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.
Quote your source, not a book I can't read unless I buy it. Find me a link, and I'll read it. I can post multiple that show the cost restrictions with oil shale and sands, can you?
(please find a reputable source, USGS, or something along those lines)
AGAIN, natural gas prices have fallen because
A) Its easy to get to
and
B) we have plenty of it
and
C) little to no processing required.
Oil shale is
A) Not nearly as easy to get to
B) We have plenty of it
and
C), Extreme processing needed, which is why the validity is dependent on the market value of oil.
What you say is true for now. I see T Boone Pickens gave up the wind farm game and is all in for nat gas now too. The thing is how long until fracking is deemed evil by the EPA and who knows what else they will do to make it harder to get and prices to rise? It is "green" for now according to the greenies. Of course the Sierra Club took a bunch of nat gas money and went after coal and now is going after nat gas so nothing is green enough for some. If it doesn't spiral up I guess we will have those screaming about evil nat gas companies and how they don't pay enough taxes. Can't build roads and get Hillary and San Fran Nan's sprayer full of nat gas to cover their face up for press conferences either. lol
I'm all for using a mixture of sources to produce energy, you create electricity by oil when you are near oil, by gas when your near gas, and so on. To pretend that there is 1 best method is extremely childish.
That is what many fail to realize. I mean why not go get some shale and see if technology creates a better way to extract it with a company's private dollars? Or any other energy source. Folks act like it's all in for one thing. Wind energy is a good idea but is just too expensive right now same with solar. The goals of the current admin appear to make everything else go up in price so they can become competitive which is not the way to go. In the end who loses out? Apparently they don't care as long as somebody puts the word "green" on the title of their company.
Book is from 2010, and I even gave you the ISBN of it if you cared to do any research before embarassing yourself. Again, what book would YOU recommend to backup your highly inflated price? You're the one who asked me to grab a book, I own 40,000 of them, and growing. tell me what book you'd recommend. Backup your claim..
Oil shale, per price of barrel is effectively 75-95 dollars a barrel, depending on amounts of impurities in it.
Transportation fuel prices won't drop that dramatically if crude dropped below those levels, and shale and sand deposits will never be cheaper then that because of construction costs.
Show me one company that paid more in '09 than the 7.6 billion Exxon paid in "other" taxes. lol. You folks and your hatred of oil is beyond reason. You should be thanking them for providing such great living conditions and allowing the US to become the worlds superpower.
You scream about Exxon going overseas, pushed out by our very own government mind you, and everybody else gets a pass. You think if Exxon stayed here and payed all those taxes that would help the price of gas go down? No they pass on the taxes to the people like every other business.
Its not about the total amount they paid. Thats like Mitt Romney saying he paid more in taxes then me.
No doubt he did, but as a percentage of their incomes, its much smaller then what I pay in as a percentage of income.
Asking me to pay 30% income tax isn't fair if they are paying 15 or 0%, I think most people agree with that assertion.
Now, if they were paying 30%, I wouldn't complain at all. They'd still make an ass load more money then me, it doesn't encourage them to make the money I make, it encourages them to earn more.
That is what many fail to realize. I mean why not go get some shale and see if technology creates a better way to extract it with a company's private dollars? Or any other energy source. Folks act like it's all in for one thing. Wind energy is a good idea but is just too expensive right now same with solar. The goals of the current admin appear to make everything else go up in price so they can become competitive which is not the way to go. In the end who loses out? Apparently they don't care as long as somebody puts the word "green" on the title of their company.
It doesn't make sense to throw money at a problem that will still be there. Oil is a diminsihing resource, regardless of where it comes from. We have more natural gas reserves then we have oil shale deposits. So why not swap now? The future is in solar, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Humans energy demand is increasing, and will continue to increase. We need a renewable source, and as to date, no other renewable source has the potential that solar does.
Why not invest in the future, what you propose is to invest in the past. I'm not opposed to shale devleopment as a gap stop measure, and oil prices will likely never fall below 70 dollars a barrel again, ever. That makes shale viable. My argument with other posters here is the statement that shale will make oil so cheap that it will decrease transportation prices, this simply isn't true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25
What you say is true for now. I see T Boone Pickens gave up the wind farm game and is all in for nat gas now too. The thing is how long until fracking is deemed evil by the EPA and who knows what else they will do to make it harder to get and prices to rise? It is "green" for now according to the greenies. Of course the Sierra Club took a bunch of nat gas money and went after coal and now is going after nat gas so nothing is green enough for some. If it doesn't spiral up I guess we will have those screaming about evil nat gas companies and how they don't pay enough taxes. Can't build roads and get Hillary and San Fran Nan's sprayer full of nat gas to cover their face up for press conferences either. lol
Natural gas is the winner, along with coal. You'll get no argument from me there. They have longer term more viability then oil. We still will need oil for synthetics, lubricants, etc. Thats why I'm ok with shale development for those future needs. But for pure power, we need to move to natural gas and transition to renewable sources over a 30 year period.
I know the fraking argument, but its well below the water table, and isn't harmful to ground water supplies (despite faked documentaries).
I'm not a "greeny" as many are called, I want all sources exploited safely. But shale oil for transportation is just furthering an addiction we need to end.
Well see what investing in the future has done to wall street for one thing. Who says the future is solar energy? You? There are plenty of problems with that I'm sure you are aware of. Spain invested heavily into the "future" as you call it and it was a disaster. Nat gas is only green for now. I'm for all energy myself. Actually Obama caught a lot of flak for his statement on algae but that is a very viable alternative. Not now but in the future. My fear is he will just throw a bunch of money at it like the government has at solar and wind companies and expect it to work. Oil is king and the reason why we live such a comfortable lifestyle and are a world power. Many feel guilty for that for some reason. Any wonder our economy is still in the tank? Our economic plans are too tied to a green energy industry that is not viable yet and who knows when it will be. A roaring economy needs energy. This is something the folks in asia understand and we did at one time.
Its not about the total amount they paid. Thats like Mitt Romney saying he paid more in taxes then me.
No doubt he did, but as a percentage of their incomes, its much smaller then what I pay in as a percentage of income.
Asking me to pay 30% income tax isn't fair if they are paying 15 or 0%, I think most people agree with that assertion.
Now, if they were paying 30%, I wouldn't complain at all. They'd still make an ass load more money then me, it doesn't encourage them to make the money I make, it encourages them to earn more.
If it's not about the amount they paid then what is it about? What is enough in your eyes? Like I said WE the consumer end up paying the taxes in the end that are hoisted upon business.
You wouldnt pay more money for food, most of the food doesnt come from that region, and the price of gas would drop so low, that transportation costs would probably drop dramatically
....and those are high sulfur oils, so gasoline prices will not be dropping.
The reason you are exporting gasoline made from West Texas Sour, East Texas Sour, Louisiana Sour, etc etc etc, is because they are high sulfur and cost way too much to reduce the sulfur to 30 ppm (under Tier 2 Standards).
The cost to reduce to 10 ppm under Tier 3 will be even greater.
Quote:
We, the undersigned state environmental leaders, write to urge you to expeditiously propose the Tier 3 motor vehicle and low sulfur gasoline standards and to finalize that rule in 2012.
That's from January 25 of this year. I know the EPA has proposed the rule, I just don't know when it will go into effect.
Quote:
EPA’s Tier III rules to cut sulfur content from 30 to 10 parts per million would add $2.4 billion in annual compliance costs that would result in that per-gallon manufacturing cost increase, according to the American Petroleum Institute, citing a new report
In 2011, the United States consumed about 134 billion gallons (or 3.19 billion barrels1) of gasoline, a daily average of about 367.08 million gallons (8.74 million barrels). This was about 6% less than the record high of about 142.38 billion gallons (or 3.39 billion barrels) consumed in 2007.
So the US 134 Billion gallons per year, the increased compliance costs come to $2.4 Billion per year, that would be...
$0.02/gallon increase....in theory.
My concern is the slight bottle-neck which will reduce production just enough to drive up the price maybe $0.10-$0.12 more on top of that.
Then there's the issue of what percentage of gasoline is made from low sulfur oils (which might not even need sulfur redux) and what percentage from high or at least higher sulfur oils (like light or intermediate grade oils on the cusp at 0.5%).
If it's not about the amount they paid then what is it about? What is enough in your eyes? Like I said WE the consumer end up paying the taxes in the end that are hoisted upon business.
Taxes aren't about dollar amount, its about percentages.
If they paid the company paid the same income tax rate as me, I'd have no problem with it. The fact that they make more money then me entails that they then will pay more money then me. But the dollar amount is not the driving factor, its the percentage.
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.
