Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No its not. 1.) Most oil does not come from the mid-east, 2.) You seem to not understand what a company like Exxon-Mobil does. If you haven't noticed raw oil isn't particularly useful, it needs to be refined into other products. The refining process is very complex and takes billions in infrastructure to do. 3.) "Coal companies" wouldn't refine oil.
So, I ask again. Why would Exxon-Mobil spend $125 on a barrel of oil instead of $35. The first company to start getting oil at $35 a barrel would make a huge profit so what is stopping them? Just too stupid? The shareholders aren't interested in making money?
it is not about making money as much as it is keeping control of the cash cow. If one company, like Exxon, started getting oil from coal and got it cheap, than other companies would do the same thing...like COAL COMPANIES who control the coal in the US and they would soon over-take Exxon. Exxon is built into places like Nigeria, Gabon, Saudi Arabia, etc, but not the US which, btw, has 27% of the world's coal reserves.
That is, at least, what I think. All I know is that yes, the article and the links there in are correct, check them out if you don't believe me. Oil can be extracted from coal at the cost of $35 a barrel, it's a FACT...why isn't it being done? I suspect it has to do with the geo-political forces at work in the big oil companies.
There is some non-conventional oil coming in now though, through Canada's sand fields in Alberta ,Athabasca Oil Sands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia these sources are the only way we can ever get enough oil to last until science and the free-market figures out a way to move away from oil all together.
Quote:
"Coal companies" wouldn't refine oil.
No, but they would suddenly be the ones in control of it, and the oil companies would have to bid on the rights to refine the crude and they could only loose money as opposed to the one-sided trade they have now. Also, with oil coming from the interior of the country for the first time in decades, it would be allot easier for new oil refinerees to be built in the middle of the country and not just the coast where no one wants them. Coal companies could, sooner or later, build there own and po! Exxon and the others have something they don't want: competition. And to stop competition they will use their best weapon: the government.
That is the problem: in order for nonconventional oil and other sources of new energy to work you need a capitalist country, and the US is not longer capitalist, but is instead a kind of socialism for the rich were the government does everything it can to make them happy and stay rich when it should sit back and let companies destroy eachother and benefit humanity in the process.
Build a better mouse-trap...and the guy who has the patent on the old mouse-trap will get his friends in the Senate to use the Patriot act to lead a path to your door on trumped-up charges.
Last edited by victorianpunk; 05-14-2008 at 01:46 AM..
like COAL COMPANIES who control the coal in the US and they would soon over-take Exxon. Exxon is built into places like Nigeria, Gabon, Saudi Arabia, etc, but not the US which, btw, has 27% of the world's coal reserves.
And what would stop Exxon or any other company for that matter buying coal infrastructure in this country? If they did it before they started to magically make oil at $35 it could be purchased very cheap. Also, how are coal mines going to start refining oil?
Regardless, companies are interested in one thing - profits. If you could indeed create barrels of oil for $35 at current domestic demand it would've been done already. As any company that did it would profit hugely.I know conspiracies are so much more popular than economics, but the answer here is rather simple - supply and demand. The cost of $35~$40 a barrel is based on current coal prices which is based on the current demand for coal. As demand for coal goes up so will the price and it will longer cost $35~$40 dollars a barrel.
The same stupid reasoning is used by people that suggest we can make ethanol from industrial sugar from Mexico/South America at current prices. Look at what is happening to the price of corn...
The sooner we Americans get that through our thick skulls, the sooner we can work toward a future where we can get by on less energy. If we don't, a lot of us probably won't survive at all.
If you want to read a dead-on, but bleak presentation about this, go here:
The author, Matt Simmons, is not some crazy enviro-nut, left-wing ding-dong, or clueless academic--he is one the leading investment bankers to the energy industry. He has been sounding the warning alarm for years now.
We had better be figuring out how to end our near total-dependence on automobiles for transport, suburbia for living arrangement, and living on credit and debt for our basic needs. Those "good ol' days"--if one can call shameless waste and overconsumption "good"--are over.
There is some non-conventional oil coming in now though, through Canada's sand fields in Alberta ,Athabasca Oil Sands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia these sources are the only way we can ever get enough oil to last until science and the free-market figures out a way to move away from oil all together.
Sure, very familiar with that. Had to turn down that project because the damage(s) being done so out-weighed the benefit.
Sad truth is have crossed the threshold where staying on oil (and the various kluges such as Tar Sands) that it would be less effort and expense to go off oil than stay on.
There is no lack of technology for the US go off of oil. Just a Whole Bunch of Will [NOT] Power. Try not to confuse Will Not with Can Not.
Then I repeat why wouldn't a company like Exxon-Mobil be using it? Its been paying more than $35 dollars a barrel for years now.
Victorianpunk is correct. I had heard $40-50 per barrel. GE and the founder of JetBlue, David Neeleman, was on board to build the plants a few years and Congress refused to offer price supports on the loans if the price of oil dropped below $40 per barrel.
The last time the coal-to-oil technology was seriously explored in the 80s it cause OPEC to drop the barrel price below what coal-to-oil would need to be profitable.
The plants are very expensive to build which is why they haven't been built yet. However, as the price of oil stays high the market will kick in. It won't be the oil companies, however. Since their profit is a percentage of the price of oil they have no incentive to jump into something that would cause it to fall so much. Unfortunately there is a lot of upside for the government in inflation so they also have no incentive to bring prices down too much.
Peak oil, however, refers only to conventional oil. Also, technology to find oil is growing every day, as is fuel efficency. We will run out of oil someday, but I still think it is a few decades away.
Peak oil is an unproven theory. Its becoming like global warming - a money maker and a scapegoat for the looney left to pin problems on.
As I said in my above post, the problem is these estimates aren't reliable. Unless the government is planning on nationalizing all the coal mines as soon as you start to use coal to produce fuels the price of coal will jump up. Look at what happened to the price of corn once Bush started to talk about alternative fuels, it went up dramatically! Although corn is a renewable, it can only be grown cheaply in areas with cheap water supplies. For example, although corn grows just fine in California the cost to water it are too high. Lastly, I think its a bit odd to suggestion the big oil company's aren't going to have a piece of alternative energy. Its hard to imagine their shareholders letting the company decline because it doesn't take part in alternative energy. If I was a voting member of Exxon-Mobil etc, I would certainly demand this!
Quote:
Peak oil is an unproven theory.
There is nothing unproven about the fact that oil a finite resource, as a result at some point it will peak.
Peak oil is an unproven theory. Its becoming like global warming - a money maker and a scapegoat for the looney left to pin problems on.
You need to do more research, seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanoid
Telling someone that disagrees with your assertion that they should "research" it is a cop-out.
But again whatever makes you happy.
It isn't a cop out. I am in no way obligated to do your research for you. If you are interested in finding out what is going on with the price of goods i.e. oil, then do research on the things I mentioned. I mean do or don't that is up to you. If not then don't worry about it. When ever someone on here says something I don't know something about, I always go and research it on my own. That is the only way a person can truly learn. Relying on some one else's information without you going out and validating that info for yourself is a cop-out. I should add, hitting up wikipedia is not doing research. Research is looking up several sources, cross referencing and such, just as you would for a university research paper. Again, or not.
Last edited by Wild Style; 05-14-2008 at 05:20 PM..
If you are interested in finding out what is going on with the price of goods i.e. oil,
Here is the problem, I have done research and I disagree with you. So telling me to do research is indeed a cop-out. You assume you are correct and I am wrong, how about this do some more research kido? When you're done you'll see that you are wrong = ) Get to it.
there is nothing to disagree with. You said the fed wasn't printing more money. It showed your lack of understanding because 1. the fed doesn't print money the treasury (specifically the U.S. Mint which is governed over by the treasury) does. So that is problem one, two it is a fact that they (the treasury) is printing more money, that is not a opinion, a ideology or a urban myth. It is very easy to go to a govt site and find out what is being done. It is also a fact that doing so devalues the dollar and causes inflation. They are also using interest rates but again it is all tied in together. You have chosen not to do research and thats cool. S0 as I said, dont worry about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
