Michael Fitzsimmons

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.

Book Review: Robert Hefner's 'The Grand Energy Transition'

alex: a piece of advice: slow down with your assumptions. you assume so many things about me and the book simply because hydrogen was listed on the chart of energy sources. you now assume you know more about physics than i, yet you have no evidence of this, and might be quite surprised with my background. so, stop assuming so many things. ead the article and the book, then debate what IS said, not what is NOT said, ok? as far as hydrogen fusion goes, you're much more pesimistic than i am, and i believe, like hefner, that we should continue funding hydrogen fusion research.

user225084: we *have* made the wrong choices by continuing to burn coal and oil at the expense of nat gas. any objective scientific analysis will show this to be true, so obviously i don't think the book or the review are "hogwash". we have not been burning ALL fossil fuels as fast as we can get our hands on them, only coal and oil. that is the point!! we should switch to natural gas as a bridge to future cleaner sources. hydrogen IS the optimal energy source, so we disagree again. i am NOT saying (as alex also assumes) that it is hydrogen economical NOW. i am only saying "it is the optimal fuel", i.e. as the chart shows, no carbon and no toxic emissions. also, the point of the book is that natural gas sources are NOT "very limited" as you say. the book isn't about chemistry and physics, it builds a logical case about right and wrong energy choices. from your comments, you are a prime candidate for reading the book because like alex, you make alot of assumptions that weren't said or written, but that you merely inferring on your own.

user225084: the book and review are ill-informed? would you mind stating specific examples? if natural gas is not the solution, can i assume you are quite happy with the effects of coal and oil consumption on america today? if you are, i would suggest it is you that are ill-informed. if you are not, what is your solution? energy gases ARE common solutions to our energy problems, but they cannot cure blind idiology and closed minded assumptions.

anarchist: but captain, hydrogen IS the fuel in natural gas (CH4). does charley maxwell know definitively that man can never harness hydrogn fusion? that's quite a conclusion for old charley to come to considering the sun that rises every morning proves otherwise. i am not against nuclear power, it's in my energy policy.
"before oil prices go up" haha, you're joking right? did charley sleep through 2008? wrt wind energy transmisson, please refer charley to the AEP website where they explain the low-loss, high voltage line technology that AEP will use to ship wind energy from the dakotas to chicago. wrt your last comment, i agree that wind and solar will continue to be small (but fast growing) percentage energy contributors for the next decade, but we still need to do it, but at the same time we need to leverage a tremendous existing American asset: the 2.2 million miles of natural gas pipelines that go to 63,000,000 homes and abundant US natural gas resources :) you're welcome for the review, and thanks for commenting.

johnpeterson: right on. i haven't had time to read what you've been up to lately (sorry - too busy with a bunch of NGV issues). but, i know i will learn something and i plan to catch up soon on your writings soon. have you read the book? it's fascinating and very informaive. thanks for stopping in.

Usre283977: good action! glad to hear you read it. yeah, obama....did you notice john podesta's quote at the beginning of the book? interesting that podesta is an obama point man on energy, yet no robust nat gas policy in the stimulus plan?! so, i wrote podesta a letter recently and posted it on my blog:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
i agree with you on hydrogen fusion. your second to last paragraph is perfect! as far as the nice comment at the end, i agree that JohnP's articles are very informative and helpful. he's all over electric vehicles and battery technology. thanks for the comment!

MrEd: right on! i didn't send a copy to Gore or Obama, but i did send letters to them telling them they need to read it! the thing about hefner is, he runs in these circles. he was at the recent Clean Energy Summit in washington. gore, pickens, podesta, secretaty chu, they were all there. hefner apparently has alot of visibility, and has for some time. why they keep ignoring his policies when he has been proven to be right over and over and beyond me. apparently the big oil and coal won't go down without a fight..and they certainly have the money to influence the worthless politicians. anyhow, good post...you GET it.

wow - three nice posts in a row! time to stop :)
thanks all for commenting and enjoy the rest of your weekend.

