Andy1234

You Say Fossil Fuels, I Say Future Fuels

I agree with the article. I had been reading most of your articles....and we definitely think alike.

Heavily invested in energy companies, canadian REITS, precious metals, agriculture, and canada/brazil.

Nibbling on Natural Gas, Concerned about Atlas Pipeline Partners

and just to comment.....this has helped me...both from an investing and trading stand point.

Jesse Livermoore would let the move happen in the direction he thought it would move and then invest.....having immediate gains from an investment or trade is easier emotional wise.....even if you are right in the long term investment. Seeing those immediate gains confirms your choice.

I use range contraction trading methods for trading AND investing entries. I also wait for confirmation on the move in the direction I think the stock is going to move and make my investment right then and there.

For example....BQI is one stock I am watching that is about to break out to the upside.......if you see a powerful move upward (which is right there) we should see a large move upwards.

Nibbling on Natural Gas, Concerned about Atlas Pipeline Partners

One way I have been playing the energy markets is indirectly playing it. We know Canada will be exporting NG and Oil for years to come....plus they have lots of mining operations for coal and other minerals which should do well in an inflationary period......they should have a strong economy going forward with all the natural resources they have. So, as history shows, real estate is the best inflation hedge...with canada being strong in the natural resource department....and I am guessing job growth will be great in the future...wouldn't canadian REITS be one of the best places to be? I am heavily invested there with HUGE payouts....and they are rocketing upward like no other over the past 5-6 months or so. Canada's banking system is good...and the REITS aren't overly leveraged. Great spot to be for 10-20% dividends at the time I purchased....although they have shot up a lot recently.

Global Warming: Investment Implications

Actually.....of the current yellowcake demand and at the current price of the isotope U235....we meet something like 55% of demand from porduction....the other is met from decommissioned missiles from russia and other areas.

The missile supply will run dry around 2012-2013 from what I have read.....and the price of U235 will need to increase substationally.


On Aug 20 08:41 AM John Galt wrote:

> Global warming a hoax? Come on man, don't you watch the evening news?
> Evvvvverybody knows it's true? I don't even need to present facts.
> Everybody knows it. Can't you just feel it? It was pretty hot today?
> Why should we think objectively? Just trust the government and the
> scientists seeking to get their name in the newspaper and more fund
> money.
>
> The people who know how to run your life better than you will always
> have these emotional arguments.
>
> The earth is getting cooler ( remember that one in the 70's)
> The earth is getting warmer
> The earth is overpopulated
>
> I used to be a big investor in CCJ as nuclear "would" be the best
> solution (if you believed the hype of GW) but that's not what it's
> all about anyway. A few years ago the spot price of Uranium was going
> straight up and CCJ was a good trade as plans for Nuke plants were
> popping up around the globe. I want to say about 2005 I made some
> decent money trading CCJ. Longer term Obama and his California Eco-terrorists
> are trying to kill the nuclear industry ( in America at least) and
> uranium is an extremely plentiful element on the earth.
>
> Have your yellowcake and eat it too.

Global Warming: Investment Implications

actually..........it depends on what temperature the CO2 is at.


In the case of your welding application. I am sure the CO2 is at room temperature or close to it....or colder if its been compressed. The welding temperature is some thousands of degrees F.....of course the CO2 is going to absorb heat. Look at the difference between the two temperatures.

Natural Gas: The Next Big Thing

I think the guys above are looking at the demand side....the supply side looks horrible when oil is $50/barrel.

I think people in the market are looking forward and saying....damn we won't have any new projects coming online if oil is under $70-60 a barrel.....we might not even have anything coming online at $80/barrel.

Then the look the other way and see this massive pile of cash being created.....I dunno.

Its all about demand/supply and the cost to replace the supply when used. The price cannot eclipse the majority of new oil coming online for a very long period....otherwise shortages occur. NG and oil are too low for new projects to come online in the mass....and if new projects are cut.....the natural decline of 7-9% of supply (new oil isn't coming online) will eclipse the demand pretty quickly if oil remains low.

I do see we significantly rose the production of NG when prices were high....so the relationship between oil and NG may change in the future if we find significant amounts and are able to produce them at a reasonable price (the shales).

Making Natural Gas Transportation a Reality

www.gold-eagle.com/edi...

the gold to oil ratio....just look at the spike in 2009. This is the time to be buying oil like no other.

Anything priced in dollars is distorted....since it has no value and its "perceived value" bounces all over the place.....it also has manipulation all over the place. Once things go back to normal....and the banks start lending to everyone again.....we should see oil rocket....massive inflation. we should also see interest rates increase to combat this.

But this past year....oil has never been cheaper....an ounce of gold could buy more oil than in history....besides possibly 2 other times in history.

As peak oil does approach...the gold to oil ratio should be more volitile....as demand and supply will be in and out of balance with each other in short periods.....and small surpluses will drive oil down substationally.....and small shortages up substantionally.


On May 07 02:07 AM Michael Fitzsimmons wrote:

> blu: EVs are indeed more efficient than gasoline cars. theoretically,
> if the solar and wind infrastructure was built out, and we had an
> efficient electric grid, they would be a great solution. and they
> will be some day. but today, the renewable energy and efficient grid
> aren't a reality. as i explained in previous articles, at less than
> 3% of total US electrical generation, to support EVs now at the expense
> of NG transportation is wrongheaded because it means the US would
> have to greatly increase its coal consumption. this is a common mistake
> the environmental purists make because they dont take the time to
> analyze total US electricity supply sources and make pragmatic and
> realistic conclusions. people who do take the time to do so realize
> natural gas is the perfect "bridge" fuel to a renewable future, to
> get us through the next decade or two while we build out renewable
> infrastructure.
>
> Andy: "oil has never been cheaper than this past year"?? surely you
> jest....
>
> Freya: i have yet to hear obama say he supports natural gas power,
> all i hear him say is "clean coal". you say EVs have no emissions,
> but this is where "environmental purists" make their big mistake.
> today, all renewables together make up less than 3% of total US electrical
> power generation. what that means (if you had read my previous articles,
> you'd know this) is that a significant deployment of EVs (that is,
> enough to significantly reduce foreign oil imports by 5-7 million
> BPD) will be recharged by COAL which generates 50% more CO2 than
> does natural gas and 100% more toxic particulates. that's an environmentally
> friendly and "green" policy?? give me a break. it's foolish dogma
> and ideology. it lacks simple and pragmatic energy analysis. meanwhile,
> just like the hyrdrogen fuel cell, where are these fully electric
> cars? we just keep spewing CO2 from oil and coal.... so, environmental
> purists are ironically supporting policies that:
> 1) don't reduce foreign oil imports
> 2) increase toxic coal consumption
> i guess in the modern day world of doublespeak popularity, this type
> of "environmentalism" is perfect. as one eye says above, there is
> room for both (i assume he refers to EVs and NGVs), but if we want
> to ***significantly reduce foreign oil imports*** AND reduce coal
> consumption over the next 5-10 years, natural gas and NGVs are the
> only way to do so. i am still waiting for someone to show me another
> way to do both. as i said before, if someone can, i will write my
> next article on the solution. EVs alone, today, and for the next
> decade, won't do it - they simply will require more coal burning,
> and that is a disastrous environmental policy imho.

Making Natural Gas Transportation a Reality

I am willing to bet if people were to drive more conciously...and learned how to keep momentum at stop lights (not racing to them and stop...yet slowly approach them and get back going never stopping) we could eliminate 10-20% of demand. Everyone around here drives like retarded human beings....who are driving 3K-4K lbs go karts.

Rather than having the government kick this off....I still truely believe the greatest inventions come from need....or pushing the envelope of space or whatever it might be.

Just think of our greatest minds sitting around thinking about dark matter or whatever they are......or trying to prove if god exists or something....get them working on the problem...get the world working on the problem out of need....and things will get done. I just fear the government corruption is the only thing that will stop this flight to a new technology (for whatever reason).

I still think we could make a 100-200lbs vehicle with thin glass around the people.....carry two at a time with a small area for luggage...use a small engine.....and save a whole lot of fuel. get 100-200MPG's or more out of gasoline. we might only go 40-50mph max....but do we need to go any faster?

I think we need more freedom...less regulations.....and at the root of most problems are government.

The real price of oil today on an inflation adjusted price is much much lower than people think. In fact....oil has never been cheaper than this past year. We don't know how much inflation there truely is...unless you chart money supply growth....which is enormous...and somehow could track money growth from our banks creating money. Possibly rising prices isn't the problem...since almost all rising prices are rising because of monetary issues....nothing related to the underlying fundamentals.

It would be interesting to see a chart of gold vrs. oil is like....because gold historically trades to oil at a 10:1 price or so. chart below.

www.incrediblecharts.c...

Making Natural Gas Transportation a Reality

Its how the energy and heat is captured and the efficiency of capturing it, tranmistting it..etc.

motor vehicles waste a lot of energy...they are really inefficient on so many levels. This goes for a lot of our energy use......I believe the energy in the cars we drive today are somewhere around 30% heat efficient or so but are pretty efficient at burning the amount injected into the engine.

the heat efficiency when burning fossil fuels for electricity is much more efficient.....so we aren't wasting as much in heat loss. As to the exact numbers...I am unsure.

But from a material stand point.....electricity uses a lot more materials. We need batteries, engines, more transmission lines, more components to store the electricity....if we go the alternative route...we will have wind turbines all over the place....it uses a lot more materials than today.

As to whats better and cheaper.....thats for the market to decide.



On May 06 06:17 PM blu wrote:

> I'm just a dumb ol' Texas oilman and need some education.
>
> I think I remember from way back in a physics class, that there was
> a rule, or somethin', that said when you convert energy from one
> form to another form you always lose some percentage from the original
> source.
>
> I am just wondering how the hell an electric powered car can be as
> efficient as a car that burns hydrocarbons. Considering the fact
> that the electricity is mostly generated by hydrocarbons it would
> seem that it would take more hydrocarbons to generate vehicular electricity
> than it takes the amount of hydrocarbons burned directly in the vehicle
> with an internal combustion engine.
>
> So my question is kinda simple. Is all this crap about EV's just
> another boondoggle like ethanol??
>
> Are we gonna burn more (pollute more) hydrocarbons just so we can
> say we aren't polluting with our vehicles?
>
> The greenies are already griping about disposal of flashlight batteries...
> what in heck are we gonna do with all those car batteries when they
> wear out...???
>

Making Natural Gas Transportation a Reality

my question is this....if NGV are so great....why aren't people driving them now? What is holding NGV's from coming to the market place?

I have a feeling they aren't in the marketplace because they aren't economically viable yet.

Energy prices will continue to go up and down as economies hit the brick wall of surplus energy for growth.....but I am afraid this is how things work.

And I don't forsee complete disaster on the forefront....I used to be a more pessimistic peak oiler......now I guess I am more optimistic....although I still think a recession could occur.

If prices do rocket up......many people will have to make changes.....possibly the government will get some legitimate people in there who are fair and honest.....maybe a new technology will emerge that isn't NG for transport....possibly living on 50% less fuel for transportation is possible since prices are high....who knows all the answers.....but when I am driving around and look around....we sure do drive huge cars for the weight they carry....we sure do use a lot of water for agriculture....we sure use a lot of fertilizer....and a lot of cows sure produce a lot of methane.

I am willing to bet if we HAD to do something about the environment or about peak oil.....we could easily cut off 25% of demand without taking a huge hit to our lifestyle. The poor might get hit...or some people might not be able to drive......but it would be pretty easy to get most people from 20-25MPG vehicles to drive 35MPG vehicles. a reduction of 40% to 50% less fuel for most.

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

what if we rode around in vehicles that weighed 50lbs. or possibly 30lbs...and carried loads of 200-300lbs. Thats a good weight to carrying capacity ratio.

Why do we spend most of our energy moving vehicles that weight 3000-4000lbs when the load is only 200-300lbs most of the time.

talk about inefficient.

There are so many things we can do to cut our energy use its insane..........

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

if we used a modest NG growth rate of 3%.....and we had a demand of 37.9 TCF...a reserve of 742 TCF would last us 15 yrs....given we could drill with no restraints.


I find it hard to believe that every passing year NG will become more difficult to extract.......that we could meet future demand with such an increase in demand. a 3% compound rate means we have a doubling factor of roughly 24-25 yrs........which means every 25 yrs we will consume more energy than all the years added up preceeding it.

energy saved will be energy used for growth...surplus energy is the name of the game for all economies......

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

Mark Anthony.....300,000,000 TCF is

300,000,000,000,000,00... CF.

or

2,038,071,834 Cubic Miles of NG. each leg of a cube being roughly 1,275 miles in length. or 2053 Kilometers

the earth is 260,000,000,000 cubic miles roughly.

He is saying that .78% of the earths total volume is NG.

I don't know if this is or isn't correct....no one does.

But I assure you that each leg isn't a measurement of mass...but rather a measurement of distance:)

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

Government should have little control on the outcome of how society decides to spend money.....possibly the best solution is to privatize more....as we know government is NOT the answer. Possibly have everyone pay for their own choices....if they make poor choices...they will need to live with those consequences...and not punish one who has made good choices. I believe that socializing bad decisions only makes problems worse and punishes those who made good decisions. In fact....in our current society...those who make sound moral decisions for the bettering of society are punished the most.....as those will be raped of their hardwork through the socializing of bad decisions made by many including the government.

There should be little if any safety nets for individuals...it should be the responsibility of the individuals or families to take care of oneself/themselves....... any other law would in fact violate the rights and freedom of another.

"Today's mawkish concern with and compassion for the feeble, the flawed, the suffering, the guilty, is a cover for the profoundly Kantian hatred of the innocent, the strong, the able, the successful, the virtuous, the confident, the happy. A philosophy out to destroy man's mind is necessarily a philosophy of hatred for man, for man's life, and for every human value. Hatred of the good for being the good, is the hallmark of the twentieth century."

Ayn Rand

Since reason is "man's basic tool of survival," Rand held that an individual has a natural moral right to act as the judgment of his or her own mind directs and to keep the product of this effort. In Rand's view, this requires that the unprovoked initiation of physical force and the acquisition of property by fraud be banned. She agreed with America's Founding Fathers that the sole legitimate function of government is the protection of individual rights, including property rights. The purpose of objective criminal and civil law is to protect the individual from the coercion of others, while the purpose of a constitution and Bill of Rights is to protect the individual from the coercion of the state (historically the greatest violator of individual rights in Rand's estimation). Government may use force, that is its essence, but to do so legitimately it must never act as the aggressor––it may use force only in response to an unprovoked initiation of force, e.g. theft, murder, foreign aggression. Rand did not believe that a free society, one in which all interaction was thus rendered voluntary, would make anyone rational––rationality cannot be compelled and is an exclusive capacity of the individual––but freedom does allow those who are rational and productive to achieve at their highest capacity.
Ayn rand

The free market works....its just we don't have a free market...we haven't for a long time. We have idiots in government who think they are god like....and can solve problems. The problem is them. They are the ones who think that alternative energy is the answer....and subsidize specific energies.....but who says those are the best to have? Why subsidize anything? If they are truely better.....why aren't they surviving on their own? Where did these subsides come from to go to these technologies? What authority do they have to subsidize ANYTHING?

How is energy tied into this?

If we actually had a dollar tied to some value....all this energy would cost us the same.....it would be all the others moving up and down...everything is a game on expansion and contraction of money supply. Very little price movements in energy actually come/came from production supply issues....especially when we are supposed to be the reserve currency. Right now credit/leverage is being destroyed....and money is not being loaned out....hence deflation of the money supply.

energy is the economy....and the free market has answers if energy becomes a large problem.....the problem is we don't have a free market.....and we have a corrupt system not following the constitution.

What we need fear is when our economy becomes so corrupt....what return would one have for coming up with a grand energy plan if the government is going to distribute all the rewards for coming up with the plan?

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

The free market didn't get us to the point we are at. In fact....government regulation did in my view. I honestly think our system is pretty corrupt...call me a conspiracy theorist or whatever...but the ties run deep....and government "THINKS" they have things under control when THEY THEMSELVES are the root cause of our problems.

I see many problems with the current society....granted...I am just one person with one view point...and I am fine with people who disagree.

1) Money printing. This in itself controls our economy...the expansion and contraction of the money supply dictates a lot in this world. Expansion decreases the value of each dollar....the way its issued and interest tied to that issuance. Nothing to back it....etc. Currency values fluctuating....the print off race in order to devalue ones currency for exports....if its an export driven economy...its all a big mess. but one thing for sure has proven in history...all currencies will eventually end up at their intrinsic value of 0.

Problems arise from loose monetary expansion....policies also increase the money supply via who qualifies for loans. The funny thing about this one is the government in 1999 had a Urban Development act passed which made lower qualified people be able to obtain loans. This in essence made housing more UNAFFORDABLE for most....and sparked a huge drunk fest of speculation on housing....that combined with low interest rates. All policies and interest rates set by the government and/or entities closely tied with the gov (fed reserve).

2) Back in the day only white male land owners could vote. They all had a stake in society.....the system was designed around this fact that only these people could vote. Our system IMO cannot accomodate every single person being able to vote....regardless of them having NO STAKE in that society. How could one who has no stake have a vote? Perhaps the amount of taxes paid into the system by an individual should have that as their voting power. That way people who pay enormous amounts of taxes would have the largest influence.....remember I am saying TAX DOLLORS...people who avoid paying taxes would have less voting power or none if they avoid them all together. Perhaps only landowners should have voting power? I don't know the answer to this....but right now...voting for money will ruin this system....as quoted by ben franklin "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

3) The only thing government should be responsible for is protection of its citizens and the rights and liberties of them, Right now they are shitting all over them. They have no rights for most of the taxes, redistribution of wealth (poor allocation of money), taking taxpayer money...increasing size of government...a federal reserve, etc, etc, etc.

I got to run...will post more.