Comments for Government says huge oil fields in N.D., Mont. »
Posted By TechnologyExpert 1 year, 8 months ago in NewsThe government estimated Thursday that up to 4.3 billion barrels of oil can be recovered from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana, using current technology.
Read Full Story at msnbc.msn.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 170
-
Neutral
ThackerAgency1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You beat me to it. I was going to submit this story. This is excellent news that we won't have to worry about global political unrest for energy independence. I did love North Dakota and Montana because they were so desolate though. I guess this will drive the price of the property up. Global warming is going to have to wait because we got plenty of oil.
Reply-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
At the current rate of consumption in the US, that's maybe 8 months worth of oil, at best. How long does it take to develop, and how may acres of wilderness do we destroy to postpone the inevitable for less than a year? Too long and too many.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Typical lefty. You know I hate listening to talk radio but that fat guy Rush was right. The lefties are now saying there isn't enough to make it worth the effort. Right on schedule. Do you guys have a web site or new letter (of course printed on recycled paper)? That way you can parrot each other and make it sound like everyone agrees with your communist lefty feelings. If there's oil in that area start drilling. When we're done with that let's start converting coal to fuel oil and gasoline. We have the technology and the need. In less than 10 year with proper spending and building could be energy independent. Something we haven't been since WW2.
Reply-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In less than 10 years we would have used up ALL the oil reserves you are talking about developing. We must curtail our demand before we can start rationing our domestic reserves, or it is a pointless effort with no payoff to anyone but big oil. There is no sense whatsoever in what you propose.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First the reserves I talk of include Alaska and off our coasts in addition to the North Dakota and Montana reserves. Also, when I mentioned the coal solution, it's very real. I work with a very large Swiss based firm specializing in everything from weapon systems to pet food plants. We're building 9 plants in China to convert coal into a crude type slurry that will then be refined into coal based gasoline. We hold more coal reserves than most of the world combined. When we tap that reserve, we will have an energy solution for the next 400 years, based upon your gloom and doom energy predictions. In that time, we would be able to solve many of the other options without having a knee jerk reaction to a problem. Like ethanol.
Build conversion plants, refineries and the like now.
Reply-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are completely ignoring my earlier post. It doesn't matter how many reserves you talk about, until you get up to about 100 billion barrels harvestable for less than it costs to buy it outright. That might last us 10 years, IF we start reducing our need now, instead of continuing the increase. Plus it still has the worst aspect, in that it is very dirty fuel, both to develop and burn. It's a pointless waste of resources to develop another extension of the inevitable depletion. And yes, wilderness and wildlife are diverse resources of the likes that we cannot manufacture. If we we were to invest like levels of resources into pushing the commercialization of hydrogen cells, we fix the problem forever. Unlike strategic missile defense, it is feasible technology. And big oil should have been building those plants and refineries and the like during the last several years of record profits, instead of putting it off until crisis hoping we the taxpayer will foot the bill for them.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're claiming I use old data, you're way behind in coal. Sure if you build the same plants the Germans did in the 1930's you're creating tons of waste, not today. Unlike then we have commercial uses for about 98% of coal based slurry. Everything from medical, power, plastics, and even road materials are now possible from this process. Plus you can control the carbon content of the gas and diesel in this process far easier than you can from crude oil.
As to the wilderness, do you really understand the vastness of the ares you're talking about. They cover millions of acres and we're talking about a tiny portion of that. Again, this isn't the 1930's. I work with energy and hydrogen cells are fun but we're really years out on that. At least on how to create it in a safe way. On hydrogen, I'm not sure which process you're talking about. My firm has been working on this for several years without coming up with a commercially solution.
Reply-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Again, what in my posts are you talking about? Where did I mention coal plants? Yes, we use commercially almost every bit of the result of refining, but that doesn't have anything to do with mitigating the effects of continuing to burn carbon based fuels as our predominant means of transportation around the globe, on land, sea and air.
And to get an idea of the supposed vastness of the wilderness areas we are talking about, perhaps we should compare them to the very real and true vastness of the wilderness that we have needlessly and senselessly destroyed already? What is left of the amazonian rain forest is truly vast, yet pales in comparison to what it once was, the rate of deforestation, and it's effects on our atmosphere, many of which are unknown. For all the studies on how much oil is in ANWAR, how many have truly studied the effects of disturbing such regions beyond it's effect on local wildlife? Ignorance on behalf of unbridled capitalism is still ignorance.
Reply-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
aceofspades11 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB64 - you work for a foriegn company based in Switzerland, the country that is giving Iran unlimited credit to do nuclear experments, you are developing an industry in China , the last remaining communist country AND YOU HAVE THE NERVE to criticize the comments of a REAL AMERICAN????
You sir are the one who presents the real threat to this country.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not at all. My firm was purchased by the Swiss. With their money we were able to keep the American jobs American. As to the credits, the companies doing the work are Siemens and some Russian firm(or firms I don't know). China came to us, made an offer that included a lot of R&D money and we took it. Hey, we can do the same here but our leaders are too busy worried about baseball players and non-binding resolutions to actually do the job we hired them to do.
As to being a real American, I do take offense to that comment. Because of our efforts in China and India, we're keeping jobs here in the USA unlike guys like GE, Siemens, Walmart, Sears and even the DoD.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is not a "lefty" argument. It is based on the fundamentally conservative principles of supply and demand. The result of an increasingly insufficient supply to meet an increasingly high demand is to price the market into practical extinction for anything but the most necessary uses. We must adapt to that inevitability now.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Duhhhh, I mean Grr, I suppose you love the movies that show the earth a desolate waste land ruined by someone evil. There is a substantial problem with our past economy. When you're converting more than half of your corn production into fuel, you're throwing things out of balance. Add to that China and India buying up fuel even faster than we are.
