Michael Fitzsimmons's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/173432/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/92852/comments?source=feed#comment-825584 825584
1) dependence on foreign oil
2) fiat money created, controlled, and distributed by a very small group of well-connected people in complete secrecy with no congressional oversight.

obama has done nothing about either and certainly neither did bush.

when obama appointed shapiro ("dear friend" of madoff), i realized nothing would change (and wrote about it on SA). the only real option we had was ron paul, who understands the ponzi scheme that bernanke (and greenspan b4 him) is in control of: printing fiat money in secrecy with no congressional oversight, giving it to the inner circle buddies (blankfein, dimon, benmosche, etc. etc.) while the "pay czar" feinberg makes sure all these "executives" get as much as possible but not as much as last year to make it look good. the whole thing stinks. obama is nothing but bush warmed over (albeit much smarter and a better speaker). but what we have is fascism pure and simple, and the people in charge are the people who should have more first hand experience in fascism than anyone else....(hint hint). but you can't talk about it without being labelled a bigot. no one will debate you on specifics, because the facts speak for themselves. hell, i couldn't even get my ron paul book review published on Seeking Alpha - that's just more evidence supporting my position on this matter.

so, what do i think about obama and bush? they're both the same and in cahoots with the whole scheme. meanwhile, the unproductive wars continue being funded by the printing presses and more debasing of the currency. just wait until the iran thing heats up, and you know it will, cause those in charge certainly see iran as a big threat (and besides, they have a bit of oil...).

as ron paul says, the US has turned into a welfare-warfare nation based on the unsustainable printing of fiat money by a very small group of bureaucrats who have taken over US economic, monetary, and military policy. there's been no "change" with obama. if anything, all he is doing is continuing and expanding failed bush policy. if your comments were sarcastic vote of confidence in mccann/palin, pah-leeze. there is no difference between republicans and democrats. the two party system is just a ruse to keep voters distracted from what is really going on.

i wish i had my vote back for ron paul. most the rest of em are all paid off and "playing the game". until i read "end the fed", i didn't put it all together. now i have, and now i understand why congress doesn't support natural gas transportation - because it would mean freedom, and a strong middle class. and that is the last thing fascists want.]]> Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:30:25 -0500
1) dependence on foreign oil
2) fiat money created, controlled, and distributed by a very small group of well-connected people in complete secrecy with no congressional oversight.

obama has done nothing about either and certainly neither did bush.

when obama appointed shapiro ("dear friend" of madoff), i realized nothing would change (and wrote about it on SA). the only real option we had was ron paul, who understands the ponzi scheme that bernanke (and greenspan b4 him) is in control of: printing fiat money in secrecy with no congressional oversight, giving it to the inner circle buddies (blankfein, dimon, benmosche, etc. etc.) while the "pay czar" feinberg makes sure all these "executives" get as much as possible but not as much as last year to make it look good. the whole thing stinks. obama is nothing but bush warmed over (albeit much smarter and a better speaker). but what we have is fascism pure and simple, and the people in charge are the people who should have more first hand experience in fascism than anyone else....(hint hint). but you can't talk about it without being labelled a bigot. no one will debate you on specifics, because the facts speak for themselves. hell, i couldn't even get my ron paul book review published on Seeking Alpha - that's just more evidence supporting my position on this matter.

so, what do i think about obama and bush? they're both the same and in cahoots with the whole scheme. meanwhile, the unproductive wars continue being funded by the printing presses and more debasing of the currency. just wait until the iran thing heats up, and you know it will, cause those in charge certainly see iran as a big threat (and besides, they have a bit of oil...).

as ron paul says, the US has turned into a welfare-warfare nation based on the unsustainable printing of fiat money by a very small group of bureaucrats who have taken over US economic, monetary, and military policy. there's been no "change" with obama. if anything, all he is doing is continuing and expanding failed bush policy. if your comments were sarcastic vote of confidence in mccann/palin, pah-leeze. there is no difference between republicans and democrats. the two party system is just a ruse to keep voters distracted from what is really going on.

i wish i had my vote back for ron paul. most the rest of em are all paid off and "playing the game". until i read "end the fed", i didn't put it all together. now i have, and now i understand why congress doesn't support natural gas transportation - because it would mean freedom, and a strong middle class. and that is the last thing fascists want.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/165726/comments?source=feed#comment-821687 821687
1) increase the dividends
2) support nat gas transportation
3) slim down its bloated management and reduce the outlandish salaries and pensions

otherwise stocks like BP, CVX, and even COP are going to outperform XOM in the future in terms of stock price appreciation.]]> Sat, 26 Dec 2009 05:44:48 -0500
1) increase the dividends
2) support nat gas transportation
3) slim down its bloated management and reduce the outlandish salaries and pensions

otherwise stocks like BP, CVX, and even COP are going to outperform XOM in the future in terms of stock price appreciation.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/176582/comments?source=feed#comment-790142 790142 Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:35:49 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/173432-michael-fitzsimmons/38251-book-review-end-the-fed-by-ron-paul?source=feed#comment-790102 790102 Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:22:36 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/175002/comments?source=feed#comment-781917 781917
1) the price of OIL is going to skyrocket (remember $145/barrel??)
2) all the $ the US spends on imported oil LEAVES THE COUNTRY

as far as your bill goes, i use a wood stove which i highly recommend if you can attain wood to fuel it.

thatGuy: yes, i am well aware of natural gas well depletion rates. but better to drill for something you have (natural gas) than something you don't have (oil). the US is swimming in nat gas, NOT oil (which is why we import 65% of our petroleum). speaking of depletion rates, the huge oil discoveries you spoke about will be hard pressed to simply keep pace with the depletion rates of prudoe bay, the north sea, mexico and elsewhere. note also that the biggest discoveries (like brazil for instance, which is why i love Petrobras) are not in the US. what i am saying is the US is going bankrupt buying foreign oil so we need to get off OIL and get ON what we have plenty of: natural gas.

**********************...
Why do americans not want to refuel their cars and trucks in their garage overnight with American produced, cheap, and clean natural gas???
**********************...
Why are Americans so quick to want to fight oil wars and complain about terrorists while supporting energy policies that do nothing but enrich these same people they (supposedly) despise???
**********************...]]> Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:46:45 -0500
1) the price of OIL is going to skyrocket (remember $145/barrel??)
2) all the $ the US spends on imported oil LEAVES THE COUNTRY

as far as your bill goes, i use a wood stove which i highly recommend if you can attain wood to fuel it.

thatGuy: yes, i am well aware of natural gas well depletion rates. but better to drill for something you have (natural gas) than something you don't have (oil). the US is swimming in nat gas, NOT oil (which is why we import 65% of our petroleum). speaking of depletion rates, the huge oil discoveries you spoke about will be hard pressed to simply keep pace with the depletion rates of prudoe bay, the north sea, mexico and elsewhere. note also that the biggest discoveries (like brazil for instance, which is why i love Petrobras) are not in the US. what i am saying is the US is going bankrupt buying foreign oil so we need to get off OIL and get ON what we have plenty of: natural gas.

