Coal-To-Oil

Calabrio

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
8,793
Reaction score
3
Location
Sarasota
We need to have the federal government get involved int he production of Coal to Oil plants.

All the other stuff right now, with bio-diesol and alternative fuels is pie-in-the-sky and will take decades to actually produce in a marketable and functionable way. Coal-to-Oil technology is ready to go, we have abundant North American resources, and there are investors waiting to spend the money so long as the feds provide some kind of insurance....

This is a must listen interview with regarding the coal-to-oil issue.
radio interview on subject

Coal and Energy Independence

Terror is financed by $77/bar oil. What happens if we sanction Iran, they mine the shipping channels, and oil reaches $125/barrel?

So long as our economy is tied to foriegn oil, we are criticially vulnerable.
 
I like your idea, except for the part about "we need to get the federal government involved."

I'm sure that was just a misstatement.

Keep the FED out of this and things will run just fine. What the FED can do is provide incentives for the free market to do this.
 
The Fed needs to be involved for two reasons-

the lift the prohibative regulations necessary to break ground on these production facilities.

And in this case, they need to step forward and provide some guarantees to the investors. The fuel markets aren't exactly and entirely natural marketplace. The interview with the JetBlue exec I posted to addresses virtually all of the major points.

So, to clarify my position, I do think the Federal government needs to be involved in order to stimulate PRIVATE investment into this industry. And then we could starve the Middle East.

Honestly, when you get some time, that 40 minute radio interview really gets into some detail.
 
Calabrio said:
The Fed needs to be involved for two reasons-

the lift the prohibative regulations necessary to break ground on these production facilities.

And in this case, they need to step forward and provide some guarantees to the investors. The fuel markets aren't exactly and entirely natural marketplace. The interview with the JetBlue exec I posted to addresses virtually all of the major points.

So, to clarify my position, I do think the Federal government needs to be involved in order to stimulate PRIVATE investment into this industry. And then we could starve the Middle East.

Honestly, when you get some time, that 40 minute radio interview really gets into some detail.

Ok. Clarification makes sense. "Involved" really just means "get out of the way."
 
Old news. Both coal gasification and coal liquefaction have been around for decades.

Coal gasification was around before Edison perfected the electric light. Most decent-sized towns had "town gas" plants that made a low BTU gas (about 200 BTU/cubic foot) mixture of methane, coarbon monoxide and carbon dioxide that burned with a bright flame. It was OK for street and house lights, but needless to say a huge fre hazard. today the process has been somewhat improved and is now called the Lurgi process. the process now uses more hydrogen and makes a bit better fuel but is still only 80% efficient on a BTU basis. Put 1MMBTU of coal (80 lb) and the heating value of the gas is about 800,000 BTU. I don't see where this would be worth much as a transportation fuel. What it is usually touted for is as a cleaner alternative to direct coal combustion for electric utility work.

Coal liquefaction has been around since before World War I. Hitler used the Fischer-Tropsch process to make a synthetic crude to fuel his war machine. Since the Germans mostly used diesel for fuel - just a few cars and their aircraft used gasoline - we know their refineries could make diesel out of this syncrude. The US has developed an improvement on Fischer-Tropsch called H-Coal. It makes a lot more syncrude per ton of coal thant Fischer-Tropsch but reqyuires a refinery that is somewhat different than the usual US oil refinery. This is what kills H-Coal in the US. to build a syncrude plant and a refinery would be so afoul of the EPA's New Source Review program that just the permit would take at least ten years to obtain, if you could get one at all and even then the permit would be so restricitve the plant/refinery combo would be very hard to keep in operation. Do you know what the market will be fifteen years from now (allow some time for construction)? I don't either and neither do the oil companies, so they are not interested in risking billions of dollars on something they might never make a dime on.

Until the people are ready to kick the EPA to the curb, coal liquefaction will go nowhere.


quote from a fellow member on another forum
 
Frogman said:
Old news. Both coal gasification and coal liquefaction have been around for decades.

You missed the point. It's not that the techonology itself is new, that's not the discussion. The concept has clearly been around for a long time, as you mentioned, if the Nazis had better utilized it they might have been able to prolong WW2 as they were starved of oil. The technology to do it certainly has gotten greener though. And more importantly, the economic conditions that make it viable, and the political conditions that make it necessary have only been in existance for the past two years.

China is building these plants. We need them in this country.

And, if anyone gets a chance to listen to the interview, let me know.
 
Calabrio said:
You missed the point. It's not that the techonology itself is new, that's not the discussion. The concept has clearly been around for a long time, as you mentioned, if the Nazis had better utilized it they might have been able to prolong WW2 as they were starved of oil. The technology to do it certainly has gotten greener though. And more importantly, the economic conditions that make it viable, and the political conditions that make it necessary have only been in existance for the past two years.

China is building these plants. We need them in this country.

And, if anyone gets a chance to listen to the interview, let me know.


That is very interesting, if this works I know one thing, Illinois will be in better shape for money, we have one of the biggest coal deposits in the world in this state. Question is will it actually happen? and can it really help IL. economy, and other states with large coal deposits?
 
Calabrio said:
You missed the point. It's not that the techonology itself is new, that's not the discussion. The concept has clearly been around for a long time, as you mentioned, if the Nazis had better utilized it they might have been able to prolong WW2 as they were starved of oil. The technology to do it certainly has gotten greener though. And more importantly, the economic conditions that make it viable, and the political conditions that make it necessary have only been in existance for the past two years.

China is building these plants. We need them in this country.

And, if anyone gets a chance to listen to the interview, let me know.

I've got school and work all week until Friday, but I'll try to listen to it maybe this weekend.
 
I admit I'm not too well read in this, but I think the oil sands would probably prove to be more viable. And the private sector is already investing...

In the long term I think we'll be switching to a hydrogen based economy, but that is quite a ways off into the future. All it depends on is a source of cheap, abundant electricity, which if ITER works out the way I'm hoping will be within my lifetime with the introduction of commercial fusion. I'm looking at these ideas (oil sands, coal liquification, even E85) that are alternatives to our current method of sucking oil out of the ground as more of a crutch until H2 takes over.
 
I listened to the audio. I suppose that we should listen to a guy that had the moxy to do a start-up airline. Like he says, another plentiful source of fuel would drive the price of Middle-East oil down, but that doesn't really solve our dependence on oil.

Doesn't it make some sense to invest the same amount in vehicles that run on renewable resources, making oil readily available for airplanes, trucks, and trains?
 
Their building several new coal fired powerplants, and at the rate those things go through coal, it's not going to last forever, then we have an electrical crisis...
 
I would view it a two generation band-aid solution to the problem.

We can not quickly arrive at green technology within the next ten years. That just can't happen. We need to continue in that direction though.

But with coal-to-oil, in the short term (less than ten years) we can drastically cut the world oil prices (but keeping an artificially higher price in order to insure the investment). We use about a quarter of the total world's oil. If we were to unplug, there would be a surplus, leaving the Mid East, Russia, and Venezuela sitting on unsold oil. It's $77/bar now, it could easily fall back down to $35 or less.

And to compound my point, this story just came out:
By Saeed Shah
Published: 22 August 2006

The price of crude oil could hit $300 (£158) a barrel if BP's pipeline corrosion crisis in Alaska turns out to be an endemic problem for the industry
, according to the leading oil industry analyst Matthew Simmons.

Mr Simmons, a US-based industry commentator and financier, said BP's discovery of unexpectedly severe corrosion in its pipelines at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, could just be the tip of the iceberg. He described the sudden emergence of the issue as the "Pearl Harbour Day" for energy.

He said that if drastic remedial work was required to fix or rebuild pipelines across the world, the flow of crude oil could halve, sending prices soaring.

Mr Simmons, who shot to prominence by arguing that the world's biggest producer, Saudi Arabia, was running out of oil, said: "The industry cut too many corners when prices were low. For 25 years, there was not a proper maintenance programme. We backed ourselves into a system - rigs, pipelines and refineries - that rusted away."

He said the oil industry was now confronted with a dual problem: the view that oil supply has "peaked" and, now, the issue of corrosion of infrastructure.

"The anecdotal evidence is so widespread that it is undeniable. Until we had something as stunning as Prudhoe Bay, the industry was able to say that incidents were one-offs or that these allegations came from disgruntled employees," Mr Simmons said.

Aside from the BTC pipeline from the Caspian Sea, recently completed by BP, most of the major oil pipelines in the world were built in the 1970s or earlier, including those in Alaska. Replacing these would cost billions. The Trans Alaska Pipeline alone would cost some $30bn to rebuild. Last month Russia was forced to shut its massive Druzhba pipeline, which is more than 40 years old, because of a leak.

Mr Simmons, who founded the Simmons and Company oil industry finance house, said he believed that Saudi Arabia has an "endemic" corrosion problem. BP had for years dismissed allegations of poor maintenance of its Alaska facilities by former and existing employees.

Mr Simmons said: "If it turns out that these whistleblowers were accurate, then somebody ought to go to jail."

BP has had to shut half its production at Prudhoe Bay after two leaks were discovered at small feeder pipelines, with an initial incident in March spilling some 5,000 barrels of oil, while a second leak became apparent this month. A prolonged shutdown at Prudhoe Bay, North America's largest oilfield, is likely to cause serious fuel shortages on America's West Coast. BP has already said that it will replace 16 miles of pipeline.

BP yesterday denied new allegations that surfaced, which claimed that the company manipulated data to avoid replacing pipelines at Prudhoe Bay.

Robert Wine, a BP spokesman in London, said: "We deny the allegations of changing data and we continue to work with the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] and other regulators."

He said until the problem emerged in March, BP believed its maintenance regime in Alaska was "appropriate" and the company continued to believe its maintenance elsewhere was appropriate.

Mr Wine added: "We have investigated all claims [from whistleblowers] where enough specific information was provided."

BP could face criminal charges over the Alaska leaks. It is under separate regulatory investigation over a fatal explosion at its giant oil refinery in Texas last year, where it is also alleged that poor maintenance was to blame. BP's chief executive, Lord Browne of Madingley, could be forced by a Texas court to give sworn testimony on how much he knew about the state of the refinery.

The price of crude oil could hit $300 (£158) a barrel if BP's pipeline corrosion crisis in Alaska turns out to be an endemic problem for the industry, according to the leading oil industry analyst Matthew Simmons.

Mr Simmons, a US-based industry commentator and financier, said BP's discovery of unexpectedly severe corrosion in its pipelines at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, could just be the tip of the iceberg. He described the sudden emergence of the issue as the "Pearl Harbour Day" for energy.

He said that if drastic remedial work was required to fix or rebuild pipelines across the world, the flow of crude oil could halve, sending prices soaring.

Mr Simmons, who shot to prominence by arguing that the world's biggest producer, Saudi Arabia, was running out of oil, said: "The industry cut too many corners when prices were low. For 25 years, there was not a proper maintenance programme. We backed ourselves into a system - rigs, pipelines and refineries - that rusted away."

He said the oil industry was now confronted with a dual problem: the view that oil supply has "peaked" and, now, the issue of corrosion of infrastructure.

"The anecdotal evidence is so widespread that it is undeniable. Until we had something as stunning as Prudhoe Bay, the industry was able to say that incidents were one-offs or that these allegations came from disgruntled employees," Mr Simmons said.

Aside from the BTC pipeline from the Caspian Sea, recently completed by BP, most of the major oil pipelines in the world were built in the 1970s or earlier, including those in Alaska. Replacing these would cost billions. The Trans Alaska Pipeline alone would cost some $30bn to rebuild. Last month Russia was forced to shut its massive Druzhba pipeline, which is more than 40 years old, because of a leak.

