$100 A Barrel Oil is on the Way

#301
#301
I read a good interview about just that droski, the person said that since oil is priced in US dollars on the world market and our economy is slumping and the "dollar" has gotten weaker it is not worth as much as other currencies and that is the basics, I still do not understand it all the way and will be the first to admit that.
 
#303
#303
i think that argument works as to why there hasn't been increased supply because of the high oil price, but still doesn't explain why we are there in the first place. :dunno:
 
#305
#305
1.5 Billion a week in Iraq when we have enough oil shale in Utah to provide this country with oil for the next 200 years. Instead of developing that resource, we are bankrupting the country for a war most people do not support. The leadership of this president.......
 
#306
#306
before you pop off by blaming the Bush administration for not developing Utah's oil shale, take a long hard look at the environmentalist lobby.

There's plenty of oil in Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico, is it Bush's fault those resources aren't being exploited?
 
#307
#307
oklavol said:
1.5 Billion a week in Iraq when we have enough oil shale in Utah to provide this country with oil for the next 200 years. Instead of developing that resource, we are bankrupting the country for a war most people do not support. The leadership of this president.......
Click to expand...

BDS is a terrible affliction
 
#309
#309
oklavol said:
1.5 Billion a week in Iraq when we have enough oil shale in Utah to provide this country with oil for the next 200 years. Instead of developing that resource, we are bankrupting the country for a war most people do not support. The leadership of this president.......
Click to expand...

Other than perhaps arguing that those funds could be used to buy more oil there is nothing that ties Iraq to oil. The other poster is absolutely correct, by an order of magnitude the enemy of domestic oil production are the environmentalists. In fact, energy production of any kind has to run the Green Gauntlet.
 
#310
#310
hndog609 said:
Other than perhaps arguing that those funds could be used to buy more oil there is nothing that ties Iraq to oil. The other poster is absolutely correct, by an order of magnitude the enemy of domestic oil production are the environmentalists. In fact, energy production of any kind has to run the Green Gauntlet.
Click to expand...

By an order of magnitude? Unless the environmentalists are stopping oil shale exploration (which maybe they are...I don't know), then that comment doesn't make sense to me. It would shock me if there was 10 times more oil in the Gulf and Alaska than can be removed from oil shale in the America west at the same price. Maybe you're right...it just seems the shale resource is a lot bigger than that.

Also, okla....don't forget that we're talking about a very different grade of oil in oil shale than our current supply. We can still get gasoline out of it, but it is going to take a lot more thermal cracking than distillation...at least, that would make sense to me (I haven't read this anywhere that I can think of). This would likely drive gasoline production down and the cost per gallon up.
 
#312
#312
Crude Oil inventories were reported today at 10:30 and it showed that inventories added another 6 million barrels and it was only expected to add 1.6 million barrels. Very Bearish for Oil. Expect prices to come down because inventories are way above historical averages.

Unless the Fed cuts over a 1/2 point on tuesday and they continue their assult on the dollar. The two reasons oil went so high was because the dollar is down 10%, and it was the only sector doing well besides agriculture. Hedgefunds are always looking for a good sector to make money in and Oil and Ag were the play for January and Feb, when everything else was getting hammered.
 
#313
#313
Hndog does have a point, There is one of the worlds largest untapped oil reservoirs (North Cuba Basin) sitting within eyesight of the Florida keys that we cannot drill because the EPA has fought, sued and won that no drilling be done in the Marine refuge. The Chinese are planning on slant drilling to tap this area, that means they will be outside of the area and drill into US reserves. When an American company tries to do something of this nature the EPA sues it.
 
#314
#314
MontereyVol said:
Hndog does have a point, There is one of the worlds largest untapped oil reservoirs (North Cuba Basin) sitting within eyesight of the Florida keys that we cannot drill because the EPA has fought, sued and won that no drilling be done in the Marine refuge. The Chinese are planning on slant drilling to tap this area, that means they will be outside of the area and drill into US reserves. When an American company tries to do something of this nature the EPA sues it.
Click to expand...

Drainage! Drainage, Eli, you boy. Drained dry. I'm so sorry. Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake!
 
#315
#315
TennTradition said:
By an order of magnitude? Unless the environmentalists are stopping oil shale exploration (which maybe they are...I don't know), then that comment doesn't make sense to me. It would shock me if there was 10 times more oil in the Gulf and Alaska than can be removed from oil shale in the America west at the same price.
Click to expand...

I thought the order of magnitude in the original post referred to the impact of environmentalists (e.g they are 10x worse) - not a comparison on the amount of oil.
 
#317
#317
hndog609 said:
You are correct, that was my intent.
Click to expand...

My bad...I was connecting too many things. MG made the comment that the environmentalists were stopping drilling in Alaska and the Gulf, but didn't mention the Utah Shale. So, when you said that the environmentalists by an order of magnitude were hurting our domestic production - I took that to mean that there must be an order of magnitude more oil in Alaska and the Gulf than in the Shale.

I'm not sure how I made that leap... :)
 
#318
#318
The area in Utah and Colorado where the oil shale is located is a mostly barren area, sparsely populated. I doubt environmentalists will oppose it, for the sames reasons they didn't oppose the oil wells in West Texas.
 
#319
#319
What's involved in the processing? I'm guessing it's a pretty environmentally unfriendly set of techniques. Add to that the additional refining steps and you may have a pretty ugly process.
 
#320
#320
TennTradition said:
My bad...I was connecting too many things. MG made the comment that the environmentalists were stopping drilling in Alaska and the Gulf, but didn't mention the Utah Shale. So, when you said that the environmentalists by an order of magnitude were hurting our domestic production - I took that to mean that there must be an order of magnitude more oil in Alaska and the Gulf than in the Shale.

I'm not sure how I made that leap... :)
Click to expand...

No problem. I'm sure there are many different takes on the matter but I have read where the Rand Corp believes the Green River Formation (CO, WY, UT) holds over a trillion(!) barrels of synthetic* petroleum. The procedures for doing this in an economically viable fashion are fairly new, which is why you haven't seen much about it. Having said that you can be absolutely assured the enviros will go nuts over it.

*Synthetic fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
#321
#321
volinbham said:
What's involved in the processing? I'm guessing it's a pretty environmentally unfriendly set of techniques. Add to that the additional refining steps and you may have a pretty ugly process.
Click to expand...

The CEO of Shell's US operations (I think...or maybe the actual CEO..can't remember) spoke to our department on this last year....and it is his company that will be doing a lot of this work. Their plan in absolutely crazy..but they think that they can get oil for under $60 a barrel doing it. They plan to implant large heating rods deep into the earth that will bake the oil out of the shale and they can then extract it. But, the recognize that adding this much heat could be detrimental to surrounding land...so they will surround their operations with a core of frozen land to insulate the surrounding, non-shale land from their extraction operations. Pretty crazy stuff...
 
#322
#322
hndog609 said:
No problem. I'm sure there are many different takes on the matter but I have read where the Rand Corp believes the Green River Formation (CO, WY, UT) holds over a trillion(!) barrels of synthetic* petroleum. The procedures for doing this in an economically viable fashion are fairly new, which is why you haven't seen much about it. Having said that you can be absolutely assured the enviros will go nuts over it.

*Synthetic fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I make syngas from natural gas in my research....but I know very little about transforming oil from shale into synfuels....I'll have to read up on that...(the wikipedia article was very vague)
 
#323
#323
TennTradition said:
I make syngas from natural gas in my research....but I know very little about transforming oil from shale into synfuels....I'll have to read up on that...(the wikipedia article was very vague)
Click to expand...

Did you link to the coal subsection? Working in that field you might still want (and understand) more than this but there is much more here than on the front page.

Coal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or maybe this

http://www.solartoday.org/2007/may_june07/Oil_Addiction_MJ07_Tijm.pdf
 
#324
#324
hndog609 said:
Did you link to the coal subsection? Working in that field you might still want (and understand) more than this but there is much more here than on the front page.

Coal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or maybe this

http://www.solartoday.org/2007/may_june07/Oil_Addiction_MJ07_Tijm.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks! The coal page actually helped some. I am pretty familiar with coal to gas (or in my case....natural gas to syn gas)....but I wasn't sure where the liquids came in exactly. I knew that Fischer Tropsch could get you light hydrocrabons, I was just missing the reaction over catalyst to higher hydrocarbons. I bet you lose over 50% of the fuel value by the time you are done with all these processes!
 
#325
#325
TennTradition said:
Thanks! The coal page actually helped some. I am pretty familiar with coal to gas (or in my case....natural gas to syn gas)....but I wasn't sure where the liquids came in exactly. I knew that Fischer Tropsch could get you light hydrocrabons, I was just missing the reaction over catalyst to higher hydrocarbons. I bet you lose over 50% of the fuel value by the time you are done with all these processes![/quote]

I'm curious myself on what the actual efficacy of the conversion to usable gasoline is. The Rand Co figure was for "barrels of sythetic petroleum". I do wonder what that really means in gallons available at the pump.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top