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.

Pastimes : Plastics to Oil - Pyrolysis and Secret Catalysts and Alterna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scion who wrote (53316)	6/18/2019 2:25:07 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 53574

U.S. Shale Oil And Natural Gas, Underestimated Its Whole Life Jude Clemente Contributor Energy an 13, 2019, 07:06pm I cover oil, gas, power, LNG markets, linking to human development. Many years have passed, and the reality is that shale production has surpassed all expectations They say predictions can never be 100%. History has proven otherwise: the shale naysayers have been wrong every time forbes.com I want to write on a recent piece in The Wall Street Journal, "Fracking’s Secret Problem—Oil Wells Aren’t Producing as Much as Forecast," that speaks of an 'illusory picture’ of prospects for the U.S. shale oil and gas industry. The article is based on the same rhetoric that we have been hearing since the industry's takeoff back in 2008: well decline rates are too fast and recoverable reserves are overstated, so a conveyor belt of drilling must be installed to simply maintain production. If not, output inevitably plummets. The WSJ story could just as easily been written a number of years ago. To illustrate, back in 2012, the now defunct peak oil website Oil Drum infamously compared the U.S. shale industry to the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, who quipped that "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place." Back on June 21, 2011, The New York Times ran a now forgotten piece also questioning the viability of shale: "Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush." Read the article for yourself, but it cited the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and a few geologists on their skepticism over the survival of the U.S. shale industry. To them, the bubble was about to burst. Many years have passed, and the reality is that shale production has surpassed all expectations namely through the constant advance of technologies and improvement of operations. For example, especially in the wake of the price collapse of 2014-2017, oil and gas companies have been forced to cut their breakeven costs to stay afloat. There were over 100 E&Ps that went belly-up during the period. Now, our shale producers have breakevens of just $50 to $55 per barrel, down from over $80 a few years back. The efficiency of the U.S. oil and gas business is now the best ever. We are producing more than we ever have, and shale has completely upended the conventional thought that domestic crude oil and gas production peaked in 1970 and 2005, respectively. Thriving so fast, our production growth for shale oil and gas has proven itself to be systematically underestimated by modeling entities around the world, the big banks included. Let us use the statistical arm of the U.S. Department of Energy, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), because its stats are publicly available. The Shale Revolution has been rising so quickly that EIA predictions for 5, 10, or 15 years down the road are being surpassed in a single year's time. At 11.7 million b/d of crude oil, we are now at production levels EIA's most recent Annual Energy Outlook (February 2018) predicted we would not see until 2030. An obliteration of a 17 year projection in less than 12 months. And the U.S. Department of the Interior believes that we could reach 14 million b/d by 2020. ... MORE forbes.com

To: scion who wrote (53316)	6/27/2019 8:29:37 AM
From: scion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

How did brushing your teeth become part of the plastics 'problem?' by: Clare Goldsberry Medical Sustainability, Consumer Products, Injection Molding, Materials June 20, 2019 plasticstoday.com I had to do a double-take when I saw the headline of an article in my daily online edition of National Geographic on June 14: “How your toothbrush became a part of the plastic crisis.” This is part of the yearlong Nat Geo effort to get us to commit to doing away with plastics in its “Planet or Plastic” campaign. According to the article, a billion toothbrushes will be thrown away in the United States this year, most of them plastic. So how did this become a problem? It seems that oral hygiene has become popular since plastic toothbrushes were developed in the 1930s, when DuPont first developed nylon bristles. For many years, only the wealthy cared about their teeth. The Smithsonian has a gold-plated toothbrush handle with animal-hair bristles that belonged to Napoleon Bonaparte. Common people, if they cared about their oral hygiene, used wooden-handled toothbrushes with hog bristles. In fact, you can still buy a toothbrush with hog bristles that come from the hide of hogs that have been slaughtered for meat. My bet is there’s not a vegan in the world who would touch one of those! Nieman Marcus sells them from a company in Italy, C.O. Bigelow, for $9 per brush. The handle looks plastic but the ad didn’t say what material it was made from. SmileCare sells adult, eco-friendly toothbrushes with biodegradable handles and 30 tufts in four rows of DuPont nylon bristles. That doesn’t exactly take care of the plastic “problem” when it comes to the bristles, and no mention was made of the biodegradable material that is used to make the handles. The toothbrushes are sold on Amazon for $30.99 for a pack of 48. There are also bamboo-handled toothbrushes, but the bristles' composition is not disclosed. Zero Waste Club sells the bamboo brushes for $5.50 each. The National Geographic article provides readers with a complete history of how the plastic toothbrush came to be, beginning with the Buddha, who “chewed sticks into fluffy-ended scrubbers to clean his teeth.” I suppose that would work even today. There are plenty of trees thanks to a warming planet. The Roman author Pliny the Elder suggested picking one’s teeth with a porcupine quill, noted the article. The Chinese supposedly came up with the idea of hog bristles set into bone or a wooden handle in the 1400s, said National Geographic, which became the forerunner of the modern toothbrush. Twentieth century wars promoted good oral hygiene as a way to maintain one’s teeth, even on the battlefield. The article laments that if everyone replaced their toothbrushes three times a year, as recommended, that would amount to about 23 billion toothbrushes that get trashed annually around the world. Let’s get real: Are wood-handled toothbrushes with hog bristles really any better than those with plastic handles and nylon bristles? I doubt it. Maybe we could start chewing sticks or quit brushing and use only wooden toothpicks. The real problem is that these articles address the smallest plastic products—drinking straws, stirrers, toothbrushes, plastic cutlery and so forth. Replacements for drinking straws include not only paper, but glass and steel! Yes, I saw an ad on Lonely Whale for glass drinking straws! I wonder what their liability insurance costs are just in case some child bites down on one of those and swallows glass! And steel straws? You’ve got to be kidding! Does anyone realize the tremendous amount of energy it takes to produce anything made of steel? And can you imagine what your drink would taste like? I don’t hear anyone complaining about all the plastic in their computers, TVs, mobile phones, automobiles, refrigerators, clothing, carpeting and other products that they use every day and couldn’t do without. If you really don’t like plastic, eliminate it from your life! Impossible, you say? Then you must acknowledge that plastic really is fantastic! Planet or plastic? We don’t have to choose—we can have both. We just need people to stop throwing their trash into the environment and giving plastic a bad name. plasticstoday.com