Book Review: Robert Hefner's 'The Grand Energy Transition'

Vancouverite: i understand how you and canadians in general must feel. i felt like kurt vonnegut ("man without a country") during the bush years. and so far, obama doesnt "GET it" wrt the importance of using US produced natural gas. but, i am "honest" about the realtionship, and i don't think my old west comment about neighbors is "rhetoric": look at history ... look at the effects on a country when it shares a border with another suffering an economic collapse. that's not rhetoric...that's history. the length of border the US/Canada has and the economic trade between the two makes this even more important. so, we should all work in a positive manner to help fix the problems. that said, US policies over the last few years have had terrible worldwide effects. i've written much about these bad polices on SA and my own blog. all i can do is the best i can. that is why i didn't understand why you picked my article to vent on. anyhow, i appreciate your repost.

Book Review: Robert Hefner's 'The Grand Energy Transition'

alex filonov: "including hydrogen into the table of energy sources is total bullshit". that has to be the most idiotic assertion i have ever seen. actually, it was the first good laugh of my day. alex - do you realize how the sun heats the earth? do you have any idea why NGVs work? no, you don't, so i'll tell you: it's the energy released from ***hydrogen***. you just don't get it do you? as far as BS goes, your comment (which unfortunately for you cannot be deleted) documents just exactly who is full of it (clue: it ain't me). by the way, it's fuel "cell".

User283977: thank you for giving it back to poor "alex" who apparently needs to read the book more than anyone else. that said, i am very glad you got to read it! i wish more people would...i am very dissapointed at the general response on here..i hope hefner doesn't hold it against me! did you read it because of my review, or did you already hear about the book? just curious.

Vancouverite: we may well all be screwed, but i don't see how your vitriolic post is helpful in the least. there is a saying from the old west: "a weak neighbor weakens me". so, before you continue hoping for a US collapse, you might want to consider what effects such a collapse may have on canada and on yourself.

Book Review: Robert Hefner's 'The Grand Energy Transition'

ripskii: yeah, my only point with LNG is that is simply isn't needed for cars and trucks that middle class americans need - simply too costly, and not readily available like the nat gas hooked up to their water heaters. wrt nuclear, i hate to admit it but we need it. looking at the energy necessary to replace the 12,000,000 barrels of oil/distilates the US imports every day, i don't see a way around deploying nuclear. hopefully, humans will figure out hydrogen fusion sooner rather than later.

tunaman4u2: natural gas is low for two reasons: huge new shale supply, and industrial demand falling off a cliff following the economy off a cliff. that said, nat gas drilling rigs are dropping rapidly every week, so it will come back. the energy yoyo we are on is all due to our addiction to foreign oil. imagine what would happen if the US went into iran. anyhow, glad you are tuned into the fact that we have abundant nat gas in the US. however, in 2008, even when nat gas was over $10, CNG refuelers in california were barely paying $2 when gasoline was $4.50. folks in utah were paying $1.25 (now $0.88!).

carbonates: yup, you are right-on nat gas is lumped in with "fossil fuels". hopefully that will change now that the nat gas guys have finally decided to organize their own lobbying effort in washington (until now it was "oil and gas" with "oil" driving the cart...). your second and third paragraphs are also right on the money. man, it sure is nice to get a comment like yours now and again - thanks!

gottgreen: great hands-on article! thanks for posting.

frflyer: zow-eee. yeah, i agree, it's like the skeptics think mentioning gore's name is a substitute for factual debate.

frflyer (post2): thanks for the wind energy facts and statistics - they help put wind deployment in perspective.

frflyer (post3): i'm not so sure i agree with the 50%. however, i do agree that there have been big efficiency gains recently in natural gas fueled electric generators. i am sure NGV's would get better to if we just started building them in volume! there are many advantages to NGVS:
- reduce foreign oil
- reduce gasoline CO2 emissions by 30%
- reduce gasoline particulate emissions by 100%
- refuel at home while you sleep
- create many good jobs in the US (auto, energy, etc)
- keep our energy dollars at home!
wrt pickends, i don't know why he wants nat gas out of electrical generation, i think he is wrong. there is enough nat gas to fuel both generation and transportation. most of the wind/solar arrays need nat gas generation backup for intermitancy. wrt nuclear, we should build some new plants, but also keep funding research on hydrogen fusion. wrt cooling, you're right, nuclear plants in TN and SC were shut down last year because of the drought. i had not heard of France's nuclear woes last summer...although i did hear they don't store the waste in their country, and that they actually pay the US to store it here. where, i don't know (that's all speculation). anyhow, thanks for your posts, your passion, your concern, and your thinking.

