Gas prices

[retailguy]

Thanks for the info, retailguy.

The article I read stated the how huge the total amount was; It stated that with current technology, only 1-3% of that total was feasible to pump--still 4-12 billion barrels--compared to 10.5 billion in ANWR; It mentioned the difficulty in drilling and getting it out; The one question I have though, it mentioned that the North Dakota Crude is "honey-colored". Wouldn't that mean higher quality--the lower grades being darker? Or is that an incorrect assumption?

Well, Tex, I'm not a geologist, but I've worked in Oil & Gas for about 10 years on and off.

I don't think your assumption is necessarily solid, the lower the sulfur content, the higher the quality of the crude. The higher the sulfur content, the more impurities are present.

As I understand it, the difficulty with the Bakken find in ND & Montana is that the crude is found "within" the rocks. They are having the most success by drilling sideways instead of up and down, and using a process developed by Haliburton (the contemporary version of the "evil empire" ), that essentially "fractures" the rock to release the oil.

Pretty sophisticated operations, for sure. Sophisticated operations lead to higher costs, typically. And depending how "different" the crude composition is, admittedly, its out of my realm to know, but globally the more different, the more retrofitting needed for US refineries to run it.

Villainous "Big Oil" that these guys hate so much was who developed the techniques that make a portion of this field feasible to drill, and which presumably will come up with even better techniques to get the bulk of it out of the ground.

Would that be the same "villainous bastards" who earned an ROI of 34.7%(Exxon ONLY), to the lower to mid 20%'s (most of the rest of the US major Oil companies), as opposed to the 19% that P&G posted, or the 18% that Wal-Mart posted. Yeah, I guess it was those guys.

Yet the same people who decry "villainous bastards" can't wait to tell us about the 30% that their 401K earned two years back.... Talked about how much of a "genius" they were in their financial plans, but seemingly left off the term "villainous bastard" from their description of themselves.... <sigh>

One more question, retailguy, don't we have even bigger shale oil deposits farther south--Colorado, Utah, etc.? Are these harder yet to make use of? What do you know about them?

Not harder, necessarily, just different. Oil shale is essentially oil enclosed within the rock itself. You mine the rock, and when heated to extreme temperatures, the rock gives off gases that can be refined into petroleum products. They share the higher production costs, but it's more economical I think with current technology. But again, more processing requires a higher crude price for viability.

I was with TOSCO in the mid 90's - now part of Conoco Phillips. Tosco stands for The Oil Shale COmpany. The principal owners had a lot of those fields (I believe the CEO was O'Malley, if I recall correctly). He did pretty well in the sale to Conoco Phillips....

[Harlan Huckleby]

People need to start driving less, taking other forms of transportation, or telecommute.

that's depressing. we need better transportation, not less of it. the internal combustion engine is the devil. No reason we can't be doing the bulk of our travel in electric cars, powered by electricity from reinvigorated nuclear industry. And we have to expand public transportation before it is realistic option for many.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

People need to start driving less, taking other forms of transportation, or telecommute.

that's depressing. we need better transportation, not less of it. the internal combustion engine is the devil. No reason we can't be doing the bulk of our travel in electric cars, powered by electricity from reinvigorated nuclear industry. And we have to expand public transportation before it is realistic option for many.

Nothing wrong, per se with Nuclear. But, it would make far more sense to make a nationwide electric grid..similar to the internet. And, to utilize solar power (not as it is now, but as it could be with research) and wind power.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Nothing wrong, per se with Nuclear. But, it would make far more sense to make a nationwide electric grid..similar to the internet. And, to utilize solar power (not as it is now, but as it could be with research) and wind power.

sure, keep working in all aspects of alternative energy.

But look at china. They build a new coal plant every day. Windmills aren't going to save the planet.

You got your atom. In the neucleus is energy a million times more than those electron gnats. Most forms of energy - chemical, electrical, even mechanical - are derived from the electrons. That's chump change. The only efficient way to generate a lot of energy is going to come from nuclear power. Hopefully fusion someday, fission for near term.

combustion = fire = cave man stuff. burning generates much waste, consumes tons of materials/resources, and produces relatively little energy.

I guess solar counts as nuclear power.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Nothing wrong, per se with Nuclear. But, it would make far more sense to make a nationwide electric grid..similar to the internet.

An electrical grid doesn't depend on whether electricity was generated by nuclear, wind, coal, solar ...

[red]

why don't we use more hydo?

is it because of the cost?

we've got so many rivers in this country that you'd think we would utilize it more

[retailguy]

why don't we use more hydo?

is it because of the cost?

we've got so many rivers in this country that you'd think we would utilize it more

Daming rivers disrupts salmon spawning. Can't do that. It upsets our ecosystem. Then all we're left with are farm raised salmon. yuk.

[Partial]

People need to start driving less, taking other forms of transportation, or telecommute.

that's depressing. we need better transportation, not less of it. the internal combustion engine is the devil. No reason we can't be doing the bulk of our travel in electric cars, powered by electricity from reinvigorated nuclear industry. And we have to expand public transportation before it is realistic option for many.

Nothing wrong, per se with Nuclear. But, it would make far more sense to make a nationwide electric grid..similar to the internet. And, to utilize solar power (not as it is now, but as it could be with research) and wind power.

Some company recently came out with a panel that was like 60% efficient, but the problem with these things are warranties. You pay all this money, then it breaks in a few years? That would suck. The efficient panels are $$$$

[red]

why don't we use more hydo?

is it because of the cost?

we've got so many rivers in this country that you'd think we would utilize it more

Daming rivers disrupts salmon spawning. Can't do that. It upsets our ecosystem. Then all we're left with are farm raised salmon. yuk.

fish ladders, they have one in downtown grand rapids. thing works great

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Nothing wrong, per se with Nuclear. But, it would make far more sense to make a nationwide electric grid..similar to the internet.

An electrical grid doesn't depend on whether electricity was generated by nuclear, wind, coal, solar ...

True.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

People need to start driving less, taking other forms of transportation, or telecommute.

that's depressing. we need better transportation, not less of it. the internal combustion engine is the devil. No reason we can't be doing the bulk of our travel in electric cars, powered by electricity from reinvigorated nuclear industry. And we have to expand public transportation before it is realistic option for many.

Nothing wrong, per se with Nuclear. But, it would make far more sense to make a nationwide electric grid..similar to the internet. And, to utilize solar power (not as it is now, but as it could be with research) and wind power.

Some company recently came out with a panel that was like 60% efficient, but the problem with these things are warranties. You pay all this money, then it breaks in a few years? That would suck. The efficient panels are $$$$

Try to make your post relevant to mine. I'm not talking about about home usage.

[Partial]

People need to start driving less, taking other forms of transportation, or telecommute.

that's depressing. we need better transportation, not less of it. the internal combustion engine is the devil. No reason we can't be doing the bulk of our travel in electric cars, powered by electricity from reinvigorated nuclear industry. And we have to expand public transportation before it is realistic option for many.

Nothing wrong, per se with Nuclear. But, it would make far more sense to make a nationwide electric grid..similar to the internet. And, to utilize solar power (not as it is now, but as it could be with research) and wind power.

Some company recently came out with a panel that was like 60% efficient, but the problem with these things are warranties. You pay all this money, then it breaks in a few years? That would suck. The efficient panels are $$$$

Try to make your post relevant to mine. I'm not talking about about home usage.

I'm not either. The problems with solar panels as I understand it are they A) break down very easily, B) They throw several away for every good panel they make.

Nobody (gov, personal, etc) is going to want to pay all the money for something that will pay itself off in say 20 years if the likelyhood that it lasts that long does not improve dramatically.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

People need to start driving less, taking other forms of transportation, or telecommute.

that's depressing. we need better transportation, not less of it. the internal combustion engine is the devil. No reason we can't be doing the bulk of our travel in electric cars, powered by electricity from reinvigorated nuclear industry. And we have to expand public transportation before it is realistic option for many.

Nothing wrong, per se with Nuclear. But, it would make far more sense to make a nationwide electric grid..similar to the internet. And, to utilize solar power (not as it is now, but as it could be with research) and wind power.

Some company recently came out with a panel that was like 60% efficient, but the problem with these things are warranties. You pay all this money, then it breaks in a few years? That would suck. The efficient panels are $$$$

Try to make your post relevant to mine. I'm not talking about about home usage.

I'm not either. The problems with solar panels as I understand it are they A) break down very easily, B) They throw several away for every good panel they make.

Nobody (gov, personal, etc) is going to want to pay all the money for something that will pay itself off in say 20 years if the likelyhood that it lasts that long does not improve dramatically.

Ok. You might not wanna use the term "you" then...it implies a person..not a gov't.

You might also want to consider making your point relevant to my post..hence the key phrase "not as it is now, but as it could be with research."

Hence, you jump to a conclusion about solar panels (which for the most part you aren't correct..Solar panels are so reliable that most are surprised when something actually goes wrong. Temperature fluctuations, severe weather, lightning and static electricity are all examples of things that affect them. And, can be easily corrected)...but, I NEVER said anything about panels.

As for production..who cares, that cost is passed on to the consumer..the free market dictates.

This is another example of how you insert Partial into a thread..another stir the pot...yet, no one was talking about solar panels. Infact, the person that mentioned solar was me..and I didn't use the term panel. Think for a minute...why is that?

I was referring to solar collectors. I'm talking square miles covered. I'm not referring to unnatural energy flows, i'm talking natural...as well as geothermal and as mentioned, wind.

But, in your limited world, you jump into it, talking about panels. Reframing the argument and bringing your little strawman argument into it.

Sorry, but on top of being wrong. You aren't even addressing what i'm referring to. But, would you ever ask what it is? No. Would you be smart enough to lay a trap to let me hang myself..nope.

There are many ways to utilize solar without panels. fuck, you are so irritating. How about solar powered thermal energy. Wow!! Guess your panel issue is for shit.

God, man be smart....think about why i mentioned a grid and solar. Do actually think we are going to power the country on solar panels? Yikes.

Ausra has a peer reviewed paper that says they can power 90% of the grid on solar-thermal and have energy left over for electric cars. Eliminates 40% of greenhouse gases. Footprint of around 10K sq. miles. About the size of Vermont.

Best of all..more efficient than panels.

If you wanna talk/post knowledgeably..perhaps you should do your usual..google a few sites and then spout off. Hint: Cradle to Cradle, William McDonough or Lewis center.

[LL2]

I saw $3.69 at gas station this morning! Gas prices are just going up...up..up.

[MadtownPacker]

Try 3.79 a gal.

Bigguns and Partial, sow some courtesy to others and keep your stupid little quarrel out of this thread.