$200 a barrel oil

[Ext User(E. Newnes)]

http://business.smh.com.au/double-or-nothing-traders-bet-on-oil-reaching-us200-a-barrel-by-years-end/20080107-1kna.html

"THE fastest-growing bet in the oil market these days is that the
price of crude will double to $US200 a barrel by the end of the year."


I wonder if anyone has the guts to talk up politically incorrect coal
to petrol plants. We have more than enough coal and the current price
of $100 a barrel is already high enough to make it economic.

Those OPEC cunts and the futures speculators need some competition.

[Ext User(SKD)]

E. Newnes wrote:
> http://business.smh.com.au/double-or-nothing-traders-bet-on-oil-reaching-us200-a-barrel-by-years-end/20080107-1kna.html
>
> "THE fastest-growing bet in the oil market these days is that the
> price of crude will double to $US200 a barrel by the end of the year."
>
>
> I wonder if anyone has the guts to talk up politically incorrect coal
> to petrol plants. We have more than enough coal and the current price
> of $100 a barrel is already high enough to make it economic.
>
> Those OPEC cunts and the futures speculators need some competition.

Price of oil is in American dollars, their dollars was devalued by 30%
last year. They are still cutting its value, so has the price of oil
has really changed - was 70 now 100.

[Ext User(E. Newnes)]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:51:32 -0800 (PST), SKD <sherkd@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>E. Newnes wrote:
>> http://business.smh.com.au/double-or-nothing-traders-bet-on-oil-reaching-us200-a-barrel-by-years-end/20080107-1kna.html
>>
>> "THE fastest-growing bet in the oil market these days is that the
>> price of crude will double to $US200 a barrel by the end of the year."
>>
>>
>> I wonder if anyone has the guts to talk up politically incorrect coal
>> to petrol plants. We have more than enough coal and the current price
>> of $100 a barrel is already high enough to make it economic.
>>
>> Those OPEC cunts and the futures speculators need some competition.
>
>Price of oil is in American dollars, their dollars was devalued by 30%
>last year. They are still cutting its value, so has the price of oil
>has really changed - was 70 now 100.

I understand that, I also understand that a price of US$50/barrel
makes it economic to convert coal to petrol.

[Ext User(Benway)]

E. Newnes wrote:
> http://business.smh.com.au/double-or-nothing-traders-bet-on-oil-reaching-us200-a-barrel-by-years-end/20080107-1kna.html
>
> "THE fastest-growing bet in the oil market these days is that the
> price of crude will double to $US200 a barrel by the end of the year."
>
>
> I wonder if anyone has the guts to talk up politically incorrect coal
> to petrol plants. We have more than enough coal and the current price
> of $100 a barrel is already high enough to make it economic.
>
> Those OPEC cunts and the futures speculators need some competition.
*********************************************
The energy bills Aussies will be paying shortly
must force them into some serious thinking.
Australia - the worst is yet to come.
**********************************

[Ext User(Doug)]

"E. Newnes" <enewns45@solvo.com> wrote in message
news:vcm6o3djshv0i2qs6vfuik7piuec0vi2nu@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:51:32 -0800 (PST), SKD <sherkd@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>E. Newnes wrote:
>>> http://business.smh.com.au/double-or-nothing-traders-bet-on-oil-reaching-us200-a-barrel-by-years-end/20080107-1kna.html
>>>
>>> "THE fastest-growing bet in the oil market these days is that the
>>> price of crude will double to $US200 a barrel by the end of the year."
>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if anyone has the guts to talk up politically incorrect coal
>>> to petrol plants. We have more than enough coal and the current price
>>> of $100 a barrel is already high enough to make it economic.
>>>
>>> Those OPEC cunts and the futures speculators need some competition.
>>
>>Price of oil is in American dollars, their dollars was devalued by 30%
>>last year. They are still cutting its value, so has the price of oil
>>has really changed - was 70 now 100.
>
> I understand that, I also understand that a price of US$50/barrel
> makes it economic to convert coal to petrol.

I've read this too. As a matter of fact Occidental Petroleum did research
into this over 30 years ago. As far as the US goes, poltical corruption is
the only
reason it was never implemented.

[Ext User(Blue Heeler)]

Doug wrote:

> > I understand that, I also understand that a price of US$50/barrel
> > makes it economic to convert coal to petrol.
>
> I've read this too. As a matter of fact Occidental Petroleum did
> research into this over 30 years ago. As far as the US goes, poltical
> corruption is the only reason it was never implemented.

The only large scale coal/oil/fuel project to have ever operated was
Germany in WWII, and they only did it because they had no choice.

There is periodic interest in the idea, here in Australia there are
enormous shale oil deposits in an area commencing roughly just north of
Bundaberg and continuing to just north of Rockhampton.

In the past 100 years, on an approximate 20 year cycle, 100s of
companies have spent Billions of $$s, each of them had a sure fire way
to extract Shale oil, bring it to market and make lots and lots of $$s
for their shareholders.

The current round of hopefuls are getting ready to try again, but
bluntly the people who only have to pump oil out of the ground, store
it and ship it will always have better economics than the people who
have to perfect and implement technology to extract oil from shale or
coal.

I'm confident that the current crop of investors will also go broke.

--

[Ext User(E. Newnes)]

On 8 Jan 2008 20:15:35 GMT, "Blue Heeler" <woof@bark.net> wrote:

>Doug wrote:
>
>> > I understand that, I also understand that a price of US$50/barrel
>> > makes it economic to convert coal to petrol.
>>
>> I've read this too. As a matter of fact Occidental Petroleum did
>> research into this over 30 years ago. As far as the US goes, poltical
>> corruption is the only reason it was never implemented.
>
>The only large scale coal/oil/fuel project to have ever operated was
>Germany in WWII, and they only did it because they had no choice.

Nope. South Africa operates one to this day. It is operated by a
company called SASOL and they supply 28% of SA's fuel.

I understand that there is also a plant in Brunei.

>There is periodic interest in the idea, here in Australia there are
>enormous shale oil deposits in an area commencing roughly just north of
>Bundaberg and continuing to just north of Rockhampton.

>In the past 100 years, on an approximate 20 year cycle, 100s of
>companies have spent Billions of $$s, each of them had a sure fire way
>to extract Shale oil, bring it to market and make lots and lots of $$s
>for their shareholders.

The shale oil fields are in agricultural land. The politics of
converting farmland to strip mines doesn't look easy. As well you have
the possible side effects on the Great Barrier Reef.

The coal fields are even larger and they are already being exploited.
You have to see the size of those open cut mines at Moranbah before
you comprehend the scale. Trains run 24/7 taking the shit to Mackay.

>The current round of hopefuls are getting ready to try again, but
>bluntly the people who only have to pump oil out of the ground, store
>it and ship it will always have better economics than the people who
>have to perfect and implement technology to extract oil from shale or
>coal.

The coal to petroleum process doesn't require new R&D since that has
already been done. Of course the CO2 emissions cause concern amongst
the politically correct. The major input requirement for the process
(apart from coal) is liquid oxygen. Liquid oxygen is already produced
in the field for aluminium smelting - again this is not new R&D.

>I'm confident that the current crop of investors will also go broke.

For the shale oil investments probably. For direct coal there is a
good business case.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Slip" <sww@everywhere.com> wrote in message
news:13o83uoeb3uft20@corp.supernews.com...

> There are oil deposits capped all over Queensland and I'll bet London to a
> brick that once the oil reaches $200 barrel, these caps will be released
> making exorbitant profits for the local oil market.

The local oil market *already* makes exorbitant profits by using a "world
parity price" to sell their locally sourced petrol.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Slip)]

"Blue Heeler" <woof@bark.net> wrote in message
news:5ui3v6F1f588fU1@mid.individual.net...
> Doug wrote:
>
>> > I understand that, I also understand that a price of US$50/barrel
>> > makes it economic to convert coal to petrol.
>>
>> I've read this too. As a matter of fact Occidental Petroleum did
>> research into this over 30 years ago. As far as the US goes, poltical
>> corruption is the only reason it was never implemented.
>
> The only large scale coal/oil/fuel project to have ever operated was
> Germany in WWII, and they only did it because they had no choice.
>
> There is periodic interest in the idea, here in Australia there are
> enormous shale oil deposits in an area commencing roughly just north of
> Bundaberg and continuing to just north of Rockhampton.
>
> In the past 100 years, on an approximate 20 year cycle, 100s of
> companies have spent Billions of $$s, each of them had a sure fire way
> to extract Shale oil, bring it to market and make lots and lots of $$s
> for their shareholders.
>
> The current round of hopefuls are getting ready to try again, but
> bluntly the people who only have to pump oil out of the ground, store
> it and ship it will always have better economics than the people who
> have to perfect and implement technology to extract oil from shale or
> coal.
>
> I'm confident that the current crop of investors will also go broke.
>

There are oil deposits capped all over Queensland and I'll bet London to a
brick that once the oil reaches $200 barrel, these caps will be released
making exorbitant profits for the local oil market.

Slip

[Ext User(Mot Adv)]

"Benway" <
>>
>> Those OPEC cunts and the futures speculators need some competition.
> *********************************************
> The energy bills Aussies will be paying shortly
> must force them into some serious thinking.
> Australia - the worst is yet to come.
> **********************************
Yes it is.

[Ext User(honehissop)]

E. Newnes wrote:
> On 8 Jan 2008 20:15:35 GMT, "Blue Heeler" <woof@bark.net> wrote:
>
>> Doug wrote:
>>
>>>> I understand that, I also understand that a price of US$50/barrel
>>>> makes it economic to convert coal to petrol.
>>> I've read this too. As a matter of fact Occidental Petroleum did
>>> research into this over 30 years ago. As far as the US goes, poltical
>>> corruption is the only reason it was never implemented.
>> The only large scale coal/oil/fuel project to have ever operated was
>> Germany in WWII, and they only did it because they had no choice.
>
> Nope. South Africa operates one to this day. It is operated by a
> company called SASOL and they supply 28% of SA's fuel.
>
> I understand that there is also a plant in Brunei.
>
>> There is periodic interest in the idea, here in Australia there are
>> enormous shale oil deposits in an area commencing roughly just north of
>> Bundaberg and continuing to just north of Rockhampton.
>
>> In the past 100 years, on an approximate 20 year cycle, 100s of
>> companies have spent Billions of $$s, each of them had a sure fire way
>> to extract Shale oil, bring it to market and make lots and lots of $$s
>> for their shareholders.
>
> The shale oil fields are in agricultural land. The politics of
> converting farmland to strip mines doesn't look easy. As well you have
> the possible side effects on the Great Barrier Reef.
>
> The coal fields are even larger and they are already being exploited.
> You have to see the size of those open cut mines at Moranbah before
> you comprehend the scale. Trains run 24/7 taking the shit to Mackay.
>
>> The current round of hopefuls are getting ready to try again, but
>> bluntly the people who only have to pump oil out of the ground, store
>> it and ship it will always have better economics than the people who
>> have to perfect and implement technology to extract oil from shale or
>> coal.
>
> The coal to petroleum process doesn't require new R&D since that has
> already been done. Of course the CO2 emissions cause concern amongst
> the politically correct. The major input requirement for the process
> (apart from coal) is liquid oxygen. Liquid oxygen is already produced
> in the field for aluminium smelting


which part of the smelting process uses liquid oxygen ?


- again this is not new R&D.
>
>> I'm confident that the current crop of investors will also go broke.
>
> For the shale oil investments probably. For direct coal there is a
> good business case.

[Ext User(Doug)]

"E. Newnes" <enewns45@solvo.com> wrote in message
news:vcm6o3djshv0i2qs6vfuik7piuec0vi2nu@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:51:32 -0800 (PST), SKD <sherkd@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>E. Newnes wrote:
>>> http://business.smh.com.au/double-or-nothing-traders-bet-on-oil-reaching-us200-a-barrel-by-years-end/20080107-1kna.html
>>>
>>> "THE fastest-growing bet in the oil market these days is that the
>>> price of crude will double to $US200 a barrel by the end of the year."
>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if anyone has the guts to talk up politically incorrect coal
>>> to petrol plants. We have more than enough coal and the current price
>>> of $100 a barrel is already high enough to make it economic.
>>>
>>> Those OPEC cunts and the futures speculators need some competition.
>>
>>Price of oil is in American dollars, their dollars was devalued by 30%
>>last year. They are still cutting its value, so has the price of oil
>>has really changed - was 70 now 100.
>
> I understand that, I also understand that a price of US$50/barrel
> makes it economic to convert coal to petrol.

