite in this article.
he's all over the place, transiting to one non sequitur after the other.
how can i take his conclusions seriously when he has the worst transitions i've seen from someone who is supposed to be a college graduate?
do you understand me now, black gold?
On Apr 13 03:17 PM Black Gold wrote:
> 357469, blondemolly/ It is very easy to critize, but hard to do.
> I suggest since you guys are such experts on energy issues that you
> write your own articles for SA and Michael can critize them. The
> difference between you and Michael, is that you guys complain endlessly
> and do nothing whereas Michael identifies problems and proposes solutions.
> Michael, I appreciate your articles and the time spent writing them
> that could be better spent fly fishing.
>
> And another thing 357469, why is it when you are engaged in an arguement
> with someone your feedback goes up by 3 points and you adversary's
> goes does 3 point all within a 2 minute period ?
btw: there is no need for the period (.) after "conclusions.?"
that was petty too. but it just goes to show you, even a perfect writer like yourself sometimes makes mistakes.