Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE "Found on Yahoo" Thread (merged)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Unread postby MagnoliaFan » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 16:06:59

Never mind EREOI... how much will this process cost for the barrel of oil that comes out at the end?

"Still, he said, the bio-oil isn't likely to be an immediate competitor to crude oil. Crude oil currently costs about $60 a barrel, and bio-oil will only be competitive when the cost of crude oil reaches $80 a barrel, Soria said."

And when the cost of oil reaches $100 a barrel this bio-oil will suddenly become competitive as soon as we reach $140 a barrel ;)

I have a fire pit in my backyard, I go camping a lot and I used to have a wood stove. I fully understand the superiority of conventional oil as it pertains to wood as a source of energy.
User avatar
MagnoliaFan
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun 17 Apr 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby lateStarter » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 16:31:33

I'll look into this because I recall at one of our recent family gatherings, someone mentioned that after WWII (in Poland) some ingenious Poles had rigged up some cars that burned a certain type of wood that allowed self propulsion. I think from the conversation, that burning the wood, released some type of gas, that was used for combustion. Probably not very efficient, but worked to some degree. The old timer that mentioned it is/was a highly skilled machinist, so I don't think he was making it up. I'll try to get in touch with him soon, and probe him for details (of course via my wife, since my Polish is extremely limited).

All that knowledge will soon be gone. The old timers in Poland and many other places that have gone through hard times will soon be gone. These people were very adaptable and resourceful. I'm sorry I can't say the same for the majority of the generations since then.....
User avatar
lateStarter
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Wed 06 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: 38 km west of Warsaw, Poland

Unread postby ubercrap » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 19:35:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lateStarter', 'I')'ll look into this because I recall at one of our recent family gatherings, someone mentioned that after WWII (in Poland) some ingenious Poles had rigged up some cars that burned a certain type of wood that allowed self propulsion. I think from the conversation, that burning the wood, released some type of gas, that was used for combustion. Probably not very efficient, but worked to some degree. The old timer that mentioned it is/was a highly skilled machinist, so I don't think he was making it up. I'll try to get in touch with him soon, and probe him for details (of course via my wife, since my Polish is extremely limited).

All that knowledge will soon be gone. The old timers in Poland and many other places that have gone through hard times will soon be gone. These people were very adaptable and resourceful. I'm sorry I can't say the same for the majority of the generations since then.....


Yes it exists- wood gassifier I believe it is called. Look in the alternative energy forum. It can definitely power a vehicle, though it needs to be carbureted I think? I believe it takes about 1lb. wood/mile? It might be good for wartime or a as a novelty, but really, do you think it would be practical for millions of individual commuters to be driving wood powered vehicles, be it turned into oil first or burned directly? How long would it take to cut down every tree in the world?
User avatar
ubercrap
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed 27 Apr 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby lateStarter » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 20:08:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercrap', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lateStarter', 'I')'ll look into this because I recall at one of our recent family gatherings, someone mentioned that after WWII (in Poland) some ingenious Poles had rigged up some cars that burned a certain type of wood that allowed self propulsion. I think from the conversation, that burning the wood, released some type of gas, that was used for combustion. Probably not very efficient, but worked to some degree. The old timer that mentioned it is/was a highly skilled machinist, so I don't think he was making it up. I'll try to get in touch with him soon, and probe him for details (of course via my wife, since my Polish is extremely limited).

All that knowledge will soon be gone. The old timers in Poland and many other places that have gone through hard times will soon be gone. These people were very adaptable and resourceful. I'm sorry I can't say the same for the majority of the generations since then.....


Yes it exists- wood gassifier I believe it is called. Look in the alternative energy forum. It can definitely power a vehicle, though it needs to be carbureted I think? I believe it takes about 1lb. wood/mile? It might be good for wartime or a as a novelty, but really, do you think it would be practical for millions of individual commuters to be driving wood powered vehicles, be it turned into oil first or burned directly? How long would it take to cut down every tree in the world?


No, I don't think it would be practical or even healthy. I was just commenting on the novelty/resourcefullness of the idea as you pointed out. It might be usefull knowledge for powering a tractor though on the farm.

I personally think that the bicycle (in many shapes and forms) will see a major rebirth in popularity in much of the world as an adjunct to rail and mass transit.