**********************...
Why do americans not want to refuel their cars and trucks in their garage overnight with American produced, cheap, and clean natural gas???
**********************...
Why are Americans so quick to want to fight oil wars and complain about terrorists while supporting energy policies that do nothing but enrich these same people they (supposedly) despise???
**********************...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175002/comments?source=feed#comment-780863 780863
any energy policy that keeps us addicted to oil is NOT an energy policy. i am all for drilling in alaska, but i'd rather see us use natural gas for transportation, and alaska already has huge nat gas ready to send to the US. as far as giving money to millionaires and billonaires and crack whores, well, i'd rather not give ANY of my tax money to any of them! if you want to, that's your opinion. i think it's absolutely insane (not to mention, again, unconstitutional). ever noticed how many times i used the term "unconstitutional" to describe the bush era?

btw, it's "turban" (as in head dress) not "turbine" (as in gas generator). that said, who do you think reaped the most rewards from bush's idiotic energy policies and oil wars? you guessed it, the "turban heads" we are supposed to be fighting a war of terror against! it was all a world of doublespeak under bush. so, by all means enjoy your motorcycles and other toys bush supposedly provided for you.

bobbybutte: sure, markets correct. the key is to get the trend right. oil has corrected, but despite all the talk of "low" oil prices, it's still much much higher than 10 years ago. some with gold. things go up and down, but strategic things trend higher with higher highs and higher lows. i think gold has a long, long way to go. could i be wrong? of course, no one knows for sure.

User790: still haven't found the time to read up on this, but i can say my gut says "why?" when we have all the cheap and clean natural gas we need with distribution directly to 60,000,000 homes (where 130,000,000 cars and trucks could be refueled over night while their owners sleep) in every metropolitan city in the country.

ripskii: the large number of comments are probably due to me being stubborn and argumentative. wrt nuclear, i believe hefner says it's probably inevitable we will need it, but i, like him, would much rather see natural gas generation: it's cheaper and cleaner and there isn't the waste and radiation and terror target issues.]]> Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:05:01 -0500
any energy policy that keeps us addicted to oil is NOT an energy policy. i am all for drilling in alaska, but i'd rather see us use natural gas for transportation, and alaska already has huge nat gas ready to send to the US. as far as giving money to millionaires and billonaires and crack whores, well, i'd rather not give ANY of my tax money to any of them! if you want to, that's your opinion. i think it's absolutely insane (not to mention, again, unconstitutional). ever noticed how many times i used the term "unconstitutional" to describe the bush era?

btw, it's "turban" (as in head dress) not "turbine" (as in gas generator). that said, who do you think reaped the most rewards from bush's idiotic energy policies and oil wars? you guessed it, the "turban heads" we are supposed to be fighting a war of terror against! it was all a world of doublespeak under bush. so, by all means enjoy your motorcycles and other toys bush supposedly provided for you.

bobbybutte: sure, markets correct. the key is to get the trend right. oil has corrected, but despite all the talk of "low" oil prices, it's still much much higher than 10 years ago. some with gold. things go up and down, but strategic things trend higher with higher highs and higher lows. i think gold has a long, long way to go. could i be wrong? of course, no one knows for sure.

User790: still haven't found the time to read up on this, but i can say my gut says "why?" when we have all the cheap and clean natural gas we need with distribution directly to 60,000,000 homes (where 130,000,000 cars and trucks could be refueled over night while their owners sleep) in every metropolitan city in the country.

ripskii: the large number of comments are probably due to me being stubborn and argumentative. wrt nuclear, i believe hefner says it's probably inevitable we will need it, but i, like him, would much rather see natural gas generation: it's cheaper and cleaner and there isn't the waste and radiation and terror target issues.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175002/comments?source=feed#comment-779352 779352
hidflect: all i am saying is:
1) iran knows the US wants the oil
2) iran has US forces on both the eastern & western borders
3) the US has a history of invading arab nations for energy reasons

now, given those realities, why on earth would the leaders of iran say the things they have said regarding israel to give the US (and israel) reasons to invade? like i said, it's simply shooting themselves in the foot. everytime the issue of nuclear capability comes up, the leaders in the world (not just the US and israel) bring up the israeli rhetoric that iran's leaders have used in the past to keep themselves in power - that is, that rhetoric is used to gain support of the iranian population (who obviously are against the power of the "special relationship"). in the end, all it does is give the US another reason to invade and we all know OIL is the main reason. just to be clear here: i think U.S. foreign policy is, has been, and probably will continue to be abysmal. this is a direct reflection of the lack of a strategic energy policy and the U.S.'s dependence on foreign oil.

allforone: and for the doubling of the U.S. debt in 8 years (i.e. selling us out to china), and for the greatest loss of liberties in the 200 yr history of the country, and for the "patriot act", and for the unconstitutional oil wars, and for $145/barrel oil, and for the lack of an energy policy, and for fear mongering, and for the devaluation of the dollar, and for the rise or the religious right and the NON-seperation of church and state, and for using your tax money to give millonaire and billionaire fraudsters "bonus" money as a reward for their financial fraud and driving their companies bankrupt, and for the biggest economic contraction since the great depression, etc. etc. all that said, just so that you realize i am even handed, obama appears to be continuing and expanding most of bush's policies. but this isn't a white or black issue as you allude, this is the political powers against the middle class. that's the problem. congress and the president no longer make legislation benefitting the majority of americans, they make it for the industries that fill their pockets with money. this is called fascism.]]> Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:03:36 -0500
hidflect: all i am saying is:
1) iran knows the US wants the oil
2) iran has US forces on both the eastern & western borders
3) the US has a history of invading arab nations for energy reasons

now, given those realities, why on earth would the leaders of iran say the things they have said regarding israel to give the US (and israel) reasons to invade? like i said, it's simply shooting themselves in the foot. everytime the issue of nuclear capability comes up, the leaders in the world (not just the US and israel) bring up the israeli rhetoric that iran's leaders have used in the past to keep themselves in power - that is, that rhetoric is used to gain support of the iranian population (who obviously are against the power of the "special relationship"). in the end, all it does is give the US another reason to invade and we all know OIL is the main reason. just to be clear here: i think U.S. foreign policy is, has been, and probably will continue to be abysmal. this is a direct reflection of the lack of a strategic energy policy and the U.S.'s dependence on foreign oil.

allforone: and for the doubling of the U.S. debt in 8 years (i.e. selling us out to china), and for the greatest loss of liberties in the 200 yr history of the country, and for the "patriot act", and for the unconstitutional oil wars, and for $145/barrel oil, and for the lack of an energy policy, and for fear mongering, and for the devaluation of the dollar, and for the rise or the religious right and the NON-seperation of church and state, and for using your tax money to give millonaire and billionaire fraudsters "bonus" money as a reward for their financial fraud and driving their companies bankrupt, and for the biggest economic contraction since the great depression, etc. etc. all that said, just so that you realize i am even handed, obama appears to be continuing and expanding most of bush's policies. but this isn't a white or black issue as you allude, this is the political powers against the middle class. that's the problem. congress and the president no longer make legislation benefitting the majority of americans, they make it for the industries that fill their pockets with money. this is called fascism.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175002/comments?source=feed#comment-778666 778666
Davewmart: here's the aricle on nat gas reserves. information since this article was written only serve to increase the nat gas reserves in the US (and the world):
seekingalpha.com/artic...

rick12345: unfortunately diplomacy went out the door when bush walked through it. the "special" US relationship with israeli almost assures antagonistic policies toward arab countries. unfortunately, for the US that's where the oil is and why the "special" relationship not only assures israel's eventual demise, but is so strategically flawed wrt US economic and national security perspectives. this is why truman was so hesitant to begin the "special relationship" to support the jewish state and why he and the state dept boys knew it was bad policy to support the state. unfortunately, a jewish friend and a rabbi talked truman into it. great story about this in david mccullough's pulitzer price winning book "Truman". despite all the good truman did (also explained in the book), this was a critical error in judgement and history has proven his state department was correct in their long-term analysis.

Northstar10000: the "fix" you allude to was put in long before obama came to office. he is merely continuing and expanding it rather than inacting the "change" he promised.

WayneS: i am not so sure the average Nigerian would agree with your post.]]> Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:38:52 -0500
Davewmart: here's the aricle on nat gas reserves. information since this article was written only serve to increase the nat gas reserves in the US (and the world):
seekingalpha.com/artic...

rick12345: unfortunately diplomacy went out the door when bush walked through it. the "special" US relationship with israeli almost assures antagonistic policies toward arab countries. unfortunately, for the US that's where the oil is and why the "special" relationship not only assures israel's eventual demise, but is so strategically flawed wrt US economic and national security perspectives. this is why truman was so hesitant to begin the "special relationship" to support the jewish state and why he and the state dept boys knew it was bad policy to support the state. unfortunately, a jewish friend and a rabbi talked truman into it. great story about this in david mccullough's pulitzer price winning book "Truman". despite all the good truman did (also explained in the book), this was a critical error in judgement and history has proven his state department was correct in their long-term analysis.

Northstar10000: the "fix" you allude to was put in long before obama came to office. he is merely continuing and expanding it rather than inacting the "change" he promised.

WayneS: i am not so sure the average Nigerian would agree with your post.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175002/comments?source=feed#comment-778075 778075 thefitzman.blogspot.co...
also disagree that nuclear should replace coal - to expensive and takes too long. all coal plants should be replaced with natural gas generation ASAP. nukes should be on the drawing board for the future. replace the coal with nat gas now.

GMaximus: gold is rising because oil prices already rose. please look at the chart. the last oil crisis was in the 1970's and look when gold made it's all time highs (right afterward as pointed out in the article). in 2008, oil went to $145/barrel and now gold is going to skyrocket in response. wrt currency, the *reason* the currency is being devalued is *because of* the economic dislocations due to $145/barrel *imported* oil. all the people involved in financial "services" had to create fraudulent ways to "earn" money because the US is making anything any more, and we have a huge trade deficit whose biggest component is, you guessed it, OIL. so, everything is driven by oil: oil spikes, then gold (not the other way around). so, it is OIL that is driving gold prices and US currency devaluation since the US imports 65% of its oil and cannot possible sustain that without printing more paper money. your post and the others along the same line have not changed my opinion on this matter, and i believe the very simple fact that oil spike first and gold follows proves i am correct.

FreeState: what is "PTB" please? wrt peeling the onion, we'd better peel it sooner rather than later or we'll have all the tears a chopped onion would give us without ever getting to actually eat the onion. for the Fed and Treasury to print money, put it on the backs of middle class taxpayer, and give it to their friends (who are all now buying gold and storing it outside the country) is about as bad as it could possibly get and must be stopped. thank god for ron paul and i support his efforts completely, and so should you if you are, indeed, a "free state yank". cause i am (originally from upstate NY)]]> Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:10:19 -0500 thefitzman.blogspot.co...
also disagree that nuclear should replace coal - to expensive and takes too long. all coal plants should be replaced with natural gas generation ASAP. nukes should be on the drawing board for the future. replace the coal with nat gas now.

GMaximus: gold is rising because oil prices already rose. please look at the chart. the last oil crisis was in the 1970's and look when gold made it's all time highs (right afterward as pointed out in the article). in 2008, oil went to $145/barrel and now gold is going to skyrocket in response. wrt currency, the *reason* the currency is being devalued is *because of* the economic dislocations due to $145/barrel *imported* oil. all the people involved in financial "services" had to create fraudulent ways to "earn" money because the US is making anything any more, and we have a huge trade deficit whose biggest component is, you guessed it, OIL. so, everything is driven by oil: oil spikes, then gold (not the other way around). so, it is OIL that is driving gold prices and US currency devaluation since the US imports 65% of its oil and cannot possible sustain that without printing more paper money. your post and the others along the same line have not changed my opinion on this matter, and i believe the very simple fact that oil spike first and gold follows proves i am correct.

FreeState: what is "PTB" please? wrt peeling the onion, we'd better peel it sooner rather than later or we'll have all the tears a chopped onion would give us without ever getting to actually eat the onion. for the Fed and Treasury to print money, put it on the backs of middle class taxpayer, and give it to their friends (who are all now buying gold and storing it outside the country) is about as bad as it could possibly get and must be stopped. thank god for ron paul and i support his efforts completely, and so should you if you are, indeed, a "free state yank". cause i am (originally from upstate NY)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175002/comments?source=feed#comment-777492 777492
MarkDivy: i would challenge you right back: how much oil does the US defense dept use everyday? you'll be amazed how much that one dept of the US gov ranks on the list of top world consumers of oil. 2nd, what do you think the geopolitical risk premium due to US led oil wars is putting on the price of a barrel of oil? 3rd, what do you think the US defense dept bill is to secure, protect, and acquire US oil would be if the US gov actually did a thorough accounting of the cost? i'll somewhat answer that question by saying if the true cost were passed on to consumers, we'd being paying a helluva lot more for gasoline at the pump. the issue is similar to coal, if the true cost of health care and pollution due to using coal were passed on to the consumer, our electric bill would be MUCH higher. all this subsidation by the US government of oil and coal is at the detriment of natural gas: the real, cleanest, cheapest, most abundant fuel of all. it is absolutely insane energy, environmental, and foreign policy.

WayneS: well, we cannot get off foreign oil by using fuels that rely on it - this includes diesel and biofuels that require mixing with gasoline. wrt natural gas, there are simply NO studies proving that it is any more dangerous a transportation fuel than is gasoline. there are many countries (brazil, italy, pakistan) not to mention enlighted US states like Utah and Oklahoma that are succesfully using CNG in cars and trucks and it is SAFE (not to mention half the price of gasoline/diesel and much more environmentally friendly). please, don't fall victim to the scare tactics of big oil and coal.

boxed merlot: not sure i am following you...but plz realize i recommend both oil and gold as investments.]]> Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:20:23 -0500
MarkDivy: i would challenge you right back: how much oil does the US defense dept use everyday? you'll be amazed how much that one dept of the US gov ranks on the list of top world consumers of oil. 2nd, what do you think the geopolitical risk premium due to US led oil wars is putting on the price of a barrel of oil? 3rd, what do you think the US defense dept bill is to secure, protect, and acquire US oil would be if the US gov actually did a thorough accounting of the cost? i'll somewhat answer that question by saying if the true cost were passed on to consumers, we'd being paying a helluva lot more for gasoline at the pump. the issue is similar to coal, if the true cost of health care and pollution due to using coal were passed on to the consumer, our electric bill would be MUCH higher. all this subsidation by the US government of oil and coal is at the detriment of natural gas: the real, cleanest, cheapest, most abundant fuel of all. it is absolutely insane energy, environmental, and foreign policy.

WayneS: well, we cannot get off foreign oil by using fuels that rely on it - this includes diesel and biofuels that require mixing with gasoline. wrt natural gas, there are simply NO studies proving that it is any more dangerous a transportation fuel than is gasoline. there are many countries (brazil, italy, pakistan) not to mention enlighted US states like Utah and Oklahoma that are succesfully using CNG in cars and trucks and it is SAFE (not to mention half the price of gasoline/diesel and much more environmentally friendly). please, don't fall victim to the scare tactics of big oil and coal.

boxed merlot: not sure i am following you...but plz realize i recommend both oil and gold as investments.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175002/comments?source=feed#comment-777490 777490
MarkDivy: i would challenge you right back: how much oil does the US defense dept use everyday? you'll be amazed how much that one dept of the US gov ranks on the list of top world consumers of oil. 2nd, what do you think the geopolitical risk premium due to US led oil wars is putting on the price of a barrel of oil? 3rd, what do you think the US defense dept bill is to secure, protect, and acquire US oil would be if the US gov actually did a thorough accounting of the cost? i'll somewhat answer that question by saying if the true cost were passed on to consumers, we'd being paying a helluva lot more for gasoline at the pump. the issue is similar to coal, if the true cost of health care and pollution due to using coal were passed on to the consumer, our electric bill would be MUCH higher. all this subsidation by the US government of oil and coal is at the detriment of natural gas: the real, cleanest, cheapest, most abundant fuel of all. it is absolutely insane energy, environmental, and foreign policy.

WayneS: well, we cannot get off foreign oil by using fuels that rely on it - this includes diesel and biofuels that require mixing with gasoline. wrt natural gas, there are simply NO studies proving that it is any more dangerous a transportation fuel than is gasoline. there are many countries (brazil, italy, pakistan) not to mention enlighted US states like Utah and Oklahoma that are succesfully using CNG in cars and trucks and it is SAFE (not to mention half the price of gasoline/diesel and much more environmentally friendly). please, don't fall victim to the scare tactics of big oil and coal.

boxed merlot: not sure i am following you...but plz realize i recommend both oil and gold as investments.]]> Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:20:16 -0500
MarkDivy: i would challenge you right back: how much oil does the US defense dept use everyday? you'll be amazed how much that one dept of the US gov ranks on the list of top world consumers of oil. 2nd, what do you think the geopolitical risk premium due to US led oil wars is putting on the price of a barrel of oil? 3rd, what do you think the US defense dept bill is to secure, protect, and acquire US oil would be if the US gov actually did a thorough accounting of the cost? i'll somewhat answer that question by saying if the true cost were passed on to consumers, we'd being paying a helluva lot more for gasoline at the pump. the issue is similar to coal, if the true cost of health care and pollution due to using coal were passed on to the consumer, our electric bill would be MUCH higher. all this subsidation by the US government of oil and coal is at the detriment of natural gas: the real, cleanest, cheapest, most abundant fuel of all. it is absolutely insane energy, environmental, and foreign policy.

WayneS: well, we cannot get off foreign oil by using fuels that rely on it - this includes diesel and biofuels that require mixing with gasoline. wrt natural gas, there are simply NO studies proving that it is any more dangerous a transportation fuel than is gasoline. there are many countries (brazil, italy, pakistan) not to mention enlighted US states like Utah and Oklahoma that are succesfully using CNG in cars and trucks and it is SAFE (not to mention half the price of gasoline/diesel and much more environmentally friendly). please, don't fall victim to the scare tactics of big oil and coal.

boxed merlot: not sure i am following you...but plz realize i recommend both oil and gold as investments.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175002/comments?source=feed#comment-777080 777080
EconomicPh: and i maintain that the world runs on oil, not gold, and therefere gold is simply a reflection of the world's economic problems as oil causes distortions, ala the early 80's and now, both of which gold skyrocketed **after** oil. oil leads, gold follows. it's really very simple if you don't over analyze.

Davewmart: i have already written an article on natural gas reserves, please find and read. shale gas has changed the entire energy outlook. over the last decade, in spite of the fact that big oil was exploring for OIL, more natural GAS was found than oil (!). it's everywhere, it's abundant. XOM, the most conservative oil company on the planet, is ready to build a very expensive pipeline to bring alaskan nat gas to the lower48. why? because the nat gas is *abundant* cheap and clean. please read robert hefner's book "The GET" (i did a book review on this) and then get back to me. thx.

GL Turner: gov sachs is right! anyhow, you hit the nail on the head: natural gas is so abundant, and so cheap, and the pipeline distribution system in the US so mature and extensive, that the thought of americans filling up at home with nat gas at $1.50 GGE would be real FREEDOM, because the gov or big oil cannot control the price! the top 5 nat gas producers account for less than 10% of US nat gas production. that is, it is dominated by small independent producers with royalties being paid to thousands of farmers and landowners. again, this is why nat gas transortation is a symbol of american freedom and democracy...and that is what scares the government...REAL freedom.

ripski: yup, agree nukes are needed. that said, i am skeptical of a model of transportation built on fully electric cars with huge battery packs, which will be expensive and use huge amounts of resources to make and service. i like nat gas and hydrogen as transportation fuel. as hefner so brilliantly puts it, we need to move beyond dirty and expensive solid and liquid fuels of the 20th century (which i think include batteries..) and onto the cheap and clean gaseous fuels of the 21st century (natural gas, hydrogen, wind, and solar). obviously i think the priority in the short term (next couple decades) should be on natural gas as a bridge to hydrogen and while we're building out solar and wind.

tempo dulu: you're certainly entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong. the "mathematical basis" you seek is the chart, that shows how gold prices pop **after** oil prices pop. that is called cause and effect, and that is what the article is about. the world economy depends on oil, not gold. that is why gold *follows* oil.

tructor: but they are still printing money and spending it...so why not spend it on nat gas transportation? to me, it's a question of acknowledging the problem and funneling the money toward it. but yeah, i got your point, and agree.

auto44: the coal lobby is responsible for alot of very bad policy. however, the coal lobby is not responsible for the current rise in gold prices, that's following the oil price. that said, i agree the electrical transmission grid needs updating!]]> Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:22:02 -0500
EconomicPh: and i maintain that the world runs on oil, not gold, and therefere gold is simply a reflection of the world's economic problems as oil causes distortions, ala the early 80's and now, both of which gold skyrocketed **after** oil. oil leads, gold follows. it's really very simple if you don't over analyze.

Davewmart: i have already written an article on natural gas reserves, please find and read. shale gas has changed the entire energy outlook. over the last decade, in spite of the fact that big oil was exploring for OIL, more natural GAS was found than oil (!). it's everywhere, it's abundant. XOM, the most conservative oil company on the planet, is ready to build a very expensive pipeline to bring alaskan nat gas to the lower48. why? because the nat gas is *abundant* cheap and clean. please read robert hefner's book "The GET" (i did a book review on this) and then get back to me. thx.

GL Turner: gov sachs is right! anyhow, you hit the nail on the head: natural gas is so abundant, and so cheap, and the pipeline distribution system in the US so mature and extensive, that the thought of americans filling up at home with nat gas at $1.50 GGE would be real FREEDOM, because the gov or big oil cannot control the price! the top 5 nat gas producers account for less than 10% of US nat gas production. that is, it is dominated by small independent producers with royalties being paid to thousands of farmers and landowners. again, this is why nat gas transortation is a symbol of american freedom and democracy...and that is what scares the government...REAL freedom.

ripski: yup, agree nukes are needed. that said, i am skeptical of a model of transportation built on fully electric cars with huge battery packs, which will be expensive and use huge amounts of resources to make and service. i like nat gas and hydrogen as transportation fuel. as hefner so brilliantly puts it, we need to move beyond dirty and expensive solid and liquid fuels of the 20th century (which i think include batteries..) and onto the cheap and clean gaseous fuels of the 21st century (natural gas, hydrogen, wind, and solar). obviously i think the priority in the short term (next couple decades) should be on natural gas as a bridge to hydrogen and while we're building out solar and wind.

tempo dulu: you're certainly entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong. the "mathematical basis" you seek is the chart, that shows how gold prices pop **after** oil prices pop. that is called cause and effect, and that is what the article is about. the world economy depends on oil, not gold. that is why gold *follows* oil.

tructor: but they are still printing money and spending it...so why not spend it on nat gas transportation? to me, it's a question of acknowledging the problem and funneling the money toward it. but yeah, i got your point, and agree.

auto44: the coal lobby is responsible for alot of very bad policy. however, the coal lobby is not responsible for the current rise in gold prices, that's following the oil price. that said, i agree the electrical transmission grid needs updating!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175002/comments?source=feed#comment-775898 775898 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:01:29 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/175002/comments?source=feed#comment-775871 775871 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:57:45 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/175002/comments?source=feed#comment-775780 775780
ToddPeterson: suppose your AK47 gets you through a currency collapse and you manage to survive on the other side of it. how will you secure your net worth going forward? i maintain in such a scenario gold, silver, and precious metals have historically been the way, and will continue to be the way.

