Red Raider

Total Rating:
0 / 0

6 Comments

    • Tue Oct 14th 11:16 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      New Technology Makes Natural Gas a Viable Replacement for Oil
      The author's comments are generally correct, however, we are missing one important issue. Pipeline transmission infrastructure limits current NG sales. And NIMBY resistance is likely to limit pipeline construction.

      The benefit of LNG imports includes the backfeeding of transmission lines to improve their capacity to supply users at the ends of the line, such as those in New England. Pipeline limitations will also affect our ability to export Nat Gas.
      View article »
    • Wed Oct 8th 11:57 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      U.S. Automakers Can't Afford to Overlook Natural Gas Opportunities
      Obviously the technology is proven, NG vehicular fuel will be profitable, the bottom line (all in) economic choice is obvious.

      Invest in our infrastructure, spend our money at home, reduce fuel cost, create jobs, reduce carbon emissions and pollution. Why not?

      The feds will bail out the automakers for $25 billion. Why? Why not seed money for CNG?

      We need some politicians who are interested in the USA. What in the Hell is the matter with us?
      View article »
    • Fri Oct 3rd 11:01 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Pickens Explains His Plan
      Goodideirs comment is well taken. Pickens should be making money. Hopefully lots of it.

      Please note that Fred Banks is also correct. At best the availability of wind turbines is about 30%. Oversimply put, this means you need 10 to do the work of 3. Absent the very substantial federal subsidy the entire scheme will collapse. Of course we can all count on the politicians to continue the (enormous) tax rebate subsidy because the treasury can always print more money.

      Note: I am long CLNE and WPRT
      View article »
    • Tue Sep 16th 21:28 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      2 Hedges Against Global Oil Demand
      Long term oil and nat gas investor, in it for the long term. I support the author's view.
      Alternatives remain problematic, and rely on strong financial support from a government that can no longer afford it. e.g. wind at 20% of operating cost, ethanol, etc.
      Nat gas for vehicles is proven practical and economic but will require infrastructure build out and help from govt. to get it started.
      View article »
    • Thu Aug 7th 11:29 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Will Automakers Switch to Natural Gas?
      If one calculates the volume of nat gas required to replace up to 10 gallons of gasoline or deisel oil, it becomes evident that nat gas on board storage will require very large heavy high pressiure cylindrical tanks. The storage requirements will limit the range of most practical personal autos to about 100 to 150 miles. Mini cars may do a lot better, but personal comfort and space will be sacrificed.

      Nevertheless, CNG fueled vehicles may be suitable for commuting and short shopping trips. They can be refueled from personal residences by installing commercially available compressors and storage tanks already available from the market.
      View article »
    • Wed Jul 16th 10:49 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Implementing Pickens' Plan for Public Energy Policy
      Very insightful and well thought out. This plan, or something like it, would probably work well enough to save our future.
      Nevertheless, our US democracy does not respond to logic! Voter interest and support is needed to move politicians, and the voting public does not understand or care about this. They will support the politicians with the high sounding promise. They will not voluntarily support higher gas prices.
      How do we, and Boone Pickens convince the politicians that this plan would gain votes? How could we win the public support neccessary to make such a major change in the tax laws? Who will support the extreme (voluntary) increase in fuel prices?

      We do have plenty of oil, and we could (if needed) import experienced workers and rigs with ever higher wages. Company profits can be (and will be) applied to training workers as needed.

      The suggested changes presume that we will respond to logic and sound planning. In reality the economy and the business world respond to the market. To the extent that social planners and tax manipulaters mess with the free market they always screw it up.

      Maybe some politicians will try to be rational but most will respond to special interests and perceived voter interest.

      Good plan, but I doubt we can plan our way out of this mess.
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»