Michael Fitzsimmons

Largest Gold Reserves by Country

ok, take the US gold reserves and then take the total number of U.S. dollars out there and tell me what the prize of 1 ounce of gold would need to be in order to back all U.S. dollars by gold. after you do this, i'd bet an ounce of gold you go out and buy some...

The End of the Oil Age? Not Quite

HerrHansa: well, again, here is the real data:
www.eia.doe.gov/basics...
look under "disposition related" and you see transportation is 71% of oil consumption in the U.S. this number has been relatively stable over the past years, and is accepted truth and an often referred to number by other reputable experts. i'm not sure why people are questioning this number, it's a fact. of course some people still don't think jimmy carter's policies reduced foreign oil imports by 50%, but this to is fact. wr to U.S. military consumption, it are the biggest purchaser of oil in the world and use about as much as Greece:
www.energybulletin.net...
demand is low for natural gas because there are no NGVs and the U.S. is de-instrustrializing.

roadrunner: you are right, i am looking out over the next 5 years because if the U.S. doesnt reduce gasoline usage derived by foreign oil, i have a feeling the next big oil spike could put the nail in the coffin of the "american democratic capitalistic experience". so, yeah, we need to do something NOW and, as i have said ad nauseum, the only way to *significantly* reduce foreign oil imports is to embrace natural gas transportation. as far as 100% battery powered cars, if i am wrong, tell me the prices. what's a volt going to cost, $40-44k? what other car is there? just list the prices for me, total cost, not "lease cost" that is the model some companies are going to follow to defeat the total production cost. if i am "wrong", then these prices should be very competitive. but they are not. sure it's a new industry, but why build a 100% electric car (and, if i am wrong, where are they?) with huge battery packs in order to get decent range, when we could be building natural gas electric hybrids now, today, with great range, with much smaller battery packs, cheaper, and with very low emissions?? you may think i am "wrong" about this opinion, but it would be idiotic to do otherwise. unfortunately, the oil, coal, and US media (the Tan/Sankey comments for example..) are blowing smoke up people's backside by giving the **illusion** that something is being done to reduce oil and coal consumption, when in reality, nothing is being done. further, the big push to 100% electric vehicles is going to put little coal generators on the highway spewing CO2 and toxic particulates into the atmosphere because they'll all be re-charged with coal plants. how ironic that environmentalist are embracing this trend. it's all simply ludicrous and terrible energy "policy" imho. thanks for trying to educated me on your "energy world", but i think i'd prefer to look at reality rather than what i want it to look like.

road runner: yeah, i don't know why people are questioning the EIA data. don't get me wrong, i don't believe alot of what the government says (especially inflation numbers!) but as far as i know, the EIA supply/consumption data has never been found to be in error. if it was, why would they be lying and make the U.S. look so bad and make our energy policy look so idiotic? bottom line, the transportation sector in the U.S. takes 71% of U.S. oil consumption. period. it's a fact.

Dave5577: i agree.

pfttit: thanks for the post, it's always good to see real data on SA as it seem more and more like people's comments are simply opinions rather than facts. futher, if you like the gasoline version of the prius, you'll really like the natural gas version (if the U.S. government would ever get behind such a vehicle...)

longoil: that doesn't surprise me, it's america and oh yeah, oil (gasoline) prices have come down, so let's jump in our SUVs again. cash for clunkers was simply an idiotic energy policy, rewarded bad decision makers, penalized good decision makers, and piled on yet more debt. it was touted as the best stimulus package. my opinion is, once again, at odds with the general consensus....

apalmerjr: well, while i too am concerned about the reliability of fully electric cars (with acceptable range) because of the large battery packs and the lack of real user data over say a 10 year vehicle lifespan, everything i have read about the prius is mostly positive (see the above post by pffitt). also, the car i mentioned in the article would be sooo clean, and the battery pack from the prius has alot of real user reliability data in a wide variety of climates. all that said, with respect to working on your car, i like to as well. however, these days it's just about fluids and brakes mostly, everything else is run by a microprocessor, so unless you accesss to the dealer's computer and workbench equipment, you can't do much anyway in terms of engine performance.