Davewmart: well, i suppose we just disagree: natural gas reserves in the lower48 and alaska ARE for real. so is the natural gas in qatar, australia, brazil, and around the world. wrt making ammonia from natural gas, the question is why bother? since natural gas can power transportation and electrical generation cleanly and cheaply, and since the US has abundant supply, all we need do is simply USE IT.

MelShapiro: awesome post! and you're right, in order to get the "new world order" that bush#1 spoke of and the "one world currency" that the world is clamoring for (and you can bet skull and bones is in on all that...), they first must destroy the american system and the american democracy and the american spirit. that is what bush#2 started and what obama is continuing. that is why i point to an NGV in the home garage being refueled there by a nat gas refueling appliance like the "phill" as a badge of American freedom and democracy. but see, that is exactly what the US gov does NOT want us to have: freedom of mobility and the ability to refuel at home with domestic natural gas. because if we had freedom to be mobile, and freedom from oil prices, the middle class would be STRONG, and they want us weak. anyhow, great post and thanks.

Tructor: how will they be paid for? just think how many cars and trucks could have been converted to NGVs for the cash for clunkers. just think of how many CNG refueling stations and home garage refueling appliances (the "phill") could have been bought for the bonus money the Fed gave to rich executives at AIG, BofA, ML, GS, etc. etc. etc. we could have had an entire natural gas infrastructure for the money the US has spent in Iraq with money left over. the money is there, the key is to force congress, our numbnut presidents, and our ridiculous federal reserve, energy, and treasury departments to acknowledge the foreign oil problem and adopt the solution to this crippling ailment: natural gas transportation.

longoil: thanks, i'll read the article when i have more time and research this issue further.

gravity404: i climb lots of mountains, and if you call being a patriotic american and trying to save the country and democracy by facing our problems head on "beating my head against the wall", then guilty as charged.

waf76: thanks for the compliments and for pointing out PBR's fuel station strategy in brazil - if only exxon, cvx, and cop in the US provided the same. however, i disagree that the US can wean itself off of foreign oil: we could cut 6-7 million barrels of oil a DAY out by simply converting half the cars and trucks over to run on CNG. as far as israel is concerned, i have written before how the "special relationship" will bring both countries down and almost assure the destruction of israel. it's a strategically flawed relationship in a number of ways. that said, have you ever taken a look at how many jewish people are in charge of US policy and also involved in the biggest financial frauds? greenspan, bernanke, shapiro, gensler, madoff, milken, lebowitz, it just goes on and on. i used to not understand why arab leaders called the US a "zionist regime", but now i understand. now, before all the anti-semitic comments come, this is just an obvious observation: that is, a group that makes up such a small percentage of americans have an overwhelming influence on policy and at the same time have oversight responsibilities over others who have close relationships. it's a very unhealthy situation and they are certainly doing a lousy job of making america strong...but, i must say, they are certainly good at enriching themselves...

davewmart: the natural gas is there (here) and everywhere. most all experts are now in agreement on that. the reason i want to shut down all the coal plants is not just CO2, it's the real problem with coal: the toxic heavy metal residue left over after burning coal and the fact that this crap and its particulates are in every lake, river, and creek in the US and now showing up in the water tables all over the country. we've destroyed the fresh water fish, and we are well on our way to destroying our fresh water supplies. it's idiotic to keep doing this when science and evidence is screaming not to. natural gas has 50% less CO2 than does coal, and 100% less toxic particulates (that is, there is no "fly-ash") left over from burning nat gas.

slamstocks: thanks. every time i hear "brilliant" i think of that guinness commercial that says "some guy had the idea to put six of these bottles together. brilliant!"

williamdav: but if there is a true currency crisis, will the paper assets you mention make it through to the other side? i wonder myself. that said, yeah, i own oil stocks - it's really the only thing left after gold and silverand precious metals (imho). oh, and yeah, some international stuff - nothing else here.

jimbo: thanks. both parties are failing america, and failing badly, and the two parties are interconnected at the navel. i believe they are intentionally weakening the US to bring about bush#1's "new world order" and a one world currency. the key to preventing this is by preserving our mobility using our abundant cheap and clean domestic fuel: natural gas. once we are dependent on oil rationing, the grand US "capitalistic democracy" experiment will be over. btw, biofuels in the US is a failed proposition: all they do is blow out food and water resources with terrible dislocations across those sectors. in the end, biofuels in the US are just an excuse to keep addicted to dirty and expensive 20th century liquid fuels instead of clean and cheap 21st century gaseous fuels.

EconomicPh: your theory is completely backwards because oil is the one strategically necessary commodity, not gold. the world economy must have oil to function, not gold. therefore it is OIL that is driving GOLD prices, not the reverse as you say. oil is burned when it is consumed, all gold ever produced is still around - that is yet another reason your theory is flawed and illogical.

kertch: i disagree with you. i think US/Israeli policy is disastrous for both countries and will lead to both countries paying a huge price for such ridiculous policies.

kertch (reply to todd): i agree with you on this post. all one has to do is look at what happened to britain when they lost being the world's reserve currency of choice and devalued. manufacturing fled as quickly as possible (as it now is in the US). that was a good post.

davewmart: yes, i like to use this analogy: let's say the US did not have a nuclear bomb and some other country "X" did. next, we find "X" invaded canada and mexico under false pretenses to steal their oil. now, what would the US do? we'd be fools not to develop a nuclear deterrent - just as iran is doing. it's all really very simple and it's all about oil.

rokjok777: oh, i give jimmy carter lots of credit (and not because he too went to georgia tech). he initiated *real* energy policy and the first meaty mpg fuel standards. and, as i said in a follow up post, despite every president since eisenhower's rhetoric, carter was the only one to reduce foreign oil imports, and that by 50%. but, the reason your post was so great was the very last sentence which i will repeat here:

"Rethink Perpetual War and rethink Big Oil and we'd have plenty of money for all of our other problems."

that said, we must remember that big oil is also big natural gas, and natural gas is the key to solving the foreign oil import problem.]]> Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:55:04 -0500
ToddPeterson: suppose your AK47 gets you through a currency collapse and you manage to survive on the other side of it. how will you secure your net worth going forward? i maintain in such a scenario gold, silver, and precious metals have historically been the way, and will continue to be the way.

Davewmart: well, i suppose we just disagree: natural gas reserves in the lower48 and alaska ARE for real. so is the natural gas in qatar, australia, brazil, and around the world. wrt making ammonia from natural gas, the question is why bother? since natural gas can power transportation and electrical generation cleanly and cheaply, and since the US has abundant supply, all we need do is simply USE IT.

MelShapiro: awesome post! and you're right, in order to get the "new world order" that bush#1 spoke of and the "one world currency" that the world is clamoring for (and you can bet skull and bones is in on all that...), they first must destroy the american system and the american democracy and the american spirit. that is what bush#2 started and what obama is continuing. that is why i point to an NGV in the home garage being refueled there by a nat gas refueling appliance like the "phill" as a badge of American freedom and democracy. but see, that is exactly what the US gov does NOT want us to have: freedom of mobility and the ability to refuel at home with domestic natural gas. because if we had freedom to be mobile, and freedom from oil prices, the middle class would be STRONG, and they want us weak. anyhow, great post and thanks.

