On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:10:20 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

mergatroid prattled:

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:03:32 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:
There is only one other reasonable alternative to liquids and that is
CTL. So, when do we start?
Ask Schweitzer:
He has been talking for years.


So?

Infrastructure alone, in this country,
will likely top $100 billion per mb/d.

Do prove that please.

Operating cost, you can get a
good number by looking a Sasol's books.

Have you?

http://sasol.investoreports.com/sasol_ar_2007/downloads/sasol_ar_2007.pdf

What is the sustainability of
mining coal for 1, 2, 5 mb/d? And, when do we start? And I don't mean
start talking about it.

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Sasol_(SSL)

Sasol's process of making oil from coal or natural gas costs more per
barrel than traditional oil extraction technologies. It costs Sasol
$30-40 per barrel of oil, compared to costs as low as $10-$15 to
extract oil in Saudi Arabia. As a result, Sasol's method of producing
oil is profitable only when oil prices are high.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/09/sasol_scouting_.html

Executives from Sasol, the South African energy company and the
world’s largest producer of synthetic fuels, are visiting Montana this
weekend as they scout for potential sites for a $5-billion
Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) plant, according to Congressman Denny Rehberg
(R-MT). Other potential locations include Wyoming, Illinois and
Alaska.

Sasol’s major focus is Gas-to-Liquids (GTL), and it is currently
building major GTL facilities (Oryx in Qatar and Escravos in Nigeria)
with plans to produce 540,000 barrels a day of synthetic fuels and
chemicals by 2014.

On Mar 25, 10:33 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Mar 26, 4:12 pm, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 25, 7:50 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 26, 11:12 am, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com
wrote:

If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the
possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called
"environmental lobby" for opposing it. See all the pertinent and
laughable facts at ...

some snakeoil site

It took you a while, but you finally got to the top of your agenda --
the global polluters cartel agenda. Let's vandalise the arctic
wilderness to people can drive their guzzling outsized cars more
cheaply.

How many cartpoolers do you drag behind your ox?

What's a cartpooler? I have no ox.

They make great hamburger. Sorry that you'll never know that - and
thankfully you won't hold it against me - because fortunately you have
no ox to grind.

You've taken a position against exploration for new oil. I was asking
you how you get to work that is petroleum free. An ox cart is one of
the few options and the riders you pick up to share the ride wouldn't
be "carpoolers" they'd be "cartpoolers."

Ha ... 'biofuel hoax' indeed!

Maybe we can ferment tundra?

In depends on what you mean by 'tundra'. How is this relevant anyway?

Tundra is composed of shrubs, grasses, moss and lichens. It's probably
not a good source for biofuels but it is organic and Alaska's tundra
region is larger than most countries. Wouldn't it be ironic if it were
a viable source for biofuel? Instead of a postage stamp sized scar in
the earth it would be 800K square kilometers.

Do you think if you put yourself in a brown paperbag and set yourself
on the window sill for a couple days Socratic Method will blossom on
you?

mergatroid wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:41:22 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

mergatroid wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:57:54 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

Yer Pal Al wrote:
On Mar 26, 10:54 am, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
calderh...@yahoo.com wrote:
If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the
possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called
"environmental lobby" for opposing it. See all the pertinent and
laughable facts at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/ANWR.html- with pictures, maps, and
info links
--- pasted below----
The costly symbolism of ANWR
The United States is in serious energy crisis today, in part because
of the triumph of symbolism over substance in the United States
Congress. Our political pundits have elevated the 19.6 million acre
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR ...
What kind of 'fact' is this? ANWR will make little difference in the
bigger picture. Reserves are estimated at 100 days of world demand. If
the 'average American citizen' were to bother to understand our
condition, they would see that this haggling over ANWR is meaningless.
If this were true, why would the oil companies bother? If you haven't
noticed, these guys know how to make money.
If 10 billion barrels, that's a trillion bucks. Your, 'If this were
true', makes no sense.

Including private lands, there are between 15.6 and 42.3 billion
barrels of oil in the 1002 area. At our current consumption that 10%
of our supply for the next 21 to 58 years.
I don't see a cite. Where do you get this number? Consensus is more like
10 billion barrels from what I read.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm

The current assessment shows an overall increase in estimated in-place
oil resource when compared to the 1987 assessment. Ranges are 11.6 to
31.5 BBO versus 4.8 to 29.4 BBO, (95- and 5-percent probabilities) and
mean values are 20.7 BBO versus 13.8 BBO (current assessment compared
to 1987 assessment). The increase results in large part from improved
resolution of reprocessed seismic data, which allowed the
identification of many more potential petroleum accumulations in parts
of the area, and analog information provided by recent nearby oil
discoveries.
Did you read it?

You asked where he got the number from, now you know.

First, his numbers don't match your numbers. So how do you know he got
them there?

Second, they are the _wrong_ numbers. The mean is 7.7bbo.

This is 'in-place' oil, not even technically
recoverable much less economically recoverable. Summary:

"Using a methodology similar to that used in previous USGS assessments
in the ANWR and the National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska, this study
estimates that the total quantity of technically recoverable oil in the
1002 area is 7.7 BBO (mean value), which is distributed among 10 plays."

Oil is fungible. 'Our use' has no meaning.
Imported ME oil is around 20%.
So what?

Time to pare that back.

When do we start?

Stop buying from OPEC members and start producing our own.

We don't have 'our own' to speak of.

Wrong:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/05/news/companies/chevron_gulf/index.htm

You have no idea:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/9/8/11274/83638

Look up there at the date. Last I read there have been great
disappointments in Gulf exploration.

The Saudis have been out bidding us
on jackups. There will be a very bad shortage of deep water rigs for a
very long time. The Saudis demanding deep water rigs, think about it...

The U.S. demands 21 mb/d.

We should have thought of fixing
this 30 years ago. Oh wait, we did. We just didn't act. Why is it any
different now that we are out of time?

We have plenty of coal, deal.

Address my post in the other part of this thread.

Yer Pal Al wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:03 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
Yer Pal Al wrote:

It's available in the ANWR and offshore. It's going to available long
past our grandchildren's lifetimes.
Peak oil is about capacity to produce, not that it will be produced.

If you want to decrease fossil fuel demand I'm wondering what is your
role is in decreasing demand?
Oil is peaking now. We are seeing serious demand destruction in Africa
today.

However, fossil fuels power the industry that will make alternative
fuels available. You can't expect industry to flourish if you cut its
legs out from under it. Industry flourishes when the prices of natural
resources are low. If the free market doesn't demand alternative fuels
the government can encourage their creation with tax incentives.
There is only one other reasonable alternative to liquids and that is
CTL. So, when do we start?

Whenever the market wants.

Read the hirsch report. Fixing this when the situation gets critical is
akin to closing the barn door after the horse gets out. Start looking at
the numbers. Markets are myopic and opportunistic. Markets don't 'fix'
things.

On Mar 27, 8:07 am, mergatroid <heav...@to.org> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:35:25 -0700 (PDT), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com
mumbled:





On Mar 27, 5:29 am, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:53 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

That's true.

You've taken a position against exploration for new oil. I was asking
you how you get to work that is petroleum free.

That's wrong on at least two counts.

1. I haven't 'taken a position against exploration for new oil'. I've
taken a position against messing with the Arctic wilderness.

Why? If you are concerned about the environment why not drill in the
middle of nowhere? Other alternatives in the US include offshore a few
kilometers from urban centers and fisheries.

Actually, it would be better to drill in places that are already
seriously trashed by drilling, or places where the damage could be
minimised.

New drilling pad technology drastically minimizes impacts.

http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/sectors/explore/newtechnology.cfm

Since the Prudhoe Bay field on the North Slope of Alaska was developed
in the mid-1970s, technological innovations have dramatically changed
the scope of operations. According to the U.S. Department of Energy,
if Prudhoe Bay was developed with today's technology, its footprint
would be 64% smaller, the drilling impact area would be 74% smaller,
roads would cover 58% less surface area, and operating facilities
would take 50% less space.

Ice Roads and Ice Drilling Pads
Directional/Horizontal Drilling
Coiled Tubing Drilling
3-D Seismic Technology
Grind-and-Inject Technology



That's all very well, but right now, the area is unspoiled, and in the
construction phase, it would certainly become spoiled.

Moreover, the
supporting infrastructure, the need for security etc would certainly
create a substantially greater impact than opening up new wells in
places that are already trashed.

2. Even if I had taken a position against exploration for new oil,
there'd be no logical contradiction between that position and fuelling
my car with fossil oil derived products.

Most people, and I assume this of you, resent petroleum because of
what it does to the environment. These people try to restrict it to
force a demand for alternative, environmentally friendly fuel sources.
It's incongruous and hypocritical to take this stance and then consume
fossil fuels which increase the demand for fossil fuels.