Book Review: Robert Hefner's 'The Grand Energy Transition'

Bobco: i am not as negative on hydrogen as you are. it will happen eventually. however, if you assume hefner says hydrogen is viable today, he does not. you need to read the book. i disagree with you on wind energy - it's a good thing, it's cost competitive, and you will see a huge buildout in wind energy over the next decade and for decades to come. electric cars are great, but only once we have taken all the coal generators offline, else we simply pollute more. glad you are behind nat gas transpo, and glad you recognize the danger of our foreign oil addiction. wrt CO2, we differ again. consider: the US burns 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline every DAY (EIA data). each gallon burned in an internal combustion engine emits 19 lbs of CO into the atmosphere. so, pull out your calculator and get the yearly total of CO2 emissions just from gasoline: (360,000,000 x 19 x 365). now, do see research and figure out how much coal we burn every day, and add up that component of CO2 emssions. and this is just the US. i am neither a fool, nor "in on the scam". i am an engineer, and consider myself a man of science. the fools are the ones who see the data i just presented and are too blinded by ideology to believe the science.

fran: thanks for your comments. now, i wasn't debating the fact that LNG was used in transportation. i was merely pointing out that to make the biggest reductions in foreign oil, we merely need to make use of natural gas as it exists at our houses: in it gaseous non-liquid form. andfocus on NON fleet cars and trucks. i don't agree with boone pickens that nat gas should only be used in fleets and shouldn't be used in electric power generation. we can cut out much more foreign oil by having middle class american's non-fleet vehicles running on natural gas. and, further, since we have such an abundance of it, i think we should being replacing coal fired electric generation plants with nat gas generation. we can start with the coal plant in kingston, TN which just decimated the entire tennessee valley....

koolsool: you're welcome, and i hope you do get to read the book. yes, i am very dissapointed with obama wrt natural gas. here's a letter i wrote to john podesta the other day on this subject:

thefitzman.blogspot.co...

wrt big oil, i believe you are correct that they lobby against NG. i believe the reason is that their profits are more heavily weighted toward oil: producing and refining it. natural gas is a big threat to remove those requirements. that said, oil production and use will be around for decades, and if big oil would just get WITH the program, instead of fighting against it, the US would be in much better shape today. in fact, i would go so far as to say it is their patriotic duty to support natural gas transportation.

AT&T's CNG fuled NGV announcement:
earth2tech.com/2009/03.../

Book Review: Robert Hefner's 'The Grand Energy Transition'

billddrummer: a ray of light!! thank you...and you will not regret reading the book, it is both fascinating and very informative.

Book Review: Robert Hefner's 'The Grand Energy Transition'

User32463: natural gas burns very efficiently (and cleanly) in NGV's in california, utah, latin america, brazil..and around the world. i'm all for electric cars, but if we want to significantly reduce foreign oil imports and greenhouse gases over the next 5 years, only natural gas can be scaled up for the job. otherwise, we just burn coal to charge the cars. i think you should get a copy of the book. if you think the guys just want the money, then i ask you this: who would you rather give your energy dollars to, american men in the nat gas exploration and production business to create american jobs, or, to the leaders of venezuela, saudi arabia, russia, iran, iraq?? please *think*

ripskii: well, i guess we disagree. as soon as you spend the energy to liquify nat gas, the cost goes up, as does the equipment to handle it. australia is probably doing this because they have vast areas of empty land. no need for that in the US when we already have, in place, a vast nat gas pipeline grid going to 63,000,000 homes. we should keep the cost down, and simply stay with what is available, and fully adequate. just ask the californians and folks in utah. it works great just the way it is.

bassmaseter: i'm not selling my COP...