Again, you want a tree hugging solution, you're not going to see that in the near future, our science and engineering simply isn't there yet. There is no such thing as a "warp" drive or cold fusion. For now we need a comprehensive energy plan and new plant construction. But the powers that be simply won't because both sides would rather play games instead of working together to find the answer. Barack owes his career to the far left and McCain, well who knows, bid business is feeling the pain caused by energy costs. But you will never get both sides together at this time. Too bad.
Reply-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Despite the fact that you continue to completely ignore what I post and try and twist common sense into some liberal conspiracy, you are talking about wasting resources on stopgap measures that require the use of resources that probably should be held in trust for a real national emergency requirement, and not just burned for easier and immediate corporate profit. Yours is the argument that has been used by big oil to keep us on the teat for the last 40 years. The technology and science IS there, it needs resources devoted to development of commercialization. Resources that you seem to be advocating we keep piling into the pockets of the oil moguls, who are not paying us fair price for our oil that they extract to sell us, anyway.
We shoulda been there already, and yours are the arguments that have held us back, and continue to.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In both of our defenses, I think neither of us are commenting in order but responding in almost an eclectic method. The resources I'm talking about are coal reserves. We have huge reserves that would serve us many, many years. To convert this to gasoline is possible and would let us catch our breaths and move forward with a real energy plan. I'm not sure if you're one of the light rail guys that wants everyone to give up there cars, move into the factory housing and walk to work or what but in today's America we like the freedom to drive to work. As to profits, again your making a socialist or communist argument. Capitalism built this country, not socialism.
Again, I work with an international organization that is one of 4 companies that are considered energy experts. What you are looking for simply does not exist. I don't want to be mean but we're not there yet. Another 20 years, we might. But today we're a ways away.
Reply-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The logician in me would advocate that rather than wasting our coal reserves on conversion to oil in order to avoid developing alternatives to refined gas consumption, that they be retained for uses that require coal, some of which will continue in that need for the indefinite future. At least until 100% of our grid comes from nukes/hydro/solar/wind other non-carbon based fuel burning requirements.
Big oil is now and will continue to convert whatever it needs to all on it's own, without us having to relinquish further national natural resources to them, many of which have far more value as protected wilderness than as depletable sources of fuel.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Even with the projection of 10 to 15 new coal fired plants coming on line over the next 10 years, we have an estimated 800 to 1,000 years of coal reserves. I think we would be able to spare a few decades of coal while we search for a solution. Again we need a balanced ticket. Coal can be a large part of it but it wouldn't be the only one.
Reply-
lovermanComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive7 Replies
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's not that I'm calling him a lefty for the energy independence, we both agree there. We don't agree on how to get there. I can do it with the technology available in a rather short time span. Regardless of what some of you want to believe, fuel cells are at least 15 perhaps 20 years from being something the average person can afford. In the short-term, I'm recommend working with coal. It's low cost, easy to work with and reliable. You can use most of the existing refineries to work with this process to.
One product that frosts my corn flake is ethanol. It's a very inefficient and costly solution. When used it creates more greenhouse gases, costs about 3 times what gas does and takes 5 gallons of gas to make 1 gallon of ethanol. Did I mention you can't ship it in a pipeline? Just another knee jerk reaction from the environmental crowd. Higher cost, less efficient, more difficult to work with, seems like a lefty plan to me.
Reply -
Neutral
DaneL1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB64 before I retired I worked on a coal degasification plant for generating power. It was a 110 megawatt plant not real big but very clean burning. It was one of the first pilot plants. This was in the high desert in So. Cal. They shut it down and sent it piece by piece to guess where......China!
Reply-
lovermanComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"One product that frosts my corn flake is ethanol. It's a very inefficient and costly solution. When used it creates more greenhouse gases, costs about 3 times what gas does and takes 5 gallons of gas to make 1 gallon of ethanol."
--Are you familiar with the history of oil refinery or the combustion engine? Those on the right conveniently forget that those technologies didn't exactly get off the ground overnight either. Let's put our cards on the table. What are the potential ramifications for oil industry profits if ethanol and other alternative fuel sources thrive? Why are Democrats and Republicans evenly split down the middle on the issue of global warming?
Reply -
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I know who put it together for them. The contract paid for my plane.... and laid the foundation for the 9 plants we're building.
Retired? Do you do consulting? Not that we're hiring but you never know. We always need good engineers who understand the basic principles.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've actually met him at a golf course. In private he's a warm charming guy. I'm just so tired of hearing the same thing hour after hour. In case you didn't see, I was hurt on a job sight. I fell about 2 stories. I'm stuck listening to the radio. I don't like TV. Here in MKE we have about 7 guys in row who repeat just about everything Rush says. So perhaps I shouldn't call him the fat guy.
As to nerve, let's blame the morphine....
Reply-
lovermanComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You know if he is so smart and always right like his believers tout why doesn't he run for president and fix all our problems? It's because it's easier and more profitable to armchair quarterback and no one notices when you are mostly wrong.
Reply -
-
-
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive
-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think we need to look at this from both sides. BB64 works in this industry and has a lot of knowledge. Instead of just being defeatist and saying that every exploration is going to be detrimental to the environment. We need to come together and find ways to make use of the energy sources available in an environmentally responsible way. We have much better technology than we had in the past and can extract and use these sources of energy to help free us from foreign dependency.
Reply
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
-
Neutral
slate1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL destroy widerness?
When was the last time youo've been around an oil rig?
THey need just a couple of acres,,, they are clean,,,,, if you mean destroy because you see something man made on the land, I'd suggest that we stop builing homes and roads,,, since we greedy humans have to destroy to build,,,,, do you feel 'guilt' when you put the key in your door when you get home at night?
Reply-
Neutral
aceofspades11 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL destroy wilderness?
Have you ever been in southern Louisiana, the most polluted state in the nation? You can see the devastation caused by the petrochemical industry there. - Miles of bleached white dead tree trunks sticking out of the swamps full of working & abandoned well heads.
Most of this was caused years ago by mismanagement, but it is a lesson the be learned for the future.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ace, you didn't read his message. What you've described was the wildcat days of 75 years ago. Today that's not the case. Often the well sights are cleaner than the surrounding towns.
Also, I've been to LA. If the swamps are green, oil didn't kill the trees. Most of the trees you're talking about were killed by the salt water of the ocean washing into the swamps during storms. It the lower plants come back faster, it will take many years for the trees to fully return. At least where I visited in LA.
Reply-
Neutral
aceofspades11 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB64 b- this subject must be very important to you ,seeing that most of the posts are yours.
Pehaps in your zeal you are the one not comprehending what others have wriiten you said--
Ace, you didn't read his message. What you've described was the wildcat days of 75 years ago.
I said it was in the past - a lesson to be learned for the future.
you also said ---
, oil didn't kill the trees. Most of the trees you're talking about were killed by the salt water of the ocean washing into the swamps during storms. It the lower plants come back faster, it will take many years for the trees to fully return. At least where I visited in LA
That's precisely it - you have tunnel vision "at least where I visited in La."
Go down to Houma you can see the forest of white trunks of trees killed by the pollution - not the salt water. Many of those wetlands were not as wet when the trees thrived.
S.La. is rapidly losing to the die-off
Reply
-
-
Neutral
slate1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah I've been there hundreds of times, and as you said that was the past and this is now and it's done cleanly.
On one hand I bet you don't mind if we back woods folks have trashed lands and have to live among the petrochem plants and refineries, so you can live in a pristine world and have your gas for your rice burner, the electricity for your lights and natural gas for your heat; as well as the real things you have around you that it takes crude oil to make. Gasoline and electricity is most likely the smallest portion that we use crude oil from.
If we get rid of oil as you wish and whine for, what will you use to make all the 'other' stuff? What will you use to replace the chemicals that we use for our medicine,,,, the roofs over our heads, the plastics for almost everything we use and the other 100,000 products that depend on it?
Drill in your own back yard, and stop you dependence on the southern states to 'deal' with the pollution while you enjoy your clean life.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Slate, I tried getting Milwaukee to work with me on that. We have the old AO Smith Plant and the Pabst plants. Thousands of acres with plenty of access and infrastructure. They wouldn't budge. I would like to see higher paying jobs than the fast food joints and resale shops.
Reply -
-
Neutral
aceofspades11 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Slate - I agree with you - the need for fossil fuels is a modern day fact - I've been to the Alaskan pipeline - no environmental disaster as was predicted. I'm simply saying that proper oversight & management of our resources is vital for our survival.
I feel much less diminished as a human if a snail darter dies than I do if some indigent freezes because of lack of fuel for heat.
Reply-
Neutral
slate1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree, humans are more important than animals, unfortunately there are some that disagree.
This 'radical right winger' works in the Environmental Consulting Industry. One part of my job is to oversee remediation of soil and groundwater contamination, so I do know first hand the impact of people not being good Stewards of the planet.
With that being said, what we see now for the most part is that we are cleaning up the past sins of the industry instead of present sins. Not that the sins don't still happen, humans can be slobs and lazy. However with the new regulations and the very hefty fines levied out the petrochemical industry tends to follow the rules for the most part.
Reply-
Neutral
slate1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I still get miffed though when people whine about drilling and removing crude from the ground as if there is a guarantee of a Biblical disaster and would never agree to have anything like that around THEIR areas, yet they have no problem with the 'southern' states doing it because after all, why would those in other parts of the country care about the south being trashed as long as we keep sending them what they need.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"This is excellent news that we won't have to worry about global political unrest for energy independence."
--We don't have to worry about it now if people drive less, telecommute, ride public transportation, carpool, ride bikes and produce more fuel efficient vehicles. Why does everyone insist that drilling is a priority?
Reply -
Neutral
Georgia501 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ok, enviro loonies...you got your work cut out for you. Hasten thee up to MT and ND to locate every last pathetic little critter that could possibly miss a single meal if but one drop of oil is discovered, much less recovered, up there!
Reply-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh no, we'll have to dig up hair from another zoo or museum and claim there's some endangered animal that can't survive. So let's see will it be the snail darter or perhaps the spotted owl again or do you think they'll come up with something original.
Reply-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive3 Replies
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is what I don't get about wingjobs... Why are you cheering this disaster in Iraq that you claim is to keep us all safe and defend our interests in the middle east while continuing to do whatever you feel like to hasten the deterioration of the planet? Is this what you consider supporting the troops? Is that why you think we're in Iraq? So that you can keep filling your gas tanks uninterrupted? Why even bother spending trillions of dollars and getting thousands of people killed if you're only going to turn around and destroy the earth so you can make a buck? Why? This totally perplexes me...
Reply
-
-
Neutral
miklkit1 year, 8 months ago
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well you are partially correct, shale based petroleum is more costly and the evil "big oil" are stock holder owned companies. Unlike the corrupt monarchies of the Middle East or the Venezuelan dictatorship, many people own stock in them, including you and I. IE 401K programs.
If you're going to complain about the 8-9% big oil makes about the 30-50% our government takes in taxes. I live in Wisconsin. They tax the crap out of the fuel, licenses and fees if you want to drive but our roads look like a crap. Where's all our tax money? On the Fed side it often goes for light rail, Amtrak and lately bike trails. Wouldn't it be nice if the taxes we paid actually benefited the people paying the taxes.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"8-9% big oil makes "
You're kidding, right? Even if you don't include the numerous tax breaks and 'development credits' not to mention cold hard (well not so hard anymore) cash the government pours into the oil companies coffers, they're not making 8-9% profit. That's a lot worse than the average profit from a middling-risk mutual fund. Americans are too lazy to actually destroy the earth and work for a measly 9% when they can just invest and easily surpass that.