I disagree. A person who resents the damage caused by fossil-based
petroleum products but recognises that they are, for the moment,
integral to contemporary life can argue, as I do, that resort to them
should be moderated, that per capita usage, and ultimately, absolute
usage should steadily decline, and that policies making this likely
should be adopted. Since some important activities may for a time,
demand combustion of such fuels, it makes sense to put a premium price
on combusting the fuels, precisely to create a space for developing
alternatives. If the activities really are important, and there really
is no good alternative, then people will pay the charge, and if
not ...

It's not merely about what we do as individuals that counts, but what
we humans do in large numbers. My individual impact is trivial, but
add up all the impacts of all the individuals and you get a very large
number.

The greatest threat to the planet is not energy production, it's
energy consumption and THAT is directly a function of OVERPOPULATION.


It's both -- how much energy each person deamnds AND how many persons
there are.

I'm also for sharply reducing rates of population growth so
as to stabilise world population. I've had two children, and strongly
believe that that ought to be anyone's maximum.

(Again, note the
similarity in the argument. Overpopulation is bad, and yet I have two
children. I'm for moderation. Since in practice, not all people have
children or have two, if everyone who felt inclined to have children
made two their maximum, world population would decline over time.)

One
of the drivers of overpopulation is poverty, in part because the poor
see children as vital to the time when they are no longer able to work
and have no welfare system to fall back on, or can rent them out as
indentured labour and in part because high childhood morbidity
recommends high rates of reproduction so as not to be left without
adequate children to support you in your dotage, run farms etc. High
morbidity reflects poor water, poor health systems etc. So what one
has is a nasty feedback loop in which poverty produces the conditions
in which poverty will persist

It's also the case of course that in most poor countries, women have
very little say in reproductive rights, don't work outside the home
and so forth, and the daughters are often married off quite young.

So global equity is one of the keys in reducing population growth.

It might be my view that one
should use crude oil while it's available.

It's available in the ANWR and offshore. It's going to available long
past our grandchildren's lifetimes.

Doubtful. I've seen numbers from both sides of the spectrum.

Irrelevant, it has no military cost attached.

If it had been my view that everyone everywhere should stop combusting
fossil fuels immediately, then you'd be entitled to wonder how I was
going to fuel my car.

If you want to decrease fossil fuel demand I'm wondering what is your
role is in decreasing demand?

I limit the days on which I drive to work. I car pool. I consolidate
trips. I drive a comparatively fuel efficient car. I avoid short trips
where car usage isn't necessary, either walking or rding a bicycle.

Bully, have you also been careful not to replicate?


Again, it's not an all or nothing thing. One can be modest in one's
demands.

Of course, my view is that policies that foster
sharp downward pressure on demand for fossil fuels should be
instituted. This would almost certainly mean that the cost to the end
user per unit of fossil fuel energy would rise, and thus encourage
more careful consideration befoe using energy, and also make renewable
or non-fossil based energy sources more economically viable.

However, fossil fuels power the industry that will make alternative
fuels available. You can't expect industry to flourish if you cut its
legs out from under it. Industry flourishes when the prices of natural
resources are low. If the free market doesn't demand alternative fuels
the government can encourage their creation with tax incentives.

Hence my sarcastic comment: "Let's vandalise the arctic
wilderness to people can drive their guzzling outsized cars more
cheaply."

I get it, sarcasm is a second language to me.

An ox cart is one of
the few options and the riders you pick up to share the ride wouldn't
be "carpoolers" they'd be "cartpoolers."

If you think there are few options, you're egregiously underinformed.
Mass transit, especially powered by electricity is an excellent
option.

Don't be a dill. Australia, right? 80% of your electricity comes from
coal:http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf64.html

That's true, and I'm very much against coal-fired power, but ...

if everything runs on electricity, then the speed at which emissions
are reduced will be a function of the speed with which low footprint
generation is rolled out. Solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal,
biomass would all be good options. So would nuclear, but most people
in Australia don't favour it.

Typical pommie luddites...


On the right, many are simply worried by the effect on property
values.

I'll ask you again. Are you driving an ox cart or do you realize that
fossil fuels are necessary?

As I implied above, of course, for the moment, fossil fuels are
necessary ...

So too are PHEVs and PEVs.

Same thing. Fossil fuel plus electricty generated by fossil fuel.

See above

So is biodiesel from algae and
butanol from sugar cane or switchgrass.

Biofuel created using energy from fossil fuel.

Not in the case of algae biodiesel, or butanol, or in the case of
prairie grasses or waste biomass etc

Nuclear, wind, hydro and
geothermal are also possibilities. Effectively, 100% of Iceland's
stationary power comes from renewables.

How likely is that any worthwhile percentage of the world's population
will move to geothermic regions to take advantage of free energy?

Quite likely, because ground heat can supply much of the demand for
power at local level ...

snip

One good oil spill would be bigger than that.

Not on land. Familiarity with the ANWR would suggest the obvious that
the oil would be transported by pipeline.

Hmmm that footprint just got massively bigger.

Nope:

Yes ... see above

mergatroid wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:10:20 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

mergatroid prattled:

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:03:32 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:
There is only one other reasonable alternative to liquids and that is
CTL. So, when do we start?
Ask Schweitzer:
He has been talking for years.


So?

Infrastructure alone, in this country,
will likely top $100 billion per mb/d.

Do prove that please.

http://www.world-ctl2008.com/q_a.html#5

Operating cost, you can get a
good number by looking a Sasol's books.

Have you?

http://sasol.investoreports.com/sasol_ar_2007/downloads/sasol_ar_2007.pdf

???

What is the sustainability of
mining coal for 1, 2, 5 mb/d? And, when do we start? And I don't mean
start talking about it.

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Sasol_(SSL)

You didn't answer my question.

Sasol's process of making oil from coal or natural gas costs more per
barrel than traditional oil extraction technologies. It costs Sasol
$30-40 per barrel of oil, compared to costs as low as $10-$15 to
extract oil in Saudi Arabia. As a result, Sasol's method of producing
oil is profitable only when oil prices are high.

Before the last rig run in SA, they were producing for $1.50/bl. Press
releases are rarely accurate.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/09/sasol_scouting_.html

Executives from Sasol, the South African energy company and the
world’s largest producer of synthetic fuels, are visiting Montana this
weekend as they scout for potential sites for a $5-billion
Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) plant, according to Congressman Denny Rehberg
(R-MT). Other potential locations include Wyoming, Illinois and
Alaska.

Sasol’s major focus is Gas-to-Liquids (GTL), and it is currently
building major GTL facilities (Oryx in Qatar and Escravos in Nigeria)
with plans to produce 540,000 barrels a day of synthetic fuels and
chemicals by 2014.

$5 billion for .5 mb/d! What a bunch of smoke and mirrors. If they are
going to implement .5 mb/d of production in 4 years, they had better get
their butts in gear.

snip more just talk

Show me that they really have a plan to put .5 mb/d of production in
Montana by 2014.

I don't support Aussie coal mines

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:24:25 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

mergatroid wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:41:22 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

mergatroid wrote:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm

The current assessment shows an overall increase in estimated in-place
oil resource when compared to the 1987 assessment. Ranges are 11.6 to
31.5 BBO versus 4.8 to 29.4 BBO, (95- and 5-percent probabilities) and
mean values are 20.7 BBO versus 13.8 BBO (current assessment compared
to 1987 assessment). The increase results in large part from improved
resolution of reprocessed seismic data, which allowed the
identification of many more potential petroleum accumulations in parts
of the area, and analog information provided by recent nearby oil
discoveries.

Did you read it?

You asked where he got the number from, now you know.

First, his numbers don't match your numbers. So how do you know he got
them there?

Just a guess.

Second, they are the _wrong_ numbers. The mean is 7.7bbo.

That is still up for debate.

And will remain so until we begin production.

When do we start?

Now.

Stop buying from OPEC members and start producing our own.

We don't have 'our own' to speak of.

Wrong:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/05/news/companies/chevron_gulf/index.htm

You have no idea:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/9/8/11274/83638

Look up there at the date. Last I read there have been great
disappointments in Gulf exploration.

Got a cite?

The Saudis have been out bidding us
on jackups. There will be a very bad shortage of deep water rigs for a
very long time. The Saudis demanding deep water rigs, think about it...

http://www.actenum.com/News_deepwater_rig_shortage

The U.S. demands 21 mb/d.

Builds now are max'd.

We should have thought of fixing
this 30 years ago. Oh wait, we did. We just didn't act. Why is it any
different now that we are out of time?

We have plenty of coal, deal.

Address my post in the other part of this thread.

Huh?

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:10:40 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

mergatroid wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:10:20 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

What is the sustainability of
mining coal for 1, 2, 5 mb/d? And, when do we start? And I don't mean
start talking about it.
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Sasol_(SSL)
You didn't answer my question.

The coal reserves in Montana are vast, we have a long time to gobefore
it runs out:

http://www.billingsgazette.com/newdex.php?display=rednews/2005/08/02/build/state/25-coal-fuel.inc

"It would cost less that a $1 per gallon to make that diesel," he
said.

Sasol's process of making oil from coal or natural gas costs more per
barrel than traditional oil extraction technologies. It costs Sasol
$30-40 per barrel of oil, compared to costs as low as $10-$15 to
extract oil in Saudi Arabia. As a result, Sasol's method of producing
oil is profitable only when oil prices are high.

Before the last rig run in SA, they were producing for $1.50/bl. Press
releases are rarely accurate.

At sustained crude prices over $80/brl. we could economically make it
out of shale oil too.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/09/sasol_scouting_.html

Executives from Sasol, the South African energy company and the
world’s largest producer of synthetic fuels, are visiting Montana this
weekend as they scout for potential sites for a $5-billion
Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) plant, according to Congressman Denny Rehberg
(R-MT). Other potential locations include Wyoming, Illinois and
Alaska.

Sasol’s major focus is Gas-to-Liquids (GTL), and it is currently
building major GTL facilities (Oryx in Qatar and Escravos in Nigeria)
with plans to produce 540,000 barrels a day of synthetic fuels and
chemicals by 2014.

$5 billion for .5 mb/d! What a bunch of smoke and mirrors. If they are
going to implement .5 mb/d of production in 4 years, they had better get
their butts in gear.

Yes, so?

snip more just talk

Idiot.

Show me that they really have a plan to put .5 mb/d of production in
Montana by 2014.

I've shown you plenty, denial is your game - enjoy.

mergatroid prattled:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:24:25 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

mergatroid wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:41:22 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

mergatroid wrote:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm

The current assessment shows an overall increase in estimated in-place
oil resource when compared to the 1987 assessment. Ranges are 11.6 to
31.5 BBO versus 4.8 to 29.4 BBO, (95- and 5-percent probabilities) and
mean values are 20.7 BBO versus 13.8 BBO (current assessment compared
to 1987 assessment). The increase results in large part from improved
resolution of reprocessed seismic data, which allowed the
identification of many more potential petroleum accumulations in parts
of the area, and analog information provided by recent nearby oil
discoveries.

Did you read it?

You asked where he got the number from, now you know.

First, his numbers don't match your numbers. So how do you know he got
them there?

Just a guess.

Then why would you say, 'You asked where he got the number from, now you
know.'?

Second, they are the _wrong_ numbers. The mean is 7.7bbo.

That is still up for debate.

Take your debate up with the USGS.

And will remain so until we begin production.

Really!? The geologists are pretty good at what they do...

When do we start?

Now.

Cite?

Stop buying from OPEC members and start producing our own.

We don't have 'our own' to speak of.

Wrong:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/05/news/companies/chevron_gulf/index.htm

You have no idea:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/9/8/11274/83638

Look up there at the date. Last I read there have been great
disappointments in Gulf exploration.

Got a cite?

Nope, I read it a couple of weeks ago in a private group.

The Saudis have been out bidding us
on jackups. There will be a very bad shortage of deep water rigs for a
very long time. The Saudis demanding deep water rigs, think about it...

http://www.actenum.com/News_deepwater_rig_shortage

What is the importance of this press release?

The U.S. demands 21 mb/d.

Builds now are max'd.

Whatever that means...

We should have thought of fixing
this 30 years ago. Oh wait, we did. We just didn't act. Why is it any
different now that we are out of time?

We have plenty of coal, deal.

Address my post in the other part of this thread.

Huh?

Address my post in the other part of this thread.

mergatroid blathered:

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:10:40 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

mergatroid wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:10:20 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

What is the sustainability of
mining coal for 1, 2, 5 mb/d? And, when do we start? And I don't mean
start talking about it.
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Sasol_(SSL)
You didn't answer my question.

The coal reserves in Montana are vast, we have a long time to gobefore
it runs out:

http://www.billingsgazette.com/newdex.php?display=rednews/2005/08/02/build/state/25-coal-fuel.inc

You didn't asnwer my question.

"It would cost less that a $1 per gallon to make that diesel," he
said.

Gee, you would think smart money would be all over this.

Sasol's process of making oil from coal or natural gas costs more per
barrel than traditional oil extraction technologies. It costs Sasol
$30-40 per barrel of oil, compared to costs as low as $10-$15 to
extract oil in Saudi Arabia. As a result, Sasol's method of producing
oil is profitable only when oil prices are high.

Before the last rig run in SA, they were producing for $1.50/bl. Press
releases are rarely accurate.

At sustained crude prices over $80/brl. we could economically make it
out of shale oil too.

Show me a study with a reasonable ERoEI for kerogen.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/09/sasol_scouting_.html

Executives from Sasol, the South African energy company and the
world’s largest producer of synthetic fuels, are visiting Montana this
weekend as they scout for potential sites for a $5-billion
Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) plant, according to Congressman Denny Rehberg
(R-MT). Other potential locations include Wyoming, Illinois and
Alaska.

Sasol’s major focus is Gas-to-Liquids (GTL), and it is currently
building major GTL facilities (Oryx in Qatar and Escravos in Nigeria)
with plans to produce 540,000 barrels a day of synthetic fuels and
chemicals by 2014.

$5 billion for .5 mb/d! What a bunch of smoke and mirrors. If they are
going to implement .5 mb/d of production in 4 years, they had better get
their butts in gear.

Yes, so?

I don't see a plan, just talk.

snip more just talk

Idiot.

Ass hole.

Show me that they really have a plan to put .5 mb/d of production in
Montana by 2014.

I've shown you plenty, denial is your game - enjoy.

You have shown only talk. Talk about games.....

On Mar 27, 12:20 pm, mergatroid <heav...@to.org> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:00:52 -0700 (PDT), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com
mumbled:

I don't support Aussie coal mines

Luddite consistency...

I support uranium and thorium mines, which is hardly Luddite

Fran

mergatroid wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:57:54 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

Yer Pal Al wrote:
On Mar 26, 10:54 am, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
calderh...@yahoo.com wrote:
If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the
possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called
"environmental lobby" for opposing it. See all the pertinent and
laughable facts at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/ANWR.html- with pictures, maps, and
info links
--- pasted below----
The costly symbolism of ANWR
The United States is in serious energy crisis today, in part because
of the triumph of symbolism over substance in the United States
Congress. Our political pundits have elevated the 19.6 million acre
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR ...
What kind of 'fact' is this? ANWR will make little difference in the
bigger picture. Reserves are estimated at 100 days of world demand. If
the 'average American citizen' were to bother to understand our
condition, they would see that this haggling over ANWR is meaningless.
If this were true, why would the oil companies bother? If you haven't
noticed, these guys know how to make money.
If 10 billion barrels, that's a trillion bucks. Your, 'If this were
true', makes no sense.

Including private lands, there are between 15.6 and 42.3 billion
barrels of oil in the 1002 area. At our current consumption that 10%
of our supply for the next 21 to 58 years.
I don't see a cite. Where do you get this number? Consensus is more like
10 billion barrels from what I read.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm

The current assessment shows an overall increase in estimated in-place
oil resource when compared to the 1987 assessment. Ranges are 11.6 to
31.5 BBO versus 4.8 to 29.4 BBO, (95- and 5-percent probabilities) and
mean values are 20.7 BBO versus 13.8 BBO (current assessment compared
to 1987 assessment). The increase results in large part from improved
resolution of reprocessed seismic data, which allowed the
identification of many more potential petroleum accumulations in parts
of the area, and analog information provided by recent nearby oil
discoveries.

Did you read it? This is 'in-place' oil, not even technically
recoverable much less economically recoverable. Summary:

"Using a methodology similar to that used in previous USGS assessments
in the ANWR and the National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska, this study
estimates that the total quantity of technically recoverable oil in the
1002 area is 7.7 BBO (mean value), which is distributed among 10 plays."

Oil is fungible. 'Our use' has no meaning.

Imported ME oil is around 20%.

So what?

Stop buying from OPEC members and start producing our own.

We don't have 'our own' to speak of. We should have thought of fixing
this 30 years ago. Oh wait, we did. We just didn't act. Why is it any
different now that we are out of time?

How many years will it take for the horse to get out of the barn?

Yer Pal Al wrote:

How many years will it take for the horse to get out of the barn?

http://lakeweb.com/money/Hirsch.pdf

I won't do your math.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg