OPEC Decides Oil Is Too Cheap [Archive] - The Orange Mane

View Full Version : OPEC Decides Oil Is Too Cheap

Bronco_Beerslug

10-05-2006, 06:10 AM

Effective immediately, a production cut of a million barrels.
This right after oil finally went down under $60 (58 +).

Oil already has jumped back over $60 this AM in electronic futures trading on this news.

defenseman

10-05-2006, 06:11 AM

I am sick and tired of OPEC. We need to find a way to cut the damn ties.....dman

Hotrod

10-05-2006, 07:22 AM

Ya know Im starting to regret having two gas hogs in my garage.

5.9L 360
8.1L 492

Ugh

TailgateNut

10-05-2006, 07:26 AM

Ya know Im starting to regret having two gas hogs in my garage.

5.9L 360
8.1L 492

Ugh

Move to Boulder and get a Bicycle! :~ohyah!:

Crushaholic

10-05-2006, 10:09 AM

I'd like to think the trend is towards ethanol, but the conversion is going ENTIRELY...TOO...SLOW....

DBruleU

10-05-2006, 11:51 AM

Move to Boulder and get a Bicycle! :~ohyah!:

Or better yet a Prius. I see those damn things all over Boulder now.

freak6

10-05-2006, 12:09 PM

That's probably the most offensive avatar I've ever seen DBruleU, and the line underneath is pretty naive too. For so many reasons and on so many levels I have to say the hubris and audacity by some people is astounding.

Anyway, OPEC was making great profits per barrell, and with the price going down, they cut supply to increase the demand and drive the price up. I don't see anything wrong with that except it sucks for us.

Bush pushes small amounts of money % wise to try and find alternate sources for Oil, because he is a oil man, and they got him elected. All we can do is vote them out.

baja

10-05-2006, 12:13 PM

Or better yet a Prius. I see those damn things all over Boulder now.

CONCERNING YOUR AVATAR;

http://files.myopera.com/zenya/blog/crusades.jpg

DBruleU

10-05-2006, 12:18 PM

CONCERNING YOUR AVATAR;

http://files.myopera.com/zenya/blog/crusades.jpg

K

alkemical

10-05-2006, 12:34 PM

Wow knights templar.... ;)

enjolras

10-05-2006, 01:36 PM

Anyway, OPEC was making great profits per barrell, and with the price going down, they cut supply to increase the demand and drive the price up. I don't see anything wrong with that except it sucks for us.

I certainly see something wrong with it. OPEC is, by its very nature, a anti-capitilist organization. As a staunch free market capatilist having a anti-competitive collusive body that represents a VERY significant amount of oil on the planet, it sickens me. If you want to collapse a free market system, introduce artificial regulation on the very thing the rest of the market relies on.

That said: It's their oil and their right to do it, but we certainly shouldn't be playing nicely with OPEC countries. America should be FIXATED on eliminating (not reducing) our intake of foreign energy.

Bronco_Beerslug

10-05-2006, 01:42 PM

I certainly see something wrong with it. OPEC is, by its very nature, a anti-capitilist organization. As a staunch free market capatilist having a anti-competitive collusive body that represents a VERY significant amount of oil on the planet, it sickens me. If you want to collapse a free market system, introduce artificial regulation on the very thing the rest of the market relies on.

That said: It's their oil and their right to do it, but we certainly shouldn't be playing nicely with OPEC countries. America should be FIXATED on eliminating (not reducing) our intake of foreign energy.
Hopefully Democrats will take over the government because Republicans will NEVER do what it takes to become energy self sufficient.

Hotrod

10-05-2006, 01:43 PM

Um does Oil not back the dollar or some silly little thing like that???

yavoon

10-05-2006, 01:45 PM

Hotrod

10-05-2006, 01:49 PM

Yep some would say we will go to war to keep oil traded in dollars instead of euros (true or not I dont know). I cant imagine we actually want off oil....well we do as citizens but as a whole it would be harder then simply finding a new source. Its much deeper then that.

Bronco_Beerslug

10-05-2006, 01:50 PM

u do know our standard of living, including our welfare state is built off of energy sources like oil? we stop using oil, we have to cut severely into our welfare state, which is already funded mostly by borrowing money.
No we don't. We can create new industries in renewable and alternative energies and lead the world in this technology. Big oil and gas basically owns the Republican party so nothing will ever happen to as long as they are in control.

yavoon

10-05-2006, 01:52 PM

No we don't. We can create new industries in renewable and alternative energies and lead the world in this technology. Big oil and gas basically owns the Republican party so nothing will ever happen to as long as they are in control.

talking points instead of an answer. renewable and alternative are nice words but they dont address in any even remote way what I said. oil's bang for the buck, its versatility and its power have caused a HUGE increase in our standard of living, to leave it would require a big decrease, and this includes things like our ability to fund our welfare state.

Rohirrim

10-05-2006, 01:53 PM

Damn! We're living in a welfare state? And here I am, working my ass off since I was a kid. I guess I didn't get the memo.

Bronco_Beerslug

10-05-2006, 01:56 PM

talking points instead of an answer. renewable and alternative are nice words but they dont address in any even remote way what I said. oil's bang for the buck, its versatility and its power have caused a HUGE increase in our standard of living, to leave it would require a big decrease, and this includes things like our ability to fund our welfare state.
This is only a talking point because it can't happen with Republicans in control. Investing billions in incentives and subsidies for companies and consumers in renewable and alternative energies would create millions of jobs over time and do what has to be done in the process, cutting the hold terror has on us over oil.

yavoon

10-05-2006, 01:58 PM

Damn! We're living in a welfare state? And here I am, working my ass off since I was a kid. I guess I didn't get the memo.

I forget what it is but I think u have to earn like 75 000 a year to effectively pay for "ur share" of gov't. we live in a HUGE welfare state, just because u work doesn't mean u contribute enough value to justify all the things the gov't tries to do.

yavoon

10-05-2006, 01:59 PM

This is only a talking point because it can't happen with Republicans in control. Investing billions in incentives and subsidies for companies and consumers in renewable and alternative energies would create millions of jobs over time and do what has to be done in the process, cutting the hold terror has on us over oil.

gov't make work programs still have to get the actual money from efficient parts of the economy. this is a typical democratic logic though.

alkemical

10-05-2006, 02:00 PM

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html

Spray-On Solar-Power Cells Are True Breakthrough

Scientists have invented a plastic solar cell that can turn the sun's power into electrical energy, even on a cloudy day.

The plastic material uses nanotechnology and contains the first solar cells able to harness the sun's invisible, infrared rays. The breakthrough has led theorists to predict that plastic solar cells could one day become five times more efficient than current solar cell technology.

http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=45

Mercedes has a nano clearcoat for ding protection -

it's not far till i can paint my siding, car, shed, etc and get some "free" energy... (of course you have to 'wire it' but it's not that far off).

yavoon

10-05-2006, 02:02 PM

btw I'm not saying dont invest in alternative energies, I'm just saying we can't ditch oil and not pay a price. if u truly want to ditch oil, u have to figure out what part of ur standard of living, and the gov'ts welfare state u wish to giveup.

Crushaholic

10-05-2006, 02:05 PM

Lobbyists direct the most money to the party in charge (which, right now, is the Republicans). There's NO evidence that the Democrats will refuse that money if they were to take over control of the purse strings. We need to figure out a way to make alternative sources of energy profitable. That's the ONLY way we'll wean off our dependence of oil.

yavoon

10-05-2006, 02:12 PM

ethanol sucks:
http://www.slate.com/id/2122961/

The total subsidy per year is estimated at $1.49 billion for FY2005 and rising.

alkemical

10-05-2006, 02:15 PM

of course we could have abiotic oil and then if that's the case we have been getting 'punk'd'

yavoon

10-05-2006, 02:18 PM

of course we could have abiotic oil and then if that's the case we have been getting 'punk'd'

haha yah. well if anyone w/ money thought it was true they'd be drillin like mad for it. so I assume only ppl w/o money think its true. still I like the guy who is basically the champion of the idea, he's a clever dude.

Buffarino

10-05-2006, 02:27 PM

I'd like to think the trend is towards ethanol, but the conversion is going ENTIRELY...TOO...SLOW....

There is an absolute ton of money going into ethanol right now. Distribution is going to be the key, and it's going to take a while before the network is up. Give it 3-5 years and you should be able to buy ethanol at gas stations, IMO.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-05-2006, 02:27 PM

Buffarino

10-05-2006, 02:30 PM

Hopefully Democrats will take over the government because Republicans will NEVER do what it takes to become energy self sufficient.

Why is it up to the federal govt. to do that for us? Private industry is working overtime on alternative fuels. Free markets work and if alternatives are less expensive than gas, people will buy them. No need to have the govt. mandate it.

alkemical

10-05-2006, 02:34 PM

haha yah. well if anyone w/ money thought it was true they'd be drillin like mad for it. so I assume only ppl w/o money think its true. still I like the guy who is basically the champion of the idea, he's a clever dude.

Or maybe that's why those with money try to discredit it, eh?

yavoon

10-05-2006, 02:36 PM

Or maybe that's why those with money try to discredit it, eh?

haha, all it takes is one person w/ money. this isnt a democratic election here, there is no need for a majority.

yavoon

10-05-2006, 02:37 PM

Why is it up to the federal govt. to do that for us? Private industry is working overtime on alternative fuels. Free markets work and if alternatives are less expensive than gas, people will buy them. No need to have the govt. mandate it.

exactly, its more important to find the alternative energies that are economically efficient then to dump subsidies into things like ethanol.

alkemical

10-05-2006, 02:37 PM

haha, all it takes is one person w/ money. this isnt a democratic election here, there is no need for a majority.

But a group of people with money.... can make false things true ;)

yavoon

10-05-2006, 02:39 PM

But a group of people with money.... can make false things true ;)

have fun w/ ur conspiracy theories.

Buffarino

10-05-2006, 02:44 PM

exactly, its more important to find the alternative energies that are economically efficient then to dump subsidies into things like ethanol.

Agreed on ethanol subsidies. They need to make it work or not work on its own.

alkemical

10-05-2006, 03:06 PM

have fun w/ ur conspiracy theories.

I do.

have fun with hooked on phonics.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-05-2006, 03:10 PM

I do.

have fun with hooked on phonics.

:rofl:

bendog

10-05-2006, 03:50 PM

Anybody got a link to world demand? I found a site once, but too late tonite to look.

Crushaholic

10-05-2006, 03:56 PM

http://www.bartcop.com/tom-gasprices3.gif

That chart proves my point. The Republicans have been in control of Congress since 1994.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-05-2006, 04:01 PM

That chart proves my point. The Republicans have been in control of Congress since 1994.

The years between 1990 and 1994 don't support your argument.

Even before the rethugs controlled Congress, the contributions they were getting from Big Oil were WAY larger than those of the Dems.

Bronco_Beerslug

10-05-2006, 04:07 PM

Why is it up to the federal govt. to do that for us? Private industry is working overtime on alternative fuels. Free markets work and if alternatives are less expensive than gas, people will buy them. No need to have the govt. mandate it.
Uh, no it's not happening. The last energy package included 14 billion in subsidies for oil and gas, $587 million for alternative energy research.

And this is NOT a free market, it is an OIL and GAS market.

And why should the federal government do this? Because we could move away from ME oil in a matter of years not decades.

Spider

10-05-2006, 04:34 PM

haha, all it takes is one person w/ money. this isnt a democratic election here, there is no need for a majority.

you are full of Shít ....... Case in point look at the Tucker Torpedo ...... This is why I dont like you ásshole , you run your piehole and you dont have a clue as to what the real world is like ..... Can you even comprehend what it takes to get a drilling permit ? people to work the rig ? then refine it ? ....... you are 1 stupid bastard ......

Buffarino

10-05-2006, 04:43 PM

Uh, no it's not happening. The last energy package included 14 billion in subsidies for oil and gas, $587 million for alternative energy research.

And this is NOT a free market, it is an OIL and GAS market.

And why should the federal government do this? Because we could move away from ME oil in a matter of years not decades.

Uh, yeah, it is happening. Bill Gates has personally invested over $80 million in ethanol. The founder of Sun has invested about the same amount. The Rockefellers have invested over $100 million. Wall St. Money is pouring into alternative fuels in a big way. There's a lot of cash flowing into that sector right now.

I'm not talking about subsidies, I'm talking about investing in plants and companies that are developing alternative fuels. The govt. doesn't have to do everything, you know. The private sector can do an awful lot even without govt. subsidies...

Buffarino

10-05-2006, 04:51 PM

you are full of Shít ....... Case in point look at the Tucker Torpedo ...... This is why I dont like you ásshole , you run your piehole and you dont have a clue as to what the real world is like ..... Can you even comprehend what it takes to get a drilling permit ? people to work the rig ? then refine it ? ....... you are 1 stupid bastard ......

Can you even comprehend the resources some people have at their disposal? If one person saw an opportunity, took the risk, and made money with it (this part is key), others would follow. That is what he is saying. You don't need a majority, just someone with large resources who sees something others don't.

yavoon

10-05-2006, 04:53 PM

Bronco_Beerslug

10-05-2006, 07:20 PM

Uh, yeah, it is happening. Bill Gates has personally invested over $80 million in ethanol. The founder of Sun has invested about the same amount. The Rockefellers have invested over $100 million. Wall St. Money is pouring into alternative fuels in a big way. There's a lot of cash flowing into that sector right now.

I'm not talking about subsidies, I'm talking about investing in plants and companies that are developing alternative fuels. The govt. doesn't have to do everything, you know. The private sector can do an awful lot even without govt. subsidies...

No it's not. I just pointed out how the government subsidizes big oil and gas and you completely ignored it.

Imagine this for instance, instead of subsidizing oil and gas to the tune of billions and billions, how about offering consumers the those billions for buying and investing in clean energy, renewable energy and buying high mileage vehicles?

And think about this. Imagine what we could have done to advance renewable and alternative energies with the 1.5 trillion plus the Bush cartel threw in the incinerator in Iraq.

Spider

10-05-2006, 09:10 PM

Uh, yeah, it is happening. Bill Gates has personally invested over $80 million in ethanol. The founder of Sun has invested about the same amount. The Rockefellers have invested over $100 million. Wall St. Money is pouring into alternative fuels in a big way. There's a lot of cash flowing into that sector right now.

I'm not talking about subsidies, I'm talking about investing in plants and companies that are developing alternative fuels. The govt. doesn't have to do everything, you know. The private sector can do an awful lot even without govt. subsidies...

Ethanol wont happen for awhile ....... Sorry but that is how it goes , Right now the big 4 have Billions tied up and Thousands of workers , they will suck every well dry before they allow ethanol to be wide spread ........Love what Bill Gates is trying to do and what he is doing is the right thing ,but right now our economy wouldnt withstand the switch .......

Spider

10-05-2006, 09:13 PM

Let me put it like this , Anadarko is trying a new method of getting oil with Co2 gas , here is how it works , picture a 5 spot domino or a 5 card , now picture the center spot as your oil well , pump pressure co2 gas in it , the oil will come up through the other 4 spots , this will revive a dead vien ......

Spider

10-05-2006, 09:19 PM

Can you even comprehend the resources some people have at their disposal? If one person saw an opportunity, took the risk, and made money with it (this part is key), others would follow. That is what he is saying. You don't need a majority, just someone with large resources who sees something others don't.
Again full of **** ...... Drilling Permits for one , guess who controls them ?
Maybe in LaLa land you can set up and drill where ever you want , but in the real world it doesnt work that way ........
Now follow me here , a standard Rig cost over 4 million dollars including transportation to set up Before the cost of Permits , Workmans comp, tax, Royalties etc ...... Now comprehend that ......... Not to mention the cost of the eco study the EPA has to do to determine the impact the rig has on the eco system ......... Shooting fish in a barrel

Spider

10-05-2006, 09:23 PM

Love these basement dwellers that think they can just go anywhere set up a drilling rig for any kind of Natural resource .......... Now Buffarino , tell me what about the cost of bent pipe ? Transporting replacement pipe ?
Parts for your Drilling rig dont come cheap ... how abut the monitoring equipment ?
did you comprehend the cost of that ?
man camps , food , water , heat , Diesel fuel , transportation of Diesel fuel .....Yeah only takes 1 with money LOL ....goofy bastards
then tell me if 1 guy can make a profit Hilarious! oil works like everything else cupcake , operate by volume , money in #'s

Spider

10-05-2006, 09:27 PM

I wont get into what happens if you hit a low producing vein .......Yeild a low profit ......... then you have to refine the stuff .......

Buffarino

10-06-2006, 09:21 AM

Ethanol wont happen for awhile ....... Sorry but that is how it goes , Right now the big 4 have Billions tied up and Thousands of workers , they will suck every well dry before they allow ethanol to be wide spread ........Love what Bill Gates is trying to do and what he is doing is the right thing ,but right now our economy wouldnt withstand the switch .......

It doesn't have to be (nor will it be) a wholesale switch from one to the other. It will be ethanol being sold side by side with gas (and biodiesel sold next to regular diesel) at gas stations. Consumers with flex fuel vehicles will have the choice of buying either one for the same car. Diesel engines need no modifications to run high-grade biodiesel. It will not be a fast process, but the wheels are in motion as we speak. It is coming. I guarantee it. The oil companies, if they are smart, will be very much involved in it. I would bet they will be, too.

Gas won't go away, but all we really need to do in the short-term is reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Ethanol and biodiesel are 2 big steps in that direction. Long-term, we will need to replace oil, you'll get no argument from me on that. But we need to start somewhere.

Buffarino

10-06-2006, 09:25 AM

No it's not. I just pointed out how the government subsidizes big oil and gas and you completely ignored it.

Imagine this for instance, instead of subsidizing oil and gas to the tune of billions and billions, how about offering consumers the those billions for buying and investing in clean energy, renewable energy and buying high mileage vehicles?

And think about this. Imagine what we could have done to advance renewable and alternative energies with the 1.5 trillion plus the Bush cartel threw in the incinerator in Iraq.

There are (and have been for many years) HUGE subsidies on ethanol. There are also tax credits for buying hybrid vehicles. Do a little research before crowning yourself champ of the internet, OK?

But the point (that went clear over your head) is that the private sector is moving in a big way into alternative fuels. Moreso than ever before. It's coming whether the govt. subsidizes it or not. Why do you think govt. action is required to get something done?

Buffarino

10-06-2006, 09:31 AM

Again full of **** ...... Drilling Permits for one , guess who controls them ?
Maybe in LaLa land you can set up and drill where ever you want , but in the real world it doesnt work that way ........
Now follow me here , a standard Rig cost over 4 million dollars including transportation to set up Before the cost of Permits , Workmans comp, tax, Royalties etc ...... Now comprehend that ......... Not to mention the cost of the eco study the EPA has to do to determine the impact the rig has on the eco system ......... Shooting fish in a barrel

You have a very high opinion of your own opinion, don't you?

Many individuals in this country (a lot more than you know about) have hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal. As I mentioned before with Gates, the Sun guy, Rockefeller, et al, they will make big bets on areas they see promise in.

Even if the setup costs are in the $50-100 million range (or more), there are many people who can and will do that. And Wall St. is putting big $ into this as well. There are literally thousands of hedge funds out there that wouldn't blink at a $100 million pricetag. They're looking for lots of creative places to put money right now. And there is something else that these people have that you completely discount - political power. They can get things done.

I deal with this stuff every day. I am very well involved in the real world, thanks. Sounds to me like you and your conspiracy theories are the one that needs to come visit. Stay a while. You might like it.

Buffarino

10-06-2006, 09:33 AM

Spider, out of curiosity, what is it you do for a living? I'd like to qualify the person who thinks I have no clue....

Bronco_Beerslug

10-06-2006, 09:35 AM

There are (and have been for many years) HUGE subsidies on ethanol. There are also tax credits for buying hybrid vehicles.
Links, facts to support your statements and show the difference between oil subsidies and alternative fuels subsidies.

You're late to the party but this has all been discussed many times here with links and references showing the numbers.

And try and research a little more before you crown yourself Internet queen ;D

alkemical

10-06-2006, 09:39 AM

also why does the energy solution have to be one size fits all? why can't we maximize each local's +'s?

Buffarino

10-06-2006, 09:46 AM

Links, facts to support your statements and show the difference between oil subsidies and alternative fuels subsidies.

Here's how you do it:

Go to google.

Put the search term 'ethanol subsidies' in the box

Hit return

Click on the results. There are many to choose from.

Like this one:

http://www.taxpayer.net/energy/ethanol.htm

Or this one:

http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/publications/policy/1997/vandyne.htm

Or you could just click on the link that yavoon posted earlier in the thread.

Same goes for hybrid vehicle tax credits (use 'hybrid tax credits' search term):

http://www.hybridcars.com/tax-deductions-credits.html

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/tipsandadvice/12/21/hybrid_tax_credits/index.html

You happy, pappy?

EDIT: Why are you so hung up on subsidies, anyway? You act as if nothing can happen without federal $$.

Hotrod

10-06-2006, 11:25 AM

You have a very high opinion of your own opinion, don't you?

.

LOL sorry Spider but that was pretty fricking funny right there Ha!

Bronco_Beerslug

10-06-2006, 01:48 PM

Here's how you do it:

Go to google.

Put the search term 'ethanol subsidies' in the box

Hit return

Click on the results. There are many to choose from.

Like this one:

http://www.taxpayer.net/energy/ethanol.htm

Or this one:

http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/publications/policy/1997/vandyne.htm

Or you could just click on the link that yavoon posted earlier in the thread.

Same goes for hybrid vehicle tax credits (use 'hybrid tax credits' search term):

http://www.hybridcars.com/tax-deductions-credits.html

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/tipsandadvice/12/21/hybrid_tax_credits/index.html

You happy, pappy?

EDIT: Why are you so hung up on subsidies, anyway? You act as if nothing can happen without federal $$.

You're not paying attention, I already know the numbers, I posted them here several times. Now, you find them and show how America is throwing all this money towards renewable and alternative energies you said was happening. And for comparison, make sure you post how much taxpayer money is being thrown at big oil and gas.