chuckokie: i disagree with you. it was big oil's (exxon) testimony that convinced congress we were running out of nat gas. it was this testimony that was responsible for the huge switch to coal electric generation from nat gas generation and for well head price controls on nat gas. and yes, GHK did lobby the Carter administrtation - to take remove the interstate regulation of natural gas prices. wrt your second comment, i never said that big oil was the driver for US "unconventional" plays?? i am very aware CHK and others kicked big oil's butts in shale development, which, as far as i am concerned are not
"unconventional" (big oil's term), but are
"conventional".

jimmy46: ok, you don't like hydrogen for some reason. you disagree that it is the simplest and cleanest of all fuels. interesting. please, enlighten me .... tell me, what is your "energy holy grail"? someday humans will figure out hydrogen fusion, and when they do, remember the words you wrote here today.

aquaculture: the chart in the article clearly shows the carbon content of methane (CH4). the point is, compare it to gasoline (also in the chart). it emits none of the particulates of gasoline, and 30% less CO2. thanks for trying to teach me something...but i am flly aware of western europe's energy woes (see my previous articles on russia and the caspian sea). so you believe the US shouldn't go to natural gas because western europe and japan don't have it and we have a 100 year supply?? well, we're on oil now, and they don't have that either!! your logic escapes me. i think you are a good candidate to read the book...

as far as your last statement, if the comments to this article are any indication, i would have to agree with you. overall, these exchanges have been pathetic. i expected more from americans who are in the midst of an economic, energy, environmental, and national security crisis. i guess we'll just follow the long list of historically defunct countries that got fat, lazy, and ignorant. they all collapsed - just as we will if we do nothing about our addiction to foreign oil as we head into the era of peak oil with a bankrupted government. after $145/barrel oil and a collapsing financial system, i guess i expected alot more from the folks on here. oh well, life goes on. remember this article and the solutions put forth in the book the next time you're paying $4.50/gallon...folks in CA with Honda Civic GX's were paying slightly over $2 for natural gas. folks in utah are paying $0.88 now. the rest of us are chumps.

Book Review: Robert Hefner's 'The Grand Energy Transition'

baddenbadden: i looked at your profile to see what i could learn about you. all i learned was that you logged in at 1am and created an account just to post your link of "scary pictures". well, i could easily find the same type pictures from gasoline fueled cars. but you know what is scarier than those pics? an american economy totally dependent on 65% foreign oil. THAT is scary. besides, i have not seen one credible statistical study from california or utah or latin america or brazil or iran that shows that NGV are significantly more dangerous than are gasoline cars and trucks.

PeteK: right on

john gordon: from your past comments, i think you would really enjoy this book. it is fascinating. however, why liquify the gas when you can use it much cheaper in gaseous form, the pipeline infrastructure is already in place and goes to 63,000,000 homes?

Banks: what *exactly* is it that you disagree with? why do you criticize someone without giving your reasons? from your previous posts, i would have thought you were a prime candidate to read the book. btw, my last name is "Fitzsimmons".

nakedjaybird: i believe mr hefner, after exploring and producing natural gas for 50 years, is quite aware that natural gas is a fossil fuel, and states as much in the book. hefner is also quite aware that sun is fusion...hdyrogen fusion, and states that as well. you probably shouldn't read the book as it is obviously over your head.

man, what a sad list of comments for such a great book.

Book Review: Robert Hefner's 'The Grand Energy Transition'

Jimbo: sorry to hear about your Seven Seas investment. i guess i should investigate the matter as i must plead ignorance. i agree with the rest of your comment only to add why stop at buses and fleets? natural gas goes to 63 million homes..why not refuel why we sleep? we could reduce oil imports by 6-7 million barrels within 5 years if we put our minds (and our industry) to it, and create lots of good jobs at the same time.

jljamup: in this time of US economic, environmental, and energy crisis your comment is, well, simply not helpful. if you care to debate the logic contained in the book, then i'm happy to oblige. if you'd like to present your own solution, i am all ears. otherwise, i just assume that you are happy with the status quo and therefore a waste of time.

tedfoo: you said "LNG" (liquified natural gas), did you mean CNG? i don't mean to nitpick, but natural gas produced in the US doesn't need to be liquified, just put it in the pipelines, and use compressors to fuel the CNG tanks in the cars, buses, trucks, etc. etc. no need for costly liquification. wrt particulates, you are onto something. everyone focuses on CO2 emissions from coal, but anyone who has visited kingston, TN lately can see the results of over 50 years of coal burning. as you are aware, natural gas is clean CH4, no particulates! i share your concern with obama wrt natural gas....i don't think he GET's it. time will tell.