Oh, you don't have rail or mass transit? Sorry...
User avatar
lateStarter
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Wed 06 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: 38 km west of Warsaw, Poland

Re: Yahoo article on wood to oil tech

Unread postby Z » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 20:14:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('brobak', '[')url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/wood_crude_oil;_ylt=Akw3xuxltAF4neO0RNw00mEDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl]Thermo-depoly of wood[/url]


Global Easter Island anyone ?
User avatar
Z
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed 11 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: France

Unread postby Ludi » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 20:25:12

We've already depleted 50% of the Earth's tree cover. I reckon we can cut down the rest of them in short order if we want to.
Ludi
 

Unread postby Bandidoz » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 20:38:37

Global Easter Island? See 2nd link in my siggie ----vvvvvvv
The Olduvai Theory is thinkable http://www.dieoff.com/page224.pdf
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://www.dieoff.org/page145.htm
User avatar
Bandidoz
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed 02 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Yahoo! News: 11-Aug-05

Unread postby EnviroEngr » Thu 11 Aug 2005, 15:16:02

From the Yahoo! News Portal:

Thu Aug 11, 7:55 AM EDT

No Relief in Sight for Gasoline Prices
-------------------------------------------
| Whose reality is this anyway!? |
-------------------------------------------
(---------< Temet Nosce >---------)
__________________________
User avatar
EnviroEngr
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Richland Center, Wisconsin

Yahoo! News: 30-Sep-05

Unread postby EnviroEngr » Sat 01 Oct 2005, 01:56:16

From the Yahoo! News Portal:

Fri Sep 30, 7:49 PM ET

Indonesia Doubles Gas Prices Amid Unrest
-------------------------------------------
| Whose reality is this anyway!? |
-------------------------------------------
(---------< Temet Nosce >---------)
__________________________
User avatar
EnviroEngr
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Richland Center, Wisconsin

Unread postby katkinkate » Sat 01 Oct 2005, 08:16:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hawkcreek', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')n the other hand, there is the possibility of terrorist attacks against oil production or refining infrastructure. In the event of these kinds of attacks, the oil price would likely go sky high. This is the kind of terror premium that can add significant amounts to prices.


Since I work in the Alaska oil fields, I've always been grateful that terrorists are so dumb. We have 800 miles of virtually unprotected pipeline that furnishes 10 % of America's crude. The damage they could do to our economy with one well-placed bomb is trememdous.


I sometimes wonder if their lack of interest in attacking oil infrastructure is an indication of their lack of power and the degree the 'terror threat' is more of a beatup by TPTB.
Kind regards, Katkinkate

"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops,
but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
Masanobu Fukuoka
User avatar
katkinkate
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Top

Re: Yahoo! News

Unread postby tokyo_to_motueka » Sat 01 Oct 2005, 08:45:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ndonesia is Southeast Asia's only member of OPEC, but it has to import oil because of decades of declining investment in exploration and extraction due to corruption and a weak legal system that makes people wary of doing business here.

so that's why Indonesia imports oil?
glad we've cleared that one up.
it must be the same reason the US imports oil too, after being the world's largest oil producer for decades.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
tokyo_to_motueka
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue 19 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Tochigi
Top

Two interesting articles from Yahoo Finance

Unread postby Euric » Mon 30 Jan 2006, 19:26:52

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060130/treasury ... .html?.v=2

AP
Treasury Boosts Borrowing Needs to $188B
Monday 2006-01-30 15:38 ET
By Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer
U.S. Treasury Boosts Borrowing Needs to Record $188 Billion in Latest Quarter


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government expects to borrow a record $188 billion in the January-March quarter, even more than it anticipated three months ago, the Treasury Department announced Monday.
The total will surpass the old mark of $146 billion set in the first quarter of 2004, a year in which the federal budget deficit hit an all-time high in dollar terms of $413 billion.

After declining last year to $319 billion, this year's deficit is expected to reach $400 billion, according to the Bush administration, which has said part of that increase will reflect higher spending to rebuild New Orleans and other hurricane-damaged areas of the Gulf Coast.

The Treasury Department's new estimate of the amount it will need to borrow in the current quarter surpasses the $171 billion estimate made in November.

Officials attributed the higher figure to a timing issue when Medicare payments are made to health maintenance organizations. Those payments were made in January instead of December as Treasury had expected and therefore will drive up borrowing needs for this quarter.

