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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: miraje who wrote (122683)	7/21/2009 5:20:13 PM
From: jrhana	Respond to of 206200

There are, of course, a lot of conflicting claims. I have also seen it claimed that where it is feasible, NG pipeline transportation is more economic than its conversion to some Synfuels type of liquid. The Synfuel type of liquid will also require its own infrastructure. With time I guess it will sort itself out.

To: miraje who wrote (122683)	7/21/2009 10:33:37 PM
From: axial	2 Recommendations Respond to of 206200

I think most people are aware of these technologies. The defining characteristic is cost per kilojoule or BTU. To properly calculate that, you must add all input costs: that includes discovery, transport, refining, handling, distribution, capital costs and so on. Also, output: NG, alcohol, and mixes just don't release as much energy as gasoline, diesel, kerosone, etc. In different markets, energy sources compete. What's competitive in one market may not be, in another. Realities change, often in less than a decade. Most here will recall the outlook for NG in the 90's was completely different than it is now: high prices and depletion were forecast. That outlook has reversed. There's also the energy sink, where the amount of energy you expend to get energy exceeds the amount you get back. At a certain price point, it's true that different forms of energy become "cost effective." But here's the reality: at a certain price point, increasing numbers of consumers just can't afford it. Period. Then you get demand destruction, just as we saw when crude hit $147. Transit systems suddenly became overloaded. Food costs soared - agricultural shipments from California went up over 20% to end-users. The price of plastics soared. WHO issued desperate pleas for help as millions starved in Africa. Rush hours disappeared, as people just stopped using their cars. They turned down the heat everywhere: at home, in offices. So you have to look very closely at claims. Yes, gas to liquid is an alternative. But when crude costs more than $200 per barrel, whole populations will be threatened by the cost of a kilojoule - no matter how they get it. Jim