Oil & Gas Prices:10-8-04 U.S. Crude over $53 Whitehouse says there will be no impact - Gas prices rising fast towards $3

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Chadder007
You didn't answer.....how are the poor supposed to be paying for these premium priced new Hybrid cars and higher gas prices?

Dave is just a spiteful prick who has it in for everybody, rich and poor. Think Ellsworth Toohey from the Fountainhead (a great read if you haven't already), he hides his spite as a hatred for the rich and a beneficial handout to the poor, but in reality he is hoping the worst for everyone.

Look at how he hates people and freedom! I got news for ya, Dave, more poor people smoke than rich, and only poor people drive old cars because its all they can afford. And hybrids don't get better gas mileage than a comparable mechanical car, they just cost more. Where once Honda made a 50 mpg Civic and sold it for $10k, now they make a 50 mpg hybrid with comparable weight, features, and specs, market it to you as some great gas saving vehicle, and sell it for $20k. And you, the idiot who hates everyone, falls into their trap like a good corporate slave that you really are...

OK, I may be a "spiteful prick" but I certainly do not have it out for both "rich and poor" alike.

Certainly do not hope for the worst for eveyone either, just the opposite. It pains me to see mankind especially the U.S. going backwards and not forwards in all areas.

True, more poor folks smoke than rich although women are skewing that fact now since so many of them both poor and rich like are taking up the nasty drug habit. Poor folks get hooked on the Nicotine high and it is still cheap enough that it is the drug of choice for them.

Me a Corporate whore? You don't know me very well at all. If I had any say in it, every Station would already have Hydrogen pumps and we would be off this Oil crap altogether by now.

 

[Zebo]

Woo Hoo, that ought to do away with SUV's

You really think peope diving 50K SUV's care is the gas is $2 or $5? Unless they are idiots, and financed up to thier gills most won't care at all. I don't even know what kind of mileage my F-350 gets since the feds don't require a EPA sticker for it... don't care either... but rest assured If I pay $5 for gas I will value my labor at that much more and so will they all balancing out. SUV's still here.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Chadder007
You didn't answer.....how are the poor supposed to be paying for these premium priced new Hybrid cars and higher gas prices?

Don't ask me, ask the Rich Elitist Neocons in here that widened the gap between Rich and Poor.

Really? And what constructive thing would you do to help narrow that gap, asides from running up costs on the poor even further and widening that gap even further? And how has that gap widened when compared to the wealth of the rich and the poverty of the poor 100 years ago? If anything, we live at the tail end of a golden age, and you just want to see that golden age end and everyone back to the bad ol' times as quickly as possible. And why? because you've fscked over your own life so you want to see everyone else fscked over too.
I think your trolling needs to end and you need to be banned. I'm sick of your hatred, your lies, and your sh!t.

Pardon me, mods, if this seems out of line, but he needs the back of someone's end or his crap is going to go on forever...

I already answered on what I would do. We would not be still dependant on Oil, period.

End of the Golden Age, so you are perfectly content in going backwards, talk about someone being negative. :roll:

I have screwed up, I never said I wasn't human.

Mods don't pay any attention to the rant. Neocons are feeling pretty stressed these days with the "Tail End" of their pretty boy's Regime coming to and end :thumbsup:

Carry on

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Me a Corporate whore? You don't know me very well at all. If I had any say in it, every Station would already have Hydrogen pumps and we would be off this Oil crap altogether by now.

And how would we extract the hydrogen, Dave? While hydrogen might be the most abundant element in the universe, almost all of it on earth is locked up in water, an extremely stable compound. Under the Law of Conservative of Energy, something you should have learned in high school chemistry, it will take more energy to split the hydrogen and oxygen from water than we will get back when they are recombined in a fuel cell.
In other words, hydrogen is not a viable source of energy, but would make a excellent electrical storage device (aka battery).

So brush up on that high school chemistry and physics and get back to me if you want to argue these points, Dave...

edit: and btw, Dave, I'm no neocon and I'm voting for Kerry, just like I voted for Gore. You sure give the Dems a bad name though...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic
Uhh... the Honda Insight is comparable in almost every way spec-wise to an old Metro, it just sells for twice as much. 3 cyl 1 liter engine in a ultra compact car designed for weight savings and tiny low-rolling resistance tires.