Lies lies lies.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If this is fraud, take it up with the tax man. You know the guys in the blue van waiting for us if we forget to submit our taxes next week. That's the declared profit from the big oil companies based in the USA.
As to lazy America, I don't know who you're talking about. You should talk to your environmentalists, they've been busy destroying our business through over regulations. Then when we hit their standards, they simply lower them again and complain more. Instead of always going after us,
When you talk environment, perhaps you guys should visit Mexico or China. Try protesting their policies. Just be careful. Their police tend not to read you any rights or fire warning shots. They just shoot.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow you are young. You cannot force plants to add billions for clean air requirements and then permit the competitors from China, Malaysia, South Korea, Mexico and India flood the market driving costs down. It killed the steel business here. What's worse, some plants met the standards only to find new standards were created that were even more difficult to reach. It's often cheaper to move the plants.
As to your ignorance on stock holders, they're the ones who put the money up to start or grow a company. If you invest your money but fail to make anything on it, you're likely not to invest again. This is free enterprise and the greatest companies in the world were created like this. AT&T, Microsoft, GM, Ford and the like.
BTW-when firms go broke there's nothing to pay stock holders. Often times the employees lost everything because their pensions were part of this group too.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
getreal11 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The big oil companies are making sure that the economy gets to a standstill where no one can buy, but them. They should have found away to get oil without destruction by now. I still say we need to continue on with others ways of transport. Oil should have been an outdated thing long ago.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then you really are a communist and have no clue how business runs. If you bankrupt your customers, who are you going to sell to. Big oil does best when everyone is being profitable. On the outdated things, science and technology only goes so far. There is no way to make hydrogen in a cost effective way. Solar, wind, ethanol and other lefty energy solutions are costly and simple don't work. Our left leaning media is pitching the idea of conserving. For what? If there is excess, China and India buys it up. Right now this isn't a buyer market, it's the sellers. You want to change that? Start by drilling. Build a few new refineries. You really want independence, start converting coal. It's not that technically challenging but the initial set up costs are high. The rewards are numerous. American coal, American plants, American jobs, American money and of the profits stay in America.
Reply-
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Lefty, communist, tree hugger... what other invectives can you call people who disagree with you? Greed is your bottom line and what's good for America in the long run is superseded by your desire to reap the benefits of profit in the short term.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, getting jobs to my community out weighs most of this. I was pushing for a new nuke plant, factory and a refinery. All of which died in congressional, state and local hearings. So I moved the jobs to Ohio, the refineries to South America and the coal converting plants are being built in China. Greed? Not likely. I've been trying to get business in this region for years. Now I have the power to make these calls but when our leaders can't understand this would be good here, I simply can't understand. If you're going to have to pay $ 4.00/gallon, wouldn't you rather see that going to a company here in the USA paying someone living in the USA helping our economy?
Then again, I don't get the guys who hated the Iraq war and would rather have seen Saddam stay in power. So they're pro-dictator in IRaq but then they want China out of Tibet. That's another dictatorship. Why are they pro-Saddam yet Anti China?
Reply-
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's commendable that you want our dollars and jobs to stay in America. So do I. But the answer in the long term is not carbon based energy. It's a short term tread-water solution that has no long term benefits. I see things from the perspective of a long term solution to our energy crisis and if it means supporting shale oil production or nuclear energy, I'm only on board until other viable solutions are found and nourished.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Solar, wind, ethanol and other lefty energy solutions are costly and simple don't work."
Lies lies lies. There are plenty of studies that show a 100x100 square mile CSP (concentrated solar plant) could supply the entire US's needs for electricity. Seems a lot cheaper to put the money into such a venture or smaller ventures over destroying our environment to remain a slave to fossil fuels.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
During windy periods of the recent winter, Spain got over 30% of its electricity needs from wind power (they average about 18% over the year). That's in the world's 9th biggest economy and one that has been growing faster than the US for the past decade.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've been fighting guys like this for years. I didn't get the big chair for playing softball. The sad part, if we don't get control ASAP, we will be the third world nation. We need a real energy plan but for some reason since Nixon and possibly Reagan, we've seen nothing out of DC. Lots of promises, several dozen hearings but nothing. Then again it's easier to to ask baseball players about drugs than actually come up with a solution that both sides can work with.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
getreal11 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB64 The one thing I don't want to do, is keep you rich. There are people standing on American soil that don't have jobs because of you and people just like you. You might have wealth and power right now but you can't take it with you. I thank The great maker you don't rule the world. The word Communist seems to fit you better.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First off, I have standing jobs open for machinists, welders and other skilled jobs. I've paying for about 30 to attend a tech school and am paying for them with the understanding they will work for our firm for 90 days after completion. We can't find enough skilled workers. In another case, P&H mining is hiring for the same type of work. So perhaps before you attack me you do a little more research into some of the projects I've worked on.
Communist world? Wow are you off. I pay honest wages for honest work. Are they $200K? No. Are they $45K with full benefits and retirement, you bet. Also when someone comes up with an idea, design or anything we have a full reward system. Anything from a few days off with pay to promotions to even placing you name and profit potential on a patten. I suspect we're one of the very few groups who would do that. So stick that in your crack pipe. Communist in deed. The next thing you'll tell me is that Barack is a conservative.
Reply -
Neutral
cloud151 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jesus getreal1......I wonder how much of this thread you actually read before you made that comment.
BB64 has commented numerous time that hes tried to keep jobs in America, and in fact as called other people out on having some what communist ideas....
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
canadianrancher571 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Georgia50-I will not say anthing about your comment except it is not a matter anymore of finding or recovering this oil, when I drive down through southwest Manitoba and into North Dakata on my way to Minot the number of wells that are already pumping is amazing. In our province which shares the same field they are planning to drill over 600 wells this year.
While down in North Dakota in February I made the comment to a person about being the new Texas of United Stated Which did not get a good reception, North Dakota does not have a large population and this will likely be a great thing for the state.
Reply-
Neutral
Wolfie20071 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dionys
"Solar, wind, ethanol and other lefty energy solutions are costly and simple don't work."
If these are lies then why aren't they being developed at a rapid pace? Here's the why, "solar, wind, ethanol and other lefty solutions are costly and simply don't work."
One of the rules of the market place is there is no place for failures.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wolf, in Dionys world they do. Then again in his world the USSR won and the USA is communist too. But seriously, that's why ethanol producers have several dozen different ways of getting Federal hand outs. From the farmer to the producers to the sellers, the poor taxpayer shells billions out only to be screwed and I don't mean in a good way.
Here's a deal, if they really want the friendly power, let's sell it to them. Just take your current bill, triple it add a hundred bucks to it and send it in. That should cover the average home with one wind machine. Not including the million dollars it cost to buy it. Which if you guessed, the taxpayer will probably pay for in rebates.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
rightfromwrong1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Great more green house gases!!!!!! Maybe the USA can bring some troops home and quit supporting every little pathetic dictator who wants to turn over his resources to the USA. Doesn't matter anyway...the USA is a scam as far as being democracy is concerned.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, there you go again... You have no idea what you're talking about. The oil we use in the USA is mainly from Canada, Mexico, Alaska and Venezuela. None of the tin-plated guys you're mentioning. As to the greenhouse gases, the only way to end them is by letting me build nuke plants. Since you won't let me do that how else would you produce electricity? Solar works about 25% of the time and then only during the day. Wind is even less reliable. Both cost more in energy to build and maintain then they will ever pay back. Huge maintenance cost $$$. GE wind considers them cash cows.
Reply-
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gave you a pos by mistake. I don't agree with almost anything you say.
"As to the greenhouse gases, the only way to end them is by letting me build nuke plants." - Which is unmitigated BS.
"Solar works about 25% of the time and then only during the day." - Whoa there fella... energy can be stored and available at any time.
"Wind is even less reliable." - Oh, really? I guess the Dutch aren't getting energy successfully from their windmills, huh? Nor the Danes from their wind turbines.
All of your arguments are ones we'd expect from big oil and their apologists.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm happy you can disagree with me and show such compelling arguments.
On the greenhouse gases, how else would you reduce them from electricity plants? At this time your other solutions really are not reliable or commercially viable.
Solar isn't stored that easily and I'm not sure which process you're using. Is this the heated water method or direct conversion. Neither is reliable and they're not that efficient. When you figure your daylight hours you're down to 50% of the time already. Rarely do you have enough sun in the fall, winter and spring to generate 100%. That's way the industry uses 25% as the base line, but I'm sure you knew that.
As to wind, take a look at their systems. Vesta and GE are great but again, you're not able to produce clean power 100% of the time. What I mean by clean power are the harmonics caused by generators when they're powering up and down, which happens often with wind. It's not a constant.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As to the Danes, they share the energy grid and often have to buy power from neighbors. Again, relying on conventional or nuclear back ups.
I make money in all areas of power generation. The traditional systems are more reliable and maintenance certainly is more predictable. Solar and wind would go no where without the huge subsidies provided by rate increases and tax incentives. Again back to the harmonics caused by the wind machines, costs are huge. I love them, they really are cash cows for replacement parts. Breakers, contactors, motor starters and the like some of the items that need monthly replacement. Capacitor banks and transformers are often over stressed by them. But again, this is what happens with the feel good ideas move forward without someone asking about the cost verses the benefits.
Apologist for oil, not really. I favor a balanced energy plan utilizing the best solution for the cost.
Reply-
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your argument about the wear and tear of parts on wind mills and turbines are similar to that used by many manufacturers. Those parts have to be manufactured and available to machinery but cost effects and better methods of manufacturing could help alleviate some of those concerns. And government incentives that would keep those manufacturing jobs in America would also help.
But solar energy was never an ONLY solution but an added energy source similar to batteries on a hybrid auto. And better methods of converting solar energy to a battery source for storage is also being explored.
What I take offense to are your cavalier attitude towards those who want to see alternate energy sources that are safe to our environment.
But this conversation was enlightening and some of my concerns about you and your arguments have been tempered. Discourse can and will lead to common ground and understanding.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem is that wind isn't an exact science. It doesn't blow at the same speed and that's where often times you don't generate power but the blades continue to spin. During that time, you may have gusts that bring the blades up to a point where there might be a little power so the contactors open and close several times a minute.Taking everything into account wind really isn't a commercial solution and isn't reliable enough.
Solar has some good things but unless something has changed in the last few months, the real costs fail to justify the investment.
As to fighting with the environmentalists, I'm to busy trying to find better solutions. Most of the time when I've tried talking about alternatives it was almost impossible. Most can't get past the bumper sticker slogans. That plus I'd swear there must be a class for protesting. They don't know what they're saying. Not to pick on them but what works in a lab or is designed on paper doesn't always work in the real world.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive2 Replies
-
Neutral
Gransater1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB
Solar is good enough for the Swiss. Just check out the investments thay made in solar panels, built into the dividers of their "autobahns".
As for wind turbines, if the majority of scientists are right, just hang around a bit longer. In 10-20 years we'll have plenty of wind around our coastal areas, if not sooner.