Alanvon: yes, Utah and Oklahoma are enlightened when it comes to natural gas transportation. look at this website to see all the CNG refueling stations they have and what they are paying to refuel their NGVs: www.cngprices.com/
in utah, it's $0.93 and in oklahoma it's $1.11
how much are you paying to fill up your car with gasoline in your enlightened state? heh heh

The End of the Oil Age? Not Quite

jerrydd: i never said oil would be cheap - in fact, the article said just the opposite! as far as you saying i was "wrong" on EV costs, are you telling me a fully EV vehicle will cost less than a natural gas electric hybrid like a prius? if so, it is you that is wrong my friend. a prius is $22k, a Volt is what, $44k? you're off by a factor of 2, and this is because you somehow don't understand the cost of a huge battery pack versus the much much smaller battery requirements of a natural gas electric hybrid. i suggest you re-read the article...apparently you missed quite a bit the first time round.

George: yes, i have written many times that the natural gas pipeline infrastructure is the most strategic industrial asset America has. i never fully understood this until i read robert hefner's great book "the grand transistion". sometimes simple and obvious observations are the most brilliant.

The End of the Oil Age? Not Quite

TCK: go to:
www.eia.doe.gov/basics...
and scroll down to disposition. the actual number now is 71% of U.S. oil consumption goes to transportation. wrt overstating the impact of oil savings, i have covered the calculations in previous articles and stand by my statement: if half the cars and trucks in the U.S. were converted to natural gas, we could save 6-7 million barrels of oil a day. every day, 365 days a year. it could literally solve the economic problems facing the U.S. think of it, almost a half billion dollars a day would be staying in the country rather than going overseas to oil producing countries, many of which we then go and fight in oil wars. it's simply a ridiculous and unsustainable policy.

redbaron: thanks of the support, i was beginning to think i was all alone on this, or more likely just bored my readers to tears going over the same topic over and over again. however, when something as important as this is being ignored by our leaders, i have no choice. as to why barrons would write it..that's an interesting question...but, as congress, i think there are reasons (wink wink) why people are working so hard to keep us addicted to oil and gasoline. some is raw power at work, some is ignorance. consider the environmentalist who, apparently like obama and chu, think fully electric vehicles are the solution. these same people apparently believe in the myth of the oxymoronic "clean coal" campaign. even if you could economically pump CO2 into the earth, what happens to the fly-ash made of mercury, lead, etc. etc. in my opinion, all this is a direct result of the lame natural gas lobby not getting the true and full message out there. they recently took out two full page ads and said nothing in them but "eureka". that is not educational, it was simply a waste of money. i wish they'd given me full editorial power over those two pages, i would have given the readers much much more to naw on!!

The End of the Oil Age? Not Quite

longoil: not sure where you got the $50k number for gasoline hybrids, but i was at the toyota dealer yesterday and you can buy a prius for $22k. also not sure why you said natural gas hybrids will only help to a point. if half the cars and trucks on the road were natural gas vehicles, the U.S. would save 6-7 million barrels a day. that is *very* significant, as it would represent $420,000,000 a day that would stay in the U.S.A. i also don't agree with your peak natural gas comment. the U.S., and indeed the world, has abundant reserves of natural gas and i have already addressed this issue in a pervious article. i do agree that nat gas shale plays do have steep depletion rates. however, there is simply so much supply, the only issue is how fast they can drill and frack, not how much natural gas is available - it's abundant. it's abundant in the lower 48, the GOM, alaska, australia, qatar, and all over the world. royal dutch shell has even designed a floating LNG facility that will now be able to access offshore gas without the need to build pipelines to shore. this will unlock Tcf's of natural gas the world over. the outlook for natural gas is anything but "peak". all one need do is look at the onshore U.S. nat gas production rates over the last few years. the haynesville shale in TX/LA/ARK could well be the 4th biggest nat gas field in the world. saying we are running out of natural gas these days is even sillier than the exxon mobil executive said in the congressional energy hearing back in the 1970s: it just isnt true. oil is at $70/barrel, nat gas is at $4.6 and the oil nat gas ratio will never be the same again.

Artep: my point was, any stimulus program aimed toward vehicles would have been much better off addressing the U.S. energy problem. in my opinion, such a program should have been converting all those "clunkers" over to run on natural gas and hanging Phills (natural gas refueling appliances) in people's garage. junking cars and trucks that are less than 10 years old is just more idiotic consumption and a waste of productivity, not to mention raw materials. sure some will be recycled, by many of those SUVs could have been refitted to run on natural gas and served another 10 years. for the billion spent on "cash for clunkers" we could have made a damn good start at solving the NGV and CNG refueling station chicken-n-egg problem.

AO: well said and yours is a wonderful perspective vis-a-vis American vs Asian oil consumption! honestly, i was quite amazed to see two smart and talented guys like Tan and Sankey be part of such an article. one has too wonder what could have motivated them (wink wink) to write such things in the face of oil supply/demand realities. china sure isnt acting as though the end of the oil age is anytime soon!

long_on_oil: well of course we have a chicken and egg problem with NGV and CNG refueling availability. i have written about this many times, but the problems are solvable, and in my opinion we will have no choice but to solve them. the question is, will we solve them in crisis mode (probably) or, wait until peak oil drives a nail in the U.S. coffin and bankrupts the nation and we end up in complete economic (and then social...) chaos? natural gas transportation can be done - it's not nuclear physics or sting theory. enlighted states like Utah and Oklahoma have proven this and now those folks are filling up for around $1.10 per gallon. yes, the honda civic gets 200 per tank, and yes range and refueling is an issue. however, there are many people who could use such a vehicle as a second car. once many NGVs and Phills are sold, the CNG refueling stations will come. so, we can sit and do nothing and wait for another peak oil price spike, and watch our country simply whither away, or, we can take smart prudent action. if not natural gas transportation, what is your solution?

ferdinand: the "future" is now, and is the natural gas electric vehicle discussed in the article. all we need is a LEADER in the white house and LEADERSHIP by congress to enable the car into reality. toyota is ready and willing to make the car, they just want the U.S. government to support their efforts. it's that simple.

a.palmer,jr: on the contrary, a natural gas electric hybrid as i discussed will be *much* cleaner burning than current gasoline cars and with a much smaller battery pack needed than 100% EVs, it is a superior alternative and should have much better reliability than dirtier gasoline burning cars which emit much more toxic particulates through the combustion process. if you don't believe me, put a clean white hankerchief on the tailpipe of a gasoline vehicle and then do the same with a honda civic GX vehcile that runs on natural gas. after looking at the result, then tell me which car you think would have better long term reliability. add a battery pack, and those emissions are even cleaner yet. i would also disagree with your comment on fully electric cars being the solution, unless you consider destroying the air and water a "solution". building 100% EV's in quantity before building the wind and solar and nuclear infrastructure to recharge them will simply be putting little coal plants on the highway spewing CO2 and toxic particulates into the atmosphere. no thanks - i'll pass on that.

Why Exxon Should Significantly Increase its Dividend

swiftcreek1: i don't understand, and don't see the relevance of, your acorn comment. you say i have the choice to buy XOM or something. that is obviously true. the point you are missing, and what is not fair (imho), are the shareholders that have held exxon or mobil or XOM for decades and find themselves sitting on very large capital gains, preventing them from selling, while accepting the absolute lowest yielding stock in their peer group (by a longshot, not even close). nothing you wrote changes my mind on this matter. the table above speaks for itself, and XOM is obviously way out of whack on its dividend. wrt to the comment you cut and pasted, i already responded to that in my last post.

swaps: yup, yield is dividend/price, and obviously the stock price is a component. however, just imagine how much more skimpy exxon's current skimpy dividend was when XOM was at $90/share!
yet another reason for XOM to increase the dividend. if the price does happen to go up this year (instead of going down as it has been), the dividend yield will keep shrinking and investors will look at BP or CVX or COP and say, why not?

Michael*WD: i never stated that exxon didn't invest in alternative energy and i never complained about the long term return of XOM stock. what i did say is i wish they'd knock off the algae research and biofuels activity and simple line up behind a proven technology and resource and support natural gas transportation. with respect your dividend increase comment, what i asked in the article was when did they last **significantly** increase the dividend? i cannot remember. thus, the shareholders are stuck with a category low dividend yield, as the chart clearly shows. in the old days, when an oil company had huge profits like XOM in 2008, they would declare a "special" dividend and reward shareholders for their success. nowadays, we not only don't get the "special" dividend, but we get a paltry increase in the amount so they can say "we've increased the dividend for every year since alaska became state" or some such boast. like biofuels and algae, that is simply a distraction from what folks should be focusing on: it's a miserly dividend.

mws: thanks for the support! i think the chart says it all.