Book Review: Robert Hefner's 'The Grand Energy Transition'

SEV: sorry, i can't comment on seven seas petroleum because i don't know anything about the company.

aquaculture: Mr. Hefner's company, GHK, is focused on natural gas exploration and production (not oil). i don't believe i "pumped" the company in the article. my intention was to simply review the book. listing the credentials of the author is part of the book review. as for why the SA editors put the article in the alternative energy section, perhaps their feeling is that anything other than coal and oil is alternative. NGV's are certainly a cleaner, cheaper, and US powered alternative to dirtier imported oil fueled cars and trucks.

Book Review: Robert Hefner's 'The Grand Energy Transition'

Paulus: and exxon is a big oil investor, and peabody energy is big coal investor. these things are obvious. the real question is whether you want to stay addicted to expensive foreign oil and dirty coal, or support a switch to US produced natural gas. from your response, i think it may be a good idea if you read the book.

Oil Will Peak at $150-200 - Barron's Interview

don't see oil at $75 ever again unless the US enters a deep-deep recession or depression. any lack of demand in the US will be quickly sucked dry in china, india, russia, and the middle east. we are entering the last oil crisis - a crisis unlike the political energy crisis of the 1970's, this crisis is a worldwide supply/demand crisis. the futures contracts will not allow the price to fall to $75 as people the world over will be glad to secure delivery at $80, $85, $90, etc. etc. you get the picture.

Smells Good: The Case for Natural Gas

The 50% devaluation of the US dollar is just in the last 8 years, most of the damage done when rep held both houses of Congress and of course our illustrious presidency. Here's a chart of just the last 2 years:

quotes.ino.com/chart/?...

If you want to talk about socialism, what do you think of an administration that backs the Federal Reserve taking over a publicly traded investment firm (Bear Stearns) with tax-payer money? That said, I have to admit I probably would prefer the socialism of say Sweden, Finland, and Canada to what we have in the US today: a raping of the US treasury by the uber-wealthy while the middle class (what's left of it...) struggles to buy gas, food, and pay their car and house notes. You point to history and if you have some historical perspective yourself, you must be aware that country's fall from power when the majority ("middle class") can't make ends meet. That is the track the US is on at present.

It's amazing to me the blindness virus that political ideology can cause people to conveniently ignore facts.

Age is not the biggest factor in determining intelligence. If experience and history were factors, what can one say about Bush's second term? Apparently he learned nothing from the disastrous first 4 years.

Smells Good: The Case for Natural Gas

sliman: that's a good question, but long term, i favor the stocks.
thinking/pedriven: i like APC and Petrohawk too!
paultaut: not familiar with PGH, sorry. i will have a look later today.
Pacha: while i agree that both parties are responsible for a lack of an energy policy, in the article i was referring to recent fiscal policies: the Bush administration's huge fiscal deficits (he inherited a surplus), the lack of oversight on the ratings agencies fraudulent AAA rating of sub-prime debt, the Federal Reserve cutting interest rates in the face of huge inflation (inflation numbers which are fraudulently massaged by our government), and the Fed taking over a private investment firm like Bear Stearns, are all factors in the greater than 50% (!) devaluation of the US dollar during Bush's 8 years. this of course, has a direct impact on the price of oil, it being priced the world over in US dollars. for a country that uses 25% of the world's oil and imports 60% of that, it's a disastrous policy. yet, still, we have no comprehensive nergy policy! as i have said before, the Bush administration's fiscal policies have caused the world's reserve currency to swith: from the US dollar, to a barrel of oil. it's a disaster. there is nothing "conservative" about the Bush administration - they are the most RADICAL government in the history of the US. our standard of living will never be the same IMHO.