I do believe you are right that coal can be turned into gasoline with much better efficiency today, than just a few years ago. That however, does not mean that the cars are any less cleaner. True, fuel efficiency is improving, but we are still increasing consumption wich is bad. Also I do not believe the rest of the world has increased consumption to warrant the almost doubling of price the last couple of years. The infrastructure of countries you mention hasn't increased that fast, not to mention that incomes haven't gone up dramatically enough for the common man to afford changing his habit, especially now, when food is getting out of reach for many
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fuel prices, you're dealing with a commodity. China and India are huge users and it's only going to get worse. Both have legions of people wanting to buy their first cars and both have them available. China worries me more. In addition to the new plants we're building, they've cut deals with Cuba to drill off their coast. That's in the 75 miles between Cuba and Florida. An area we won't because we're saving the marine life. So who would you trust drilling there? An American company subject to all of our laws and regulations or a Chinese firm with no laws, rules or policies. I'm still in favor of the US drilling in US waters.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In Europe, headway is being made with the cost & reliability of wind power. Because they need it, they work on solving its problems. If they didn't need it, they'd play the 'isn't good enough' game that you play. Necessity is the mother of invention. The answers for better power are out there. But you won't find them if you refuse to look.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You really need to look at the whole EU power grid. Most of the firms are owned partially or totally by the government. Most are subsidized by up to 75% by the government. Most end up sharing power grids with other grids who use conventional or nukes. Wind is a part of their system but it isn't even close to the numbers a few people here are posting. It would be great if we could create energy by magically harnessing the wind but it's really not possible 100% of the time. Like a cell phone you don't always have coverage.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The US uses over 7 billion barrels a year. 6 months worth of oil under discussion here. Pointless. We've just gotta bite the bullet, push the development of new energy techs, and get off the teat.
If we'd demanded and legislated for hydrogen cars 15 years ago, we'd be there now. Cars are our #1 huge society-wide waste of gas. They are also one of the few reasons oil prices impact our daily lives so hugely. We should consider ourselves lucky we have such a drastic problem that requires a new technology solution. These are new industries that MUST be developed and could save our economy, if we push them hard right now.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually oil consumption is down in the USA but the global demand is high so the price will remain high too. The technology you speak of does exist, depending upon what you think the final answer should be. Coal conversion, I've spoken of is one of the best extremely long-term options available to us. The fringe stuff from solar, wind and geothermal isn't really a practical answer. Everything from the environment to the NIMBY crowd will fight you. We could have additional nuke plant up and running in 48 months but again, the environmental crowd hates them.
You mentioned cars, I love the nuts coming out with the hydrogen powered cars. It's possible but there really isn't a cheap way to produce hydrogen that the tree huggers would support.
Start with a few coal refining plants get them on line and drill out west and off shore. That will help relieve costs and give engineering time to catch up.
Reply-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Get the nuke plants going and push all/predominantly electric cars. That's ready to go NOW. Why aren't we doing this?
For both economic and environmental reasons, coal gas and oil have to be replace in every sector that they can be, and we should stop wasting money on trying to perpetuate their demise in the consumer automobile industry. All the coal to oil schemes are pretty much just trying to keep refined gas affordable for automobile consumption. Why bother?
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've been in front of several congressional hearings concerning this. Unfortunately guys like Russ Foolsgold failed to even show up. Even after I called and spoke with him personally. Congress, at least this congress isn't interested in finding any energy solutions while President Bush is in office. They'd rather play games.
Electric cars, I'd love them,I've driven one out in CA and it rocked. However, with 2-3 hours of battery time, it wouldn't make it here in Wisconsin, especially in the snow. Plus no one has ever explained to me what you do with the batteries when they need to be changed. I had a laptop with a lithium battery. Not only did it cost around $200 to rebuild, there was a $ 50.00 recycling charge. The batteries are the weakness.
On the plants, building more fuel efficient vehicles still can be done. I'm all for saving money but again, the big 4 now the big 3 car companies have all been working on this. We have a ways to go.
Reply
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive1 Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I suppose that finding a big bunch of oil is good news for the oil companies that will pump it out. And maybe for anyone holding mineral rights in the area. I'm on board with the idea that we need to GET OFF the petroleum teat as soon as possible, to the extent possible. Particularly to use as fuel to generate electricity. (Coal also) If you think about it from a point-of-origin view, ALL of our energy is nuclear. Solar - nuclear (hydrogen fusion in the sun) Oil - is captured solar energy. Coal, ditto. Wind - is really solar. Tides and geothermal maybe NOT solar, but the weather that produces WAVE energy - solar. And, of course, nuclear power plants use nuclear fission. So - for those AFRAID of nuclear energy, HaHa - you are ALREADY using it. Let's get over the Big Fear and make progress towards safe, efficient reactors that CAN provide us enough power. Otherwise we'll end up with a Dyson sphere to capture energy from the only fusion reactor we KNOW works (the sun, if you don't know)
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not going to defend big oil, because most of the stock is owned by your union pension funds and retirement plans.
What does bother me is that you'd rather buy your oil from someone else instead of from America. Think about the income this will bring to a lot of people in those areas. Those are American jobs. The pipelines that will be built, again American made pipe installed by American workers. Are you seeing a trend yet? American money staying in America.
As to the nuke plants, I build those too. This year was the first time in 29 years a license was granted to build a new plant. Basing the new plants on the French designs, we could have very efficient clean plants producing energy. But our left seems to think they can create an energy source by magic.
Reply-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm all for nuke plants. About time. Build them right so we don't have the kinds of PR problems we did in the seventies. I've come to think that the energy companies intentionally allowed public sentiment against them to build back them, didn't seem to try and counter it much. But anyway, build a lot of them. Let's go. That's half the problem, covers the electrical grid and puts a huge dent in our coal-burning requirements. Now, we've still gotta deal with the gasoline requirements.
