Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (913)	2/8/2004 4:00:14 PM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"Once oil reaches about $100 a barrel" You think this is a good thing? No hardships created by this? ..."the oil revenue will be used for rebuilding Iraq..." Securing oil and oil revenue are 2 entirely different things. Petroleum News Calgary Correspondent The think-big approach that has ruled development of Alberta’s oil sands over three decades is getting shrunk. Instead of the multi-billion-dollar schemes that have dominated exploitation of a 180 billion barrel resource, operators are finding greater virtue in phased developments as they wrestle with out-of-control costs. Shell Canada, Petro-Canada, Canadian Natural Resources, Husky Energy and Nexen have all identified project scale as an important piece of the budget puzzle. For Shell Canada the search for an alternative follows a harsh lesson. Its Athabasca scheme, which came on stream in January, was originally budgeted at C$3.8 billion. The final price tag was C$5.7 billion, reflecting delays, a critical shortage of qualified workers and runaway overtime. Neil Carmata, Shell Canada’s vice president of oil sands, offers a blunt assessment. “If there’s going to be another oil sands megaproject we have to break the back of the (cost overrun) problem,” he said. In fact, he told a May investment conference that soaring costs represent a far greater threat to the oil sands than the restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions contained in the Kyoto Accord, which a few months ago was seen by some as the death-knell of projects. With Athabasca as a constant reminder of what can go wrong — Carmata describes it as a “C$6 billion education” — the oil sands sector is faced with a possible scaling back of plans. Almost half of projects could be scrapped Calgary-based investment dealer FirstEnergy Capital in a new report estimates that C$23 billion of the C$50 billion in projects now on the drawing boards could be scrapped in the next five years. The slowdown has already started, with TrueNorth Energy shelving a C$3.5 billion proposal and Petro-Canada calling a time-out to rethink its C$5.8 billion oil sands strategy. Soaring capital costs are the overriding concern. But other uncertainties loom, ranging from the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to comply with the Kyoto Protocol; the market outlook for bitumen and synthetic crude; the availability of export pipelines to the United States; the need to find alternatives to natural gas as a fuel source for oil sands processing; and a growing clamor from environmentalists to charge oil sands producers for the water they use. As for biomass, it's probably the most hopeful solution but entails a high degree of infrastructure: The energy yield is not high enough to make transportation over long distances economically viable. This favours localised conversion and use at the place of availability, and the establishment of local infrastructure. The commercial exploitation of energy crops to a large extent depends on political framework conditions. Energy crops compete with other agricultural land uses. Conversion of land to residential or industrial uses, extensive organic farming and nature conservation conflict with other land uses. Targeted measures are necessary to make the establishment of miscanthus attractive for farmers. Though recent years have brought rapid progress, there is still scope for improving biofuel exploitation methods. Highly efficient methods to generate electricity are biomass gasification and combustion in gas turbines and fuel cells, both of which, however, are still under development. An infrastructure of local biomass power-generators with all the initial investment this entails is needed to use energy crops efficiently. Biomass combustion can only be cost-effective if prices make it a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Conversion of miscanthus into energy competes with its use as a material, e.g. in building. Using biomass as a material could turn out to be more cost-effective and environmentally sensible than using it as an energy source. Wood waste competes with fuel-oriented biomass farming. The costs of installing pipe systems for below-ground irrigation and fertilisation have not yet been evaluated. Large-scale miscanthus farming changes the landscape. Evaluating the ecological risks of farming a non-indigenous plant in central European ecosystems requires a longer period of observation. Removing the roots to switch back from miscanthus to other crops is rather laborious. Potential Biomass currently makes up 3 percent of the total of primary energy used in the European Union, and only 1 percent in Germany. The EU commission estimates that by 2010, the share of biomass sources in renewable energies can increase to approx. 8.5 percent of the forecast total energy consumption in Europe. The share of energy crops in the primary energy demand is estimated at 1.7 percent. Their importance in the energy mix is expected to grow. As part of the EU programme for land set-aside, currently 6 million hectares have been taken out of food production and could be used for energy crops. Compared to other energy crops, miscanthus has obvious advantages. Its versatility promotes the development of breeding-, growing- and processing methods. New growth markets and job opportunities open up in economically weak areas.

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (913)	2/8/2004 4:04:27 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

Sure, they'll use the oil revenues to rebuild Iraq. But the US will be the preferential customer, and Bush-friendly US firms are the ones rebuilding Iraq, so a lot of that revenue comes right back to some of us. All the things you're saying about tar sands, biomass, etc. fall on the deaf ears of the Bush administration, a bunch of long time oilmen. I hope your projections come to pass, and cost those idiots fortunes.

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (913)	2/8/2004 5:22:52 PM
From: upanddown	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 173976

Once oil reaches about $100 a barrel, we will discover the huge amounts still underground in taxs and Pennsylvania. So we lose a few hundred soldiers a year, that is what they signed up for Not sure which of your above statements is dumber (it's a really hard choice) but the second one is definitely more offensive. Bill, you are not doing a thing to counteract the growing perception that Bush supporters are very dim bulbs. We are going to take this country back from the dimwits who hijacked it.