Tructor: how will they be paid for? just think how many cars and trucks could have been converted to NGVs for the cash for clunkers. just think of how many CNG refueling stations and home garage refueling appliances (the "phill") could have been bought for the bonus money the Fed gave to rich executives at AIG, BofA, ML, GS, etc. etc. etc. we could have had an entire natural gas infrastructure for the money the US has spent in Iraq with money left over. the money is there, the key is to force congress, our numbnut presidents, and our ridiculous federal reserve, energy, and treasury departments to acknowledge the foreign oil problem and adopt the solution to this crippling ailment: natural gas transportation.

longoil: thanks, i'll read the article when i have more time and research this issue further.

gravity404: i climb lots of mountains, and if you call being a patriotic american and trying to save the country and democracy by facing our problems head on "beating my head against the wall", then guilty as charged.

waf76: thanks for the compliments and for pointing out PBR's fuel station strategy in brazil - if only exxon, cvx, and cop in the US provided the same. however, i disagree that the US can wean itself off of foreign oil: we could cut 6-7 million barrels of oil a DAY out by simply converting half the cars and trucks over to run on CNG. as far as israel is concerned, i have written before how the "special relationship" will bring both countries down and almost assure the destruction of israel. it's a strategically flawed relationship in a number of ways. that said, have you ever taken a look at how many jewish people are in charge of US policy and also involved in the biggest financial frauds? greenspan, bernanke, shapiro, gensler, madoff, milken, lebowitz, it just goes on and on. i used to not understand why arab leaders called the US a "zionist regime", but now i understand. now, before all the anti-semitic comments come, this is just an obvious observation: that is, a group that makes up such a small percentage of americans have an overwhelming influence on policy and at the same time have oversight responsibilities over others who have close relationships. it's a very unhealthy situation and they are certainly doing a lousy job of making america strong...but, i must say, they are certainly good at enriching themselves...

davewmart: the natural gas is there (here) and everywhere. most all experts are now in agreement on that. the reason i want to shut down all the coal plants is not just CO2, it's the real problem with coal: the toxic heavy metal residue left over after burning coal and the fact that this crap and its particulates are in every lake, river, and creek in the US and now showing up in the water tables all over the country. we've destroyed the fresh water fish, and we are well on our way to destroying our fresh water supplies. it's idiotic to keep doing this when science and evidence is screaming not to. natural gas has 50% less CO2 than does coal, and 100% less toxic particulates (that is, there is no "fly-ash") left over from burning nat gas.

slamstocks: thanks. every time i hear "brilliant" i think of that guinness commercial that says "some guy had the idea to put six of these bottles together. brilliant!"

williamdav: but if there is a true currency crisis, will the paper assets you mention make it through to the other side? i wonder myself. that said, yeah, i own oil stocks - it's really the only thing left after gold and silverand precious metals (imho). oh, and yeah, some international stuff - nothing else here.

jimbo: thanks. both parties are failing america, and failing badly, and the two parties are interconnected at the navel. i believe they are intentionally weakening the US to bring about bush#1's "new world order" and a one world currency. the key to preventing this is by preserving our mobility using our abundant cheap and clean domestic fuel: natural gas. once we are dependent on oil rationing, the grand US "capitalistic democracy" experiment will be over. btw, biofuels in the US is a failed proposition: all they do is blow out food and water resources with terrible dislocations across those sectors. in the end, biofuels in the US are just an excuse to keep addicted to dirty and expensive 20th century liquid fuels instead of clean and cheap 21st century gaseous fuels.

EconomicPh: your theory is completely backwards because oil is the one strategically necessary commodity, not gold. the world economy must have oil to function, not gold. therefore it is OIL that is driving GOLD prices, not the reverse as you say. oil is burned when it is consumed, all gold ever produced is still around - that is yet another reason your theory is flawed and illogical.

kertch: i disagree with you. i think US/Israeli policy is disastrous for both countries and will lead to both countries paying a huge price for such ridiculous policies.

kertch (reply to todd): i agree with you on this post. all one has to do is look at what happened to britain when they lost being the world's reserve currency of choice and devalued. manufacturing fled as quickly as possible (as it now is in the US). that was a good post.

davewmart: yes, i like to use this analogy: let's say the US did not have a nuclear bomb and some other country "X" did. next, we find "X" invaded canada and mexico under false pretenses to steal their oil. now, what would the US do? we'd be fools not to develop a nuclear deterrent - just as iran is doing. it's all really very simple and it's all about oil.

rokjok777: oh, i give jimmy carter lots of credit (and not because he too went to georgia tech). he initiated *real* energy policy and the first meaty mpg fuel standards. and, as i said in a follow up post, despite every president since eisenhower's rhetoric, carter was the only one to reduce foreign oil imports, and that by 50%. but, the reason your post was so great was the very last sentence which i will repeat here:

"Rethink Perpetual War and rethink Big Oil and we'd have plenty of money for all of our other problems."

that said, we must remember that big oil is also big natural gas, and natural gas is the key to solving the foreign oil import problem.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175002/comments?source=feed#comment-775104 775104 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:19:42 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/175002/comments?source=feed#comment-775098 775098
WayneS: but diesel comes from foreign oil, and it is foreign oil that is bankrupting the country. although i agree that diesel engines are more efficient, i disagree that diesel is the solution because it is not a *domestic* source of energy and therefore will not help the US unshackle the chains of foreign oil, deficit spending, a weaker currency, and a failed foreign policy based on fighting oil wars we cannot afford.]]> Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:16:09 -0500
WayneS: but diesel comes from foreign oil, and it is foreign oil that is bankrupting the country. although i agree that diesel engines are more efficient, i disagree that diesel is the solution because it is not a *domestic* source of energy and therefore will not help the US unshackle the chains of foreign oil, deficit spending, a weaker currency, and a failed foreign policy based on fighting oil wars we cannot afford.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175002/comments?source=feed#comment-775083 775083
longoil: you know, i always wonder about conterfeit precious metals. it wouldn't be hard to do, the profit motive is certainly there, and it's quite difficult for a small investor to check. i was going to check some coins by trying to measure electrical resistance, which is very easy to calculate. but this doesn't work very well because with an ohm meter all you really measure is surface resistance. so, a counterfeit bar as you described, would pass that check. my only solace is that i will be selling the coins back to the same outfit i bought them from, or, bartering them for goods & services so it's up to the other guy to check them. suggestions?

EconomicPh: oil is higher because of gold? that's ridiculous. you say that oil will be $133 when gold goes to $2000, so i have just one question for you: what was the price of gold when oil was $145 last year? further, how do you explain the chart in the article and the price of gold in the early 80's? your logic appears to be severely flawed. you must be one of the "economic experts" i spoke about in the article.

lucky lenny: apparently you cannot read as the article blamed both republicans and democrats (i.e. bush AND obama). funny you mentioned jimmy carter: he is the only president in US history to reduce foreign oil imports and did so by 50%. no other president has even reduced them one barrel. great president to mention in context of this article, as after carter reduced foreign oil imports, gold fell like a rock. see the chart in the article.

jrainspe: we need ron paul's legislation (which is picking up cosponsor very quickly) to force the fascist and secret Fed to reveal just how it is spending mine (and yours) tax-payer money by giving it to the millionaire and billionaire executives at the biggest insurance, banking, financial service, and mortgage firms that made money twice: once by the financial fraud that drove them to bankruptcy, and secondly by receiving the bonus bailout money paid for by you and me and given by the Fed to their best buddies. if you don't see the problem here, i can understand why you finished in the lower 50% of your class. your logic in stating that most doctors, lawyers, and engineers were along with you in that bottom 50% is also severely flawed.