Using patriotism as an argument against the development of non-carbon based fuel sources is the most ridiculous thing I have seen you pull out of your CON arse yet. Those jobs are created in ANY niche industry that gets the legislative push.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The plants of the 70's are decent designs but again, they came out of the 50's. In only 1 plant, Three Mile Island did things seem bad. But that was the press and a weak president. Do you know how much nuclear material escaped from 3-Mile? Zero. They didn't have a melt down, didn't have a leak. There was a problem but our safeties stopped things from going really bad. Unlike the Russians, we have tons of safety built in. We've lost a lot from the commercial nuke plants compared to France. Today, they've engineers lots of things out. Take water pumps. The new plants use gravity fed cooling. Seems simple to you or me but in the long run that's one less failure point. On the waste side, they're systems have much less because of the fuels they use compared to our older plants. I could have plants up & running in less than 48 months but not with our current leadership. Both Dems and GOP.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As to attacking my patriotism and carbon based fuels, perhaps it's because I work in this industry, that I simply know our current limitations and realize if we have to use carbon based sources I'd rather spend the money here and pay fellow Americans instead of the dictatorships. My other complaint there, in Milwaukee they had two locations with more than enough space and access to build a class A refinery. The DNC leaders instead chose to turn the space into high rise condos and a entertainment district. While fun is important, having jobs paying better than McDonald's seemed a better use of that land.
As far as pulling a ideas out of my arse welcome to dealing with international business and the American government.
Reply-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not really. Lately we've had a lot of the wine and cheese crowd that tends to blame America for everything. And being is sales, pulling stuff our of our butts or flying by the seats of our pants, is pretty normal. The glories of leadership. When you win no one cares, when you don't... I think you get the idea.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"perhaps it's because I work in this industry, that I simply know our current limitations"
Perhaps it's because you work in that industry that you're short sighted and blind to the developments in other areas of energy production. Seems likely to me if you're working for a company invested in coal slurry production and technology that you'd not only be unaware of solar tech, wind tech, et cetera but by definition of working for a coal slurry company against the development of such technologies.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Short sited, not likely. We were the first to come up with the circuit breaker and my division alone spent more on R&D then all of Rockwell's sales for last year. We're working very hard to find the next generation of products. We're coming out with a bio switch shortly. But that is all micro stuff. We're talking energy and power.
We've been jumping around. There are many advantages to using the slurry. We're building plants right now for production within 12 months. None of the products you speak of can be up and running in that short of time. Also, the slurry can go directly into the current refinery systems. The current system of refining has it's roots in the German coal to gas program. When they found it could reduce costs for oil refining, Standard bought the rights to the process. The processed coal can go right into fuel production. Again a time savings. We need energy now, I can offer it.
Reply -
Neutral
cloud151 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I disagree, seeing as how he is involved in energy, whether he works for one side or not, I would the he is MUCH more qualified to talk about energy and its limitations than most people here. Most people here just reiterate the same bull that they read or here about on the internet/TV. How many of these people have an education in the field or do their own research?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The PR problem was far worse than that. Doesn't matter how good the designs are, in the seventies the contractors got busted for cutting corners and the inspectors got busted for being paid off. Add to that that everybody and their mother really believed that one of those things could explode like a tactical nuke, and there was no way it was going any further without a PR solution. Which should have been simple. They just will not explode like that. On top of that, dams and plants suffer a "not in my backyard/county/state" problem that is usually not addressed in a respectful fashion by the companies involved. The press and the president you mention did their job of looking out for the public. Something sorely missing these days. The power companies dropped the ball on their response to the public's earnest queries, plain and simple. And then they gave up because they figured they couldn't do it right enough for the public without losing their profit in the process.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually no, the contractors were heavily monitored when it came to the nukes. You have to credit GE, Westinghouse, and a few of the other older firms that no longer exist. They really did build well. Carter was a nuke man and knew there was no danger in what happened at 3 mile. However, when he went on TV he sounded bad. The power companies really didn't have much choice. When the President of the United States can't explain that there really wasn't the danger a few in the media made it to be, it was impossible for them. Look at the power companies now. Those with nuke plants are doing rather well. Again, it's too bad we had Carter then. So many mistakes were made by him it's amazing we didn't lock him up. Afghanistan, 3-mile, Iran, bad loans to the USSR, and the saga continued.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No - I wouldn't rather buy from someone else. I'd rather not buy AT ALL. Or, to the minimum extent needed to keep the plastics and other chemical industries supplied. Domestic supplies should be adequate. Perhaps saying "getting off the FOREIGN oil teat" would be more accurate.
I think it WOULD be good to stop BURNING so much hydrocarbon, though. Global warming issues aside, it CANNOT fail to have SOME effect to put all that carbon back into circulation. Can it? Besides, it is a finite resource and WILL, eventually, run out.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey, with this oil news, maybe the Bush Administration won't scold Israel anymore for getting angry when rockets are fired into it's neighborhoods from territory it gave to Muslims in the hopes of achieving peace with them. NOW, maybe Israel can say, "Go ahead, SHOOT rockets into our neighborhoods, and, if anyone is hurt, no more Kabah in Mecca."
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not at all. I've been to Israel and Jordan. I've seen how and where the Jews live and it reminds me of the Old Testament. It really is a land flowing with milk and honey. What really surprised me was how many Arabs live as full citizens in Israel and enjoy the same rights and protections as the Jews and Christians. They even serve in Israel's military. Funny how the press never reports any of that. Then you have border areas along with the Gaza. Well, to be nice I guess you could say it's brown. The streets are brown and dusty. The homes and hotels are brown and dusty. The stores, when they're not fighting are brown and dusty. I didn't see anyone who wasn't Muslim. And I'm sure if someone Jewish came along, they wouldn't have the same rights as others. Does this comparison make be a bigot? Perhaps. Does it make me respect Israel a lot more than the Arabs, yes. In 61 years Israel has done what the Arab couldn't do in 2000 years.
Reply-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I believe you one hundred percent, BB64. But, Arafat kept the Palestinian Muslims in squaller, denying them the billions they were getting FROM the US, just to help breed and fester hate in them so they'd, possibly, rise up and try to drive the Jews into the sea. The hateful brainwashing goes in their media, starting very young with something called "Tomorrow's Pioneers", where you see Muslim terrorists dressed in Micky Mouse like costumes, talking about how glorious it is to become martyred trying kill Jews and Zionists that they blame have invaded "THEIR" land.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcmHvczBGqg
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Since you like simple videos for your news sources, here's a map of the imperial history of the Middle East. With "their" land right in the middle of all those empires:
http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html
It's "squalor" by the way. A squaller is someone who squalls. Take your anti Muslim rant elsewhere.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
george561 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are 1 trillion bbls. of crude oil recoverable in the world and U.S. has 4.9%. There are 2.5 trillion bbls. of recoverable shale oil in the world and the U.S. has 72.7% and Canada 12.4% of the reserves, with the majority located in Utah, colorado and Wyoming. there are several technologies such as retort, microwave in situ, etc... and 5 leases have been issued by the U.S. govt. to try and recover this oil. The cost of 50,000bbl. operation is arpprox. $750 million. Govt. needs to get off its behind and offer the incentives to get this going.
In regard to coal gasification,current technolgy is very clean. there is currently a unit being built in Utah to make diesel fuel for approx. $0.80/gal. The co2 is pumped into a dome underground and a co2 plant is also being built on site to deliver various grades of co2 for industry all the way to drink carbonization.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well said, one question, in your research when they showed oil, did they take into account the Canadian Oil Sands. Two reports neglected to count that. If the projected numbers are correct, they may have more oil that most of the Middle east. Just was wondering.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
DaneL1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's one of my major complaints. I work with ABB. Don't spam me or attack me, they pay me well. Every time we meet whatever level is required, be it air, water or noise standards they always change it. 20 years ago it was acid and mercury levels, we're doing much, much better, now they want the CO2 to go away forgetting that you really can't have a fire without some sort of emission.
Also, that's why I suggested to someone that instead of blaming the USA for everything, they visit China or Mexico to protest their plants. Childish on my part, yes. But let's be serious, do you really think they'd leave mommy's basement and do something?
Before you ask, I'm off because of a back injury.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
wildman65571 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is about 200 days worth:
4300000000/20800000 = 208
Thats around 6 months.
see:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-wo...
So the fellow you said a few months was correct.
Reply -
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
These are the same "fields" that the dollar stock scam artists have been promoting for the last 30 years in order to get suckers to buy stock in their fly-by-night companies.
Perhaps now, with the high price of crude, some of the companies that are lining up to take advantage are real. However, the history should alert any thinking person to the problems that are likely to be encountered in actually recovering the oil.
Reply -
-
Neutral
t2scott1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
continued...... what most don't understand is that both parties are pretty much the same, as far as this particular subject is considered. Dems tax and spend while Repub's "borrow" and spend. It's all relative to "what" you want to believe and how far you want to go to find out the facts which support your beliefs.
Now we move on to the energy/oil... debate. Remember I LOVE to ride ATV's (650 Kawasaki Prairee) I get off on riding powder with a Yamaha NYTRO and nothing gets me rockin' like a 400 hp '69 Camaro or my modified 12 valve cummins diesel smokin down the long stretches of Montana highway. My buddies scorn me for saying this, they think I'm half nuts, but it's true folks and it's inevitable, we have to change our way of thinking when it comes to the consumption of fossil fuel!! It's simply a case of years of conditioning that has led us to believe this is the way our lives are directed we have been basically brainwashed.......
Reply -
Neutral
cloud151 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have to admit, I didn't read much past the first page of this thread, thats all my mind could handle for the moment. BB64 has been making some great posts where he wasn't attacking anybody, but having an intellectual conversation with someone else, yet some people feel the need to but in with insulting remarks and name calling. Even after the name calling BB64 replied in a classy way without returning fire. Bravo to BB64 for being able to show some class.
I agree we should search for energy dependence as it seems to be the root of all our struggles in todays day and age. We have global warming, economics, the middle east, environmentalist groups, etc. and all the problems revolve around energy issues. Ethanol while it sounds like a great idea if you just think about corn as energy, turns out to be just as bad if not worse than oil. It would cause mass inflation and just as much green house gases. As I see it ethanol would solve none of the energy issues we see today.
Reply-
Neutral
cloud151 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Personally I think solar energy is the way to go. Its an energy source that as long as were able to survive will be there. The problem is our technology isn't at the level to make solar energy a common man energy source. The energy issue is a difficult one to talk about because in reality our options are limited. People don't understand that just because we have the technology to do it, it doesn't mean we have the technology to MASS produce it. Until we gain that technology were going to be in a tough spot.
From what I've seen, BB64 has been making some great arguments for coal. I'm no expert on energy so I may be easily persuaded, but from what hes said, if the government can show some commitment and work for energy independence as hard as we worked to land on the moon, then coal may be a great interim answer for energy independence.
Reply -
HanymanComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's a crock, you questioning my understanding and training, as if you were anything other than a brainwashed CON shill. By "insights" you are referring to BB's decades old energy industry propaganda? These supposed "insights" are why we still have EXACTLY the same problems NOW that we were facing back in the 70's!!! Those aren't insights, those are EXCUSES. And really old lame ones, at that.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some essential industries just should not be conducted on a for-profit basis without rigorous oversight and controls.
But you are correct in that the root problem is indeed unfettered greed with no accountability or responsibility and an amazing unwillingness to assume any without being forced to by legislation, in a lot of industries, not just energy.
Reply
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.