Mr Simmons, who founded the Simmons and Company oil industry finance house, said he believed that Saudi Arabia has an "endemic" corrosion problem. BP had for years dismissed allegations of poor maintenance of its Alaska facilities by former and existing employees.

Mr Simmons said: "If it turns out that these whistleblowers were accurate, then somebody ought to go to jail."

BP has had to shut half its production at Prudhoe Bay after two leaks were discovered at small feeder pipelines, with an initial incident in March spilling some 5,000 barrels of oil, while a second leak became apparent this month. A prolonged shutdown at Prudhoe Bay, North America's largest oilfield, is likely to cause serious fuel shortages on America's West Coast. BP has already said that it will replace 16 miles of pipeline.

BP yesterday denied new allegations that surfaced, which claimed that the company manipulated data to avoid replacing pipelines at Prudhoe Bay.

Robert Wine, a BP spokesman in London, said: "We deny the allegations of changing data and we continue to work with the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] and other regulators."

He said until the problem emerged in March, BP believed its maintenance regime in Alaska was "appropriate" and the company continued to believe its maintenance elsewhere was appropriate.

Mr Wine added: "We have investigated all claims [from whistleblowers] where enough specific information was provided."

BP could face criminal charges over the Alaska leaks. It is under separate regulatory investigation over a fatal explosion at its giant oil refinery in Texas last year, where it is also alleged that poor maintenance was to blame. BP's chief executive, Lord Browne of Madingley, could be forced by a Texas court to give sworn testimony on how much he knew about the state of the refinery.
 
barry2952 said:
I listened to the audio. I suppose that we should listen to a guy that had the moxy to do a start-up airline. Like he says, another plentiful source of fuel would drive the price of Middle-East oil down, but that doesn't really solve our dependence on oil.

Doesn't it make some sense to invest the same amount in vehicles that run on renewable resources, making oil readily available for airplanes, trucks, and trains?

What's wrong with a dependence on oil?

1. It's not running out
2. It's cheap
3. It's a lot easier to keep using it than to spend billions upon billions to switch
4. What else are we going to do with the oil?
 
fossten said:
What's wrong with a dependence on oil?

1. It's not running out
2. It's cheap
3. It's a lot easier to keep using it than to spend billions upon billions to switch
4. What else are we going to do with the oil?

Don't you just love people that argue just for the sake of argument?
 
barry2952 said:
Don't you just love people that argue just for the sake of argument?

I laugh at people who make inane statements when they have no cogent response to the issue.

You obviously have a personal problem with me, barry. Evidently you can't control yourself. But you're not going to intimidate me into not posting. If you can't handle my presence on this forum, then go somewhere else. Otherwise, you need to do everyone here a favor and quit whining like a little baby every time I respond to something. It makes you look like a petulant little whiner.

Waaaaaaaahhh! WAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!
 
I don't detect any hostility from Barry. If you really think he's provoking you, it'd be best to just not respond rather than turning any friction up another level. And I absolutely don't think Barry is trying to intimidate anyone.

But I can tell you what the problem with oil is-
It very likely is running out in some areas. Despite what a few scientist might speculate, we do not appear to have an infinite supply. Many of the smaller Arab countries, like Bahrain, are ambitiously working to develop alternative industries because they are concerned that their reserves of oil have maybe ten to twenties years left. While there are still untapped and undiscovered reserves in the world, there is no harm in finding alternative solutions.

The argument that it's not going to run out and it's a renewable resource is less widely supported than the argument for man-made global warming.

2. It's still relatively cheap. But the demand on this resource is increasing and there is no telling what will happen when the nearly three billion Asians in China and India all start living like Americans.

As that demand increases, the price is going to continue to climb. The world and the greens are preventing us from tapping the untapped reserves, so there's no reason to expect prices to fall, with the status quo, ever again.

3. It's easier to use than spending billions to switch, right now. But a gradual process is ideal. There's no denying that exhaust and emissions aren't good, global warming or not. It smells, it creates smog, and it's unhealthy in general.