Davewmart: where in the world did you read in this article that gas supplies can be expanded indefinitely? what i have said in the past (but not in this article) is that the US has enough natural gas to power:
- home heating
- industrial
- replacing ALL coal plants with nat gas generation
- power half the cars and trucks in the US
for at least 60 years, and more likely closer to 100 years. the world is similarly blessed with abundant, clean, and cheap natural gas. i guess some people do live on the moon. wrt iran, i explained US forces on two borders forced iran to develop nuclear capability, so you are preaching to the choir.

LoveShorting: thanks - i needed some support on this one! by the comments left so far, i wonder if anyone is even reading the article ;) anyhow, yeah, chu is pathetic! he should resign immediately or obama should fire him. for those two to be agnostic about the largest, cleanest, and cheapest domestic fuel the US has, and the only fuel capable of being scaled up to reduce foreign oil imports, well, it's criminal.

WilliamDave: well, interesting notes. so i am interested - what are you doing to protect your net worth in these times? i have a garden and wish i could have some chickens, goats, and cows but unfortunately i live in a neighborhood that doesn't allow such. i'd also like a big pond stocked with fish. those will be the things of value when the US eventually goes through a huge currency change. and that is coming as long as we stay addicted to foreign oil (just like in brazil).]]> Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:07:11 -0500
longoil: you know, i always wonder about conterfeit precious metals. it wouldn't be hard to do, the profit motive is certainly there, and it's quite difficult for a small investor to check. i was going to check some coins by trying to measure electrical resistance, which is very easy to calculate. but this doesn't work very well because with an ohm meter all you really measure is surface resistance. so, a counterfeit bar as you described, would pass that check. my only solace is that i will be selling the coins back to the same outfit i bought them from, or, bartering them for goods & services so it's up to the other guy to check them. suggestions?

EconomicPh: oil is higher because of gold? that's ridiculous. you say that oil will be $133 when gold goes to $2000, so i have just one question for you: what was the price of gold when oil was $145 last year? further, how do you explain the chart in the article and the price of gold in the early 80's? your logic appears to be severely flawed. you must be one of the "economic experts" i spoke about in the article.

lucky lenny: apparently you cannot read as the article blamed both republicans and democrats (i.e. bush AND obama). funny you mentioned jimmy carter: he is the only president in US history to reduce foreign oil imports and did so by 50%. no other president has even reduced them one barrel. great president to mention in context of this article, as after carter reduced foreign oil imports, gold fell like a rock. see the chart in the article.

jrainspe: we need ron paul's legislation (which is picking up cosponsor very quickly) to force the fascist and secret Fed to reveal just how it is spending mine (and yours) tax-payer money by giving it to the millionaire and billionaire executives at the biggest insurance, banking, financial service, and mortgage firms that made money twice: once by the financial fraud that drove them to bankruptcy, and secondly by receiving the bonus bailout money paid for by you and me and given by the Fed to their best buddies. if you don't see the problem here, i can understand why you finished in the lower 50% of your class. your logic in stating that most doctors, lawyers, and engineers were along with you in that bottom 50% is also severely flawed.

Davewmart: where in the world did you read in this article that gas supplies can be expanded indefinitely? what i have said in the past (but not in this article) is that the US has enough natural gas to power:
- home heating
- industrial
- replacing ALL coal plants with nat gas generation
- power half the cars and trucks in the US
for at least 60 years, and more likely closer to 100 years. the world is similarly blessed with abundant, clean, and cheap natural gas. i guess some people do live on the moon. wrt iran, i explained US forces on two borders forced iran to develop nuclear capability, so you are preaching to the choir.

LoveShorting: thanks - i needed some support on this one! by the comments left so far, i wonder if anyone is even reading the article ;) anyhow, yeah, chu is pathetic! he should resign immediately or obama should fire him. for those two to be agnostic about the largest, cleanest, and cheapest domestic fuel the US has, and the only fuel capable of being scaled up to reduce foreign oil imports, well, it's criminal.

WilliamDave: well, interesting notes. so i am interested - what are you doing to protect your net worth in these times? i have a garden and wish i could have some chickens, goats, and cows but unfortunately i live in a neighborhood that doesn't allow such. i'd also like a big pond stocked with fish. those will be the things of value when the US eventually goes through a huge currency change. and that is coming as long as we stay addicted to foreign oil (just like in brazil).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/174703/comments?source=feed#comment-773907 773907
gravity: good action! your comment cracked me up.]]> Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:01:16 -0500
gravity: good action! your comment cracked me up.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/174593/comments?source=feed#comment-773904 773904 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:57:44 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/174593/comments?source=feed#comment-773871 773871 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:34:45 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/174703/comments?source=feed#comment-773640 773640
tripleback: what you say is true: brazilian policy makers want a stable real. however, this is no different from most other countries (except the US, which apparently prefers to devalue its currency). i don't blame brazil for instituting these policies when one takes into account the economic turmoil the country has experienced in the past. the fact that they are able to put in place these fees, yet the real and the market continues to appreciate, to me is just another fact that the fundamentals in brazil are very strong. i also don't mind paying 2% or whatever on an ADR like PBR when i could be rewarded with millions of barrels of light sweet crude, increasing production, and oil prices that i am quite certain will race higher in the years to come (and as the US dollar falls).]]> Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:17:40 -0500
tripleback: what you say is true: brazilian policy makers want a stable real. however, this is no different from most other countries (except the US, which apparently prefers to devalue its currency). i don't blame brazil for instituting these policies when one takes into account the economic turmoil the country has experienced in the past. the fact that they are able to put in place these fees, yet the real and the market continues to appreciate, to me is just another fact that the fundamentals in brazil are very strong. i also don't mind paying 2% or whatever on an ADR like PBR when i could be rewarded with millions of barrels of light sweet crude, increasing production, and oil prices that i am quite certain will race higher in the years to come (and as the US dollar falls).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/174703/comments?source=feed#comment-773069 773069 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:13:43 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/174787/comments?source=feed#comment-773060 773060
thefitzman.blogspot.co...

if such a policy were adopted, FSYS would go to the moon. that said, don't hold your breath. US policymakers seem intent on destroying the country by ignoring its biggest problem: an economic foundation built upon and dependent on foreign oil.]]> Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:05:29 -0500
thefitzman.blogspot.co...

if such a policy were adopted, FSYS would go to the moon. that said, don't hold your breath. US policymakers seem intent on destroying the country by ignoring its biggest problem: an economic foundation built upon and dependent on foreign oil.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/174703/comments?source=feed#comment-772449 772449 Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:07:38 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/174703/comments?source=feed#comment-771668 771668 Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:50:15 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/174575/comments?source=feed#comment-771654 771654 Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:38:51 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/174228/comments?source=feed#comment-770407 770407
- brazil is the world's fourth largest democracy.

- both lula and his hand-picked preferred successor (dilma rousseff) fought againts previous military dictatorships

- rousseff is quoted in an articles as saying:
"We respect contracts - we are part of the West," she adds, explaining that she would honour the terms on which foreign oil firms currently operate in Brazil.

- Rouseff describes herself as a "Brazilian democratic socialist".

personally, i much prefer the democratic socialism of brazil and some of the nordic and european countries to that of the "democractic" fascism which i feel is an accurate description of the US system under bush2 and now obama. i prefer any system that strengthes the middle class instead of funnelling the countries wealth to a small minority of already wealthy government officials, regulators, and industrialists. and of course, this is the reason that CNBC and other US media do their best to berate countries like brazil, norway, france, and others which want to have a more fair and equitable system of government. the so-called "hype" about petrobras which american news media push is really envy. the oil deposits are real, the production growth is real, and brazil is a less risky place to invest than is the US.]]> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:38:51 -0500
- brazil is the world's fourth largest democracy.

- both lula and his hand-picked preferred successor (dilma rousseff) fought againts previous military dictatorships

- rousseff is quoted in an articles as saying:
"We respect contracts - we are part of the West," she adds, explaining that she would honour the terms on which foreign oil firms currently operate in Brazil.

- Rouseff describes herself as a "Brazilian democratic socialist".

personally, i much prefer the democratic socialism of brazil and some of the nordic and european countries to that of the "democractic" fascism which i feel is an accurate description of the US system under bush2 and now obama. i prefer any system that strengthes the middle class instead of funnelling the countries wealth to a small minority of already wealthy government officials, regulators, and industrialists. and of course, this is the reason that CNBC and other US media do their best to berate countries like brazil, norway, france, and others which want to have a more fair and equitable system of government. the so-called "hype" about petrobras which american news media push is really envy. the oil deposits are real, the production growth is real, and brazil is a less risky place to invest than is the US.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/174228/comments?source=feed#comment-769788 769788
OilFinder: great summary! and yes, PBR has been publishing recoverable estimates. nice post! i especially like your tally of low and high estimates noting the difference is over **6 billion** barrels (!). that is one reason i am so bullish on PBR. their management could have taken the easy way out on the conference call and hinted that the estimate on tupi was low. but they stuck with the 5-8 billion barrels, even though, to my knowledge, the test wells have been very encouraging. i would not be surprised at all if, in the coming months, PBR announces tupi is toward the high end of estimates. that will move the stock.

ripski: brazilian policy makers have been outspoken about ramping up their petroleum engineering, geology, and energy services know how. and who can blame them after reading OilFinder's post. i don't think it will be an expensive endeavor. as a matter of fact, i think brazil will benefit greatly from, and draft behind, US oil service knowledge. companies are so eager to do business with petrobras, i think it will be a win win for everyone. petrobras is pragmatic about the size of the job, and they'll get it done. and, over time, i am sure you're correct and more will be done "in house" in brazil and that will be beneficial to the brazilian people and petrobras.

Jake2: yes, the day of the announcement the brazilian market (and PBR) traded down. that said, a 2% tax on companies that are growing 20-30% a year is really in the noise. i'm not concerned about it, but maybe i should be. however, like i said in a previous post, as long as PBR is growing reserves, production, net income and dividends, some of my investment dollars will be in PBR.]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:49:54 -0500
OilFinder: great summary! and yes, PBR has been publishing recoverable estimates. nice post! i especially like your tally of low and high estimates noting the difference is over **6 billion** barrels (!). that is one reason i am so bullish on PBR. their management could have taken the easy way out on the conference call and hinted that the estimate on tupi was low. but they stuck with the 5-8 billion barrels, even though, to my knowledge, the test wells have been very encouraging. i would not be surprised at all if, in the coming months, PBR announces tupi is toward the high end of estimates. that will move the stock.

ripski: brazilian policy makers have been outspoken about ramping up their petroleum engineering, geology, and energy services know how. and who can blame them after reading OilFinder's post. i don't think it will be an expensive endeavor. as a matter of fact, i think brazil will benefit greatly from, and draft behind, US oil service knowledge. companies are so eager to do business with petrobras, i think it will be a win win for everyone. petrobras is pragmatic about the size of the job, and they'll get it done. and, over time, i am sure you're correct and more will be done "in house" in brazil and that will be beneficial to the brazilian people and petrobras.

Jake2: yes, the day of the announcement the brazilian market (and PBR) traded down. that said, a 2% tax on companies that are growing 20-30% a year is really in the noise. i'm not concerned about it, but maybe i should be. however, like i said in a previous post, as long as PBR is growing reserves, production, net income and dividends, some of my investment dollars will be in PBR.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/174228/comments?source=feed#comment-768141 768141
AlanVon: yes, i agree anything bought in march has gone up, then again not many by 300%. then again, PBR fell like a rock from the sky because it was obviously more dependent upon financing to tap its fields and credit was, well, non-existent. since then, PBR has locked up financing via bond floats, the chinese, and even america. on the second issue, i certainly could be wrong, but i don't think the comparison to chavez is valid. venezuela's entire economy is screwed up. brazil, on the other hand, has:

1) a great energy policy (nat gas transportation, ethanol)
2) a regulated and rational banking industry
3) great on-land natural resources
4) a policy to broaden and strengthen the middle class
5) and, obviously, *alot* of light sweet crude

i wish the US had all of these!!

the rule of law may mean nothing in south america, but i think brazil is much different from venezuela. btw, but how good is the rule of law in the US? how many have been convicted and done jail time for the 3 trillion in "wealth" that evaporated? the constitution in the US didn't mean squat when bush was in office, and since when was it "legal" to steal middle class tax-payer wealth and give it to the "executives" in the insurance, mortgage, financial, and banking industries most of whom already are m/billionaires after making millions in fraudulent dealings? those who think other countries have much more political risk than the US need to pay more attention to what is going on here. we have a government that is completely under the influence of the oil, coal, drug, and military. they haven't passed legislation in the best interest of "the people" in decades. every time i hear lula give a speech, i wish the hell he were president here instead of bush or obama. have you heard lula's comments on the need for regulation of US banks and what he would do? common sense and pragmatism by a man who hasn't been bought and paid for and cares about the majority of people, not the minority of rich and those in charge. maybe i'll get screwed on PBR, but i am certainly willing to take that chance as long as reserves, production, net income, and dividends keep growing.]]> Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:45:52 -0500
AlanVon: yes, i agree anything bought in march has gone up, then again not many by 300%. then again, PBR fell like a rock from the sky because it was obviously more dependent upon financing to tap its fields and credit was, well, non-existent. since then, PBR has locked up financing via bond floats, the chinese, and even america. on the second issue, i certainly could be wrong, but i don't think the comparison to chavez is valid. venezuela's entire economy is screwed up. brazil, on the other hand, has:

1) a great energy policy (nat gas transportation, ethanol)
2) a regulated and rational banking industry
3) great on-land natural resources
4) a policy to broaden and strengthen the middle class
5) and, obviously, *alot* of light sweet crude

i wish the US had all of these!!

the rule of law may mean nothing in south america, but i think brazil is much different from venezuela. btw, but how good is the rule of law in the US? how many have been convicted and done jail time for the 3 trillion in "wealth" that evaporated? the constitution in the US didn't mean squat when bush was in office, and since when was it "legal" to steal middle class tax-payer wealth and give it to the "executives" in the insurance, mortgage, financial, and banking industries most of whom already are m/billionaires after making millions in fraudulent dealings? those who think other countries have much more political risk than the US need to pay more attention to what is going on here. we have a government that is completely under the influence of the oil, coal, drug, and military. they haven't passed legislation in the best interest of "the people" in decades. every time i hear lula give a speech, i wish the hell he were president here instead of bush or obama. have you heard lula's comments on the need for regulation of US banks and what he would do? common sense and pragmatism by a man who hasn't been bought and paid for and cares about the majority of people, not the minority of rich and those in charge. maybe i'll get screwed on PBR, but i am certainly willing to take that chance as long as reserves, production, net income, and dividends keep growing.]]>