ever think that
the energy (read: mainly oil) companies are footing the bill for the various environmentalist nuts.
Sure it sounds crazy, but think about this: as long as no nuclear power plants or new refineries are built and new oil field development at home is at a standstill our fuel prices will continue to climb out of control. Clearly the only ones who are happy about that are the people making the profits
Sure it sounds crazy, but think about this: as long as no nuclear power plants or new refineries are built and new oil field development at home is at a standstill our fuel prices will continue to climb out of control. Clearly the only ones who are happy about that are the people making the profits
0
-
Certainly sounds possible. The games people play... 0 -
stranger things have happened to be sure, but I don't think so. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
the energy (read: mainly oil) companies are footing the bill for the various environmentalist nuts.
I don't know about that, but I know there are companies out there that are pushing for tighter environmental laws for no other reason than increasing profits. The logic is simple. Develop a product/process that is more environmentally friendly than your competitor's. Then push for laws imposing tighter environmental controls. Once the law passes, your product meets the requirement and your competitor's doesn't. People/companies are forced to buy yours because it meets the requirements. This means more profits!
There happens to be a very large company that makes all sorts of stuff (such as lightbulbs, refridgerators and turbines) that is doing this right now.0 -
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
the energy (read: mainly oil) companies are footing the bill for the various environmentalist nuts.
Sure it sounds crazy, but think about this: as long as no nuclear power plants or new refineries are built and new oil field development at home is at a standstill our fuel prices will continue to climb out of control. Clearly the only ones who are happy about that are the people making the profits
I think you are on to something. I trust big oil as much as I trust a politician.0 -
Not likely. The nuclear power plant days have come and gone; they are too expensive when compared to gas or coal fired power plants per mega watt of power produced. Nukes also take three or four years to bring on line while a gas fired plant can be up and running in about 18 months and needs just a fraction of the maintenance/service time that a nuclear plant does. No one in an urban area wants a refinery built in their neighborhood and while the folks out in those big sqaure states would love to see one or two built out their way (since refinery jobs would pay better than minimum wage) we don't need five new refineries in North Dakotoa, we need five new ones here in California and that won't happen. Don't buy into the misguided notion that there are massive untapped oil fields sitting idle here in the United States. This entire country has been gone over with a fine toothed comb (twice) by pointy headed scientists, geologists and engineers (all of whom are idiots using the Gun Broker standards for productive Americans) looking for crude oil and what fields are currently known are all that exist. There is no twenty year supply of new oil sitting up in the Alaskan wilderness off limits to drilling or a decade worth of crude off shore in the Santa Barbara Channel here in SoCal. There is oil in those places, but it is just a drop in the bucket compared to the crude we guzzel down every day and it will be very expensive to bring that oil into the marklet place, which is why big oil wants it now, when prices are high. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by kristov
Not likely. The nuclear power plant days have come and gone; they are too expensive when compared to gas or coal fired power plants per mega watt of power produced. Nukes also take three or four years to bring on line while a gas fired plant can be up and running in about 18 months and needs just a fraction of the maintenance/service time that a nuclear plant does.
That may be the case in the US but a majority of Europe's energy is nuclear. As for the cost of producing the energy, the lowest cost is coal, then nuclear, then gas. The initial ivestment is higher for nuclear, but the cost per Megawatt to produce the energy (this takes into account maintenance/service) is actually lower than gas.
Coal = $10-$20 / MW
Nuclear = $20-$35 / MW
Gas = $50-$65 / MW
quote:Originally posted by kristov
There is no twenty year supply of new oil sitting up in the Alaskan wilderness off limits to drilling
Really? I would like to see your proof for this statement.0 -
We are importing gasoline (yep, gas, not just crude oil), and you think the oil companies would not build a new refinery if they could get the clearance and make the profit from additional refining? Not likely.
Several of the oil companies also own coal fields they might wish to sell product from, and a few own uranium if I recall correctly.0 -
Oil companies will expand their fields and refineries in a heartbeat if given the chance. 0 -
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1213-03.htm
US crude oil comsumption is expected to reach at 1.5 million barrels per day in 2008 so if the field in question actually has the 13 billion barrels of crude, which is the maximum estimate, this would be a 23 year supply. On the other hand if the field is at the lower end of the estimate, say 6 billion barrels then this is a 10 year supply. That twenty years might be there but my experience in the petroleum industry makes me hedge my bets.0 -
I believe that you are wrong.
Doug0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments