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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (9412)	9/18/2006 6:52:24 PM
From: A.J. Mullen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217620

Honolulu? That doesn't seem to be your sort of place. Stopover on your way home? I think we're pretty close to Hubberts(?) peak. No big new fields. New finds tend to be smaller and more expensive which suggests the lowest hanging fruit has been taken. Oil might drop back, but not to $40 a barrel, which might be where it was when last we spoke about this. I do take your point that as oil goes up, non-carbon based energy becomes more attractive. Methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas than C02. Hopefully that will be burned usefully rather than simply vented as a byproduct of coal or heavy oil production. I'm hopeful that C02 will be sequestered - pumped back into the void created by oil extraction, thereby enhancing extraction of oil -as I'm sure you know. There's a nice synergy. A good thing about oilsands (and gas to oil) is that much of the extra Co2 is produced at the point of extraction, so it's available for sequestration. Ashley

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (9412)	9/18/2006 9:58:31 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217620

The crude stock, whether heavy of light, is not relevant to the CO2 emission produced. Because the controlling factor is the refined product which is combusted. To refine heavy crude oil, which has many carbons and few hydrogens, refiners like Chevron mix the heavy crude with natural gas, which has many hydrogens and few carbons. The resulting refined product has a nearly constant ratio of carbon to hydrogen regardless of the original crude oil used. In contrast, burning coal will create more CO2 per BTU produced as essentially all of the energy is coming from carbon combustion with virtually no energy derived from hydrogen combustion. Water can be used as a hydrogen donor, instead of natural gas, but this process requires more energy. I suspect that using water as a hydrogen donor would create more CO2 emissions in total due to the extra energy required. .