And the point I originally made is the money we are throwing away on the Neocon agenda could fast pace R&D on alternative and renewable energies to the point we could move away from ME terror countries oil in a matter of years, not decades. Do you understand now?

Buffarino

10-06-2006, 02:00 PM

And the point I originally made is the money we are throwing away on the Neocon agenda could fast pace R&D on alternative and renewable energies to the point we could move away from ME terror countries oil in a matter of years, not decades. Do you understand now?

Do you have the ability to talk about this without getting political? If not, I'll stop with you now. If you do, then we can talk about what is being done regarding alternatives. But let's leave the political hyperbole at the door, mmmkay?

Bronco_Beerslug

10-06-2006, 02:18 PM

Do you have the ability to talk about this without getting political? If not, I'll stop with you now. If you do, then we can talk about what is being done regarding alternatives. But let's leave the political hyperbole at the door, mmmkay?
:) Politics is big problem with alternative and renewable energies but I think you're trying to say we're doing enough and I'm saying we're not. And the reason we aren't is because of the entrenchment of big oil and gas in Congress.

Ethanol isn't going to solve anything by itself, nor will biodiesel, wind farms, solar technology, etc... but together they could move us away enough from oil to sever our dependence on the ME oil. To me, it's critical we do this ASAP.

Buffarino

10-06-2006, 02:34 PM

:) Politics is big problem with alternative and renewable energies but I think you're trying to say we're doing enough and I'm saying we're not. And the reason we aren't is because of the entrenchment of big oil and gas in Congress.

Ethanol isn't going to solve anything by itself, nor will biodiesel, wind farms, solar technology, etc... but together they could move us away enough from oil to sever our dependence on the ME oil. To me, it's critical we do this ASAP.

I'm saying we don't need to rely on Congress to make it happen. I agree with your second paragraph 100%. And ethanol and biodiesel are a big step forward in that direction, IMO.

EDIT: Synfuel (made from coal) may be a big step, too, if they can figure out the pollution problems. We've got an awful lot of coal in the ground if we can figure out how to efficiently/cleanly use it.

alkemical

10-06-2006, 02:45 PM

:) Politics is big problem with alternative and renewable energies but I think you're trying to say we're doing enough and I'm saying we're not. And the reason we aren't is because of the entrenchment of big oil and gas in Congress.

Ethanol isn't going to solve anything by itself, nor will biodiesel, wind farms, solar technology, etc... but together they could move us away enough from oil to sever our dependence on the ME oil. To me, it's critical we do this ASAP.

This is what i've been saying!!!!!

look when i put the bell down and take the sandwich board off - i've got some good ideas.....

Bronco_Beerslug

10-06-2006, 03:31 PM

I'm saying we don't need to rely on Congress to make it happen. I agree with your second paragraph 100%. And ethanol and biodiesel are a big step forward in that direction, IMO.

EDIT: Synfuel (made from coal) may be a big step, too, if they can figure out the pollution problems. We've got an awful lot of coal in the ground if we can figure out how to efficiently/cleanly use it.
I built power plants for over 25 years (most coal fired). Technology is here now to run these plants pretty darn clean and new technology will be here in short order that will make these plants burn almost totally clean. There is no reason to burn oil in power plants with the amount of coal we have here at home (hundreds of years worth).

Wind power keeps coming down in KWH costs every year. It doesn't get much cleaner than wind powered energy.

The hybrid car incentives are great and I'm glad Congress extended them but I'd like to see the federal government increase and add even more incentives for people to buy them. For example, the new Silverados' will only qualify for a $250 credit based on present criteria and the Honda Accord only qualifies for $650. Kudos to those states (like Colorado) who offer incentives on top of the federal incentives.

I really believe if the government offered the huge subsidies that they currently give oil and gas companies to the new companies developing renewable and alternative energies (fast tracking) we would create whole new industries and add many good paying jobs in the process, bolstering the economy with more than just service sector jobs that are being created now.

And ames, I know you have good ideas, that's why I listen to all your conspiracy theories :)

Buffarino

10-06-2006, 03:54 PM

I built power plants for over 25 years (most coal fired). Technology is here now to run these plants pretty darn clean and new technology will be here in short order that will make these plants burn almost totally clean. There is no reason to burn oil in power plants with the amount of coal we have here at home (hundreds of years worth).

Wind power keeps coming down in KWH costs every year. It doesn't get much cleaner than wind powered energy.

The hybrid car incentives are great and I'm glad Congress extended them but I'd like to see the federal government increase and add even more incentives for people to buy them. For example, the new Silverados' will only qualify for a $250 credit based on present criteria and the Honda Accord only qualifies for $650. Kudos to those states (like Colorado) who offer incentives on top of the federal incentives.

I really believe if the government offered the huge subsidies that they currently give oil and gas companies to the new companies developing renewable and alternative energies (fast tracking) we would create whole new industries and add many good paying jobs in the process, bolstering the economy with more than just service sector jobs that are being created now.

And ames, I know you have good ideas, that's why I listen to all your conspiracy theories :)

Do you know much about synfuel (basically turning coal into oil)? From what I've read, pollution is still a problem with that process. From what you say, sounds like it's OK for power plants, pollution-wise. I know they just announced a synfuel plant in Montana, so we'll find out soon enough if it's viable. Sure would be nice to be able to roll away from the ME and tell them to stick it.

Bronco_Beerslug

10-06-2006, 04:20 PM

Do you know much about synfuel (basically turning coal into oil)? From what I've read, pollution is still a problem with that process. From what you say, sounds like it's OK for power plants, pollution-wise. I know they just announced a synfuel plant in Montana, so we'll find out soon enough if it's viable. Sure would be nice to be able to roll away from the ME and tell them to stick it.
I don't know a lot about it but it seems to me to be a little redundant in that coal in it's raw form can be burned to produce clean power. The conversion process creates pollution itself so I don't see the advantage in it.

I know the synfuel plant in SA produces more CO2 than any other plant of any kind in the world.

Buffarino

10-06-2006, 08:24 PM

I don't know a lot about it but it seems to me to be a little redundant in that coal in it's raw form can be burned to produce clean power. The conversion process creates pollution itself so I don't see the advantage in it.

I know the synfuel plant in SA produces more CO2 than any other plant of any kind in the world.

Except if you can turn coal into oil, you can refine it into gas. Voila! Home-grown oil, screw you OPEC. That's the advantage.

The pollution is certainly a concern, though.

Spider

10-06-2006, 08:28 PM

You have a very high opinion of your own opinion, don't you?

Many individuals in this country (a lot more than you know about) have hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal. As I mentioned before with Gates, the Sun guy, Rockefeller, et al, they will make big bets on areas they see promise in.

Even if the setup costs are in the $50-100 million range (or more), there are many people who can and will do that. And Wall St. is putting big $ into this as well. There are literally thousands of hedge funds out there that wouldn't blink at a $100 million pricetag. They're looking for lots of creative places to put money right now. And there is something else that these people have that you completely discount - political power. They can get things done.

I deal with this stuff every day. I am very well involved in the real world, thanks. Sounds to me like you and your conspiracy theories are the one that needs to come visit. Stay a while. You might like it.
1 thing you will learn is I dont give a damn what you think or Do ..........you are not involved in the oil patch , I can tell by your stupid assed takes

Spider

10-06-2006, 08:31 PM

Spider, out of curiosity, what is it you do for a living? I'd like to qualify the person who thinks I have no clue....

I move oil rigs .....I drive a rig , move oil rigs from one location to the other you know after they get a permit to drill a new well .........

Spider

10-06-2006, 08:34 PM

Except if you can turn coal into oil, you can refine it into gas. Voila! Home-grown oil, screw you OPEC. That's the advantage.

The pollution is certainly a concern, though.

Pollution ? Check up ......... there is enough low sulfer coal ( low polution) to last for centuries , Wyoming has the cleanest air of any state , we run a few coal burning plants .................
Shale oil is what you are talking about , and if they find a cheap way to extract the Shale oil , Colorado will be the new middle east .................

Buffarino

10-06-2006, 08:53 PM

Pollution ? Check up ......... there is enough low sulfer coal ( low polution) to last for centuries , Wyoming has the cleanest air of any state , we run a few coal burning plants .................
Shale oil is what you are talking about , and if they find a cheap way to extract the Shale oil , Colorado will be the new middle east .................

No, I'm talking about synfuel which is coal that's been turned into oil that can be refined into gasoline and diesel, among other things. Don't assume what I'm talking about. Try reading my posts before you hit the enter button.

I'm not talking about coal burning power plants, nor am I talking about shale oil.

As Beerslug and I were discussing, it's the pollution created in the conversion process that is the problem right now.

Read this and then come back to me. Then maybe we can have an intelligent conversation instead of your weak smack:

http://governor.mt.gov/hottopics/faqsynthetic.asp

Buffarino

10-06-2006, 09:02 PM

1 thing you will learn is I dont give a damn what you think or Do ..........you are not involved in the oil patch , I can tell by your stupid assed takes

And you're a truck driver. You're hardly the end-all of oilfield knowledge, eh? And you know dick about what wealthy people can do and what kind of resources they possess. Whether it's money, manpower, or political pull, you would be amazed at what can be accomplished by just one person.

I never claimed to be involved in the oil biz. My company works with high net worth individuals (people with nine or ten digits of wealth). I've seen how they work and I've seen first-hand what they can get done when they want to (legally). I've also done quite a bit of research into alternative fuels as some of my clients wanted to look into that.

As for my example above, I never said getting permits/permission to drill anywhere was easy, did I? Nope, I didn't. But clearly it can be done or nobody would be able to drill, right? See where I'm going with this, Sparky?

I don't give a damn what you think about me, either. I think we'll get along just fine.

Spider

10-06-2006, 09:04 PM

No, I'm talking about synfuel which is coal that's been turned into oil that can be refined into gasoline and diesel, among other things. Don't assume what I'm talking about. Try reading my posts before you hit the enter button.

I'm not talking about coal burning power plants, nor am I talking about shale oil.

As Beerslug and I were discussing, it's the pollution created in the conversion process that is the problem right now.

Read this and then come back to me. Then maybe we can have an intelligent conversation instead of your weak smack:

http://governor.mt.gov/hottopics/faqsynthetic.asp
Yeah ,Yeah ,Yeah , I dont even have to click on your link .....Low sulfer coal turned into fuel , yippie , but the hang up is , the coal is to deep to get out cheap ....... oh wait you got that 1 man with alot of money theory to back that up ......... I think africa leads all nations in this type of fuel ....right now Shale oil , diffuicult to process is cheaper then the fantasy you have right now ......... Look if you support coal , Nuke power then I am on your side , just dont be a dumbass ................

Buffarino

10-06-2006, 09:10 PM

Yeah ,Yeah ,Yeah , I dont even have to click on your link .....Low sulfer coal turned into fuel , yippie , but the hang up is , the coal is to deep to get out cheap ....... oh wait you got that 1 man with alot of money theory to back that up ......... I think africa leads all nations in this type of fuel ....right now Shale oil , diffuicult to process is cheaper then the fantasy you have right now ......... Look if you support coal , Nuke power then I am on your side , just dont be a dumbass ................

Try reading the link. You'll learn something. According to the Gov. of Montana, the fuel can be produced at about $35 per barrel which is quite a bit less than we're paying for ME oil, isn't it? There goes that theory. A synfuel plant was just announced in the WSJ (that's the Wall Street Journal) this week. It's going to be in Montana. This is happening whether you believe me or not.

Nuke power and coal burning plants can't put gas in cars, genius. Synfuel, ethanol and biodlesel can. Shale oil maybe can someday. I'm sure someone is working on that, too, although i haven't heard much about it.

You're right tha South Africa leads the world in synfuel production. They also pollute a hell of a lot. And that's the problem they need to work out.

Spider

10-06-2006, 09:11 PM

And you're a truck driver. You're hardly the end-all of oilfield knowledge, eh? And you know dick about what wealthy people can do and what kind of resources they possess. Whether it's money, manpower, or political pull, you would be amazed at what can be accomplished by just one person.

I never claimed to be involved in the oil biz. My company works with high net worth individuals (people with nine or ten digits of wealth). I've seen how they work and I've seen first-hand what they can get done when they want to (legally). I've also done quite a bit of research into alternative fuels as some of my clients wanted to look into that.

As for my example above, I never said getting permits/permission to drill anywhere was easy, did I? Nope, I didn't. But clearly it can be done or nobody would be able to drill, right? See where I'm going with this, Sparky?

I don't give a damn what you think about me, either. I think we'll get along just fine.

Then you should have shut your piehole................http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1299869&postcount=45
this was about getting abiotic oil ..... perhaps if you paid attention you may have picked up on this ..........

Buffarino

10-06-2006, 09:14 PM

Then you should have shut your piehole................

I'll shut my piehole and keep my opinions to myself just as soon as you do, deal?

Spider

10-06-2006, 09:18 PM

Try reading the link. You'll learn something. According to the Gov. of Montana, the fuel can be produced at about $35 per barrel which is quite a bit less than we're paying for ME oil, isn't it? There goes that theory. A synfuel plant was just announced in the WSJ (that's the Wall Street Journal) this week. It's going to be in Montana. This is happening whether you believe me or not.

Nuke power and coal burning plants can't put gas in cars, genius. Synfuel, ethanol and biodlesel can. Shale oil maybe can someday. I'm sure someone is working on that, too, although i haven't heard much about it.

You're right tha South Africa leads the world in synfuel production. They also pollute a hell of a lot. And that's the problem they need to work out.
No **** they cant put gas in cars , but they can heat up homes , light up lights , cutting the need for oil for that need of oil .........Try and think will you .....
I am always right , here is the problem sport , ( and yes I do contract out to coal mines when oil is slow )Reed of thunder Basin says different the then gov of montana , while some of it is easy to get to the bulk is still buiried deep , imagine a politician being less then Honest ..... go figure .......... Energy transport just ordered a 550 tonne ( in words you can understand Huge mofo cost aloot $$$$) 20 semi loads Grove crane , and they are biulding some massive tank out on wildhorse road outside of Gillette ..........think they will get more out of Coalbed methane then your synfuel ......But thanks for playing sport

Spider

10-06-2006, 09:21 PM

I'll shut my piehole and keep my opinions to myself just as soon as you do, deal?

Problem is , I was right you was wrong ....... This isnt Hollywood , there is no magic , no small group of investors cutting into oil .... Just wont happen ....... Feel free to share your fairy tale with people that want ot hear them ....... Just dont include me ....... But of you do , dont get your panties in a wad when I call you on Bullshít .........

Buffarino

10-06-2006, 09:23 PM

I am always right

I'm sure you think you are. Lemme guess - you're either single or you act quite differently here than you do at home...

while some of it is easy to get to the bulk is still buiried deep , imagine a politician being less then Honest ..... go figure

Yep, lots of politicians are less than honest. But someone has done enough research and is putting up their $$ (vs. your opinion) to prove that he's right.

Buffarino

10-06-2006, 09:23 PM

Problem is , I was right you was wrong ....... This isnt Hollywood , there is no magic , no small group of investors cutting into oil .... Just wont happen ....... Feel free to share your fairy tale with people that want ot hear them ....... Just dont include me ....... But of you do , dont get your panties in a wad when I call you on Bullshít .........

You like to listen to your fingers hit the keyboard, don't you?

Spider

10-06-2006, 09:28 PM

I'm sure you think you are. Lemme guess - you're either single or you act quite differently here than you do at home...
LOL there you go again being a dumbass .. guess you just cant help yourself

Yep, lots of politicians are less than honest. But someone has done enough research and is putting up their $$ (vs. your opinion) to prove that he's right.
comprehension ... I gave you Reeds of thunderbasin opinion ......... Work on that will you

Spider

10-06-2006, 09:29 PM

You like to listen to your fingers hit the keyboard, don't you?

LOL no more then you like to Bullshít people ............

yavoon

10-06-2006, 10:09 PM

You like to listen to your fingers hit the keyboard, don't you?

look, just dont say no one ever gave u any advice on the spider matter.

Buffarino

10-06-2006, 10:24 PM

look, just dont say no one ever gave u any advice on the spider matter.

I can tell by the fact that the dude has 44,000 posts that he's here all the time and loves to argue. He's quickly boring me, though.

Spider

10-07-2006, 08:13 PM

I can tell by the fact that the dude has 44,000 posts that he's here all the time and loves to argue. He's quickly boring me, though.
Boring me = Spider tore my ass up with facts , I need to find someone else to bullshít

Buffarino

10-10-2006, 10:58 AM

I was going to leave this thread alone, but I saw this article and couldn't help myself.

I thought these plants wouldn't work? Spider said so, so he must be right.

But here it is - 2 plants (1 in Wyoming, 1 in Montanta) are being built and several more are in the works.

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/energy/article/0,2777,DRMN_23914_5043320,00.html

My favorite quote of the article:

"Coal producer Peabody is looking to build two more, in Montana and Illinois."

But Spider said they couldn't get to the coal cost-effectively. He certainly knows more than Peabody. After all, it's not like they mine coal as part of their business or anything......wait, what's that you say? Peabody is the world's largest private sector coal company? Whoops.

www.peabodyenergy.com (http://www.peabodyenergy.com)

Well, what about Arch Coal? Certainly they don't know what they're doing, right? What's that? They produce 12% of the US coal supply? Hmmmm.

www.archcoal.com (http://www.archcoal.com)

How's that for facts, Spider?

Pollution is still a concern of mine, but if they get that worked out, this can be a big step towards reducing our dependence on ME oil. We've got an awful lot of coal in the ground.

alkemical

10-10-2006, 11:04 AM

hmm that's the corporations side, what's the other side to it?

Buffarino

10-10-2006, 11:12 AM

hmm that's the corporations side, what's the other side to it?

What other side? I'm not following you here.

Spider

10-10-2006, 01:31 PM

Spider

10-10-2006, 01:35 PM

Buffarino

10-10-2006, 01:36 PM

see thats your problem yo uare stupid never said they dont work dumbass , I said they are not cost effective ....... Tell me kiddo , do you even know how to read ?

Right back at you, dumbass. Did you even read my post? Below is a direct quote from it:

But Spider said they couldn't get to the coal cost-effectively.

Now do you care to address the content of the post, or are you going to continue to try and avoid the topic at hand? Try and stay focused, please.

Buffarino

10-10-2006, 01:40 PM

Once again for Buffarino , I never said they wouldnt work , I said they are not cost effective ........ I hope you get it this time .......... I hope I dont have to do this very often , I believe we treat stupid people like they are stupid instead of special , we are doing people like you buffarino a favor .....

I gotta admit I find it ironic having a truck driver tell me I'm stupid...

As for the plants, I'll take the actions of two of the largest coal producers in the US (who no doubt could tell you to the penny how much it costs them to extract coal from the ground) what is cost-effective and what is not. They're building the plants, and several more are in the works. That tells me they believe it is cost-effective.

But you think it's not. OK....

Bronco_Beerslug

10-10-2006, 01:45 PM

What other side? I'm not following you here.
The other side is CO2 emissions which are about twice that of any other kinds of plants. Rentech's CEO Ramsbottom on CNBC Friday claimed they are "tailpipe ready" to capture those emissions saying they can be sold to companies to pump into the ground to help get more oil out.

I'm not real sure there is a CO2 market out there though but maybe there will be.

Their first plant opening is planned for the Illinois plant in 2009.

Spider

10-10-2006, 01:45 PM

Right back at you, dumbass. Did you even read my post? Below is a direct quote from it:

Now do you care to address the content of the post, or are you going to continue to try and avoid the topic at hand? Try and stay focused, please.

LOL you dipshít you lead off with this little GemI thought these plants wouldn't work? Spider said so, so he must be right.
Whats wrong cant even keep track of what you say ?

Spider

10-10-2006, 01:49 PM

I gotta admit I find it ironic having a truck driver tell me I'm stupid...

As for the plants, I'll take the actions of two of the largest coal producers in the US (who no doubt could tell you to the penny how much it costs them to extract coal from the ground) what is cost-effective and what is not. They're building the plants, and several more are in the works. That tells me they believe it is cost-effective.

But you think it's not. OK....

Oh you are stupid , no question about it , As you grow up( if you do ) you will see there is a huge difference in Hands on Smarts , and Book smarts ........Right now you are stupid ......... Thats ok W*GS learned the same lesson

Spider

10-10-2006, 01:53 PM

Buffarino

10-10-2006, 01:55 PM

The other side is CO2 emissions which are about twice that of any other kinds of plants. Rentech's CEO Ramsbottom on CNBC Friday claimed they are "tailpipe ready" to capture those emissions saying they can be sold to companies to pump into the ground to help get more oil out.

I'm not real sure there is a CO2 market out there though but maybe there will be.

Their first plant opening is planned for the Illinois plant in 2009.

Gotcha. As I stated above, pollution is my biggest concern with these plants, too.

Bronco_Beerslug

10-10-2006, 01:55 PM

BTW, this technology has been around since the 1930s but seems it has only become cost effective this century.

Check out Rentech's 2 year chart and the increase in volume almost averaging a million shares a day now.

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/3161/rentechmj9.png

Buffarino

10-10-2006, 02:00 PM

you see Buffarino , the Company is selling a product , they wont tell you everything , but the low sulpher coal is deep , 1.3 Billion$$ for the plant isnt very cost effective ,and thats just the plant , not the minning , and if it was Cost effective , there would be more plants , we have over 600 Years worth of coal ......... Buffarino you are easly duped , probably cause you want ot believe in this , or you justy could be realy stupid .........

I'm a CPA, spidey. I understand numbers better than you could ever hope to, but thanks for being concerned about me. I also know that companies don't build huge plants like this unless they're pretty damn sure they're going to make money on them.

I'm not buying anything from them. I'm merely looking at their actions (building plants) which tell me they believe this is cost-effective and likely to produce a profit.

Bronco_Beerslug

10-10-2006, 02:08 PM

And Rentech isn't the only company doing this but the only company I've found so far in the U.S doing this.

This info on the process from Wiki is only generalized but does give some insight into what's going on. I called Rentech and asked for a detailed emissions report on their proposed plants and was told someone would get back with me.

---------------------------------------------------
Fischer-Tropsch process

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fischer-Tropsch_synthesis&redirect=no))

The Fischer-Tropsch process is a catalyzed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalyst) chemical reaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry) in which carbon monoxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide) and hydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen) are converted into liquid hydrocarbons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocarbon) of various forms. Typical catalysts used are based on iron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron) and cobalt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt). The principal purpose of this process is to produce a synthetic petroleum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum) substitute for use as synthetic lubrication oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_oil) or as synthetic fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel).
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fischer-Tropsch_process&action=edit&section=1)]

Original process

The original Fischer-Tropsch process is described by the following chemical equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_equation):
<dl><dd>http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/d/0/3d0237a74324295ffe71bf06a1ddf34d.png</dd></dl> The initial products (i.e., CO and H2) can be produced by either the partial combustion of methane (in the case of gas to liquids applications):
<dl><dd>http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/f/6/8f6fd45c22dd91ec1fc6eef996ef8bef.png</dd></dl> or the initial products can be produced by the gassification of coal or biomass:
<dl><dd>http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/b/6/eb6300faf899831454ee6b632f285413.png</dd></dl> The mixture of carbon monoxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide) and hydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen) is called synthesis gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_gas) or syngas. The resulting hydrocarbon products are refined to produce the desired synthetic fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel). The carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide is generated by partial oxidation of coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal) and wood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood)-based fuels. The utility of the process is primarily in its role in producing fluid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid) hydrocarbons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocarbon) or hydrogen from a solid feedstock, such as coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal) or solid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid) carbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon)-containing wastes of various types. Non-oxidative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidation) pyrolysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis) of the solid material produces syngas which can be used directly as a fuel without being taken through Fischer-Tropsch transformations. If liquid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid) petroleum-like fuel, lubricant, or wax is required, the Fischer-Tropsch process can be applied. Finally, if hydrogen production is to be maximized, the water gas shift reaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_gas_shift_reaction) can be performed, generating only carbon dioxide and hydrogen and leaving no hydrocarbons in the product stream. Fortunately shifts from liquid to gaseous fuels are relatively easy to make.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fischer-Tropsch_process&action=edit&section=2)]

History

Since the invention of the original process by the German researchers Franz Fischer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Fischer) and Hans Tropsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Tropsch), working at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Wilhelm_Institute) in the 1920s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920s), many refinements and adjustments have been made, and the term "Fischer-Tropsch" now applies to a wide variety of similar processes (Fischer-Tropsch synthesis or Fischer-Tropsch chemistry)
The process was invented in petroleum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum)-poor but coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal)-rich Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) in the 1920s, to produce liquid fuels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fuel). It was used by Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) and Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan) during World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) to produce alternative fuels. Germany's annual synthetic fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel) production reached more than 124,000 barrels per day from 25 plants ~ 6.5 million tons in 1944 (http://www.fe.doe.gov/aboutus/history/syntheticfuels_history.html).
After the war, captured German scientists recruited in Operation Paperclip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip) continued to work on synthetic fuels in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) in a United States Bureau of Mines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bureau_of_Mines) program initiated by the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_Liquid_Fuels_Act).
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fischer-Tropsch_process&action=edit&section=3)]

Utilization

Currently, only a handful of companies have commercialised their FT technology.

Shell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell) in Bintulu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bintulu), Malaysia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia), uses natural gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas) as a feedstock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedstock), and produces primarily low-sulfur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur) diesel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel) fuels and food-grade wax.
Sasol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasol) in South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa) uses coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal) and natural gas as a feedstock, and produces a variety of synthetic petroleum products. Sasol produces most of the country's diesel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel) fuel. The process was used in South Africa to meet its energy needs during its isolation under Apartheid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid). This process has received renewed attention in the quest to produce low sulfur diesel fuel in order to minimize the environmental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_environment) impact from the use of diesel engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine).
A small US-based company, Rentech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentech), is currently focusing on converting nitrogen-fertiliser plants from using a natural gas feedstock to using coal or coke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coke_%28fuel%29), and producing liquid hydrocarbons as a by-product.
Also Choren (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Choren&action=edit) in Germany, CWT (Changing World Technologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization)) Alchem Field Services[1] (http://www.alchemfs.com/), and The GTL Corporation[2] (http://www.thegtlcorp.com/) have built FT plants or use similar processes. Alchem and the GTL Corporation employ a micro-GTL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro-GTL) process that is compact in that their equipment is used directly at natural gas well sites.
The FT process is an established technology and already applied on a large scale, although its popularity is hampered by high capital costs, high operation and maintenance costs, and the uncertain and volatile price of crude oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crude_oil). In particular, the use of natural gas as a feedstock only becomes practical when using "stranded gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranded_gas_reserve)", i.e. sources of natural gas far from major cities which are impractical to exploit with conventional gas pipelines and LNG technology; otherwise, the direct sale of natural gas to consumers would become much more profitable. There are several companies developing the process to enable practical exploitation of so-called stranded gas reserves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranded_gas_reserve). It is expected by geologists that supplies of natural gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas) will peak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil) 5-15 years after oil does. Although, such predictions are difficult to make and often highly uncertain.
There are large coal reserves which may increasingly be used as a fuel source during oil depletion. Since there are large coal reserves in the world, this technology could be used as an interim transportation fuel if conventional oil were to become more expensive. Combination of biomass gasification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_gasification) (BG) and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis is a very promising route to produce renewable or ‘green’ transportation fuels.
In Sept. 2005, Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania) governor Edward Rendell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Rendell) announced [3] (http://www.state.pa.us/papower/cwp/view.asp?Q=446127&A=11) a venture with Waste Management and Processors Inc. -- using technology licensed from Shell and Sasol -- to build an FT plant that will convert so-called waste coal (leftovers from the mining process) into low-sulfur diesel fuel at a site outside of Mahanoy City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_City), northwest of Philadelphia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia). [4] (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=S+Main+St+%26+West+Center+St,+Mahanoy+City, +PA+17948&spn=1.866959,3.522491&hl=en). The state of Pennsylvania has committed to buy a significant percentage of the plant's output and, together with the U.S. Dept. of Energy, has offered over $140 million in tax incentives. Other coal-producing states are exploring similar plans. Governor Brian Schweitzer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schweitzer) of Montana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana) has proposed developing a plant that would use the FT process to turn his state's coal reserves into fuel in order to help alleviate the United States' dependence on foreign oil. [5] (http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/08/02/build/state/25-coal-fuel.inc)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fischer-Tropsch_process&action=edit&section=4)]

Environmental Concerns

One issue that has yet to be addressed in the emerging discussion about large-scale development of synthetic fuels is the enormous increase in primary energy use and carbon emissions inherent in conversion of gaseous and solid carbon sources to a usable liquid form, assuming the energy used to drive the process comes from burning coal or hydrocarbon fuels. Recent work by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that full fuel cycle greenhouse gas emissions for coal-based synfuels are nearly twice as high as their petroleum-based equivalent. Emissions of other pollutants are vastly increased as well, although many of these emissions can be captured during production. Carbon sequestration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration) has been suggested as a mitigation strategy for greenhouse gas emissions. However, while sequestration is already in limited use, the science and economics around large-scale sequestration strategies are, as yet, unconvincing. [6] (http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/Gasification/pubs/pdf/GHGfinalADOBE.pdf)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fischer-Tropsch_process&action=edit&section=5)]

See also

Abiogenic petroleum origin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin)
Bergius process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergius_process)
Biomass to liquid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_to_liquid)
Future energy development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_energy_development)
Hubbert peak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak)
Karrick process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karrick_process)
Non-conventional oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-conventional_oil)
Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_Liquid_Fuels_Program)
Thomas Gold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold)
Wood gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas) [edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fischer-Tropsch_process&action=edit&section=6)]

External links

Fischer-Tropsch Archive (http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/)
Abiogenic Gas Debate 11:2002 (EXPLORER) (http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm)
Unconventional Ideas About Unconventional Gas (Society of Petroleum Engineers) (http://www.spe.org/elibinfo/eLibrary_Papers/spe/1982/82UGR/00010836/00010836.htm)
"Process of synthesis of liquid hydrocarbons (http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/patents/GB/gb309002.pdf)" - GB309002 - Hermann Plauson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Plauson)
Shell (http://www.shell.com.my/smds)
Sasol (http://www.sasol.com/)
"Clean Diesel from Coal (http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16713&ch=biztech)" by Kevin Bullis
Alchem Field Services, Inc.(micro-GTL) (http://www.alchemfs.com/)
The GTL Corporation (micro-GTL) (http://www.thegtlcorp.com/)  Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process"
Categories (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Categories&article=Fischer-Tropsch_process): Chemical reactions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chemical_reactions) | Chemical processes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chemical_processes) | Petroleum production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Petroleum_production) | Organometallic chemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Organometallic_chemistry) | Peak oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Peak_oil) | Coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Coal)

alkemical

10-10-2006, 02:13 PM

What other side? I'm not following you here.

uhm, that two sides to every story thingy -

Buffarino

10-10-2006, 02:20 PM

uhm, that two sides to every story thingy -

I'm not trying to show only one side of this. I have serious concerns about the pollution these plants emit and I'm not real keen on them unless they figure that out. I am encouraged that our country is seeing a lot of synfuel, biodiesel and ethanol plants go up, though. Hopefully this can lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It's only a start, but it's a good start, IMO.

Spider

10-10-2006, 02:24 PM

I'm a CPA, spidey.[quote] Somewhere I gave you the impression I gave a rats ass ....... Dont know where that could ave happened

[quote]I understand numbers better than you could ever hope to, but thanks for being concerned about me. I also know that companies don't build huge plants like this unless they're pretty damn sure they're going to make money on them. you dont understand shít if yo udid you would know Royalties . and tax write offs ......... forget about them did we ?

I'm not buying anything from them. I'm merely looking at their actions (building plants) which tell me they believe this is cost-effective and likely to produce a profit.Horse piss ....... they are building now to get a foothold into the future , anything else is just pissing on your leg telling you that it is raining ......

Buffarino

10-10-2006, 02:32 PM

Spidey, we're trying to have an adult conversation here. Go in the corner and play with your truck, mmmkay?

Bronco_Beerslug

10-10-2006, 02:37 PM

I'm not buying anything from them. I'm merely looking at their actions (building plants) which tell me they believe this is cost-effective and likely to produce a profit.I guarantee you these plants won't be built unless they're profitable. One reason being banks won't give them the money to build them unless they are reasonably sure they are going to get their money back.

But the main reason is the customers lining up to buy their products witch includes the airlines and the military.

Spider

10-10-2006, 02:39 PM

Spidey, we're trying to have an adult conversation here. Go in the corner and play with your truck, mmmkay?
Kids grow up so fast these days , while it was just a couple of post ago he got confused on what he said ....... Now he is off playing with Adults ........

alkemical

10-10-2006, 02:58 PM

I'm not trying to show only one side of this. I have serious concerns about the pollution these plants emit and I'm not real keen on them unless they figure that out. I am encouraged that our country is seeing a lot of synfuel, biodiesel and ethanol plants go up, though. Hopefully this can lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It's only a start, but it's a good start, IMO.

I just think it's a model that doesn't focus on 'renewable' energy, is always short term.

It's why i'm hoping there will be a nano-application that will basically be like alchemy of old -

Buffarino

10-10-2006, 08:53 PM

I just think it's a model that doesn't focus on 'renewable' energy, is always short term.

It's why i'm hoping there will be a nano-application that will basically be like alchemy of old -

True, synfuel isn't renewable. But it buys us a hell of a lot longer to find a renewable answer, and in the short term can get us away (at least partially) from ME oil. Biodiesel and ethanol are both renewable, although probably not on a scale that we need to get rid of our ME oil dependence.

Spider

10-10-2006, 11:54 PM

Don't know what the hell Spider and Buff are arguing about, but the rest of the discussion here was interesting.

Hopefully the Rentech experiment works out and we can further reduce our dependence on ME oil. IMO if it reduces our dependence by even a fraction it should be explored. And IMO that includes Alaska but let's not hijack this thread.

what I am arguing is Low Sulpher Coal and Nuke power are the future , Problem is the Coal isnt cheap to produce ........The technoligy isnt that far away , to make synfuel practical , but for now I would like to see more Nuke power plants and methane gas .............Buffarino got pissed for me busting on Yavoon about Drilling ...........

Bronco_Beerslug

10-11-2006, 04:36 AM

what I am arguing is Low Sulpher Coal and Nuke power are the future , Problem is the Coal isnt cheap to produce ........The technoligy isnt that far away , to make synfuel practical , but for now I would like to see more Nuke power plants and methane gas .............Buffarino got pissed for me busting on Yavoon about Drilling ...........
Coal is our cheapest energy, that's why new coal fired plants are being built everywhere now in the West, including eight new ones down in Texas, the big one in Pueblo, two more new ones in Wyo., etc... Forget about nuclear plants, no one wants them in their backyards, can't ever get rid of the waste and they are expensive as hell.

Bronco_Beerslug

10-11-2006, 05:14 AM

And back on topic...

-------------------------------------------
OPEC to cut oil production by 1M barrels

ABUJA, Nigeria - <form class="yqin" action="http://yq.search.yahoo.com/search" method="post"> <input name="p" value=""OPEC"" type="hidden"> <input name="sourceOrder" value="c1,i,yn,c3" type="hidden"> <input name="c1" value="<p style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-weight:bold;font-size:13px;padding:0;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:.5em;">OPEC</p>" type="hidden"> News | News Photos (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/%22http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=%22OPEC%22&c=news_photos&fr=yqovly2%22) | Images (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/%22http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=%22OPEC%22&fr=yqovly3%22) | Web (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/%22http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22OPEC%22&fr=yqovly4%22)
<input name="sourceURL" value="" type="hidden"> <input name="fr" value="yq-news" type="hidden"> <input name="context" value="OPEC will cut global oil production by 1 million barrels a day, Nigerian oil minister and OPEC president Edmund Daukoru said Wednesday." type="hidden"> </form> OPEC (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=OPEC) will cut global oil production by 1 million barrels a day, Nigerian oil minister and OPEC president Edmund Daukoru said Wednesday.
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td align="center">
<iframe style="display: none;" src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/N3285.yahoocom/B1231090.379;dcadv=852807;sz=300x250;dcopt=rcl;cli ck=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12f4fboed/M=384892.9178609.10046790.1442997/D=news/S=8903535:LREC/_ylt=AhYLdjj6kDKdUB1y_qwwEptv24cA/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1160575992/A=3892108/R=0/*;ord=1160568792437935?" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" hspace="0" vspace="0" bordercolor="#000000" frameborder="0" height="250" scrolling="no" width="300"><SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N3285.yahoocom/B1231090.379;abr=!ie;dcadv=852807;sz=300x250;dcopt =rcl;click=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12f4fboed/M=384892.9178609.10046790.1442997/D=news/S=8903535:LREC/_ylt=AhYLdjj6kDKdUB1y_qwwEptv24cA/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1160575992/A=3892108/R=1/*;ord=1160568792437935?"></SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT><A HREF="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12f4fboed/M=384892.9178609.10046790.1442997/D=news/S=8903535:LREC/_ylt=AhYLdjj6kDKdUB1y_qwwEptv24cA/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1160575992/A=3892108/R=2/SIG=13sgm5tr5/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N3285.yahoocom/B1231090.379;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcadv=852807;sz=300 x250;ord=1160568792437935?"><IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N3285.yahoocom/B1231090.379;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;dcadv=852807;sz=300 x250;ord=1160568792437935?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 ALT="LowerMyBills.com - More for you. Less for them."></A></NOSCRIPT></iframe></td></tr></tbody></table><script type="text/javascript"> if (window.yzq_a == null) document.write("<scr" + "ipt type=text/javascript src=""http://us.js2.yimg.com/us.js.yimg.com/lib/bc/bc_1.7.3.js></scr" + "ipt>"); </script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://us.js2.yimg.com/us.js.yimg.com/lib/bc/bc_1.7.3.js"></script><script type="text/javascript"> if (window.yzq_a) { yzq_a('p', 'P=WiYiQ0SOwhXA..6xRRmTSwEGSxBh7UUs39gABnn7&T=19joiu2hs%2fX%3d1160568792%2fE%3d8903535%2fR%3dn ews%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d1.1%2fW%3d8%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d17 92549527%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50PSJ vaWw7ZW1lcmdlbmN5O09pbDtjcnVkZTtmdXR1cmVzO3JlZnVyb F9teV95YWhvb19jb20iIHJlZnVybD0icmVmdXJsX215X3lhaG9 vX2NvbSIgdG9waWNzPSJyZWZ1cmxfbXlfeWFob29fY29tIg--%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d51C28E44'); yzq_a('a', '&U=13aislqku%2fN%3dA2CnQNG_fyw-%2fC%3d384892.9178609.10046790.1442997%2fD%3dLREC% 2fB%3d3892108'); } </script><noscript></noscript>
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20061011/capt.43c1c6c3a7094b77a5d0e278854be9bd.oil_opec_ny1 16.jpg?x=244&y=345&sig=t5O.s3CJv1fDmM3sv8oc_A--
OPEC President and Nigeria's Oil Minister Edmund Maduabebe Daukoru, speaks in a Seoul file photo from June 5, 2006. OPEC will cut global production by 1 million barrels a day, Nigerian oil minister and OPEC president Edmund Daukoru said Wednesday Oct. 11, 2006. (AP Photo/ Lee Jin-man, File)

"The cut itself is agreed," Daukoru told reporters after a Cabinet meeting in the Nigerian capital, adding the cuts would begin at the end of the month.
Daukoru said members of the producing cartel were still working out how to share the cuts, but were "nearing consensus."

Daukoru's comments followed a slew of reports attributed to anonymous sources from member countries who said the cartel planned to trim daily production by 1 million barrels to prop up prices.

Daukoru had said last week that OPEC was considering holding an emergency meeting before its scheduled Dec. 14 conference to discuss what to do about falling prices.
Oil prices have fallen sharply in recent weeks. On the New York Mercantile Exchange, light, sweet crude oil futures for November delivery reached a fresh eight-month settlement low Tuesday. The contract settled down $1.44, or 2.4 percent, at $58.52 a barrel.
http://tinyurl.com/zb8yp

Spider

10-11-2006, 05:32 AM

Coal is our cheapest energy, that's why new coal fired plants are being built everywhere now in the West, including eight new ones down in Texas, the big one in Pueblo, two more new ones in Wyo., etc...
Yeah I cant wait to see the one in pueblo

Forget about nuclear plants, no one wants them in their backyards, can't ever get rid of the waste and they are expensive as hell.
Thats what we have Nevada for , I looked it up it is true ;D

Spider

10-11-2006, 07:02 AM

Is coal cheaper then having to store and secure, not to mention the litigation, nuclear material? That's not even talking about operating the thing. Granted we won't have the strip mines, but is that worse then having a radioactive mountain in nevada? I don't know.
Oh Coal is the cheapest we have bar none , but extracting oil from Coal to make Synfuel is another matter ..........I believe nuke power will pay for itself , I read somewhere that the population of the US will be 400 B by 2029 , thats alot of people that need energy , Right now Nuke power is the only thing we have that can meet that demand ........

alkemical

10-11-2006, 08:03 AM

I live near america's most famous nuke plant.

Spider

10-11-2006, 08:07 AM

I live near america's most famous nuke plant.

3 mile island , nice to see the fish stopped glowing at night , thats a positive ;D

alkemical

10-11-2006, 08:21 AM

3 mile island , nice to see the fish stopped glowing at night , thats a positive ;D

yeah but it made it easier to fish at night.

Spider

10-11-2006, 08:23 AM

yeah but it made it easier to fish at night.

:rofl:

alkemical

10-11-2006, 08:24 AM

Bronco_Beerslug

10-11-2006, 10:37 AM

Oh Coal is the cheapest we have bar none , but extracting oil from Coal to make Synfuel is another matter ..........I believe nuke power will pay for itself , I read somewhere that the population of the US will be 400 B by 2029 , thats alot of people that need energy , Right now Nuke power is the only thing we have that can meet that demand ........

Nah, clean coal technology (zero emission technology) and wind power will more than be enough to power this country for centuries. Nevada already told the federal government to go **** themselves that NO waste will be brought into Nevada. Then come to find out 2 federal engineers fabricated data to show Yucca mountain safe for storing waste.

baja

10-11-2006, 07:44 PM

The World of Free Energy
By Peter Lindemann, D.Sc.
March 1, 2001

In the late 1880's, trade journals in the electrical sciences were predicting "free electricity" in the near future. Incredible discoveries about the nature of electricity were becoming common place. Nikola Tesla was demonstrating "wireless lighting" and other wonders associated with high frequency currents. There was an excitement about the future like never before.

Within 20 years, there would be automobiles, airplanes, movies, recorded music, telephones, radio, and practical cameras. The Victorian Age was giving way to something totally new. For the first time in history, common people were encouraged to envision a utopian future, filled with abundant modern transportation and communication, as well as jobs, housing and food for everyone. Disease would be conquered, and so would poverty. Life was getting better, and this time, everyone was going to get "a piece of the pie." So, what happened? In the midst of this technological explosion, where did the energy breakthroughs go? Was all of this excitement about "free electricity", which happened just before the beginning of the last century, all just wishful thinking that "real science" eventually disproved?

Current State of Technology

Actually, the answer to that question is NO. In fact, the opposite is true. Spectacular energy technologies were developed right along with the other breakthroughs. Since that time, multiple methods for producing vast amounts of energy at extremely low cost have been developed. None of these technologies have made it to the "open" consumer market as an article of commerce, however. Exactly why this is true will be discussed shortly. But first, I would like to describe to you a short list of "free energy" technologies that I am currently aware of, and that are proven beyond all reasonable doubt. The common feature connecting all of these discoveries, is that they use a small amount of one form of energy to control or release a large amount of a different kind of energy. Many of them tap the underlying Æther field in some way; a source of energy conveniently ignored by "modern" science.

1) Radiant Energy. Nikola Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter, T. Henry Moray's Radiant Energy Device, Edwin Gray's EMA Motor, and Paul Baumann's Testatika Machine all run on Radiant Energy. This natural energy form can be gathered directly from the environment (mistakenly called "static" electricity) or extracted from ordinary electricity by the method called "fractionation." Radiant Energy can perform the same wonders as ordinary electricity, at less than 1% of the cost. It does not behave exactly like electricity, however, which has contributed to the scientific community's misunderstanding of it. The Methernitha Community in Switzerland currently has 5 or 6 working models of fuelless, self-running devices that tap this energy.
2) Permanent Magnets. Dr. Robert Adams (NZ) has developed astounding designs of electric motors, generators and heaters that run on permanent magnets. One such device draws 100 watts of electricity from the source, generates 100 watts to recharge the source, and produces over 140 BTU's of heat in two minutes! Dr. Tom Bearden (USA) has two working models of a permanent magnet powered electrical transformer. It uses a 6-watt electrical input to control the path of a magnetic field coming out of a permanent magnet. By channeling the magnetic field, first to one output coil and then a second output coil, and by doing this repeatedly and rapidly in a "Ping-Pong" fashion, the device can produce a 96-watt electrical output with no moving parts. Bearden calls his device a Motionless Electromagnetic Generator, or MEG. Jean-Louis Naudin has duplicated Bearden's device in France. The principles for this type of device were first disclosed by Frank Richardson (USA) in 1978. Troy Reed (USA) has working models of a special magnetized fan that heats up as it spins. It takes exactly the same amount of energy to spin the fan whether it is generating heat or not. Beyond these developments, multiple inventors have identified working mechanisms that produce motor torque from permanent magnets alone.
3) Mechanical Heaters. There are two classes of machines that transform a small amount of mechanical energy into a large amount of heat. The best of these purely mechanical designs are the rotating cylinder systems designed by Frenette (USA) and Perkins (USA). In these machines, one cylinder is rotated within another cylinder with about an eighth of an inch of clearance between them. The space between the cylinders is filled with a liquid such as water or oil, and it is this "working fluid" that heats up as the inner cylinder spins. Another method uses magnets mounted on a wheel to produce large eddy currents in a plate of aluminum, causing the aluminum to heat up rapidly. These magnetic heaters have been demonstrated by Muller (Canada), Adams (NZ) and Reed (USA). All of these systems can produce ten times more heat than standard methods using the same energy input.
4) Super-Efficient Electrolysis. Water can be broken into Hydrogen and Oxygen using electricity. Standard chemistry books claim that this process requires more energy than can be recovered when the gases are recombined. This is true only under the worst case scenario. When water is hit with its own molecular resonant frequency, using a system developed by Stan Meyers (USA) and again recently by Xogen Power, Inc., it collapses into Hydrogen and Oxygen gas with very little electrical input. Also, using different electrolytes (additives that make the water conduct electricity better) changes the efficiency of the process dramatically. It is also known that certain geometric structures and surface textures work better than others do. The implication is that unlimited amounts of Hydrogen fuel can be made to drive engines (like in your car) for the cost of water. Even more amazing is the fact that a special metal alloy was patented by Freedman (USA) in 1957 that spontaneously breaks water into Hydrogen and Oxygen with no outside electrical input and without causing any chemical changes in the metal itself. This means that this special metal alloy can make Hydrogen from water for free, forever.
5) Implosion/Vortex. All major industrial engines use the release of heat to cause expansion and pressure to produce work, like in your car engine. Nature uses the opposite process of cooling to cause suction and vacuum to produce work, like in a tornado. Viktor Schauberger (Austria) was the first to build working models of Implosion Engines in the 1930's and 1940's. Since that time, Callum Coats has published extensively on Schauberger's work in his book Living Energies and subsequently, a number of researchers have built working models of Implosion Turbine Engines. These are fuelless engines that produce mechanical work from energy accessed from a vacuum. There are also much simpler designs that use vortex motions to tap a combination of gravity and centrifugal force to produce a continuous motion in fluids.
6) Cold Fusion. In March 1989, two Chemists from the University of Utah (USA) announced that they had produced atomic fusion reactions in a simple tabletop device. The claims were "debunked" within 6 months and the public lost interest. Nevertheless, Cold Fusion is very real. Not only has excess heat production been repeatedly documented, but also low energy atomic element transmutation has been catalogued, involving dozens of different reactions! This technology definitely can produce low cost energy and scores of other important industrial processes.
7) Solar Assisted Heat Pumps. The refrigerator in your kitchen is the only "free energy machine" you currently own. It's an electrically operated heat pump. It uses one amount of energy (electricity) to move three amounts of energy (heat). This gives it a "co-efficient of performance" (COP) of about 3. Your refrigerator uses one amount of electricity to pump three amounts of heat from the inside of the refrigerator to the outside of the refrigerator. This is its typical use, but it is the worst possible way to use the technology. Here's why. A heat pump pumps heat from the "source" of heat to the "sink" or place that absorbs the heat. The "source" of heat should obviously be HOT and the "sink" for heat should obviously be COLD for this process to work the best. In your refrigerator, it's exactly the opposite. The "source" of heat is inside the box, which is COLD, and the "sink" for heat is the room temperature air of your kitchen, which is warmer than the source. This is why the COP remains low for your kitchen refrigerator. But this is not true for all heat pumps. COP's of 8 to 10 are easily attained with solar assisted heat pumps. In such a device, a heat pump draws heat from a solar collector and dumps the heat into a large underground absorber, which remains at 55° F, and mechanical energy is extracted in the transfer. This process is equivalent to a steam engine that extracts mechanical energy between the boiler and the condenser, except that it uses a fluid that "boils" at a much lower temperature than water. One such system that was tested in the 1970's produced 350 hp, measured on a Dynamometer, in a specially designed engine from just 100-sq. ft. of solar collector. (This is NOT the system promoted by Dennis Lee.) The amount of energy it took to run the compressor (input) was less than 20 hp, so this system produced more than 17 times more energy than it took to keep it going! It could power a small neighborhood from the roof of a hot tub gazebo, using exactly the same technology that keeps the food cold in your kitchen. Currently, there is an industrial scale heat pump system just north of Kona, Hawaii that generates electricity from temperature differences in ocean water.
There are dozens of other systems that I have not mentioned, many of them are as viable and well tested as the ones I have just recounted. But this short list is sufficient to make my point: free energy technology is here, now. It offers the world pollution-free, energy abundance for everyone, everywhere. It is now possible to stop the production of "greenhouse gases" and shut down all of the nuclear power plants. We can now desalinate unlimited amounts of seawater at an affordable price, and bring adequate fresh water to even the most remote habitats. Transportation costs and the production costs for just about everything can drop dramatically. Food can even be grown in heated greenhouses in the winter, anywhere. All of these wonderful benefits that can make life on this planet so much easier and better for everyone have been postponed for decades. Why? Whose purposes are served by this postponement?

The Invisible Enemy

There are four gigantic forces that have worked together to create this situation. To say that there is and has been a "conspiracy" to suppress this technology only leads to a superficial understanding of the world, and it places the blame for this completely outside of ourselves. Our willingness to remain ignorant and actionless in the face of this situation has always been interpreted by two of these forces as "implied consent." So, besides a "non-demanding public," what are the other three forces that are impeding the availability of free energy technology?

In standard economic theory, there are three classes of Industry. These are Capital, Goods, and Services. Within the first class, Capital, there are also three sub-classes. These are: 1) Natural Capital. This relates to raw materials (such as a gold mine) and sources of energy (such as a hydroelectric dam or an oil well). 2) Currency. This relates to the printing of paper "money" and the minting of coins. These functions are usually the job of Government. And 3) Credit. This relates to the loaning of money for interest and its extension of economic value through deposit loan accounts. From this, it is easy to see, that energy functions in the economy in the same way as gold, the printing of money by the Government, or the issuing of credit by a bank.

baja

10-11-2006, 07:46 PM

In the United States, and in most other countries around the world, there is a "money monopoly" in place. I am "free" to earn as much "money" as I want, but I will only be paid in Federal Reserve Notes. There is nothing I can do to be paid in Gold Certificates, or some other form of "money." This money monopoly is solely in the hands of a small number of private stock banks, and these banks are owned by the Wealthiest Families in the world. Their plan is to eventually control 100% of all of the Capital resources of the world, and thereby control everyone's life through the availability (or non-availability) of all goods and services. An independent source of wealth (free energy device) in the hands of each and every person in the world, ruins their plans for world domination, permanently. Why this is true is easy to see. Currently, a nation's economy can be either slowed down or sped up by the raising or lowering of interest rates. But if an independent source of capital (energy) were present in the economy, and any business or person could raise more capital without borrowing it from a bank, this centralized throttling action on interest rates would simply not have the same effect. Free energy technology changes the value of money. The Wealthiest Families and the Issuers of Credit do not want any competition. It's that simple. They want to maintain their current monopoly control of the money supply. For them, free energy technology is not just something to suppress, it must be PERMANENTLY FORBIDDEN!

So, the Wealthiest Families and their Central Banking institutions are the First Force operating to postpone the public availability of free energy technology. Their motivations are the imagined "divine right to rule", greed, and their insatiable need to control everything except themselves. The weapons they have used to enforce this postponement include intimidation, "expert" debunkers, buying and shelving of technology, murder and attempted murder of the inventors, character assassination, arson, and a wide variety of financial incentives and disincentives to manipulate possible supporters. They have also promoted the general acceptance of a scientific theory that states that free energy is impossible (Laws of Thermodynamics).

The Second Force operating to postpone the public availability of free energy technology is National Governments. The problem here is not so much related to competition in the printing of currency, but in the maintenance of National Security. The fact is, the world out there is a jungle, and humans can be counted upon to be very cruel, dishonest, and sneaky. It is Government's job to "provide for the common defense." For this, "police powers" are delegated by the Executive Branch of Government to enforce "the rule of law." Most of us who consent to the rule of law do so because we believe it is the right thing to do, for our own benefit. There are always a few individuals, however, that believe that their own benefit is best served by behavior that does not voluntarily conform to the generally agreed upon social order. These people choose to operate outside of "the rule of law" and are considered outlaws, criminals, subversives, traitors, revolutionaries, or terrorists.

Most National Governments have discovered, by trial and error, that the only Foreign Policy that really works, over time, is a policy called "Tit for Tat." What this means to you and me is, that governments treat each other the way they are being treated. There is a constant "jockeying" for position and influence in world affairs, and the STRONGEST party wins! In economics, it's the Golden Rule, which states: "The one with the Gold makes the Rules." So it is with politics also, but its appearance is more Darwinian. It's simply "survival of the fittest." In politics, however, the "fittest" has come to mean the strongest party who is also willing to fight the dirtiest. Absolutely every means available is used to maintain an advantage over the "adversary", and everyone else is the "adversary" regardless of whether they are considered friend or foe. This includes outrageous psychological posturing, lying, cheating, spying, stealing, assassination of world leaders, proxy wars, alliances and shifting alliances, treaties, foreign aid, and the presence of military forces wherever possible. Like it or not, this IS the psychological and actual arena National Governments operate in. No National Government will ever do anything that simply gives an adversary an advantage for free. NEVER! It's national suicide. Any activity by any individual, inside or outside the country, that is interpreted as giving an adversary an edge or advantage, in any way, will be deemed a threat to "National Security." ALWAYS!

Free energy technology is a National Government's worst nightmare! Openly acknowledged, free energy technology sparks an unlimited arms race by all governments in a final attempt to gain absolute advantage and domination. Think about it. Do you think Japan will not feel intimidated if China gets free energy? Do you think Israel will sit by quietly as Iraq acquires free energy? Do you think India will allow Pakistan to develop free energy? Do you think the USA would not try to stop Osama bin Laden from getting free energy? Unlimited energy available to the current state of affairs on this planet leads to an inevitable reshuffling of the "balance of power." This could become an all-out war to prevent "the other" from having the advantage of unlimited wealth and power. Everybody will want it, and at the same time, want to prevent everyone else from getting it.

So, National Governments are the Second Force operating to postpone the public availability of free energy technology. Their motivations are "self-preservation." This self-preservation operates on three levels. First, by not giving undue advantage to an external enemy. Second, by preventing individualized action capable of effectively challenging official police powers (anarchy) within the country. And third, by preserving income streams derived from taxing energy sources currently in use. Their weapons include the preventing of the issuance of patents based on National Security grounds, the legal and illegal harassment of inventors with criminal charges, tax audits, threats, phone taps, arrest, arson, theft of property during shipment, and a host of other intimidations which make the business of building and marketing a free energy machine impossible.

The Third Force operating to postpone the public availability of free energy technology consists of the group of deluded inventors and out right charlatans and con men. On the periphery of the extraordinary scientific breakthroughs that constitute the real free energy technologies, lies a shadow world of unexplained anomalies, marginal inventions and unscrupulous promoters. The first two Forces have constantly used the media to promote the worst examples of this group, to distract the public's attention and to discredit the real breakthroughs by associating them with the obvious frauds.

Over the last hundred years, dozens of stories have surfaced about unusual inventions. Some of these ideas have so captivated the public's imagination that a mythology about these systems continues to this day. Names like Keely, Hubbard, Coler, and Henderschott immediately come to mind. There may be real technologies behind these names, but there simply isn't enough technical data available in the public domain to make a determination. These names remain associated with a free energy mythology, however, and are sited by debunkers as examples of fraud.

The idea of free energy taps very deeply into the human subconscious mind. A few inventors with marginal technologies that demonstrate useful anomalies have mistakenly exaggerated the importance of their inventions. Some of these inventors also have mistakenly exaggerated the importance of THEMSELVES for having invented it. A combination of "gold fever" and/or a "messiah complex" appears, wholly distorting any future contribution they may make. While the research thread they are following may hold great promise, they begin to trade enthusiasm for facts, and the value of the scientific work from that point on suffers greatly. There is a powerful, yet subtle seduction that can warp a personality if they believe that "the world rests on their shoulders" or that they are the world's "savior." Strange things also happen to people when they think they are about to become extremely rich. It takes a tremendous spiritual discipline to remain objective and humble in the presence of a working free energy machine. Many inventors' psyches become unstable just BELIEVING they have a free energy machine. As the quality of the science deteriorates, some inventors also develop a "persecution complex" that makes them very defensive and unapproachable. This process precludes them from ever really developing a free energy machine, and fuels the fraud mythologies tremendously.

Then there are the out right con men. In the last 15 years, there is one person in the USA who has raised the free energy con to a professional art. He has raised more than $100,000,000, has been barred from doing business in the State of Washington, has been jailed in California, and he's still at it. He always talks about a variation of one of the real free energy systems, sells people on the idea that they will get one of these systems soon, but ultimately sells them only promotional information which gives no real data about the energy system itself. He has mercilessly preyed upon the Christian Community and the Patriot Community in the USA, and is still going strong. His current scam involves signing up hundreds of thousands of people as locations where he will install a free energy machine. In exchange for letting him put the FE generator in their home, they will get free electricity for life, and his company will sell the excess energy back to the local utility company. After becoming convinced that they will receive free electricity for life, with no out-front expenses, they gladly buy a video that helps draw their friends into the scam as well. Once you understand the power and motivations of the first two Forces I have discussed, its obvious that this person's current "business plan" cannot be implemented. This one person has probably done more harm to the free energy movement in the USA than any other Force, by destroying people's trust in the technology.

So, the Third Force postponing the public availability of free energy technology is delusion and dishonesty within the movement itself. The motivations are self-aggrandizement, greed, want of power over others, and a false sense of self-importance. The weapons used are lying, cheating, the "bait and switch" con, self-delusion and arrogance combined with lousy science.

The Fourth Force operating to postpone the public availability of free energy technology is all of the rest of us. It may be easy to see how narrow and despicable the motivations of the other Forces are, but actually, these motivations are still very much alive in each of us as well. Like the Wealthiest Families, don't we each secretly harbor illusions of false superiority, and the want to control others instead of ourselves? Also, wouldn't you "sell out" if the price were high enough, say, take $1 million dollars, cash, today? Or like the Governments, don't we each want to ensure our own survival? If caught in the middle of a full, burning theater, do you panic and push all of the weaker people out of the way in a mad, scramble for the door? Or like the deluded inventor, don't we trade a comfortable illusion once in a while for an uncomfortable fact? And don't we like to think more of ourselves than others give us credit for? Or don't we still fear the unknown, even if it promises a great reward?

You see, really, all Four Forces are just different aspects of the same process, operating at different levels in the society. There is really only ONE FORCE preventing the public availability of free energy technology, and that is the unspiritually motivated behavior of the human animals. In the last analysis, free energy technology is an outward manifestation of Divine Abundance. It is the engine of the economy of an enlightened society, where people voluntarily behave in a respectful and civil manner toward each other. Where each member of the society has everything they need, and do not covet what their neighbor has. Where war and physical violence has become socially unacceptable behavior and people's differences are at least tolerated, if not enjoyed.

The appearance of free energy technology in the public domain is the dawning of a truly civilized age. It is an epochal event in human history. Nobody can "take credit" for it. Nobody can "get rich" on it. Nobody can "rule the world" with it. It is simply, a Gift from God. It forces us all to take responsibility for our own actions and for our own self-disciplined self-restraint when needed. The world as it is currently ordered, cannot have free energy technology without being totally transformed by it into something else. This "civilization" has reached the pinnacle of its development, because it has birthed the seeds of its own transformation. The unspiritualized human animals cannot be trusted with free energy. They will only do what they have always done, which is take merciless advantage of each other, or kill each other and themselves in the process.

If you go back and read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged or the Club of Rome Report, it becomes obvious that the Wealthiest Families have understood this for decades. Their plan is to live in The World of Free Energy, but permanently freeze the rest of us out. But this is not new. Royalty has always considered the general population (us) to be their subjects. What is new, is that you and I can communicate with each other now better than at anytime in the past. The Internet offers us, the Fourth Force, an opportunity to overcome the combined efforts of the other Forces preventing free energy technology from spreading.

The Opportunity

What is starting to happen is that inventors are publishing their work, instead of patenting it and keeping it secret. More and more, people are "giving away" information on these technologies in books, videos and websites. While there is still a great deal of useless information about free energy on the Internet, the availability of good information is rising rapidly. Check out the list of websites and other resources at the end of this article.

It is imperative that you begin to gather all of the information you can on real free energy systems. The reason for this is simple. The first two Forces will never allow an inventor or a company to build and sell a free energy machine to you! The only way you will ever get one is if you, or a friend, build it yourself. This is exactly what thousands of people are already quietly starting to do. You may feel wholly inadequate to the task, but start gathering information now. You may be just a link in the chain of events for the benefit of others. Focus on what you can do now, not on how much there still is to be done. Small, private research groups are working out the details as you read this. Many are committed to publishing their results on the Internet.

All of us constitute the Fourth Force. If we stand up and refuse to remain ignorant and action-less, we can change the course of history. It is the aggregate of our combined action that can make a difference. Only the mass action that represents our consensus can create the world we want. The other three Forces WILL NOT help us put a fuelless power plant in our basements. They will not help us be free from their manipulations. Nevertheless, free energy technology is here. It is real, and it will change everything about the way we live, work and relate to each other. In the last analysis, free energy technology obsoletes greed and the fear for survival. But like all exercises of Spiritual Faith, we must first manifest the generosity and trust in our own lives.

The Source of Free Energy is INSIDE of us. It is that excitement of expressing ourselves freely. It is our Spiritually guided intuition expressing itself without distraction, intimidation or manipulation. It is our open-heartedness. Ideally, the free energy technologies underpin a just society where everyone has enough food, clothing, shelter, self-worth, and the leisure time to contemplate the higher Spiritual meanings of Life. Do we not owe it to each other, to face down our fears, and take action to create this future for our children's children? Perhaps I am not the only one waiting for me to act on a greater Truth.

Free energy technology is here. It has been here for decades. Communications technology and the Internet have torn the veil of secrecy off of this remarkable fact. People all over the world are starting to build free energy devices for their own use. The Bankers and the Governments do not want this to happen, but cannot stop it. Tremendous economic instabilities and wars will be used in the near future to distract people from joining the free energy movement. There will be essentially no major media coverage of this aspect of what is going on. It will simply be reported as wars and civil wars erupting everywhere, leading to UN "Peace Keeper" occupation in more and more countries.

Western Society is spiraling down toward self-destruction, due to the accumulated effects of long-term greed and corruption. The general availability of free energy technology cannot stop this trend. It can only reinforce it. If, however, you have a free energy device, you may be better positioned to survive the political/social/economic transition that is underway. No National Government will survive this process. The question is, who will ultimately control the emerging World Government, the First Force, or the Fourth Force?

The last Great War is almost upon us. The seeds are planted. After this will come the beginning of a real Civilization. Some of us who refuse to fight will survive to see the dawn of the World of Free Energy. I challenge you to be among the ones who try.

LIST OF RESOURCES:

Books:
Living Energies by Callum Coats
The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity by Peter Lindemann, D.Sc.
Applied Modern 20th Century Aether Science by Dr. Robert Adams
Physics Without Einstein by Dr. Harold Aspden
Secrets of Cold War Technology by Gerry Vassilatos
The Coming Energy Revolution by Jeane Manning

Websites:
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/content1.htm excellent free-energy site run by Geoff Egel based in Australia
http://www.free-energy.cc/ developed by Clear Tech, Inc. and Dr. Peter Lindemann
http://jnaudin.free.fr/ developed by JLN Labs in France
http://www.1dove.com/fe/index.html Jim's Free Energy Page in the USA
http://www.keelynet.com/ developed by Jerry Decker in the USA
http://www.xogen.com site for super electrolysis technology
http://www.rumormillnews.com excellent site for all kinds of alternative news, with many links

For more links to other recommended sites, see the "Links Page" at http://www.free-energy.cc

Patents: (most can be viewed at www.delphion.com/ ) This list is nothing more than a sample of inventions that produce free energy.

Tesla USP #685,957
Freedman USP #2,796,345
Richardson USP #4,077,001
Frenette USP #4,143,639
Perkins USP #4,424,797
Gray USP #4,595,975
Meyer USP #4,936,961
Chambers USP #6,126,794

Back to Lindemann Back to Technologies

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-12-2006, 03:12 AM

http://www.bartcop.com/gywo_exxon.gif