TexasTea: well, i certainly didn't suggest XOM go out on a spending spree for questionable assets and incurring debt. what i did suggest is;

1) the dividend yield of the stock is worst in class by a longshot
2) they should divert some of the cash going to stock buybacks and instead reward shareholders with a higher dividend.

Why Exxon Should Significantly Increase its Dividend

Living for dividends: yup, thanks. no one has yet to explain how pumping CO2 into the earth can be done economically or physically (except as XOM is doing in colorado to force out natural gas). even if it can be done, why not start with a fuel (natural gas) that has half the CO2 emissions to begin with?? :)

MJE_PDX: well, certainly it was both the dividend increase and the asset sales to whittle down debt. that said, do you disagree that XOM wouldn't have a similar pop if they increased their dividend substantially to say 3.5-4%? i bet it would, perhaps even more so than COP. with respect to XOM's cash hoard and AAA rating, i am certainly not forgetting it. in fact, those facts merely support my position that their skimpy dividend is way outta whack! i would agree that XOM's main competition is china, but it's interesting to see that as you point out, while china is locking up oil assets around the world, XOM has kept its wallet shut (with the exception of ghana). also, china has access to oil assets in countries that XOM does not (iran and some ruthless countries in africa for example). wrt the dividend and comparison to CVX, if it wasn't for the tax consequences of selling XOM, i'd rather own CVX, its higher dividend, and its outlook for increasing production. note the recent announcement that CVX made that oil production has increased by 40,000 barrels a day this quarter now that their rig in the GOM is up and pumping. there, you're getting a decent (though still comparably low) dividend AND increasing production. why on earth an exxon mobil shareholder would be happy with the current dividend is beyond my understanding. with respect to your $250/barrel oil by 2025, if the U.S. does not adopt natural gas transportation, i $500/barrel is possible when you factor in supply/demand fundamentals with the falling U.S. dollar policy now supported by obama/bernanke (as it was with bush/greenspan). this is a disaster waiting to happen. wrt your comments on XOM waiting out "alternative" energy, there is NO research needed for natural gas transportation - it's has been a proven technology since the turn of the last century, and we are awash in abundant, clean, and cheap natural gas. XOM invested billions in its Qatar LNG program, eyeing the U.S. market as well as asia and europe. however, when the smaller companies discovered the shale assets in the U.S., it must have dramatically altered the financials of the Qater project and XOM's investment there. still, XOM (like COP) executives refuse to jump on the natural gas transportation bandwagon. it's hard to understand since they are american companies, american executives, and they sit and watch america go down the tubes as a result of its addiction to foreign oil.

realold: yes, i am a fan of foreign oil companies. i always have to chuckle when folks talk about emerging market risks (as in brazil) as though there are no risks in the US market! we've seen under bush that the country has turned from capitalism to fascism. we've seen under both greenspan and helicopter ben bernanke that the helicopter of dollars everyone would thought would be dropped on middle class americans that need it, instead were dropped on the most wealthy executives that ran the banks, insurance, and national mortgage markets (not to mention the US treasury) into the ground. add to that, bush doubled the US debt in 8 years, and obama's continuation of these disastrous bush policies, and wha-la, you have gold at $1050/oz and heading, imho, much much higher. i reference malpass's excellent WSJ article in thursday's edition and i agree 100% with his suggestions on how to fix these problems.

optionsgirl: i'm not sure comparing corporate tax rates to oil and gas royalty rates is a valid comparison, although components of the overall corporate tax rate would likely contain royalty rates (at least they should). also needed to be factored in is the currency. as david malpass pointed out in his excellent WSJ editorial thursday, investment fled britain during the 50's and 60's as the pound crumbled. since the U.S. dollar is undergoing similiar systemic weakness today, and there appears no end in sight (as malpass points out, obama is continuing the disastrous weak dollar policy of the bush adminisration), U.S. policymakers would be very wise to take that into consideration when considering future oil and gas royalty rates.

k45: the foreign tax issue is a good point which i neglected in the article. thanks for bringing it up. most ADR owners get these taxes taken out automatically in their brokerage accounts. then they take the foreign tax credit on their US tax return. all that said, and even taking foreign taxes into account, the european oil companies still pay much larger, almost double, the exxon mobil dividend. so, while its certainly valid to identify the foreign tax issue, it does not support exxon's skimpy dividend policy (and you appear to agree with that). when you say exxon's actions give us a more accurate picture of the future of energy than does the media, what does that picture mean when exxon's production in 2008 was down year-over-year even when oil prices were over $145/barrel? does this mean exxon was merely keeping their oil in the ground for later, or, that exxon is having trouble replacing production and reserves? their investment in ghana, for example, was the first large new investment they have made in new oil reserves in years and years (at least that i am aware of). anyhow, i'd be interested in your thoughts and more explanation of your last statement. thx.

longoil: the consolidation issue is very interesting these days. i don't think XOM can do it due to monopoly laws. if it could, i think it would have pounced on COP when the stock collapsed. even with COP's debt load, it's portfolio of assets is very attractive, its low oil cost in prudoe a goldmine (and XOM already operates there along with BP), and COP does produce close to 1.8 million barrels a day. but XOM didn't make a move, because i am sure they think the DOJ would nix it. but the bigger issue is what pickens talked about on CNBC this week: there is a game that the US is not participating in and where china has a huge advantage having state run oil companies. china is going around the world now, and has the cash and organization to buy up oil. the US oil companies lack this financial power and the backing of a country's treasury. now, it was *very* interesting to me that somehow the U.S. government made an investment in brazil's petrobras. how does a "capitalist" country's government do that (again i "wink wink"). that would be a good idea for an article, write about US oil and gas companies to consolidate in order to better compete with china. thanks for the post!

john gordon: you won't be surprised to see my comment that a better and fairer way to deploy their cash hoard would be to aim it at the dividend rather than stock buybacks (at least a *much* larger percentage).

lorddarley: well, i'd much rather pay 15% taxes on a dividend then have to sell shares and pay cap gains taxes. further, their shares held up better last year, no doubt, but as i pointed out in the article they are down -13.5% YTD. as i suspect, this underperformance at a time when oil has recovered from under $40 to $70 is due to the fact that people are searching for yield. the dividend wasn't a big deal when the market was on a tear the last few years. but now, with CD rates under 2%, money market funds near 0%, and bonds very pricey with rates no where to go but higher, again, why would anyone buy XOM when it has so many better alternatives in terms of yield and companies like CVX and BP growing production faster? the argument doesn't hold water, and the stock's underperformance this year proves it.

yellowhoard: i like the foreign oil companies as well. i also like, you guessed it, GOLD.

Why Exxon Should Significantly Increase its Dividend

longoil: i certainly agree with you that exxon's finances are in order, which is one reason to bump the dividend. at the same time, i believe their executives are quite overpaid considering they are barely keeping production at current output, and smaller companies continue to find very large reserves right under their noses. at the same time, how can one not own a company that produces around 4 million barrels a day in an era when worldwide production won't keep pace with worldwide demand? so, we own it, but we just want to get paid a lil bit while holding it.

bindlepete: i can only hope XOM took (and takes) advantage of the low price to execute their buyback. that said, i'd like to see at least half the share buyback money go into the dividend instead.

geologist: i haven't checked your figures, but certainly XOM has greatly appreciated since 1980. at the same time, you pinpoint the problem: long time shareholders in exxon (and mobil) are sitting on a huge tax gain liability. therefore, if they sell, they'll get slaughtered. so they hold. but while they hold, why don't they deserve a competitive dividend? i mean not even close, to their peers. it's not fair to the long-term shareholder who now, more than ever, needs some friggin income!

tom armistead: well, not sure i agree. try to buy some taste great/less filling beer with BP dividends versus XOM's and see which one fills up your fridge first. in other words, the share buybacks don't give you income unless you sell the shares (and get taxed to death). i am not asking them to match BP's yield, but jeez, certainly they should get the dividend somewhere between 3.5% to 4%! even then, they'd still be middle of the pack on dividend yield, but best in the world in operating efficiencies and net income. it just doesnt make sense and isnt fair.

long_on_oil: once i reread my earlier response to you it seemed a bit harsh and directed personally at you, which was not my intent. what i meant was, exxon has done a great job at quelling shareholder discontent about the dividend. it's almost as if the shareholders are too intimidated to even ask XOM to fix what is so obviously a very very unfair dividend policy. i mean look at the chart - why in the world should exxon mobil be dead last in dividend yield when it is the best performer in the entire space in terms of generating cash and net income and has a pristince balance sheet? it's ridiculous! meanwhile, the executives make out like bandits and get their share - and much much more.

Living4Dividends: i guess we'll agree to disagree on petrobras. i don't expect (and dont want) a dividend out of them. i'd much rather they get the drilling done and be in position to cash in bigtime on the next huge oil spike, which will be coming sooner rather than later. i expect the stock to pop bigtime! with respect to returns, have you calculated PBR's return since year 2000? i'll take that anyday! that said, we do agree on XOM, so thanks for your support on the dividend issue.

Dirk: excellent comment, and that is perhaps the only theory that might supports their skimpy dividend policy. that said, there must be thousands or hundreds of thousands of investors who owned exxon (and mobil) stock during the down years and now are sitting on huge cap gains. it's not fair to make them sell shares to get access to money and pay taxes on those gains when a decent dividend may well prevent them from having to sell at all. at the same time, if they raised the dividend, those wanting stock appreciation would get that too. it's a win win situation! just look at the action at conoco recently after raising the dividend to $2/yr. and they have a large debt load. imagine how XOM would pop if the board of directors would simply raise the dividend to say a 3.5% yield. 4% and the stock would have a serious run-up.

optionsgirl: well, i like them both but for different reasons. PBR badly needs investment dollars to get the oil, so they cannot afford to totally diss the shareholders. they would not have been able to issue the bonds on the NYSE so succesfully if money managers were that scared of luna. CNBC just totally mischaracterizes the guy (imho). brazil, while a rising star, still needs investment and they know it. after getting some funding from china and even from the american gov (can you believe that??) they still need more investment money to build out the deepwater infrastructure. they aren't going to screw the ADS shareholders as it would severely reduce their capital when they need it most. that said, if china comes in and just finances the entire thing (which is possible!), then it would become more problematic. i think production growth at PBR is going to be first in class very shortly and remain that way for at least a decade. as far as taxation goes, in general i believe europe has higher royalties and higher taxes. american companies have had it made for decades, which is why BP is america's largest oil producer and STO and RDS have also invested heavily in the GOM. note the recent supreme court decision on the royalty matter (in favor of big oil). at the same time, certainly the atmosphere is changing in america from bush to obama, and the interior secretary is looking at things much more closely. however, obama and chu, by keeping the US addicted to oil and "clean coal" (wink wink), cannot afford to tax the oil companies to death or american oil production will plummet and then we'll be even more hosed than we already are. of course, realistically, all these companies are international in scope and take local tax/royalty issues into consideration wherever they invest worldwide.

Fadel Gheit: Oil Prices to Remain Inflated but Don't Pass on Gas

to say that oil isn't trading on fundamentals after 2008's supply/demand thin margin, an oil war in iraq that took millions off the margin (and added a geopolitical risk that has not gone away), the current iranian crisis, and the fact that china is circling the globe locking up oil deliveries well into the future, is simply putting one's head in the sand. with all due respect to mr. gheit, he is overstated the role of financial manipulation. the fact is, all the issues i listed above will continue to firm foundation under oil, and if the world economy ever begins to function "normally" again, you'll see oil prices zoom higher and eclipse the $147/barrel high very easily - especially when you consider that oil is priced in U.S. dollars, and we've all witnessed where that is going. at the same time, the U.S. is awash in natural gas, and as pickens said on CNBC the other day, we're *stupid* not to use natural gas in the transportation sector.

Why Exxon Should Significantly Increase its Dividend

luckylenny: to each his own i guess. exxon has the finances to both buy back shares AND pay a reasonable dividend. their currrent dividend is one reason the stock is drastically underperforming the market. as i said in the article, why would anyone buy XOM stock and its paltry dividend when they have many more opportunities for growth in production and a decent dividend yield? XOM's dividend is quite simply hurting the stock and penalizing its shareholders.

longoil: well, Exxon can afford to pay a competitive dividend and keep a pristine balance sheet. every company on that list is able to pay a decent dividend and keep their finances in order, although i would agree that COP's debt level is higher than they or i would like. however, they just announced how they are going to reduce debt by selling some assets, and that is why COP popped (in addition to raising the dividend). Exxon's dividend is simply a joke. investors deserve some income from a company that makes so much net profit. see this is the problem, the somehow have convinced folks like you, and lucky lenny, that they cannot afford to pay you a decent dividend and keep their finances in order. this is simply untrue. they are simply keeping the money for executive compensation. as someone said in my article on STO's policy to pay out 45-50% of net income in dividends, the entire board of directors at STO make less than the CEO of XOM. so, that's where the money is going. why shareholders like yourself are complacent about that gives me a headache, and lets them get away with it.

long_on_oil: well, it will be a very long time before XOM goes out of business, but i obviously agree they can afford and should be paying a higher dividend. unfortunately, as some of these comments show, they have somehow convinced many of their shareholders that they are better off with a low dividend! (?) until XOM shareholders get more demonstrative, and flood the company with complaints, i doubt they will take action. they may not take action anyway as they are arguably the most powerful company in the world.

The U.S. Dollar and Oil: Is an Endgame Near?

freya: every company you listed makes more money on oil than on natural gas. as far as the oxymoronic "clean coal" that was taken off my energy policy almost a year ago when i discovered there is no such thing.

The U.S. Dollar and Oil: Is an Endgame Near?

freya: once again, you are wrong. your faulty assumption this time is that the video you referenced contains everything pickens said on CNBC that morning. pickens was the guest host and was on the show for an entire hour. the "stupid" comment was said, and was said in pickens' closing comments. as for your comment regarding obama being the first president to reduce foreign oil imports, this is incorrect. jimmy carter was. i've already shown you the data on the government's energy website which proves this to be fact.

The U.S. Dollar and Oil: Is an Endgame Near?

Albertarocks: whoa doctor! wow...well, i have to say there is alot of truth in what you said. isn't it interesting that the biggest ponzi schemes have been by milken, madoff...and that the regulators that let it happen are connected to the inner-circle. people like mary shapiro who now heads the SEC. people pulling the handle like greenspan and bernanke. you mention rothschild. is there a trend here?? harvard business school seems to be involved too, as well as yale and the boys in the skull and bones. it's a pretty privy crowd isn't it?

realold: please sir, refrain from copying previous comments with your reponse - doing so makes the comment section overly long. we can read the previous post, just address your question/comment to the specific user you are addressing. thanks!

ripskii: ok, thanks. i commented back to ya (on the instablog).

responsibility: although i agree with much of what you said, i must take exception to: "this article's initial goal is apparently to promote speculative investments in natural gas for personal gains." that is simply not true. if you read my energy policy, which i have worked diligently on for years:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
perhaps you would change your mind and realize i am doing this for my country and our kids' future. as far as personal gains go, i have most all of my investment dollars invested in oil stocks. why in the world would i have been pushing natural gas transportation for years now if all i wanted was personal gain? if that was the case, i would be *against* natural gas transportation so that oil prices will go higher (and thus my oil stocks). in the future, perhaps you may consider being a bit more sure of such an accusation prior to making it.

The Big Picture

rip: btw, i still owe you an article on nuclear reactors as i promised. why can't i find time to do that?? i have all the information and references you sent me, i have just been swamped with stuff to do lately. anyhow, i see no hope for us if we plan on building EVs without nuclear. we'll be simply swamped with coal ash and all our water will go to sh*t.

The Big Picture

pockyclips: methane (CH4) IS natural gas...

ripsky: you are exactly right about Brazil and i saw Boone Pickens once mention that. of course then the right wingers on CNBC put Brazil President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in the "communist/socialist looney bin" and i haven't seen Pickens use this example since. but yeah, there was a country who had a problem, figured out a solution, made a plan, and did it! now we are lending them money to drill for oil we need - how STUPID is that? interesting about the diesel story - i had not heard that. however, diesel still comes from oil, so i can't favor that over natural gas, although surely the efficiencies would save some oil, so i favor it over gasoline! anyhow, thanks for your comments. i was expecting you to think i was in the looney bin myself with the yale/harvard comments. you might still think so, and just be too much of a gentlemen to mention it.