I've read this too. As a matter of fact Occidental Petroleum did research
into this over 30 years ago. As far as the US goes, poltical corruption is
the only
reason it was never implemented.

[Ext User(Blue Heeler)]

Doug wrote:

> > I understand that, I also understand that a price of US$50/barrel
> > makes it economic to convert coal to petrol.
>
> I've read this too. As a matter of fact Occidental Petroleum did
> research into this over 30 years ago. As far as the US goes, poltical
> corruption is the only reason it was never implemented.

The only large scale coal/oil/fuel project to have ever operated was
Germany in WWII, and they only did it because they had no choice.

There is periodic interest in the idea, here in Australia there are
enormous shale oil deposits in an area commencing roughly just north of
Bundaberg and continuing to just north of Rockhampton.

In the past 100 years, on an approximate 20 year cycle, 100s of
companies have spent Billions of $$s, each of them had a sure fire way
to extract Shale oil, bring it to market and make lots and lots of $$s
for their shareholders.

The current round of hopefuls are getting ready to try again, but
bluntly the people who only have to pump oil out of the ground, store
it and ship it will always have better economics than the people who
have to perfect and implement technology to extract oil from shale or
coal.

I'm confident that the current crop of investors will also go broke.

--

[Ext User(E. Newnes)]

On 8 Jan 2008 20:15:35 GMT, "Blue Heeler" <woof@bark.net> wrote:

>Doug wrote:
>
>> > I understand that, I also understand that a price of US$50/barrel
>> > makes it economic to convert coal to petrol.
>>
>> I've read this too. As a matter of fact Occidental Petroleum did
>> research into this over 30 years ago. As far as the US goes, poltical
>> corruption is the only reason it was never implemented.
>
>The only large scale coal/oil/fuel project to have ever operated was
>Germany in WWII, and they only did it because they had no choice.

Nope. South Africa operates one to this day. It is operated by a
company called SASOL and they supply 28% of SA's fuel.

I understand that there is also a plant in Brunei.

>There is periodic interest in the idea, here in Australia there are
>enormous shale oil deposits in an area commencing roughly just north of
>Bundaberg and continuing to just north of Rockhampton.

>In the past 100 years, on an approximate 20 year cycle, 100s of
>companies have spent Billions of $$s, each of them had a sure fire way
>to extract Shale oil, bring it to market and make lots and lots of $$s
>for their shareholders.

The shale oil fields are in agricultural land. The politics of
converting farmland to strip mines doesn't look easy. As well you have
the possible side effects on the Great Barrier Reef.

The coal fields are even larger and they are already being exploited.
You have to see the size of those open cut mines at Moranbah before
you comprehend the scale. Trains run 24/7 taking the shit to Mackay.

>The current round of hopefuls are getting ready to try again, but
>bluntly the people who only have to pump oil out of the ground, store
>it and ship it will always have better economics than the people who
>have to perfect and implement technology to extract oil from shale or
>coal.

The coal to petroleum process doesn't require new R&D since that has
already been done. Of course the CO2 emissions cause concern amongst
the politically correct. The major input requirement for the process
(apart from coal) is liquid oxygen. Liquid oxygen is already produced
in the field for aluminium smelting - again this is not new R&D.

>I'm confident that the current crop of investors will also go broke.

For the shale oil investments probably. For direct coal there is a
good business case.

[Ext User(Slip)]

"Blue Heeler" <woof@bark.net> wrote in message
news:5ui3v6F1f588fU1@mid.individual.net...
> Doug wrote:
>
>> > I understand that, I also understand that a price of US$50/barrel
>> > makes it economic to convert coal to petrol.
>>
>> I've read this too. As a matter of fact Occidental Petroleum did
>> research into this over 30 years ago. As far as the US goes, poltical
>> corruption is the only reason it was never implemented.
>
> The only large scale coal/oil/fuel project to have ever operated was
> Germany in WWII, and they only did it because they had no choice.
>
> There is periodic interest in the idea, here in Australia there are
> enormous shale oil deposits in an area commencing roughly just north of
> Bundaberg and continuing to just north of Rockhampton.
>
> In the past 100 years, on an approximate 20 year cycle, 100s of
> companies have spent Billions of $$s, each of them had a sure fire way
> to extract Shale oil, bring it to market and make lots and lots of $$s
> for their shareholders.
>
> The current round of hopefuls are getting ready to try again, but
> bluntly the people who only have to pump oil out of the ground, store
> it and ship it will always have better economics than the people who
> have to perfect and implement technology to extract oil from shale or
> coal.
>
> I'm confident that the current crop of investors will also go broke.
>

There are oil deposits capped all over Queensland and I'll bet London to a
brick that once the oil reaches $200 barrel, these caps will be released
making exorbitant profits for the local oil market.

Slip

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Slip" <sww@everywhere.com> wrote in message
news:13o83uoeb3uft20@corp.supernews.com...

> There are oil deposits capped all over Queensland and I'll bet London to a
> brick that once the oil reaches $200 barrel, these caps will be released
> making exorbitant profits for the local oil market.

The local oil market *already* makes exorbitant profits by using a "world
parity price" to sell their locally sourced petrol.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Mot Adv)]

"Benway" <
>>
>> Those OPEC cunts and the futures speculators need some competition.
> *********************************************
> The energy bills Aussies will be paying shortly
> must force them into some serious thinking.
> Australia - the worst is yet to come.
> **********************************
Yes it is.

[Ext User(honehissop)]

E. Newnes wrote:
> On 8 Jan 2008 20:15:35 GMT, "Blue Heeler" <woof@bark.net> wrote:
>
>> Doug wrote:
>>
>>>> I understand that, I also understand that a price of US$50/barrel
>>>> makes it economic to convert coal to petrol.
>>> I've read this too. As a matter of fact Occidental Petroleum did
>>> research into this over 30 years ago. As far as the US goes, poltical
>>> corruption is the only reason it was never implemented.
>> The only large scale coal/oil/fuel project to have ever operated was
>> Germany in WWII, and they only did it because they had no choice.
>
> Nope. South Africa operates one to this day. It is operated by a
> company called SASOL and they supply 28% of SA's fuel.
>
> I understand that there is also a plant in Brunei.
>
>> There is periodic interest in the idea, here in Australia there are
>> enormous shale oil deposits in an area commencing roughly just north of
>> Bundaberg and continuing to just north of Rockhampton.
>
>> In the past 100 years, on an approximate 20 year cycle, 100s of
>> companies have spent Billions of $$s, each of them had a sure fire way
>> to extract Shale oil, bring it to market and make lots and lots of $$s
>> for their shareholders.
>
> The shale oil fields are in agricultural land. The politics of
> converting farmland to strip mines doesn't look easy. As well you have
> the possible side effects on the Great Barrier Reef.
>
> The coal fields are even larger and they are already being exploited.
> You have to see the size of those open cut mines at Moranbah before
> you comprehend the scale. Trains run 24/7 taking the shit to Mackay.
>
>> The current round of hopefuls are getting ready to try again, but
>> bluntly the people who only have to pump oil out of the ground, store
>> it and ship it will always have better economics than the people who
>> have to perfect and implement technology to extract oil from shale or
>> coal.
>
> The coal to petroleum process doesn't require new R&D since that has
> already been done. Of course the CO2 emissions cause concern amongst
> the politically correct. The major input requirement for the process
> (apart from coal) is liquid oxygen. Liquid oxygen is already produced
> in the field for aluminium smelting


which part of the smelting process uses liquid oxygen ?


- again this is not new R&D.
>
>> I'm confident that the current crop of investors will also go broke.
>
> For the shale oil investments probably. For direct coal there is a
> good business case.