Treasury officials said they still expect to hit the current debt ceiling of $8.184 trillion in mid-February but will be able to use various bookkeeping maneuvers to keep from disrupting borrowing operations until mid-March.

Democrats are hoping to use the congressional debate over the need to raise the borrowing ceiling to highlight the failure of Bush administration budget policies. They contend Bush's support for sweeping tax cuts during his first term is the major reason the deficits have been soaring.

The administration contends the tax cuts helped to get the country out of the 2001 recession and must be made permanent so economic growth will not be slowed in the future.

The announcement Monday was part of the government's quarterly refunding operations. It will announce on Wednesday the amounts of money it will raise next week and the types of Treasury securities it will sell to raise that cash.

One of those securities will be a 30-year Treasury bond. The government announced last August that it was bringing back the 30-year bond with the first auction of the new bonds taking place Feb. 9.

Treasury debt:

http://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-f ... -refunding

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/060130/miller_e ... .html?.v=2

Reuters
Record profits spark new backlash against Big Oil
Monday 2006-01-30, 17:44 ET
By Deepa Babington and Ben Berkowitz


NEW YORK (Reuters) - It's hard to celebrate a profit of nearly $11 billion when almost no one wants you to enjoy it.
Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE:XOM - News) on Monday fulfilled the corporate fantasy of reporting the most profitable year in U.S. history, only to be met with fierce public outrage at the achievement.

Still fuming over higher gasoline prices and rising heating oil bills, politicians and consumer groups set off a fresh wave of calls for special taxes against Big Oil after Exxon posted record profits of $10.7 billion in the latest quarter and more than $36 billion for the year.

"Once again, Exxon Mobil has reaped the largest windfall in U.S. history at the expense of hard-working families," Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle said in a statement. "I hope that this news will finally convince the U.S. Congress to take action and force the oil companies to give consumers a refund."

Exxon, in its earnings statement, said it understood the growing public interest in energy prices, but that its strong results would spur investments to meet energy demand over the long-term.

"Its unfortunate that we are dealing with this criticism of our industry," said Exxon spokesman Mark Boudreaux. "We are doing our part to invest in new oil and gas projects to provide supplies to our customers."

All totaled, Exxon and its top U.S. peers Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips reported net profits of $18.58 billion in the fourth quarter and $63.87 billion for all of 2005.

Taken in context, that combined annual profit eclipses the market capitalization of one-third of the blue chip companies in the benchmark Dow Jones industrial average. (^DJI - News) It also is a larger figure than the entire economies of 131 out of the 184 countries ranked by the World Bank in 2004.

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Edward Markey, a senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, were others who quickly piled criticism on Big Oil.

"The Bush policy of subsidizing wealthy oil companies has proven to be wildly effective in boosting oil company profits, but it continues to harm American consumers and threaten economic growth," Markey said in a statement.

ExxposeExxon, a coalition of 15 environmental and other groups that banded together a few months back, used the record results to launch a fresh attack on Exxon and its policies.

"A company like Exxon Mobil that is making record profits, and is making those profits off the back of American consumers, has a responsibility to invest those profits into responsible energy policies," said Shawnee Hoover, a campaign director for the coalition. "And that is precisely what Exxon is fighting."

MEDIA BLITZ

Though the calls are more of a public relations nightmare for Big Oil at the moment, the energy industry fears it could quickly turn into something more punitive from Congress.

The last time Big Oil reported quarterly earnings the heads of top oil companies were hauled up before the Senate to defend their profits and explain why a windfall tax should not be levied on them.

This time, the industry has tried to fight back even before some of its largest names reported profits.

The industry launched a media blitz last week, trying to convince reporters and the public that a $10 billion profit is not just a $10 billion profit but rather a comparably reasonable rate of return for each dollar of sales.

The American Petroleum Institute took a full-page ad in the New York Times on January 26 with a chart showing how many cents of profit various industries made over the last five years for each dollar of sales.

Oil and natural gas came in at 5.8 cents per dollar, according to the API, versus 10.8 cents for real estate, 16.2 cents for pharmaceutical companies and 17.3 cents for banks.

"What many may find surprising is that, on average over the past five years, the profitability of America's oil and natural gas industry is far less than many other major industries, like banks, pharmaceuticals and real estate," the advertisement said.