I guess the big issue is supply. If you honestly believe that oil is an inexpendable resource, then there's no reason to change the staus quo, other than to expand drilling and for enviromental concerns. But if you don't, the increased global demand means that prices of this limited resource will continue to climb. And frankly, once billions of China and India finish their industrialization, the 300 million Americans are going to necessarily be the most powerful market in the world.

But in the short term, the problem with oil is that we buy it from Arabs and other hostile regimes. Venezuela, Russia, and the Middle East are the big suppliers and they are all hostile towards us. We are dependent upon those regimes for our economic and military security.

Coal-to-Oil and expanded drilling are the solution for the short term. In the long term, we need to look into renewable and clean ways for the U.S. to create energy that can be exported. That will help our security and our economies.

Should the government spearhead this effort? No. Industry should and it will. But since the government is already so involved in other things, it does need to help remove some of the obstacles and compensate for the messes it's made.

Frankly, I don't care about the green solution. My only concern, right now, is finding a way to quickly develop energy independence for the U.S. The concept of the U.S. basically being dependent on Iran in order to buy the fuel necessary to power the F-15 that's going to bomb Terhan is ludicrous.
 
Calabrio said:
I don't detect any hostility from Barry. If you really think he's provoking you, it'd be best to just not respond rather than turning any friction up another level. And I absolutely don't think Barry is trying to intimidate anyone.

I have to respectfully tell you that if you really believe all that, you aren't paying attention. And I'm not going to be intimidated into not responding by you, either. No offense intended. But if you really looked back in recent posts, you'd see what I'm talking about.

Check out this thread. This is but ONE example, and it's even from today.

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=25467

Here's another one - notice that I actually greeted him in a friendly manner, and notice his response.

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=24935

I guess I'd have to ask you how you define hostility. :rolleyes:
 
Fossten, you can give as good as you get, but for some reason it looks like you've really personalized it. Granted, he did say your head is up your ass, but prior to that you said he was, basically, living in defiance of the law of God because he hadn't had children. That's an intensely personal choice. You also concluded that he supported abortion as a form of population control, something I don't think he even hinted at.

Things would be a little more pleasant and constructive here if everyone took a step back and not intensely personalize everything.

Keep in mind, you can come on quite strong and arguably a bit abrasively, Fossten. And you must really personalize some of this stuff. Geez, you just implied that I'm trying to intimidate you into not posting. Where'd that come from? That couldn't be more untrue.

Barry contributes, whether he's right or wrong. And if things get a little heated, so be it. Debate can become spirited. But when the thread is over, you dust off and shake the other guys hand.

Most of us who are interested in this stuff are so because they genuinely love the country and are concerned about the future and direction. And we are certainly living in complicated times. If guys like him aren't given enough tolerance to make statements, be they misguided or not, we'll see this forum devolve into three conservatives posting, an occassional straggler, and then periodically looney Moveon.org types document dumping.

That's no fun.

So if we can limit the personal offenses, and ignore the small petty personal attacks, we'll probably see more people participate and not be intimidated to engage. And after a few weeks the hurt feelings will probably come to a end.

You can't convince anyone of something if they have stopped listening.
 
Calabrio said:
Fossten, you can give as good as you get, but for some reason it looks like you've really personalized it. Granted, he did say your head is up your ass, but prior to that you said he was, basically, living in defiance of the law of God because he hadn't had children. That's an intensely personal choice. You also concluded that he supported abortion as a form of population control, something I don't think he even hinted at.

Things would be a little more pleasant and constructive here if everyone took a step back and not intensely personalize everything.

Keep in mind, you can come on quite strong and arguably a bit abrasively, Fossten. And you must really personalize some of this stuff. Geez, you just implied that I'm trying to intimidate you into not posting. Where'd that come from? That couldn't be more untrue.

Barry contributes, whether he's right or wrong. And if things get a little heated, so be it. Debate can become spirited. But when the thread is over, you dust off and shake the other guys hand.

