Michael Fitzsimmons

Peak Oil: China vs. USA

blonde_molly: oh, i got your point - you'd rather go on about my grammer and writing skills than comment on the topic at hand: china is using its financial might to lock up strategic oil supplies around the globe while the US is bankrupt, has no energy policy, and is wasting its most strategic energy assets: its natural gas reserves and 2.1 million mile nat gas pipeline grid. everyone has their priorities....and you have yours, and that's fine. i find yours, while valid, a bit petty. i admitted i wasn't the best writer, what do you want from me?

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.

Peak Oil: China vs. USA

longoil: exactly that is what i was thinking when i read User357469's comment that he/she didn't trust that website. i mean if the gov was going to lie about energy supply/demand, then they wouldn't make it look as bad as it does! unfortunately, not enough americans look at that website, and they are just whistling past the graveyard thinking everything is hunky-dory now that gasoline is under $2 again. regardless, thanks for your support for natural gas transpo. i just got an invitation from a worldwide newspaper to write an article and i think they might publish my energy policy in its entirety. we'll see.

Peak Oil: China vs. USA

User357469: ok, i admit i may have been harsh to you. here's the problem: although we are both environmentalist, and we both want to get off foreign oil, it seems as though we have a different perspective on the magnitude of the problem and therefore realistic solutions. you don't want to look at or believe the EIA data on the website. yet, those production and consumption numbers ARE real and they can be independently verified at a number of other sources. so, we must use data in this analysis or we are nowhere. now, look at the data that ripskii just posted. i haven't verified these exact percentages, but they look authentic and match closely i have also seen. now, this is just *electrical* power generation, not transportation fuel. to get a handle on the *transportation* problem, again, i keep getting backing to US gasoline usage:

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.

Peak Oil: China vs. USA

User357469: i am happy to see you and blondemolly in agreement. you two make an excellent couple! as far as supporting foreign oil imports, that is exactly what the policies you recommend end up doing. by only supporting wind, solar, and EV's how much foreign oil did your policies save last year? this year? next year? let me answer that for you: not very much. not very much at all. how much CO2 and toxic particulates did you reduce? same answer. you simply don't seem to understand that if you aren't changing the fuel people put in their vehicles, you aren't reducing foreign oil imports. it's that simple. the US consumes over 350,000,000 gallons/per DAY, derived from foreign oil. until you get this concept, you can keep talking about biofuels and wind and solar and anything else you want, but you are not significantly, reducing foreign oil imports. the only thing reducing foreign oil imports now is the large economic contraction - and you see the results to the economy. people are driving less, buying less, the economy is less vibrant. natural gas transportation solves all these problems with a US produced fuel. you have an NGV, and every time that NGV fills up with natural gas, it saves 12 gallons (or whatever) of gasoline, 65% of which comes from foreign oil. i simply cannot understand why you want to keep buying foreign oil and spewing crap into the atmosphere. it's mind boggling. you've seen $145/barrel oil and you've seen the economic contraction, and yet you persist in your position. lunacy.

Peak Oil: China vs. USA

energy_observer: a couple more points: with repect to your comment on peak oil and shale gas, those are two separate issues. oil is peaking, but not natural gas. it does not follow that simply because oil production is peaking, that natural gas is as well. that is the argument XOM made in the energy hearings congress held in the 70's, and we all know now they were dead wrong. read robert hefner's book "the grand energy transition" to understand the subject better. you also say: "if one has money, one can access oil". well, that is true, but you appear to assume the US has money! we don't, china does. further, it is due to the massive foreign energy imports that have been bankrupting the country. for both reasons above, that is why i am such a ardent supporter of natural gas transportation and a strategic, long-term comprehensive energy policy. the US desperately needs both, and we have neither and the obama adminstration isn't making any significant progress on either.

longoil: thanks for the burton links - i'll check him out.

Peak Oil: China vs. USA

energy_observer: yours is an interesting perspective and a valuable comment. that said, i'm not sure deals such as china is inking were made back in the 1950's, so i don't see why you seem to believe my article is somehow "dated". i also don't see why china funding russian energy companies to build oil and gas pipelines directly to china to in order to fuel the chinese economy is "pointless" and of "no value". just because china is going to pay market prices doesnt mean the agreements are not valuable. assuming the russian, brazilian, iranian, and venezuelan companies and governments honor the contracts (i don't know why they wouldn't since they are being paid market prices and those countries all dislike the US much more than they do china), i believe china is indeed "locking up" these energy supplies. in the future, all these oil producers know that china is on firmer financial footing than is the US. heck, china owns the US and could sink our currency at any point in the future they wish to. so, the energy these companies are sending to china will be effectively taken off the world energy markets that you opine i don't understand. i wish you could explain to me how this energy being off the world market won't be a negative for the US, a country that uses 25% of the world's oil and imports 65% of it. so, with all due respect, although you have an interesting perspective, i don't think it will work out the way you believe it will: china is not going to resell this energy, they are going to use it to power their economy (the same reason the US needs the energy). as far as peak oil goes, well, i simply disagree that demand won't outstrip supply. we saw supply/demand narrow so much in 2008 that oil went to $145/barrel - this is a fact, not opinion. in light of this fact, for you to say oil supply/demand is "ridiculous" and "irrelevant" is quite a strectch isn't it? although energy efficiencies can certainly help, and can delay the inevitable, it can't create more oil supply, simply dampen demand. you say it is not the end of the world, however look at the economy today. sure, sub-prime and all the fanancial fraud of the fascist US government have played role, but don't discount the role $145/barrel oil and $4.50/gallon gas played on consumers, we saw the same thing in the 1970s. if the economy sucks so bad now, imagine it at $245/barrel oil when the US gov is already bankrupt. imagine the US economy when actual oil shortages begin to appear. i have a feeling you won't think those oil and gas pipelines from russia to china will be "pointless" and of "no value" when you either can't afford gasoline for your own car, or, can't get it at any price.

Peak Oil: China vs. USA

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.

Peak Oil: China vs. USA

User357469: i think we should just drop the term "alternative energy" altogether and just call all sources "energy". then we could get beyond categoric lumping of "fossil fuels" and simply look at each source of energy on its own merits. it so very ironic to me that the environmental purists as i like to call them (and i DO consider myself an environmentalist!) don't understand that their policies are simply keeping us addicted to foreign oil because their "solutions" can't effectively and significantly reduce those imports. meanwhile, we have an abundant, economically viable, cleaner, and cheaper fuel right here in the US. but americans want to continue fighting foreign oil wars and supporting the governments of iraq, iran, saudi, russia, and venezuela. why? why economically? why environmentally? why from a national security perspective? why from a purely patriotic perspective? it simply makes no sense.

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.

Peak Oil: China vs. USA

amouna: CHK would be an even better investment if americans were buying NGVs. more so if we had an energy secretary that was focused on reducing foreign oil imports! (and what could be more important for an *energy* secretary to do?!). instead we have "Nobel Chu" who has turned out to be a big doofus.

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".

Peak Oil: China vs. USA

amouna: well, not to knit-pick, but i wouldn't say you are an "advocate" of peak oil..say you are a "believer" in peak oil :) i don't think natural gas will peak within 100 years, please read robert hefner's book "The Grand Energy Transition", THE GET, it will explain to you why i believe we have 60-100 years worth of nat gas (minimum).

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.