WayneS

Why Oil Is Not Safe for the Individual Investor

"Secondly, what Mike Riess calls Modern Market Manipulation "

This has been going on a lot longer than 2004. In the 1980's, an oil company used their own crude to make gasoline in their own refinery and sold this gasoline in their own gas stations for 10% cheaper than the other gas stations. The State fined this company $2 billion for tax evasion.

You Say Fossil Fuels, I Say Future Fuels

We did it back in the 70's. It was called coal gasification and coal liquification. I worked on a small portion. We converted CO2 and H2 to methane using reduced nickel as a catalyst.


On Dec 20 09:25 PM Tempo dulu wrote:

> We have more coal than any nation on earth. Why are we importing
> oil from the Middle East when we can as cheaply and more cleanly
> convert coal to liquid fuels?
>
> - therein lies the false assumption. Coal CANNOT cheaply be converted
> into a liquid fuel. If it could everyone would be doing it. Coal
> is dirty and black, hazardous to health and a nightmare for the environment.
> Alternative solutions - solar, etc - are a better option.

You Say Fossil Fuels, I Say Future Fuels

Bleep - "And as long as fossil fuels can be burned CO2 free then let them compete in the open market with alternative energy, nuclear, and whatever else." Talk about fair. Fossils fuels could be burned CO2 free, but it's been against the law in the US to do this since the 70's. I pay extra for inefficient fuel for my car. I have devises installed on my car to keep it from getting good fuel mileage. I have a catalytic converter whose job is to produce CO2.
Then, it is OK that 100's of acres of forest are being slashed and burned each second. The tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere each second are justified because they ain't gonna be fossils for millions of years. In a few years there will be renewable energy grown where the great CO2 sinks were.

"A regulated free market...isn't that what everyone wants? "
No, everyone wants to make a lot of money, now.

You Say Fossil Fuels, I Say Future Fuels

Bleep - Sorry, you lost me. Are you a Global Warming:
Believer?
Skeptic?
Denier?
Neutral?
Opportunist?

What a second, what was the original question?
What's the difference between Global Warming and Climate Change?
What does green, clean, organic, renewable, non-renewable mean?
What was the start and finish of that chart? Which controlled which? What if you substitute O2 for CO2? Why didn't it end where we are? I really want to know. I'm still waiting for real data, not people calling each other names.

Like you said, Does it matter whether CO2 comes from me breathing, that cow breathing, that BBQ grill, opening that cola bottle, driving to work, speeding for the hell of it, raining on the caliche road that leads to my house, the catalytic converter in my car, making peanut brittle?
Before we discuss climate change, maybe we should define the words we use or all will be meaningless.
I'm not laughing, no matter what anyone says.

Which Green Stocks Will Be the Last Standing?

"Why should China listen to the US on the environment.

We were happy to pollute like mad (see 1960s, 1970s) when it was convenient to our growth and now we dictate to India and China they should not do what we do? Are we that holier than thou? Its hypocritical."

When we polluted in the 60's and 70's, we were blocking the sun and impeding global warming. Maybe it is their turn to cool the Earth. Maybe it will counter our trying to melt glaciers. It was the 70's when the US government started the push to produce more CO2 and less particulates. We are still stuck in this mode while trying cut back with the other hand. What are we doing besides inventing means to make money out of nothing? There are no resources left on the Earth, so we make air a resource. The current situation reminds me of an old "Three Stooges" movie, but I can't remember the name. Can someone help?

Why ExxonMobil Took the Nat Gas Plunge Now

Congress will have to tiptoe. The particularly hazardous chemicals in frac fluid are called food preservatives in other industries. If they make the main ingredient (besides water) a hazardous chemical, we will have to go to special toilets after we eat corn or celery.
If they venture into the earthquake scenario, they will have to explain why, when the US government frac'd with nuclear bombs in Colorado, they did not produce earthquakes.


On Dec 17 02:18 AM T. Boone wrote:


> ps.... disclosure: I own a ton of xto-- sure hope Congress doesn't
> mess with this deal.

You Say Fossil Fuels, I Say Future Fuels

They are. They are selling them in Europe. I want the Jeep that gets 47 mpg


On Dec 18 01:41 PM Doug K wrote:


Why aren't our auto industries investing in diesel autos?

You Say Fossil Fuels, I Say Future Fuels

Going green is an impossibility. If 80 people walked 100 miles instead of riding a bus, they would produce more green house gases than the bus. Even if the bus was electric (especially).
GM has cars that get better mileage and lower emissions than foreign competitors. Watching ads for foreign cars, it is obvious they are trying to sell the car with the brightest lights, that can go 160 mph while letting you text, use your GPS and look at old pictures of your kids, listen to your favorite music, and as a bonus, be safety conscious by knowing where the police radars are located. Watch GM and foreign car ads before making a 30-year-old knee-jerk statement. PS: You and I are GM, so we are on a path of destruction if you are right.


On Dec 18 11:19 AM LaChic wrote:

> GM, continues towards the path of destruction and has not DONE a
> thing to go green, or to make smaller cars.

Unconventional Natural Gas: Just a 'FRAC' Away

They use the same stuff used to thicken pancake syrup. The frac fluid needs to be thick, cause high friction, carry heavy sand and then disappear. When I was using frac fluid in a laboratory situation, I had to use food preservative to keep the "bugs" from eating the frac fluid before I could use it. The food preservative was a particularly hazardous chemical I had to deal with. I don't know how cereal and cupcake makers deal with these poisons.

Gas companies spend a lot of time making sure their profit doesn't percolate up. There are down hole tools that can actually map out where the fractures are being made. i.e., if they just spent over a million dollars to drill and complete a gas well, do they want to lose gas to other formations and/or maybe lose the well?


On Oct 11 01:23 AM User 498683 wrote:

> What about methane rising through the cracked rock and contaminating
> groundwater? That appears to be what happened in a few places already.
> I don't think enough is known about the long term problems of this
> hydraulic hydrofracking technology. Also, I believe that the author
> is wrong when he states that they only use sand and water. Typically
> shale formations require the addition of toxic chemicals to the frac
> slurry as the characteristics of shale are quite different than sandstone;
> one can not use just sand and water.

Mind Over Matter: Oil / Coal Dependence vs. Alternative Energy

Lets revisit the "Tiger Mart" comment:

Where I am at now, I go to an Exxon station to refill propane. They charge me by the gallon. It usually comes out to $17 +/- $1. In the last place we lived, it cost $24 whether they put in 1 gallon or 7 gallons. If I go to a convenience store, I can get a container half the size of mine for $50. realityresearcher - you were just trash talking for the sake of trash talking, weren't you?

Climategate, Emissions and the Energy Market

I think I am leaning towards the cap and trade idea. This way someone else pays and someone else is at fault, not me.
If they have a carbon tax, I eat spaghetti and run a marathon, I owe a lot of taxes for polluting the Earth.

You Say Fossil Fuels, I Say Future Fuels

If we were trying to solve problems, we would tell everyone to become more energy efficient and quit wasting what we have. We are all here to make money by talking people into buying into a product or idea advantageous to us. If we can convince them that they are saving the world, so much the better. If we can get them to use more energy, so much the better. I know everyone will give me a -1 for this. That's what I get every time I bring up conservation. There's no money to be had in conservation.


On Dec 19 06:48 AM jaimemotta wrote:

> Better trust in engineers than in politics. They can resolve problems,
> polictics only take advantage of problems

ExxonMobil (XOM) says it could renege on its $30B takeover of XTO Energy (XTO) if lawmakers pass a bill restricting or outlawing hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"), a controversial drilling technique used to tap oil and gas fields. Critics say fracking chemicals can cause cancer and other serious illnesses, while the oil and gas industry insists the practice is well regulated and safe.

The syrup I used on my pancakes was made with frac fluid and sugar. Will all the food made with the same chemicals as frac fluid be outlawed? Playground sand has already been designated a particularly hazard chemical, but is only dangerous when allowed to dry.

Mind Over Matter: Oil / Coal Dependence vs. Alternative Energy

In my little world, I just visited some acreage I plan to retire on. My neighbor took a bulldozer to at least 20 acres of CO2 absorbing trees. These trees and thousands of acres of mesquite are going to be burned in the nearby powerplant that had been closed 10 years ago. More CO2. The State's effort is to remove all mesquite and juniper trees from an area larger than Pennsylvania. Water is precious here. So are jobs. If we declare oxygen a hazardous pollutant, maybe we can replace the mesquite with live oak.


On Dec 16 01:06 PM iggyDalrymple wrote:

> re Heinberg's mention of 'reforestation'.
>
> "The United States still has 70% of the forest land it had in pre-colonial
> times. The decline in U.S. forest land area stabilized shortly after
> 1900, following the end of widespread agricultural clearing, and
> has remained relatively constant since."
> www.hardwoodforest.org...;ID2=FAQ

Mind Over Matter: Oil / Coal Dependence vs. Alternative Energy

Too bad ExxonMobil sold all of their "Tiger Marts" and gas stations.
But then, gas stations have never made a profit selling fuel. Thank goodness for cigarettes and beer.


On Dec 16 02:28 PM realityresearcher wrote:

> John Petersen (up at the top) sees what is: NG to power vehicles
> as a transition step, Exxon is already moving in this direction by
> acquisition of XTO; why are they doing this?? Let's consider how
> convenient it would be in the future to stop at a Tiger Mart to re-pressurize
> your NG tank, and fill your reserve gasohol tank (at $10.00 per gallon!)...a
> couple of gallons "just in case"....NG has a potential energy in
> megajoules per kilogram of 52 vs. gasoline at 48, and Exxon has just
> acquired 45 trillion cubic feet of it, with more to come.