| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/24/2008 05:04:18 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by OPEC:
Conventional Resources
The global reserve/resource base can easily meet forecast demand growth for decades to come. Estimates of ultimately recoverable reserves (URR) have increased over time, with advancing technology, enhanced recovery and new reservoir development. For example, according to an established industry source, reserve growth from improved recovery alone in existing fields amounted to 175 billion barrels in 1995–2003; combined with new discoveries of 138 billion barrels, total reserve growth was therefore well above the cumulative production of 236 billion barrels for that period. Moreover, technology continues to blur the distinction between conventional and non-conventional oil, of which there is also abundance, as well as with other fossil fuels. We expect the world’s URR to continue to increase in the future. Therefore, the real issue is not reserve availability, but timely deliverability, and here enhanced cooperation and dialogue among all parties is essential to ensure security of demand, as well as security of supply.
*Resouses are Plentiful
|
Ok this is from OPEC.ORG - Again I ask, where is the shortage? |
I find hard to believe what OPEC says about anything. Perhaps the data they have shows that or maybe it is just propaganda. The fact remains that oil is not a renewable energy source and internal combustion engines are too inefficient. Either we need to make a gas engine more efficient or find another way...
Message edited by author 2008-06-24 17:21:51. |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 06:09:01 PM · #102 |
| All of yall should check out this week's Economist. The front page story is "The future of energy: It's closer than you think." There's a 14 page special report on it. I haven't finished reading everything yet, but so far I've found it really interesting and actually encouraging. Of course it's a "the market will solve everything" kind of explanation, but hey it makes a lot of sense. If you can't find a copy or don't feel like buying one, I'm sure your local library has a subscription. Check it out, I'd like to hear what yall think. |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 07:21:07 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by JessWest:
All of yall should check out this week's Economist. The front page story is "The future of energy: It's closer than you think." If you can't find a copy or don't feel like buying one, I'm sure your local library has a subscription. |
...or you could take a look online here and then here.
I think that these two links amount to the 14 pages in the current issue that you are referring to. |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 07:24:42 PM · #104 |
Who Is Gouging Whom?
//www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2007/20070323.html
"What does the average oil company make today on the sale of a gallon of gas? Ten cents.
The federal tax on gasoline, on the other hand, is nearly twice that. Then there's state gasoline taxes. (If you live in New York, for example, you're paying 68 cents a gallon in taxes.)
If Exxon is gouging us at ten cents a gallon, what exactly is the federal government doing to us at 18.4 cents a gallon?...................................................
And Exxon's profit margins are only 10.7%. Profit margins at Microsoft, on the other hand, are 26%. Perhaps we should pass a windfall profits tax on software companies."
Who Is Gouging Whom?
Originally posted by LoudDog:
It's pretty simple economics. The world demand for oil is going up, so the price goes up. The only way to lower the price is to lower the demand or increase the supply. Since bombing China isn't a good option and we can't seem to figure out how to cut our demand the only option is to increase the supply.
Do the big oil companys make too much? Maybe, maybe not. For the sake of argument lets say they have a 20% profit margin on gas and pocket about $1 for every gallon (that's probably higher then reality). If the government spanks them for making too much money and they cut their profit in half, now instead of paying $4.50 you are paying $4/gallon. Does that resolve the problem? |
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 07:33:19 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
"What does the average oil company make today on the sale of a gallon of gas? Ten cents. |
hahahahahaha!
That must have meant that three weeks ago they were losing money on each gallon of gas. I shudder to know how much they were losing a year ago!!! I'm reminded of the quote, "we lose money on every unit, but we make it up in volume".
Message edited by author 2008-06-24 19:34:53.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 07:36:08 PM · #106 |
Hey David, you turned off your Signature: WAKE UP and Boycott Venezuelan Owned Citgo
I would think it would be appropriate in this thread if any. BTW, I still refuse to buy from Citgo ever since the spouting of Chavez at the U.N. I almost ran out of gas one day looking for an alternative station.
Now, back to the thread |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 07:46:08 PM · #107 |
Check out this Wikinvest article on oil refining. You will see a table close to the bottom which shows that in 2004 at $1.85 the "refining cost and profits" of gas was about 18%. In 2005 with the price at $2.27 it was 19% which is pretty stable. If we assume the % is still the same and gas averages $4.00/gallon now, we're talking somwhere around $0.70 profit on a gallon, not a dime.
This totally forgets that oil companies like Exxon are also in the business of crude oil so they make a profit on the upstream as well.
Message edited by author 2008-06-24 19:47:21.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 09:02:47 PM · #108 |
Doc, a more up to date showing of similar numbers:
//tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gaspump.html
I doubt they are making $.70 profit per gallon.
And fact check's take on it:
//www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_government_really_make_more_in.html
Message edited by author 2008-06-24 21:03:25. |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 10:31:10 PM · #109 |
| * Art pops into the "DPC Think Tank" and smiles. If anyone can solve the world's energy crisis, it's DPC! * |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 10:41:20 PM · #110 |
Everyone should just buy one of these.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 10:46:20 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
Originally posted by JessWest:
All of yall should check out this week's Economist. The front page story is "The future of energy: It's closer than you think." If you can't find a copy or don't feel like buying one, I'm sure your local library has a subscription. |
...or you could take a look online here and then here.
I think that these two links amount to the 14 pages in the current issue that you are referring to. |
Yup that's it, though there are still seven or eight more pages in the magazine, these links get the main gist of it. Thanks for finding that :) |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 10:58:19 PM · #112 |
good reads and a bit more up to date. It sounds like fact check says the bottom is likely to be no lower than 8% (32 cents or three times the above quoted profit by David Ey) and could be much higher as companies vary and this is post-tax profit. |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 11:12:02 PM · #113 |
I just wanted to share my personal best for all today.
I filled up my tank, with a quarter tank already in the truck.
$65.87 for 14.34 gallons.
YAaaaaaaaYYYYYYY, my personal best. I beat out last weeks PB by a couple of cents.
WooooHOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
I can not wait for my next fill up. I am going to really try for another PB.
I think I will drive really erratic so that I can spend the gas I just filled up with, so that I can achieve my PB much quicker.
Come on....cheer me on.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 11:17:01 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Everyone should just buy one of these. |
"So we designed our motor to have efficiencies of 85 to 95 percent"
as opposed to IC engines
"Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of at most 37%" wiki
So yeah but, "2009MY Roadster base price: $109,000" it's not quite the everyman's car... ;-)
Message edited by author 2008-06-24 23:17:43. |
|
|
|
06/25/2008 10:53:34 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Everyone should just buy one of these. |
That should be the way of the future. Yes, the car now costs $109,000 but how many do you think they build a year? Put that technology into large scale production and the price should drop drastically. Not to mention that something like that is just the start, the future of that technology will be amazing. Ideas and products like that do render the IC engine obsolete but are cost prohibitive.
The technology is most likely out there to replace IC engines, someone just has to foot the bill to do that.
PS: It can charge from a normal outlet???? If the cost for that car comes down to a reasonable price level, put me in line to get one.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2008 11:24:30 AM · #116 |
This thread quickly deviated from the original post, about the video. I watched most of it last night, and you first think, "This guy is a quack." But, he sure was interesting to watch. And what if he is right?
Then I wonder, why are we spending trillions of dollars in Middle East wars to "stabilize" the region, if we have so much oil in our back yard? You'd think the government would "discover" this reserve and get the heck out of the Middle East.
-Chad |
|
|
|
06/25/2008 11:30:08 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
[quote=ryand] Everyone should just buy one of these. |
A rather nice innovation but I would truly like to know just how well an electric battery fares in cold weather before I jump on the bandwagon.
Another factor to consider is that charging the battery is not without its own impact on the environment. If I charged this from an electrical outlet from my home, I also have to consider the fact that some of the energy consumed emates from coal fired electrical plants.
Also, we must remember that we would need an infrastructure of facilities where one could recharge these wonderful little beasts. Perhaps to some 220 miles seems like a lot, but on a lot of occasions, I could drive that distance in several different directions and still not come across any semblance of civilization.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/25/2008 12:38:35 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
A rather nice innovation but I would truly like to know just how well an electric battery fares in cold weather before I jump on the bandwagon.
Another factor to consider is that charging the battery is not without its own impact on the environment. If I charged this from an electrical outlet from my home, I also have to consider the fact that some of the energy consumed emates from coal fired electrical plants.
Also, we must remember that we would need an infrastructure of facilities where one could recharge these wonderful little beasts. Perhaps to some 220 miles seems like a lot, but on a lot of occasions, I could drive that distance in several different directions and still not come across any semblance of civilization. |
I do agree with what you're saying. But as cleaner sources of power generation come into the mainstream, this is where I think technology will go. The infrastructure is already, to some extent, already in place. They can charge off of your home outlet. Now granted if 100,000 people in California decide to plug their car in all at the same time when they get home from work...well, you can draw your own conclusions from that. So that would be something to consider. As far as driving in the cold goes, it probably won't go 225 miles on a charge in cold weather unless there's something there to keep the battery stack warm.
I also bet that the range could be improved if all the extra gizmos are removed from the car (nav system, bluetooth phone, 7 speaker sound system, sat radio, etc....). I also think that this type of car would be more suited to inner city and metro area driving where you could "fill up" the car readily if you needed to rather than out in the rural areas where...well, you couldn't.
Edit to add: I found a website that says the cold weather performance won't be affected as much because of the natural heating of the batteries while they are in use. Not sure how true this would be though...
Message edited by author 2008-06-25 12:49:09.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2008 01:02:39 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Who Is Gouging Whom?
//www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2007/20070323.html
"What does the average oil company make today on the sale of a gallon of gas? Ten cents.
The federal tax on gasoline, on the other hand, is nearly twice that. Then there's state gasoline taxes. (If you live in New York, for example, you're paying 68 cents a gallon in taxes.)
If Exxon is gouging us at ten cents a gallon, what exactly is the federal government doing to us at 18.4 cents a gallon?...................................................
And Exxon's profit margins are only 10.7%. Profit margins at Microsoft, on the other hand, are 26%. Perhaps we should pass a windfall profits tax on software companies."
Who Is Gouging Whom?
Originally posted by LoudDog:
It's pretty simple economics. The world demand for oil is going up, so the price goes up. The only way to lower the price is to lower the demand or increase the supply. Since bombing China isn't a good option and we can't seem to figure out how to cut our demand the only option is to increase the supply.
Do the big oil companys make too much? Maybe, maybe not. For the sake of argument lets say they have a 20% profit margin on gas and pocket about $1 for every gallon (that's probably higher then reality). If the government spanks them for making too much money and they cut their profit in half, now instead of paying $4.50 you are paying $4/gallon. Does that resolve the problem? |
|
I just wonder ... who gets the profit from the 69% of the crude ??? |
|
|
|
06/25/2008 01:14:24 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by cpurser:
This thread quickly deviated from the original post, about the video. I watched most of it last night, and you first think, "This guy is a quack." But, he sure was interesting to watch. And what if he is right?
Then I wonder, why are we spending trillions of dollars in Middle East wars to "stabilize" the region, if we have so much oil in our back yard? You'd think the government would "discover" this reserve and get the heck out of the Middle East.
-Chad |
Its all a government plot, they want to drain the middle east of oil so that in 50 or 60 years mid east economies collapse and they have to come crawling back to the US for aid. Therefore, by costing American taxpayers billions in costs to stabilize the middle east now, they can cost American taxpayers billions in the future in foreign aid. Those politicians are clever people. The flaw with this theory, a number of the mid east states are using the massive incomes from oil wealth to take their economic base away from oil.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2008 01:56:21 PM · #121 |
Oil is trading at $138 a barrel right now. We could top $140 today. The record set on June 16 was $139! Get gas today before it goes up another $.10 a gallon.
:-(
" Algerian Energy Minister Chakib Khelil, who serves as president of OPEC, said oil prices could jump as high as $150 to $170 dollars a barrel this summer, according to reports." Story Here
Message edited by author 2008-06-26 14:00:39. |
|
|
|
06/26/2008 04:49:05 PM · #122 |
"Light, sweet crude crossed the $140 level minutes before the New York Mercantile Exchange closed Thursday, then retreated slightly to settle up $5.09 at a record $139.64. In after-hours electronic trading, prices rose as high as a record $140.39." Story Here
Yup going broke to fill the tank... |
|
|
|
06/27/2008 11:47:40 AM · #123 |
| "At 11;14 a.m. ET, light, sweet crude was up 70 cents to $140.34 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The front-month contract had hit an all-time high of $142.26 in electronic trading earlier." Story |
|
|
|
06/27/2008 12:16:13 PM · #124 |
| Drilling for domestic oil, offshore, in ANWR or otherwise is not a short term solution. People seem to have this idea that it's simply a matter of a few weeks to set up an oil rig, anywhere, drill down and start sucking out oil. The reality is that if the oil companies were given the green light today it would be a decade or more before that oil would be gasoline for your car. Even then, the volume of oil produced by tapping into those areas is, by most reliable accounts, hardly enough to make even the smallest dent in the global market. |
|
|
|
06/27/2008 12:34:24 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Drilling for domestic oil, offshore, in ANWR or otherwise is not a short term solution. People seem to have this idea that it's simply a matter of a few weeks to set up an oil rig, anywhere, drill down and start sucking out oil. The reality is that if the oil companies were given the green light today it would be a decade or more before that oil would be gasoline for your car. Even then, the volume of oil produced by tapping into those areas is, by most reliable accounts, hardly enough to make even the smallest dent in the global market. |
7-10 years from discovery to production is just about right, so it is not a short-term solution. You are also correct about making a dent in the global market, but it would make significant changes in US supply, which would then have ramifications to OPEC. I have no doubt that most, if not all of discoveries in OCS and ANWR would be provisioned to remain in the US market.
But still, we're going to need energy from every source we can develop, including fossils, unconventionals and renewables. |
|