Those record profits will come in handy for financing the increased US debt and borrowing needs.
User avatar
Euric
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat 04 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Two interesting articles from Yahoo Finance

Unread postby gt1370a » Mon 30 Jan 2006, 19:34:52

What people (politicians on both sides included) don't seem to grasp is that when you have a supply issue, high prices are needed to bring down demand. This is the fundamental concept of a market economy, but people just don't seem to get it, either that or they can't comprehend that there is a "supply problem" with oil.

What the oil companies and others need to make clear is that if there is some sort of "refund tax" or other subsidy of fuel use, there MUST be rationing, otherwise there will be shortages. Unfortunately it is ugly, and demand destruction will wipe out the poor, but that is the way it works - hey, maybe you can make an argument for rationing, I wouldn't oppose it, but this idea of a refund tax or price caps or whatever is just stupid.

Also, I find it interesting that "demand destruction" after Katrina didn't really seem to occur in recreational or commuter driving, but rather in reduced industry use of gasoline. Think of the implications of that.
User avatar
gt1370a
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Two interesting articles from Yahoo Finance

Unread postby strider3700 » Mon 30 Jan 2006, 20:55:23

Don't refund the oil companies. Just stop all subsidies going to them. Their profits should dry up pretty quickly
shame on us, doomed from the start
god have mercy on our dirty little hearts
strider3700
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: Sun 17 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Vancouver Island

Re: Two interesting articles from Yahoo Finance

Unread postby Seadragon » Mon 30 Jan 2006, 21:59:25

I'm sure Bush's speech tomorrow, from what I've read about what he'll say about energy, will go a long way towards providing cover for the oil companies. Talking about alternative fuels, new, mysterious technological solutions and anything but what really needs to be done will distract the public long enough for its short attention span to kick in after a few days.
Exporting oil is an act of treason"-- Heitor Manoel Pereira, president of AEPET in Brazil, January 06, 2006
come see me sometime... http://www.sonofchaos.blogspot.com/
Seadragon
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu 06 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South Texas

Re: Two interesting articles from Yahoo Finance

Unread postby Peak_Modernity » Tue 31 Jan 2006, 01:04:05

Has anyone actually qualified what they consider to be a "windfall"? Should we reduce profits to 5%, 2%, 1%? Profits would still be in the BILLIONS of dollars, because they sell a lot of product. If people are truly upset over oil company profits then they shouldn't buy the stuff. Either put your money where your mouth is or keep quiet.
Don't worry, we have the best govt that money can buy
User avatar
Peak_Modernity
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue 16 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New York

Re: Two interesting articles from Yahoo Finance

Unread postby pup55 » Tue 31 Jan 2006, 08:56:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')xxon posted record profits of $10.7 billion in the latest quarter


This is squat compared to what Saudi Arabia is making, and of course, sending a little bit on to the Bin Laden family:

10 mbd 65 dollars per barrel
minus 15 dollars per barrel extraction and production costs
90 days

$45 billion dollars per quarter straight to the bottom line, and the cost is probably not nearly $15 per barrel

Iran about 1/4 of that, maybe $10 billion per quarter, comparable to what Exxon is making, except they are using theirs to buy sunburn missiles, and pay for IED's and other mischief throughout the middle east. Also it pays the salary of this guy (link).

I would rather have it go to Exxon. Political graft and environmental cleanup seems relatively harmless. Plus, they are paying a 2% dividend, which is better than I am getting at the bank at the moment, so at least some of it is going back to the stockholders.

In fact, if you had bought 100 shares of XOM at 50 in January of '05, you would have got $100 in dividends last year, plus got $1300 in capital appreciation (it's now selling at 63), so in essence, if you are an average schmoe, this would have paid for most of your increased energy costs over the last year.

Of course, if you are an average schmoe, you probably would not have been able to come up with the 5 G's in January of '05, but that is another issue.

Not to ramble on, but if some group of idiots decides to put a tax on this money, it will do nothing but take the money out of the stockholders' pockets and send it to Washington, which is really annoying because it takes away the chance the stockholders had to recover their increased costs, per the above. The Saudis will get theirs, though, regardless.
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Two interesting articles from Yahoo Finance

Unread postby jdmartin » Tue 31 Jan 2006, 13:46:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')xxon posted record profits of $10.7 billion in the latest quarter


This is squat compared to what Saudi Arabia is making, and of course, sending a little bit on to the Bin Laden family:

10 mbd 65 dollars per barrel
minus 15 dollars per barrel extraction and production costs
90 days

$45 billion dollars per quarter straight to the bottom line, and the cost is probably not nearly $15 per barrel

Iran about 1/4 of that, maybe $10 billion per quarter, comparable to what Exxon is making, except they are using theirs to buy sunburn missiles, and pay for IED's and other mischief throughout the middle east. Also it pays the salary of this guy (link).

I would rather have it go to Exxon. Political graft and environmental cleanup seems relatively harmless. Plus, they are paying a 2% dividend, which is better than I am getting at the bank at the moment, so at least some of it is going back to the stockholders.

In fact, if you had bought 100 shares of XOM at 50 in January of '05, you would have got $100 in dividends last year, plus got $1300 in capital appreciation (it's now selling at 63), so in essence, if you are an average schmoe, this would have paid for most of your increased energy costs over the last year.

Of course, if you are an average schmoe, you probably would not have been able to come up with the 5 G's in January of '05, but that is another issue.

Not to ramble on, but if some group of idiots decides to put a tax on this money, it will do nothing but take the money out of the stockholders' pockets and send it to Washington, which is really annoying because it takes away the chance the stockholders had to recover their increased costs, per the above. The Saudis will get theirs, though, regardless.


First off, piss on the stockholders. Most stockholders are basking in the glow of reduced upper tier taxes, etc, so they don't really need the money to cover their "increased costs". But I digress.

I agree with you that there shouldn't be a big windfall tax put on the oil companies. Why should there be? As someone else said, if you don't like what they're charging, then don't buy their product. There's no law that says you have to drive a car or buy gasoline. Walking or biking costs virtually nothing and certainly doesn't support big oil.

I say the oil companies should charge whatever they think the market can hold. If it can hold $4, $5, etc, then so be it.

The funny thing is everyone (in the US, anyway) thinks the free market is so fantastic until it has a negative effect on them. Then, we should start slapping taxes on companies, subsidizing things, etc. Well, you shouldn't be able to have your cake and eat it too. Either we let the market dictate, or we protect that which needs protecting. If there is a general consensus that gasoline is a basic fundamental of life (in the vein of electricity, water, etc), then we should strictly regulate the market or do away with the private sector in this field altogether. Lots of other countries around the world view gasoline (oil) as a necessity and have nationalized oil companies.

So I say let Exxon et al be. If they can make it, goody for them. If we don't like it, we should quit buying it. If we can't (we're addicted), oh well.
After fueling up their cars, Twyman says they bowed their heads and asked God for cheaper gas.There was no immediate answer, but he says other motorists joined in and the service station owner didn't run them off.
User avatar
jdmartin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu 19 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Merry Ol' USA
Top

Re: Two interesting articles from Yahoo Finance

Unread postby gt1370a » Tue 31 Jan 2006, 22:18:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jdmartin', '
')First off, piss on the stockholders. Most stockholders are basking in the glow of reduced upper tier taxes, etc, so they don't really need the money to cover their "increased costs". But I digress.


I have to disagree with you on this one. I worked hard for the few grand I was able to invest in energy companies, and I want a return on it. It's no fair to change the rules in the middle of the game (actually, in THIS game, changing the rules appears to be part of the game, but it still pisses me off). Actually I was even kind of annoyed that they released SPR oil after the hurricanes and drove the price down, but I admit it was the right thing to do of course (I'm not that greedy).
User avatar
gt1370a
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Two interesting articles from Yahoo Finance

Unread postby oilfreeandhappy » Wed 01 Feb 2006, 02:01:43

I would agree with your statement if the economics were on a level playing field. Oil continues to be heavily subsidized both directly and indirectly. This UCS article talks about the direct subsidies:
http://go.ucsusa.org/publications/repor ... tionID=149

Indirect subsidies include Military Escorts for oil tankers from the Middle East, etc.
Jim Gagnepain
http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/index.html

JD Martin wrote:
>So I say let Exxon et al be. If they can make it, goody for them. If we don't like it, we should quit buying it. If we can't (we're addicted), oh well.
User avatar
oilfreeandhappy
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests