bindlepete

Why Exxon Should Significantly Increase its Dividend

Is Exxon playing a game of low dividend =low stock price = more shares bought into their treasury? Is this manipulation? Is this good business and if so for whom? Management and their personal holdings until they decide to bump it and get out?

Energy Secretary Chu Wimps Out Again

Chew is out to Lunch . Natural Gas to Methanol methanol to M-85 or a bridge fuel and get the Mag Lev inter city trains running. The Combine d cycle gas turbines are by far the cleanest and most efficient electric systems and have the advantage of low capital cost

The cap and trade give away is nothing more than a direct subsidy to the Utilities and the Insurance Industry that holds their LT bonds.

The micky mouse dancing with the auto and petroleum industry should have ended with Carter. Damn shame but this is our last chance I fear.

The Pickens Plan Changes Its Strategy

Jeff:

The issue of natural gas as a feedstock for replacement of liquid fuels takes me to the direct use of methanol ( partially oxidized methane).

The DISC engine championed by Texaco and UPS in the last energy crunch can handle nearly pure methanol as can the idiotically small gas turbines such as the Capystone model with very high efficiency.

M-85 is my preferred fuel. Bank of America ran it's currier fleet on it for years with huge cuts in maintenance and emissions.

For non weight sensitive power ( rail roads and tow boats ) methanol run through a fuel cell makes sense. We are not out of options and a barrier against OPEC meddling is simple from a legislative viewpoint.


On Nov 17 10:22 AM Brahm wrote:

> The cylinder or space issues for CNG is not a significant issue in
> the case of CNG fired trucks.. The author's suggestions on liquid
> fuels, also advocated by many others and Mr. Pickens himself, is
> in my view a foolish intellectual contribution to the whole idea
> of global warming or energy independence due to the following reasons
> and others.
>
> Synthesis of liquid fuels (diesel) involves a thermal efficiency
> of about 50%. That means it takes about 2 MM BTU of CNG to produce
> one MM BTU of diesel! This chips off significantly the advasntage
> for a tacit objective of putting out less carbon to contain global
> warming. The author should not forget that rather than the volume
> of the tank it is the weight of the fuel and its BTU density which
> determines the overall performance (mpg) of the engine, if other
> issues such as engine burn characteristics, etc remain equivalent
> for the two fuels. BTU to BTU diesel is much more weighty than
> CNG!
>
> There is an economic dimension to the issues I have raised. The
> fuel material input costs, i.e. the cost of natural gas input for
> diesel, is double that of CNG as a direct firing fuel (low synthesis
> efficiency!). In other words, the present $6 per MM BTU CNG becomes
> a $12 per MMBTU input cost for diesel. Add to this plant capital,
> depreciation, interest on capital borrowed, ROR, etc, you have $16
> per MM BTU cost. Quite a lot more than $6 CNG!!! A massive shift
> to the use of this kind of diesel will roil gas markets, bring gas
> supply concerns, etc, etc and etc. MY guess is there would be no
> advantage vis-a-vis oil, especially if OPEC or other oil intersts
> turn themselves as upsetters of the apple-cart. Competition!!!

>
>
> There are other profound issues which I will leave you, MR. Pickens
> and others to think and browse about. But there are there. Without
> good thinking we may go down a sticky wcket again. Please! Us,
> little people, and OBAMA does not need another mess on our hands
> through shoddy thinking and slickness. Please continue the good
> work with my blessings! And, if you have the energy to do it check
> it out with me. I am "retired", though, but would not mind giving
> my inputs