Most of us who are interested in this stuff are so because they genuinely love the country and are concerned about the future and direction. And we are certainly living in complicated times. If guys like him aren't given enough tolerance to make statements, be they misguided or not, we'll see this forum devolve into three conservatives posting, an occassional straggler, and then periodically looney Moveon.org types document dumping.

That's no fun.

So if we can limit the personal offenses, and ignore the small petty personal attacks, we'll probably see more people participate and not be intimidated to engage. And after a few weeks the hurt feelings will probably come to a end.

You can't convince anyone of something if they have stopped listening.

You really need to re-read my post. There's nothing in there that you didn't infer. I never said any of the things you're asserting. I was speaking to an issue. If he took it personally, that's his problem. I certainly wasn't directing it at him.

I also don't see you ever castigating him for attacking me. Instead you suggest that I not respond. Wonder why that is?

You have no idea what barry's done behind the doors of the PM with me, pretending to be friendly, and then stabbing me in the back in public. Not that I care anymore, now that I know the truth about him, but come on - read his posts that aren't articles. Pure bullcrap. He does NOT contribute anything meaningful on his own and everybody knows it.

You see things the way you choose to. I don't have to explain anything to you. I know the truth, because I was debating barry long before you came to this forum. I will say it again, before you jump in the middle of my dispute with him, you would be better served to go back and read the last 12 months or so. Otherwise, stay out of it, because you simply don't know what you're talking about.
 
Stomp them little feet Fussy. Try rereading your posts. You clearly attacked my life choices.

Crybaby! It's all about Fussy.
 
barry2952 said:
blah blah blah blah blah...personal attacks...stupid statements...blah blah blah...

I'm confused as to whether you're whining or celebrating now.

Either show it or be discredited...oh, wait...it's too late. You have zero cred.
 
fossten said:
I'm confused as to whether you're whining or celebrating now.

Either show it or be discredited...oh, wait...it's too late. You have zero cred.

This is what Fussy originally posted:

fossten said:
I'm confused as to whether you're whining or celebrating now. Either way, you're a loser.

A loser, hardly. Your statement clearly shows what a crybaby you are.
 
We all have choices.

Unless he punched your mother in the stomach and took a whiz on the grave of a family member, I doubt I've missed anything on this message board worthy enough to be perpetually upset by.

I've found that you simply can't personalize every flippant remark made during a political debate and that goes doubly for what happens on a message board. I've attacked Barry, Barry has attacked me. Fine. But I consider it over and resolved. I have no reason to think Barry is a bad person. An evil person. A person who wishes me ill-will. A person who is trying to do harm to my family....

I don't rehash every single personal attack in every single thread. When the thread falls of the page, given the nature of the conflict, I consider it closed. We all try to keep things civil, on occassion we all fail. But why belabor such trivial thing?

Ulimately, Fossten, in the minds of some people, I think you tend undermine your well crafted and thoughtful arguments along with your credibility by virtue of your acidic grudges. You do yourself a disservice perpetuating an unresolved, though totally unimportant, conflict.

So, if nothing else, don't sweat the small the stuff. You'll have more fun and influence more people.

Not to mention the power you give to everyone when they know how reactive you can be. If I were Barry, by now I might just occassionally post just to see how long it took to get you to fly off the handle.

Speaking of which, Barry, you're certainly not helping either. You're unabashedly provoking Fossten at this point. He certainly has an argument and cause as to why he might harbor a some hostility. The two of you clearly bait each other at different times.

If all else fails, don't both of you know about the ignore feature?

Can't you just call a truce and start over?


And Fossten asked why I responded to him, and not Barry, initially. Simple, because Fossten posts much more and is the LvC member most closely associated with the Political Forum. If the overall perception by the community of the forum is that this is a hostile place, fewer people become involved, and it's less interesting for us all.

The best thing that could happen around here would be if some articulate Democrats started regularally posting and contributing original comments. Right now, things are heavily one sided and the only liberals who consistantly start threads are the MoveOn.org types posting hateful propoganda and lack the ability to construct arguments in support of their position.

Most of the guys on the sane-left, or center-left, or undecided/unaware, stopped posting here.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top