Seeking Alpha

Michael Fitzsimmons

View as an RSS Feed
View Michael Fitzsimmons' Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Boone Pickens: The U.S. Is Subsidizing China's Iraqi Oil - Why? [View article]
    dww12: My point was you criticize Boone Pickens for wanting to stop foreign oil imports from countries like Saudi Arabia, and then you support policies (like EVs) which have a miniscule impact on reducing those foreign oil imports. So who is the true American patriot, you or Pickens?
    Jun 13 05:04 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boone Pickens: The U.S. Is Subsidizing China's Iraqi Oil - Why? [View article]
    true.north: You can ignore the emission argument if you want, but personally I am quite tired of hearing about a "zero-emission" vehicle when we all know the dirty (and inconvenient truth) is that it is powered (i.e. charged) to a great extent by coal, the dirtiest fuel of all. All this as we watch the world get warmer and warmer year after year.

    The goal of driving an NGV isn't to be glamorous or compete with a car like the Model-S. The goal is to reduce emissions and operating cost for the average ordinary American as well as to reduce foreign oil imports. The Model-S isn't achieving any of these goals.

    There is no Camry NGV. And there is no Camry nat gas/electric hybrid because the gov doesn't want one marketed in the US. It would be only slightly more expensive than a Toyota Prius (in volume) and be very affordable to ordinary Americans, unlike a Tesla.

    Ha ha, the real problem for NGVs isn't the Volt or the Prius. The real problem for NGVs is the US gov!
    Jun 13 05:02 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boone Pickens: The U.S. Is Subsidizing China's Iraqi Oil - Why? [View article]
    I'd rather you point to the flaws in JP's article, and the technical papers he referred to in that article, rather than to dis JP himself and/or his trading prowess. The point was how much energy is used, cradle-to-grave, in the manufacture of batteries.
    Jun 13 04:56 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boone Pickens: The U.S. Is Subsidizing China's Iraqi Oil - Why? [View article]
    I agree completely. We've had 12 years in a row now of abysmal national leadership. Both parties are playing the same tune.
    Jun 13 02:10 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boone Pickens: The U.S. Is Subsidizing China's Iraqi Oil - Why? [View article]
    But this is exaclty my point dww12: when it comes to the ordinary American's vehicle choices, the government is solidly behind EVs and solidly against NGVs. That answers all your questions. GM and Ford both make NGVs, and have for years, problem is they sell them overseas but until very recently not here in the US. Yet elsewhere in the world, there are over 15 million NGVs. So they are available, and they have been around for over 100 years. Sure, Tesla is available now - to a select few Americans. This is no way to make energy policy for 310+ million Americans. Who can afford a Tesla and solar array to power it? That means charge it up with coal, a huge step *backward*. Realism. Pragmatism.

    Meanwhile, during the 5 years we have waited for the EV flower to bloom, we have a few thousand EVs and a very miniscule impact on foreign oil imports. Natural gas transportation in the fleet and long-haul sectors is making a huge impact on the reduction of gasoline and diesel. Natural gas has done the same in the power sector by reducing coal consumption. Unfortunately, so called "environmentalists" are helping prevent the same benefits in the personal car and truck sector, the biggest prize of all.
    Jun 13 02:05 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Boone Pickens: The U.S. Is Subsidizing China's Iraqi Oil - Why? [View article]
    Tom A: I think you misread me on the Tesla. I think it is an awesome feat of engineering and though I haven't driven one I can only go by the rave reviews of those who have. I was recruited in the late 80's by GM to design the system to recharge the batteries in their EV design upon braking. Switch the fields, and flow energy back to the battery. So, as an EE, I know a little bit about what it takes to design an EV. For those who can afford a Model-S, and an installation of a solar array to power it, wonderful. But that's exactly the problem, how many Americans can afford that solution? Answer: very few.

    So, my big problem with Tesla is that it is a solution for very few and is being used as an excuse to make energy policy for 310+ million Americans. Today, coal makes up 40% of the electrical power generation, so I am being asked to sign up to a "policy" that switches from gasoline to coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels. This I cannot buy into. In some parts of the country, 100% of electrical generation is via coal. Teslas in these areas would be a *huge* step backwards.

    I remember the cheaper Model-S and the rejection by the market, and again, this is exactly my point. The only people who can make a bet on the Tesla are the people who can afford it, and the people who can take the risk that a big battery pack's reliability is going to cost them a bundle at some point in the future. And this is one reason, along with range, than Tesla is, and likely will remain, a niche solution that will simply not move the needle on the environment or in the reduction of foreign oil imports. And this is exactly why the coal and oil industries (and Congress...) support EVs: they simply insure the status quo: coal, oil, and gasoline - the dirtiest and most expensive fossil fuel. And there is natural gas: abundant, cheap, clean, and domestic.

    As for Tesla's battery pack proven reliable and proven, I can't buy that yet. Let me see the result of a few cars in Denver of Houston over a period of a few years. Let me see what happens in a few years of re-charging on a daily basis. The jury is out on this. I hope they are reliable. They better be for the cost. Will I invest in one? Not anytime soon, and not til the battery packs are fully covered by a decent warranty.

    I continue to maintain that the natural gas/hybrid Camry unveiled by Toyota is a superior solution to the 100% electric EV. It is affordable, has a smaller battery pack that is proven, and has decent range. It does not require coal or to be plugged in.

    What we need is realistic and pragmatic energy policy. The biggest environmental gain in the entire world over the past 5 years has not be a miniscule number of EVs: it has been the displacement of coal by natural gas in the electrical generation sector. Nat gas vehicles could do exactly the same thing in reducing foreign oil imports and gasoline consumption. If EV's are the only policy, and if people cannot forget their ideologies and focus on the facts and the enormity of the problem, the US will continue to waste precious time on distractions. Meantime, the EU, China, and Russia have all adopted strategic long-term natural gas transportation policies. Not EV policies. That is because they are being economic and environmental realists and pragmatists. And because they are not directed by SuperPACs trying to maintain the status quo of coal, oil, and gasoline. In fact, they want to do the opposite: replace them with abundant, clean, and cheaper natural gas.
    Jun 13 02:01 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boone Pickens: The U.S. Is Subsidizing China's Iraqi Oil - Why? [View article]
    Tom A. - thank you for the thoughtful comment. There is much we agree on. As for bad fracking practices, if you read back through my articles you will see I was a proponent of a zero tolerance policy, especially when it came to those companies dumping frack water in the creeks and rivers upstream of Pennsylvania municipal water plant. Unforgivable, inexcusable, and those firms should have been severely fined and banned from the business. You will also note I was, early on, a proponent for Federal regulations on fracking, not state level, and for frack fluid storage down hole, usually miles below the water table. This won me no friends in the energy business. But I warned the fracking business they were heading down the same road as coal if they did not change their ways. Now, companies like Chevron are being proactive about environmental issues because they realize this is a long term play. There is no reason fracking cannot be done safely, it can, and indeed has been for many many years and millions of wells all over the country. I agree with your comment on Repub. energy policy. Wrt "raw fumes", if CO2 and water is "raw fumes" then I agree. I disagree it is a stopgap measure, it could be a 100 year *fundamental* solution. Wrt leakage, it is simply not an issue with NGVs. What is would be methane from cattle.

    You say my fundamental arguments are getting old, yet you still fail to convince me that an EV powered predominantly by coal, is better than the nat gas/EV hybrid vehicle I suggest is a superior alternative. You complain about methane leakage, then you want me to buy into coal powered EVs. I don't get understand your logic. You also fail to address the shear numbers issue: where are all the EVs? As long as you fail to address my arguments, I will keep boring you with the same ones because they are essential to the conversation and for realistic and pragmatic energy policy.

    Thank god we agree on "clean coal" and the ethanol mandates.
    Jun 13 01:46 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boone Pickens: The U.S. Is Subsidizing China's Iraqi Oil - Why? [View article]
    Laugh all you want: where are all these electric cars? And you want to charge them with electricity that is 40% produced by coal. Nice plan. Just *think*. How many Americans, already racked by an economic recession, high gasoline prices, and huge inflation at the supermarket can afford your Tesla solar solution? Think man. The number speak for themselves.

    Energy policy needs to be made by people with big picture pragmatic views and not slanted by ideology that cannot be supported with facts.

    XOM is solidly *against* natural gas transportation and for EVs and has gone on record many times to that effect. Why do you think that is dww12? Let me tell you since you obviously don't know. They know that EVs are not going to move the needle. And they know that their profit margins are much higher on gasoline than natural gas. And they don't want Americans to be able to refuel at home so they cannot control the gasoline they must have. Think man, think!
    Jun 13 11:58 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Boone Pickens: The U.S. Is Subsidizing China's Iraqi Oil - Why? [View article]
    dww12: So you would rather import Saudi oil than to support Pickens and his American produced natural gas plan. Interesting. Also interesting that you criticism him despite your apparently un-patriotic position.

    As for the natural gas refueling stations, the US gov funded the interstate highway system and people like you said the same thing. It was built anyway, and it led to great leaps in productivity and has paid dividends to ALL Americans for decades. It would be the same thing with a natural gas refueling infrastructure, the big difference is the productivity and cost savings would be even greater since our gasoline dollars would go to US royalty owners and recirculate in this country instead of going to Saudi Arabia.

    Of course the US has small NGV numbers - the US government is doing everything they can do to keep them out of the hands of the ordinary American! That is my point. If you want to make a true comparison, compare the total worldwide numbers:

    NGVs: 15+ millions
    EVs: less than 200,000 despite massive gov subsidies.

    Those numbers speak for themselves. Speaking of innovation, again that is my point: NGVs have been around for 100 years. They are a proven and reliable technology. Don't need to waste massive gov research dollars. Just build them.

    So, we can waste another 5 years waiting for EVs to move the needle, or, we can get busy and reduce oil consumption and reduce emissions by trying to cut through the distractions and get the government to support an economical, clean, alternative: NGVs.
    Otherwise, we're spitting into the wind and staying addicted to coal and oil (gasoline).
    Jun 13 11:53 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boone Pickens: The U.S. Is Subsidizing China's Iraqi Oil - Why? [View article]
    Interesting thought...but then again, how long have we been waiting for the fuel cells? Why go to the cost and the trouble? Why negate the advantage of having natural gas come to your home which you could use "as is" to refuel an NGV.

    This really isn't a complicated problem: natural gas -> NGV -> drive.

    The people who want to complicate the issue and throw distractions at it are the people who want to maintain the status quo of coal, oil, & gasoline.
    Jun 13 11:43 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boone Pickens: The U.S. Is Subsidizing China's Iraqi Oil - Why? [View article]
    Pipe dream? There are 15.2 million NGVs worldwide, how many EVs are there? The EU, China, and Russia have all passed long-term strategic natural gas transportation policies, and they have (by far) more expensive nat gas than the US. Elon Musk has found the correct balance between economics and technology by producing a car that is so expensive it is out of reach of the vast majority of Americans? Pah-leeeze. Get over yourself. Sales are miniscule and a drop in the ocean.

    Had nat gas transportation received the 10's of billions that solar, battery, EV, "clean coal", ethanol mandates and all the other failed energy policies of the last 2 administrations, the US would today have a robust nat gas refueling infrastructure on the interstate highway, coast-to-coast and border-to-border, and ALL Americans (not just a CEO and a few shareholders) would reap the dividends for decades into the future while breathing cleaner air and benefitting from lower trade and fiscal deficits. Instead, we have a bunch of bankrupted companies and a few thousand Teslas. Crazy.
    Jun 13 10:26 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boone Pickens: The U.S. Is Subsidizing China's Iraqi Oil - Why? [View article]
    Well, I think Tesla's success has alot to do with a great product that has been universally applauded. But the point I am trying to make is what has the greater potential to reduce foreign oil imports, cut emissions, and reduce US trade and fiscal deficits: EVs or NGVs? The EU, China, and Russia seem to believe the solution lies in NGVs, and not just for "fleet fuel". All these countries are building out a CNG refueling system on the highways. The only reason people in the US think nat gas is only valid as a "fleet fuel" is because that is what they have been told to think. Nat gas is a perfect fuel for highly congested demographic areas like the East Coast (on top of the Marcellus shale I might add), the LA/San Diego corridor, Dallas/Ft Worth, and yes, the alter of Tesla worship: the San Francisco Bay area.
    Jun 13 10:22 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Boone Pickens: The U.S. Is Subsidizing China's Iraqi Oil - Why? [View article]
    FreeState: yes and I think the "invisible hand" is SuperPAC money that enriches politicians' re-election campaigns and insure their cooperation. So what we have is ultra-rich shareholders and CEO's influencing US policy on every front. As a result, wealth and income is becoming more and more concentrated at the very top, with the result that more Americans are moving toward the bottom. Something like natural gas transportation would reverse these trends by lowering fuel costs and enabling ordinary Americans the freedom to refuel in their garages at night while they sleep with a domestic, cheap, and clean fuel. But as we have seen with the recent NSA revelations, freedom appears to be the last thing on the administration's and government's mind. The gov wants Americans to stay addicted to gasoline. Freedom, whether it be economic, mobility, or the individual rights and liberties guaranteed (or supposedly so) by the Constitution appears to be on the way out. And we knew this when Ron Paul was not even given the right to speak at the Republican National Convention even though he had earned that right by winning delegates via votes. He is the only politician I can think of that actually believes and supports the US Constitution. The rest just pay lip-service to it and act as though it is some out-dated document that is no longer relevant. And of course the other "checks and balances" in the system don't enforce their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution. I better stop now before I further depress every reader! I guess I will go back to my hot coffee.
    Jun 13 09:14 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boone Pickens: The U.S. Is Subsidizing China's Iraqi Oil - Why? [View article]
    tony49 - I like your optimism but I cannot share it. I have little hope for the DOE. Chu and Obama were a huge disappointment wrt the natural gas transportation issue. All gov agencies appear to be beholden to the SuperPACs whose wealth and power insures a continuation of the status quo (coal, oil, gasoline). The heads of US gov are essentially puppets. Otherwise economic, environmental, and national security considerations would have dictated a strong move to natural gas transportation years ago. It's just a no-brainer. It is embarrassing that the US has not natural gas transporation energy policy when the EU, China, and Russia do and while our natural gas prices are the lowest in the world. In fact, our policy appears to be to export our natural gas to run their vehicles while we continue to put all our hope in reducing foreign oil imports into two policies: 1) a weak economy reducing demand 2) Tesla. Ridiculous.
    Jun 13 08:34 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Boone Pickens: The U.S. Is Subsidizing China's Iraqi Oil - Why? [View article]
    Exactly. And US policymakers usually wait until there is a crisis before they will do the right thing.
    Jun 13 08:28 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
7,931 Comments
10,013 Likes