If you drive the two of them in a city, the Insight will get better gas mileage. The more you stop, the better your mileage is in the Insight relative to the Metro.

As for Civics, I regularly got 50 mpg on the highway with my old Civic CRX. When I owned it, I could drive from Medford, OR to Coos Bay and back (roughly 400 miles) on $10 bucks of gas at $1.29/gal. You do the math. I know, I owned it for more than 100k miles, all of which were done in just over a year's time (drove a lot for work, and it was the perfect car for it).
And pardon me, but I just had this argument in OT, and I'm not going to do it again. Hybrids can be in many ways more efficient, but it is not alternatively-fueled, it still runs ENTIRELY on the ICE and fossil fuels, and EPA mileage estimates have not held up in the real world. Power cannot be made magically, and no one ever saved money by spending it.

I don't think hybrids were brought up as an alternative fuel, but more as a way to lower demand and, therefore, the price of gas.


For everyone that insists that oil should be replaced, there are many points to consider, and here is the biggest: the infrastructure for oil is already in place, and took decades to get there to achieve the convenience that you have today. If you want to change to an alternative fuel, be prepared to shell out hundreds of billions to construct:
a) New 'refineries' that produce alternative fuels (reformers, et cetera for alcohol-based hydrogen fuels)
b) New distribution systems for alternative fuels (which are much more difficult to transport than gasoline, since they typically have higher volatilities and are often stored at pressure to keep them in the liquid phase)
c) More research to create processes that are nearly as efficient as those in place for gasoline production - technology exists to make alternative fuels, but it's far from perfect, whereas gas production is EXTREMELY refined and technologically mature

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Woo Hoo, that ought to do away with SUV's

You really think peope diving 50K SUV's care is the gas is $2 or $5? Unless they are idiots, and financed up to thier gills most won't care at all. I don't even know what kind of mileage my F-350 gets since the feds don't require a EPA sticker for it... don't care either... but rest assured If I pay $5 for gas I will value my labor at that much more and so will they all balancing out. SUV's still here.

you obviously didn't see the top gear episode featuring the blingingest ride around, the escalade. you put all your money in your ride, and at max you have $5 in gas in it. because you can't afford more.

diesel F-350s get pretty good mileage, almost as good as a large sedan like an LS430.

 

[Ultima]

Gas is US$2.60/gallon here in Montreal and people's driving habits haven't changed much.

Originally posted by: Zebo

Woo Hoo, that ought to do away with SUV's

You really think peope diving 50K SUV's care is the gas is $2 or $5? Unless they are idiots, and financed up to thier gills most won't care at all. I don't even know what kind of mileage my F-350 gets since the feds don't require a EPA sticker for it... don't care either... but rest assured If I pay $5 for gas I will value my labor at that much more and so will they all balancing out. SUV's still here.

 

[Ultima]

Well, it has to be done because oil is diminishing, not growing. Even if its true supply could be dramatically raised, all this does is push up the date when production starts falling. No matter how many billions were spent on oil infrastructure, the party is going to end sooner or later and it's better that we shift away from it now rather than later when it will hurt more.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Vic
Uhh... the Honda Insight is comparable in almost every way spec-wise to an old Metro, it just sells for twice as much. 3 cyl 1 liter engine in a ultra compact car designed for weight savings and tiny low-rolling resistance tires.

If you drive the two of them in a city, the Insight will get better gas mileage. The more you stop, the better your mileage is in the Insight relative to the Metro.

As for Civics, I regularly got 50 mpg on the highway with my old Civic CRX. When I owned it, I could drive from Medford, OR to Coos Bay and back (roughly 400 miles) on $10 bucks of gas at $1.29/gal. You do the math. I know, I owned it for more than 100k miles, all of which were done in just over a year's time (drove a lot for work, and it was the perfect car for it).
And pardon me, but I just had this argument in OT, and I'm not going to do it again. Hybrids can be in many ways more efficient, but it is not alternatively-fueled, it still runs ENTIRELY on the ICE and fossil fuels, and EPA mileage estimates have not held up in the real world. Power cannot be made magically, and no one ever saved money by spending it.

I don't think hybrids were brought up as an alternative fuel, but more as a way to lower demand and, therefore, the price of gas.


For everyone that insists that oil should be replaced, there are many points to consider, and here is the biggest: the infrastructure for oil is already in place, and took decades to get there to achieve the convenience that you have today. If you want to change to an alternative fuel, be prepared to shell out hundreds of billions to construct:
a) New 'refineries' that produce alternative fuels (reformers, et cetera for alcohol-based hydrogen fuels)
b) New distribution systems for alternative fuels (which are much more difficult to transport than gasoline, since they typically have higher volatilities and are often stored at pressure to keep them in the liquid phase)
c) More research to create processes that are nearly as efficient as those in place for gasoline production - technology exists to make alternative fuels, but it's far from perfect, whereas gas production is EXTREMELY refined and technologically mature

 

[ReiAyanami]

the US Geological Survey puts world oil supply at 31 years, BP one of largest oil companies in the world estimates 36 yrs (this is without factoring in China+India's massive future growth which can range from 4% to 9%)

that includes known reserves (1.2 trillion) plus estimated hidden reserves of 700 billion barrels

but they have some l33t solar technology that may or may not reveal itself as oil's replacement within the next 5-10 years. but hey they said we'd have quantum computers 5 years ago

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Briggs foresees $110 crude by 2010

NEW ORLEANS ? Importing liquid natural gas is expected to lead to more jobs at facilities being built and expanded in Louisiana and near its coast. But an industry insider does not see LNG as the answer to high energy prices.

Don Briggs, president of the Louisiana Independent Oil and Gas Association, said Louisiana-based firms can look forward to more work involving construction of new LNG terminals and makeovers for sites such as McMoRan?s Main Pass facility. But because so many of the chemical plants in Louisiana rely on natural gas as a source material, Briggs believes demand and the price for natural gas will remain high.

"Bringing in LNG helps some, but we?re still behind the curve in terms of meeting energy needs," Briggs said. "The projection for 2010 is for oil to reach $110 a barrel. There will probably be a push to switch everything over to natural gas and the result will be that demand pushing up the price of natural gas."

Briggs is backed by influential energy sources such as International Energy Agency head Claude Mandil, who said today investment in new oil-and-gas production is falling about 15 percent short of the estimated $210 billion per year required to keep up with world demand. Mandil says producers need to build more capacity now.

Energy producers such as Entergy and Cleco have already expressed support for increased LNG imports, and Briggs thinks this sector will be the largest consumer of LNG.

Briggs downplayed projections that additional LNG will curb the country?s reliance on foreign oil, noting that the bulk of the natural gas imports will also come from a foreign source. In addition, he said, foreign usage of energy is also on the increase.

"By 2020 we?re going to see China consuming as much energy as the United States," said Briggs. "That means we?re going to have to increase oil production by 30 million to 40 million barrels per day and the equivalent in gas."

At which time alternative energies will become more affordable and preferred... capitalism at work.. There is no point in using alternative fuels until the supply of oil runs out, or alternatives are cheaper than oil. Its working exactly like it should.

We should be spending the money "perfecting" and developing alternative energy sources now instead of wasting it on the Iraqi war and then the rebuiling of Iraq. We already have proven technology for engines that run on 100% ehtanol. We could eliminate the need for foreign oil right now if we had to and stop spending our money on imported oil so the Sheiks can finance terrorists to keep the radical element off their backs. What are we waiting for? Doesn't it make sense to keep as much of the money we spend on imported oil right here in this country? Wouldn't that be a boon for the economy and wouldn't it make mor3 sense then a mission to Mars?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Me a Corporate whore? You don't know me very well at all. If I had any say in it, every Station would already have Hydrogen pumps and we would be off this Oil crap altogether by now.

And how would we extract the hydrogen, Dave? While hydrogen might be the most abundant element in the universe, almost all of it on earth is locked up in water, an extremely stable compound. Under the Law of Conservative of Energy, something you should have learned in high school chemistry, it will take more energy to split the hydrogen and oxygen from water than we will get back when they are recombined in a fuel cell.
In other words, hydrogen is not a viable source of energy, but would make a excellent electrical storage device (aka battery).

So brush up on that high school chemistry and physics and get back to me if you want to argue these points, Dave...

edit: and btw, Dave, I'm no neocon and I'm voting for Kerry, just like I voted for Gore. You sure give the Dems a bad name though...

There are already Hydrogen Gas Stations in California, do a search in this thread.

Good that you're not a Neocon. I give all Politics a Bad name gladly.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
There are already Hydrogen Gas Stations in California, do a search in this thread.

Good that you're not a Neocon. I give all Politics a Bad name gladly.

You missed the point, Dave. I'm all for alternative fuels and love hydrogen (as my car, and mostly likely yours, could run on hydrogen with only minimal modifications). But except for a couple stations that power themselves from solar (and have very limited capacity), they get the hydrogen by burning oil.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Ultima
Well, it has to be done because oil is diminishing, not growing. Even if its true supply could be dramatically raised, all this does is push up the date when production starts falling. No matter how many billions were spent on oil infrastructure, the party is going to end sooner or later and it's better that we shift away from it now rather than later when it will hurt more.

It is being done now, but gradually to slow down the rate that people have to pay for it, which was the point I was trying to make but kind of forgot after typing for too long. ;P

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
We should be spending the money "perfecting" and developing alternative energy sources now instead of wasting it on the Iraqi war and then the rebuiling of Iraq. We already have proven technology for engines that run on 100% ehtanol. We could eliminate the need for foreign oil right now if we had to and stop spending our money on imported oil so the Sheiks can finance terrorists to keep the radical element off their backs. What are we waiting for? Doesn't it make sense to keep as much of the money we spend on imported oil right here in this country? Wouldn't that be a boon for the economy and wouldn't it make mor3 sense then a mission to Mars?

Actually, fuel cell technology is being helped along by the space program more than any other source. Fuel cells have been used on spacecraft for years (can't recall exactly how long, but 10+ years IIRC). Funding that is going to Iraq would never find its way into researching alternative fuels - federal budgeting just doesn't work that way. Besides, right now the government is throwing so much money at alternative fuels that the limiting factor is actually researchers to investigate rather than funding.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674<BR>There are already Hydrogen Gas Stations in California, do a search in this thread.<BR><BR>Good that you're not a Neocon. I give all Politics a Bad name gladly.

<BR>You missed the point, Dave. I'm all for alternative fuels and love hydrogen (as my car, and mostly likely yours, could run on hydrogen with only minimal modifications). But except for a couple stations that power themselves from solar (and have very limited capacity), they get the hydrogen by burning oil.

Excuse me. Not only can we get away from hardly using any oil but we can also reverse much of our CO2 greenhouse warming at the same time as well:

8-26-2004 UW engineers clear bottleneck in production of hydrogen

Carbon monoxide, or CO, has long been a major technical barrier to the efficient operation of fuel cells. But now, chemical and biological engineers at UW-Madison have not only cleared that barrier - they also have discovered a method to capture carbon monoxide's energy.

To be useful in a power-generating fuel cell, hydrocarbons such as gasoline, natural gas or ethanol must be reformed into a hydrogen-rich gas. A large, costly and critical step to this process requires generating steam and reacting it with carbon monoxide (CO). This process, called water-gas shift, produces hydrogen and carbon dioxide (CO2). Additional steps then are taken to reduce the CO levels further before the hydrogen enters a fuel cell.

The team, as reported in the Aug. 27 issue of Science, uses an environmentally benign polyoxometalate (POM) compound to oxidize CO in liquid water at room temperature. The compound not only removes CO from gas streams for fuel cells, but also converts the energy content of CO into a liquid that subsequently can be used to power a fuel cell.

"CO has essentially as much energy as hydrogen," Dumesic says. "It has a lot of energy in it. If you take a hydrocarbon and partially oxidize it at high temperature, it primarily makes CO and hydrogen. Conventional systems follow that with a series of these 'water-gas shift' steps. Our discovery has the potential of eliminating those steps. Instead, you can send the CO through our process, which works efficiently at room temperature, and takes the CO out of the gas to make energy."

 

[charrison]

Mexico's Pemex has detected vast new oil deposits in the Gulf of Mexico that could double the country's total reserves and boost its oil output to rival Saudi Arabia's, the state oil monopoly said on Monday.

The deposits -- located mainly in deep waters for which Pemex will need hefty investments and technology-sharing agreements to access -- could total about 54 billion barrels of crude equivalent (bce), which would boost Mexico's total reserves to 102 billion bce.

"This is what exploration and prospecting studies have found," Pemex communications head Sergio Uzeta said.

"It's important to be clear that we are talking about the probability of finding large quantities of oil and gas. The existence of this oil wealth is very probable but we have to confirm it so that it will be a proven matter."

Pemex's head of exploration and production, Luis Ramirez, was quoted in daily El Universal on Monday as saying that after three years of exploration at a cost of $4.55 billion, Pemex had mapped seven new offshore blocks where it hopes to extract oil and natural gas.

"This will put us on a par with reserves levels of the big players like Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait or Iran," Ramirez said.

"What's more, we would be in a position to reach production levels like those of Saudi Arabia, which produces 7.5 million barrels per day, or Russia, which produces 7.4 million."

linkage

 

[dmcowen674]

Charrison, you broke the thread


Could you fix the text.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Charrison, you broke the thread


Could you fix the text.

what is broken?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Charrison, you broke the thread


Could you fix the text.

Huh?

CsG

 

[dmcowen674]

His article text is not properly formatted and now have to scroll right

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
His article text is not properly formatted and now have to scroll right

Nope. Looks fine here. Try adjusting your tinfoil - it migh be blocking your vision

CsG

 

[dmcowen674]

It's busted for me.

 

[dmcowen674]

No Oil for Us

9-1-2004Oil Roars Back Towards $50 as ...Crude Stockpile Slides

LONDON (Reuters) - Oil prices rebounded from an eight-session slide on Wednesday, jumping more than four percent as a U.S. government report showed crude oil stocks falling to the lowest level in five months.

Delegates in OPEC have suggested the cartel could raise its 26 million bpd ceiling by one to two million bpd.

The official reckoned the 10 OPEC producers bound by quotas are now pumping "almost at full blast" at 27.5 million bpd, 1.5 million bpd above formal limits.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: charrison

Mexico's Pemex has detected vast new oil deposits in the Gulf of Mexico that could double the country's total reserves and boost its oil output to rival Saudi Arabia's, the state oil monopoly said on Monday.

The deposits -- located mainly in deep waters for which Pemex will need hefty investments and technology-sharing agreements to access -- could total about 54 billion barrels of crude equivalent (bce), which would boost Mexico's total reserves to 102 billion bce.

"This is what exploration and prospecting studies have found," Pemex communications head Sergio Uzeta said.

"It's important to be clear that we are talking about the probability of finding large quantities of oil and gas. The existence of this oil wealth is very probable but we have to confirm it so that it will be a proven matter."

Pemex's head of exploration and production, Luis Ramirez, was quoted in daily El Universal on Monday as saying that after three years of exploration at a cost of $4.55 billion, Pemex had mapped seven new offshore blocks where it hopes to extract oil and natural gas.

"This will put us on a par with reserves levels of the big players like Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait or Iran," Ramirez said.

"What's more, we would be in a position to reach production levels like those of Saudi Arabia, which produces 7.5 million barrels per day, or Russia, which produces 7.4 million."

linkage

Great news! When do we invade?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: charrison

Mexico's Pemex has detected vast new oil deposits in the Gulf of Mexico that could double the country's total reserves and boost its oil output to rival Saudi Arabia's, the state oil monopoly said on Monday.

The deposits -- located mainly in deep waters for which Pemex will need hefty investments and technology-sharing agreements to access -- could total about 54 billion barrels of crude equivalent (bce), which would boost Mexico's total reserves to 102 billion bce.

"This is what exploration and prospecting studies have found," Pemex communications head Sergio Uzeta said.

"It's important to be clear that we are talking about the probability of finding large quantities of oil and gas. The existence of this oil wealth is very probable but we have to confirm it so that it will be a proven matter."

Pemex's head of exploration and production, Luis Ramirez, was quoted in daily El Universal on Monday as saying that after three years of exploration at a cost of $4.55 billion, Pemex had mapped seven new offshore blocks where it hopes to extract oil and natural gas.

"This will put us on a par with reserves levels of the big players like Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait or Iran," Ramirez said.

"What's more, we would be in a position to reach production levels like those of Saudi Arabia, which produces 7.5 million barrels per day, or Russia, which produces 7.4 million."

linkage

Great news! When do we invade?

I wouldn't read a whole lot into this. This region of the Gulf they are talking about is only about 600 miles from the area we have already pumped dry and it didn't take very long to pump it dry.

 

[piasabird]

If you are worried about oil sell your SUV???