Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Peak Oil--A Myth?

Old 05-26-2008 | 09:41 AM
  #31  
Oldfreightdawg's Avatar
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
From: B-737
Default

Originally Posted by de727ups
Mod note:

APC does not allow discussions of a political or religious nature. One deleted post and a lot of grey area in this thread so far.
Didn't mean to start anything. It's amazing how far off track things get sometimes...
Reply
Old 05-26-2008 | 09:48 AM
  #32  
SmoothOnTop's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
From: retired
Default

Getting back on topic:

Gold had a ten year climb (to boom) then bust about two decades ago.

The dot com had about a 10 year cycle.

Real Estate as well.

Now oil, if we're 5 years into the cycle, we're half way thru.

Relax, try to live as clean as practical and wait it out...
Reply
Old 05-26-2008 | 01:12 PM
  #33  
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,317
Likes: 0
From: The Beginnings
Default

Originally Posted by 2cylinderdriver
The Bakken Oil Field
The Oil Find That Trumps Saudi's Biggest Oil Field
You know the old addage "If it sounds too good to be true . . . "

or

"A Sucker is born every minute"

The Bakken oil field might have some potential, but while not as energy intensive as the Canadian oil sands, it will be nowhere near as easy to extract as Saudi light sweet crude. Something like 2% of it is probably recoverable.


Personally, I'm all for processing it if it's cost effective and not environmentally destructive (both big "if's"). It's doubtful that this project will get the political support it will need to take place though.
Reply
Old 05-26-2008 | 01:56 PM
  #34  
JetPiedmont's Avatar
A moment please...
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
From: Just passin' thru
Default

Originally Posted by deltabound
...it will be nowhere near as easy to extract as Saudi light sweet crude...
That's another problem that has reared its ugly head in Saudi. The quality of the oil from the older, larger fields is becoming more "sour" or "heavier" as it's called, and less light and sweet as they extract from deeper down in the reserves, making it more difficult to refine the higher grades of petroleum later during the refining process. That's in addition to deceasing internal pressures in the oil caverns themselves, making extraction more difficult and costly.

That's why Nigeria, which is even more unstable politicly, is such a influence on the oil markets. Their "bonnie light" sweet crude is among the highest quality oil on the planet.
Reply
Old 05-26-2008 | 02:50 PM
  #35  
2cylinderdriver's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by deltabound
You know the old addage "If it sounds too good to be true . . . "

or

"A Sucker is born every minute"

The Bakken oil field might have some potential, but while not as energy intensive as the Canadian oil sands, it will be nowhere near as easy to extract as Saudi light sweet crude. Something like 2% of it is probably recoverable.


Personally, I'm all for processing it if it's cost effective and not environmentally destructive (both big "if's"). It's doubtful that this project will get the political support it will need to take place though.
The drilling in the Bakken is going on as we speak, the latest USGS Estimate is 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the formation. It is not invasive for the most part, but it is straining the water supply and local resources, housing etc.

While it remains to be seen what the true impact will be, they say oil above 50 supports the drilling within the Bakken. Google it, the boom is on. The oil companies can't drill fast enough. Some wells are pumping out 1000 barrels a day, with lots of natural gas as well.

It is very interesting how they recover the oil, using horizontal drilling and fracturing techniques.

Anything on our soil should be used to help our cause, within environmental reasoning. Even that may have to be weighed against the survival of the US economy !
Reply
Old 05-26-2008 | 05:31 PM
  #36  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Default

Anything on our soil should be used to help our cause, within environmental reasoning. Even that may have to be weighed against the survival of the US economy !
I agree.

I place a greater emphasis on our economic health than on the environment. I don't want to disregard our environment, but there comes a point when we have to accept economic damage as just a cost of doing business in a 21st century world. Drilling and refining may take a toll on the environment, but at what point do we draw the line between saving the environment or saving our economy.

I for one believe that we should drill anywhere we think ample oil may be extricated. People talk about "alternative energy" like it's just waiting for government approval. I think we should be discussing alternative sources of oil other than foreign countries. i.e., if we can extract it from Alaska, the Gulf and anywhere else, we should not let environmentalism stop us from getting it and using it.
Reply
Old 05-26-2008 | 07:37 PM
  #37  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
From: TJ Capt
Default Synthetic Jet Fuel

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...he-future.html

http://www.syntroleum.com/main.aspx

http://www.rentechinc.com/
Reply
Old 05-26-2008 | 08:06 PM
  #38  
StraightShooter's Avatar
Line Holder
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
From: Chief Pilots Office
Default

IRAQ supposively has 100 years of oil.

Its no surprise that McCain said "I am in favor of staying in Iraq for the next 100 years."

5 years ago there was a radio station near my house that passed out shirts at the mall that said "Kick their A$$ and take their GAS". I thought that was sick.

I don't think that radio station believed we were really there for " Iraqi Freedom"

BTW...didn't Richard Branson fly a 747 on bio-fuel??

SS
Reply
Old 05-26-2008 | 09:04 PM
  #39  
robthree's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
From: 777, sofa
Default

Originally Posted by Led Zep
I agree.

I place a greater emphasis on our economic health than on the environment.
They're not entirely separate entities. If we contaminate the water supply of say the Missouri river, the cost of cleaning it up has to be paid at some point. It might be deferrable, but it is not something we can ignore forever.

Some people don't care if a few Little Gray Birds, or varmints, or bugs get wiped out because we(humans) are sloppy with nasty stuff. But wildlife is our "Canary in a coalmine". If we're killing LGBs, then somebody's aunt Sally in Grand Forks is probably getting poisoned too. And if any cost is rising faster than oil, its got to be health care.

The difference is at $200 a barrel, its getting more economical to pay for the clean up, where as at $50 a barrel its obviously better to have never made the mess.
Reply
Old 05-26-2008 | 09:43 PM
  #40  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
From: 747 FO
Default

worldnetdaily isn't exactly a modicum of objectivity
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
HercDriver130
Regional
50
05-21-2008 07:33 AM
jet320
Major
116
05-16-2008 09:36 AM
atpcliff
Money Talk
8
05-01-2008 07:02 AM
JiffyLube
Major
42
01-03-2008 01:14 PM
Gordon C
Hangar Talk
0
09-14-2005 12:25 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices