Price of Gasoline.

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

...if we need some 20,000,000 barrels a day for 100% oil replacement, which won't be the case but will allow for growth, we're looking at 100 plants or $300 bil which isn't going ot be paid in cash. So, debt service on it is gonna run maybe 3 bil a year if a plant is financed with long term loans or bonds.

$3 billion per plant. I don't know how many plants we'd need, but if they are anything like refineries that are in the range of 200-400k barrels per day, we'll need quite a few to make a difference.

I don't follow why the profit potential for coal is higher? At $70-$30 cost there is $40 to go around. Oil out of land based rigs costs like $5 to pump, you have $65 to line the pockets of the oil men and the Saudis and the refiners and the tankers and everyone else. You could say that there would be less hands to feed using domestic coal, but if there is profit potential, you can bet as many hands as possible will be trying to get involved. That's the way the market works.

Well, unless a company owns the hole it's drilling and the mineral rights, owns the actual oil, then it's the nation, Saudi, whomever, that's making all the money, right? I mean Exxon gets about $2 a gallon right now for gas plus all the other stuff they get from a barrel.

What I've been able to find is that coal > gas is a break even with $30/brl oil. It stands to reason, or show me otherwise, that if oil is $70 and you can get oil from coal at $69, then there's some money to be made.

What's coal, $40 a ton or so? A ton of mid grade coal (10k btu/#) is equal to about 3.5 barrels of typical oil. That's $40 vs. $245 at $70brl for the same energy. I don't know what is lost (or gained) in conversion.

We can't use $5 a barrel as the cost to an electric plant anymore than we can use the actual cost of mining a ton of coal, right?

We're in agreement as to the cause and effects here and I'm sure we agree that demand is NOT going to be cut, so, increase supply through gradual introduction of coal > gas/oil.

I mean, we're doing stupid stuff like ethanol that actually uses more energy to produce than it has in it through subsidy under the guise of national interest, so, why not coal liquification?

 

[dck4shrt]

...if we need some 20,000,000 barrels a day for 100% oil replacement, which won't be the case but will allow for growth, we're looking at 100 plants or $300 bil which isn't going ot be paid in cash. So, debt service on it is gonna run maybe 3 bil a year if a plant is financed with long term loans or bonds.








Well, unless a company owns the hole it's drilling and the mineral rights, owns the actual oil, then it's the nation, Saudi, whomever, that's making all the money, right? I mean Exxon gets about $2 a gallon right now for gas plus all the other stuff they get from a barrel.

What I've been able to find is that coal > gas is a break even with $30/brl oil. It stands to reason, or show me otherwise, that if oil is $70 and you can get oil from coal at $69, then there's some money to be made.

What's coal, $40 a ton or so? A ton of mid grade coal (10k btu/#) is equal to about 3.5 barrels of typical oil. That's $40 vs. $245 at $70brl for the same energy. I don't know what is lost (or gained) in conversion.

We can't use $5 a barrel as the cost to an electric plant anymore than we can use the actual cost of mining a ton of coal, right?

We're in agreement as to the cause and effects here and I'm sure we agree that demand is NOT going to be cut, so, increase supply through gradual introduction of coal > gas/oil.

I mean, we're doing stupid stuff like ethanol that actually uses more energy to produce than it has in it through subsidy under the guise of national interest, so, why not coal liquification?

I don't know how much gas you can get from a ton of coal. I'll have to dig around for that data.

If there is a potential for profit, someone will turn coal into gas. Someone will turn cow crap into gas, and anything else that physically can be done. It just depends on what price/bbl it makes sense once you add up all of the costs. The beauty of crude right now is that the system is already in place, we have refineries, tankers, pipelines, gas stations, drilling rigs, etc, etc. We don't have that yet for coal>gas on the necessary scale. So someone will have to step up to the plate with some initial investments which will involve significant risk.

 

[Larry Gude]

Right...

I don't know how much gas you can get from a ton of coal. I'll have to dig around for that data.

If there is a potential for profit, someone will turn coal into gas. Someone will turn cow crap into gas, and anything else that physically can be done. It just depends on what price/bbl it makes sense once you add up all of the costs. The beauty of crude right now is that the system is already in place, we have refineries, tankers, pipelines, gas stations, drilling rigs, etc, etc. We don't have that yet for coal>gas on the necessary scale. So someone will have to step up to the plate with some initial investments which will involve significant risk.

...and that's the key; We HAVE alternatives and given the rancor and insecurity and uncertainty caused by the global energy market, perhaps there is a case to be made to start acting in our own national interest now that the price bubble has been burst in the publics mind?

 

[dck4shrt]

...and that's the key; We HAVE alternatives and given the rancor and insecurity and uncertainty caused by the global energy market, perhaps there is a case to be made to start acting in our own national interest now that the price bubble has been burst in the publics mind?

But you have to remember its not an issue of national interest per se. Don't let yourself be sold on that argument. It's the global energy market as a whole that will decide if/when alternatives are profitable and marketable.

Again, we can't insulate ourselves from the global energy market, no way no how, unless our energy sources become as plentiful as water (and that is starting to be in serious demand, look at companies like Aqua America, NYSE symbol WTR). Energy will be purchased by the highest bidder. International corporations, of which all large 'American' companies are, will act in their own interest (sell to the highest bidder) unless forced to by laws, tarriffs, windfall taxes, etc, and I don't think we want that.

 

[Larry Gude]

That's not my point...

But you have to remember its not an issue of national interest per se. Don't let yourself be sold on that argument. It's the global energy market as a whole that will decide if/when alternatives are profitable and marketable.

Again, we can't insulate ourselves from the global energy market, no way no how, unless our energy sources become as plentiful as water (and that is starting to be in serious demand, look at companies like Aqua America, NYSE symbol WTR). Energy will be purchased by the highest bidder. International corporations, of which all large 'American' companies are, will act in their own interest (sell to the highest bidder) unless forced to by laws, tarriffs, windfall taxes, etc, and I don't think we want that.

...per se. It's that we DO have options and, often times, options, viable options, like nuke power get left out for the wrong reasons. The hysteria against nukes has left us with that hole in our national energy policies; score one for the unstable Middle East.

Hysteria against domestic oil has left us with that hole in our national energy policies, score 2 for the Middle East again.

We know that market forces are a large part of the equation but we also know that politics, both good and bad, play a roll in the market as well by artificially increasing costs (building a nuke power plant) in order to gain whatever is the perceived goal.

I'm just advocating an awareness that there are options, good options, to dealing with Iran, Venezuela and the whole lot.

 

[JPC, Sr.]

Faith Without Works is Dead.

Three quotes,

It is better to believe what I tell myself rather then having other people telling us what to think and to believe. It is very true that I do what I believe.

Codependency is when persons believe what others tell them instead of making up one's own mind. I do the latter.

Are You sure about that?

Yes, I am very sure about that. Codependency is my specialty.

To be codependent is to have one's own beliefs / feelings / decisions / actions / etc., being based and dependent on another person and not on one's own reasoning. It is natural in a child and forced onto soldiers and meshed into families and in society.

Now to be sure, there are a lot of different interpretations out there and even some anti-codependency stuff but mine is well formulated and well researched.

THEN,

...
Codependency as defined by Merriam-Webster is "a psychological condition or a relationship in which a person is controlled or manipulated by another who is affected with a pathological condition (as an addiction to alcohol or heroin)."

See my definition is not far from the dictionary definition and it appears to be compatable and in harmony with it. Especially since I just wrote my definition from memory and experience.

The reference to codependency (CoDA) coming from another with addictions and substance abuse is only the extreme cases. CoDA can be seen easier in the extreme while my definition is of codependency in everyday average society.

So I was correct all along.

 

[Toxick]

So I was correct all along.

Apparently your version of "correct" also differs from the conventional usage.

Your usage of the word 'codependent' to mean what you think it means, only works by the most extreme stretch of of a deluded imagination.


But it's ok. I now call cats, dogs; I call flapjacks, bagels; and I call computers, books.



Further bullets as evictions warmest.

 

[dck4shrt]

...per se. It's that we DO have options and, often times, options, viable options, like nuke power get left out for the wrong reasons. The hysteria against nukes has left us with that hole in our national energy policies; score one for the unstable Middle East.

Hysteria against domestic oil has left us with that hole in our national energy policies, score 2 for the Middle East again.

We know that market forces are a large part of the equation but we also know that politics, both good and bad, play a roll in the market as well by artificially increasing costs (building a nuke power plant) in order to gain whatever is the perceived goal.

I'm just advocating an awareness that there are options, good options, to dealing with Iran, Venezuela and the whole lot.

There are options, and I advocate that the market be allowed to make use of those options as it sees fit. Of course, where damage/harm MAY be an issue like in ANWR or with nuclear power, I think the government will need to help decide what is best.

Not to switch it up, but it is also in our national interest to stop driving Hummers and other large SUV's, but I don't see them off of the road as yet. But I see plenty of them with "American Pride" stickers and such on the back. Perhaps its time for those people to put their money where their mouth is. From my perspective it doesn't seem like such a tough choice to ensure protection of the last wild frontier in America in exchange for cutting back the number of trips that 6-8,000lb vehicles take while transporting 150-200lb humans. Or to stop giving money to the Middle East in exchange for the same thing...
My point is that the behavior of the average American doesn't seem to be in line with what is in our national interest, just their own individual interest.

 

[MMDad]

Further bullets as evictions warmest.

JPC is the guy who sends all spam! It looks nonsensical until you realize it is just another JPCism!

 

[JPC, Sr.]

Faith Without Works is Dead.

Even better than that would be if you stuck with spray painting government buildings and stayed out of politics altogether.

When I think about it the spray paint was very effective. Much better then some protest sign or burning flags. After spray painting the Courthouse my child support got closed.

If now I am as successful in politics then this campaign is going to be a big fun adventure too.

 

[Toxick]

After spray painting the Courthouse my child support got closed.

Well that settles it.

Destruction of property is now a proven method of getting things to go your way. I hope this extends beyond spraypaint, and includes throwing rocks and making things go boom.

If now I am as successful in politics then this campaign is going to be a big fun adventure too.

Really? Are you going to key the hoods of people who don't vote for you? Or are you going to go all the way and set their houses on fire?

 

[Bruzilla]

At some price point it becomes very worthwhile. At some point later on, oil prices could fall, as demand drops, and the cost of coal->gas will become too expensive again. This is all part of the risk/reward that has to be figured when trying to build coal conversion plants at 3 billion dollars a pop. The market will find the equilibrium point. Sasol already makes coal->gas, other companies turn all kinds of stuff into petroleum products, including cow crap...it's all part of the total 'petroleum' output in terms of supply vs. demand at the end of the day.

Right now, at $70, oil out of the ground has about 2x as much profit potential than coal->gas.

Demand isn't going to drop, and the oil companies and producers know that. For every hybrid car that gets sold, about 100 young drivers come into the fold. For every high-milage car that gets sold there are hundreds of low milage used cars being bought. You'll likely see the Loch Ness Monster performing at Madison Square Garden before you'll see demand for oil drop in the US.

 

[Bruzilla]

We're in agreement as to the cause and effects here and I'm sure we agree that demand is NOT going to be cut, so, increase supply through gradual introduction of coal > gas/oil.

I mean, we're doing stupid stuff like ethanol that actually uses more energy to produce than it has in it through subsidy under the guise of national interest, so, why not coal liquification?

I think that the best part of the coal plan is that it'll finally introduce some external competition for OPEC. That's the key element that's missing right now.

 

[dck4shrt]

Demand isn't going to drop, and the oil companies and producers know that. For every hybrid car that gets sold, about 100 young drivers come into the fold. For every high-milage car that gets sold there are hundreds of low milage used cars being bought. You'll likely see the Loch Ness Monster performing at Madison Square Garden before you'll see demand for oil drop in the US.

There will be a price that will cause a drop in demand, guaranteed. Whether or not we approach that level this go around is another question. It happens in all markets for all goods and all services. At $4 or $4.50 a gallon the kids won't be driving to school, etc, etc. At $5 or $6 people will be hell bent on finding alternative transportation, car pools, mass transit, etc, and they will be dropping the big SUV's for mopeds and bikes and anything else. Look at the ridership on the Metro...

 

[dck4shrt]

I think that the best part of the coal plan is that it'll finally introduce some external competition for OPEC. That's the key element that's missing right now.

OPEC knows that if the price of oil goes too high they will introduce alternatives as a viable option and cause a slow down in the global economy, both of which aren't good for them in the long run. They are interested in getting as high a price for their goods as they can without causing too much investment into alternatives.

 

[dck4shrt]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042602307.html

Interesting article...

 

[Bruzilla]

Hmmm... another day of falling crude futures prices, despite a reported 1.6% or so increase in demand. Maybe I'm nuts but it sure sounds like Bush's words are landing in the ears of oil investers who are starting to think maybe investing in oil isn't suhc a hot idea right now.

 

[Bruzilla]

OPEC knows that if the price of oil goes too high they will introduce alternatives as a viable option and cause a slow down in the global economy, both of which aren't good for them in the long run. They are interested in getting as high a price for their goods as they can without causing too much investment into alternatives.

You're exactly right, and that plan is great for OPEC but sucks for US consumers. That wouldn't be such a big deal except for the fact that in pretty much every other market segment in America it is the consumer that drives prices, not the producer. Even Coca-Cola, the most consumed manufactured beverage on the planet, has to routinely put its products on sale to revive consumer interest. So, if we won't tolerate this from soda, shoe, clothes, or bread makers, why should we tolerate it from foreign oil producers, escpecially when we have the means to compete with them domestically?

I think that rather than waiting for some eggheads to finally come up with cheap-affordable-clean ways to drive cars on water or coal-derived gasoline, our government's best move is to give OPEC the equivalent of Americans telling Coke that we're switching to Pepsi en masse by saying we're going to start drilling for oil the same way that you guys do, i.e., anywhere we want, and you can sit on your oil for 40-50 years and go broke while you wait for the Chinese demand to get even remotely close to the current US demand. And if you want us back buying your oil and filling your pcokets again, you'll need to get oil back to a price point where it's no longer profitable to drill in the US... say $37/barrel.

 

[dck4shrt]

Hmmm... another day of falling crude futures prices, despite a reported 1.6% or so increase in demand. Maybe I'm nuts but it sure sounds like Bush's words are landing in the ears of oil investers who are starting to think maybe investing in oil isn't suhc a hot idea right now.

Falling crude prices have nothing to do with Bush. The market goes up and down. Bush, Congress, and everyone else up in DC have zero control over the price of oil. If they want to do something about the price of oil long term then they can try to introduce legislation to encourage us to change our useage patterns, etc, etc. I'm not going to predict the price of crude going forward, but the price has everything to do with increases in demand in China, India, and every other country that we've encouraged to enter the gas-guzzling world by buying billions of dollars of imported products from them, as well as reduced supply. Look at the prices for all of the worlds commodities: cement, gold, copper, silver, steel, coal, oil, etc, etc. You telling me that the reduced supply/increased demand for all of these commodities has to do with speculation, instability in world markets, and the threat of terrorism? They are increasing lock step with one another due to similar circumstances, and it has nothing to do with Bush's speeches.

 

[JPC, Sr.]

Faith Without Works is Dead.

Well that settles it.

Destruction of property is now a proven method of getting things to go your way. I hope this extends beyond spraypaint, and includes throwing rocks and making things go boom.

In my case and in my actions they were permitted under Maryland law even though I still had to accept jail / prison time for the actions of resisting the unjust and oppressive laws.

See link here, Maryland Constitution / Declaration of Rights, see Art. 6 and add Art. 1 to see that we as citizens do have a right to fight against gov injustices in whatever way is deemed expedient.

Really? Are you going to key the hoods of people who don't vote for you? Or are you going to go all the way and set their houses on fire?

That is a different matter in committing crimes against the public and I would never do such things. Hate the sin and not the sinners. Resistance to an oppressive gov and its laws is far different then crimes against the public.