Originally Posted by Judge

As noted above your reference is an absurd opinion article written by an organization with a clear political agenda. The article they cite, from Kiplinger, also takes many liberties with reality. For instance, the idea that the Bakken play contains 100 billion barrels of oil (BBO).

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

That reference is from the United States Geological Survey, you know, actual geological scientists, and the USGS estimate is 3 to 4.3 BBO recoverable. So there's 94 Billion Barrels gone from the 2.3 trillion without even trying. And on it goes with each of their miracle plays.

Oh, and from my time in the oil industry I can tell you that the USGS usually OVERESTIMATES actual recoverable reserves.

Here's a good discussion of the mythical ANWR:

http://205.254.135.7/pub/oil_gas/pet...iscussion.html

The 95% confidence reserve number is 5.7BBO and the 1 in 20 chance (5%) number of recoverable reserves is 15.9BBO. Kiplinger chooses to use a number closer to the lowest potential reserves (10BBO) which the is the mean (50-50 chance) number. But consider this, even 10BBO is about 17 months of average US oil consumption. So 10 BILLION barrels sounds like a big number until you start to break it down. The more likely 5.7BBO number is good for about 9 months worth of consumption.

The costs for oil shale and tar sand recover are mind boggling, plus they require an enormous amount of petroleum to be used to obtain them (fuel, etc.) .

Bottom line, three times the known reserves of the world still left in the US is nothing more than wishful thinking of those with a particular agenda. But don't think that means we should not aggressively work towards developing those reserves as we need them, but don't delude yourself into thinking they are going to save the day.

AAHHH but you have not considered the oil sands in Saskatchewan Canada which is much larger than the known reserves in Alberta----how much---they do not know. As the Canadians get better at the extraction process more of our oil will come from that part of the country. Don't quote me but I believe 65% of our import oil needs already comes from Canada.

If you could clean up and collect while its still steaming yes. After that it becomes rat food.
Rat infestation....do you want that.

Originally Posted by sherman89

AAHHH but you have not considered the oil sands in Saskatchewan Canada which is much larger than the known reserves in Alberta----how much---they do not know. As the Canadians get better at the extraction process more of our oil will come from that part of the country. Don't quote me but I believe 65% of our import oil needs already comes from Canada.

Thats about right, but that oil is very energy intensive to extract. Never going tobe cheap

Originally Posted by TimBle

Thats about right, but that oil is very energy intensive to extract. Never going tobe cheap

The cost with injection is $38.00/b. Cheap oil is long gone. Ask Cajun what it takes to produce a barrel of oil out in the gulf? When I was fracing in the Arabian Gulf in the 70's wells flowed on choke at 3000 b/d with less than 5% water----now the flow has dropped and they don't need chocks and the water content is now at 30-40%. Middle East oil is no longer cheap. The biggest reserve in Saudi is now putting out 30-50% water. But the good news is that they have found new reserves off the coast of West Africa but that area will not be cheap to work either. The cheapest oil to produce is right here in North America.

Originally Posted by sherman89

AAHHH but you have not considered the oil sands in Saskatchewan Canada which is much larger than the known reserves in Alberta----how much---they do not know. As the Canadians get better at the extraction process more of our oil will come from that part of the country. Don't quote me but I believe 65% of our import oil needs already comes from Canada.

Oil sands are certainly a significant resource, however, like tar sands they come with a high production cost, require significant amounts of hydrocarbon use to extract and refine, and do generally provide heavier end petroleum products as opposed to gasoline range products.

FWIW here are the top 5 countries we import petroleum from (September 2011 numbers):

CANADA - 28.34%
SAUDI ARABIA - 14.82%
MEXICO - 11.94%
VENEZUELA - 8.07%
RUSSIA - 5.93%

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/pe...nt/import.html

Originally Posted by EddiePeels

So what was the verdict on A123 batteries???

One of their largest customers (Fisker) has cut back on orders so they had to lay people off. Fortunately people like Hyperion are still making great LiFePO4 packs, in higher capacities and better formats (at least in my mind), so the impact on our hobby will likely be minimal.

As soon as those orders for the 50 mile range $100K electric cars come rolling in Fisker can start paying back those loans to Uncle Sam and A123 will be rolling in the dough,, that should be any day now,,, cool

Just to be accurate, that is 50 miles when using the battery alone. Total range is 300 miles when the solar panels in the roof are part of the power supply. Beyond that I'll leave you to your outrage about the loans since there is nothing that can be said about them that will alter your opinion.

See post #8

solar panels?? you mean a generator don't you, that runs on Gas

Originally Posted by AeroPainter

From the New York Post, Jan. 31..........
"The world’s largest publicly traded oil company reported net income of $9.4 billion for the quarter, up from $9.25 billion the year before. It posted revenue of $121.6 billion, up 16 percent."

From Forbes the same day.......
"That was the case in the fourth quarter, when Exxon reported profits that were up 2% from a year earlier, to $9.4 billion. For the full year 2011 earnings were up 35% to $41.1 billion, “reflecting higher crude oil and natural gas realizations,” the company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Rex Tillerson said."

Even my dumb a$$ can figure out how to reduce the price of a gallon of gas.

Just my .01

please tell me exactly how much... in pennies or percent... of each gallon of gas is profit...
and what is the profit margin?
then, tell me exactly how much of each gallon of gas goes to taxes....

Originally Posted by Judge

Just to be accurate, that is 50 miles when using the battery alone. Total range is 300 miles when the solar panels in the roof are part of the power supply. Beyond that I'll leave you to your outrage about the loans since there is nothing that can be said about them that will alter your opinion.

Judge, I'll defer to your petroleum expertise, but you missed one here. There is no way that roof mounted solar panels will add 250 miles to an electric cars range. And Fiskars own web site states that the solar roof adds about 300 miles a YEAR to the range. That number matches physics.

Sounds like the Fisker marketeers got their wish. The solar roof adds cost, with little value, but allows them to make a statement that is easily misinterpreted.

I really wish electric cars made more sense. But I haven't been able to make the economics work out for my situation. If I was sure the batteries lasted forever it would actually pay off to buy an electric car, but then I fly electrics and know something about forever and Lithium chemistry batteries.

Originally Posted by CatalinaWOW

Judge, I'll defer to your petroleum expertise, but you missed one here. There is no way that roof mounted solar panels will add 250 miles to an electric cars range. And Fiskars own web site states that the solar roof adds about 300 miles a YEAR to the range.

I was going by the range stated on their specifications page:

http://www.fiskerautomotive.com/en-u...specifications

Makes the fine print confusing since they solar panels add 200 miles annually as you say. They are not very clear on it also having a small IC engine.

look here
http://buyersguide.caranddriver.com/...karma#features

Just like the Volt,, it has a 4 banger gas motor,, when using that to generate power it get 27mpg,,, my wife's mini van does that on the hwy,, along with many many other gas powered cars,,

It's just a toy rich people can brag about to their rich friends,, How is this going to help the average Joe enough for our tax dollars to be spent on it??

One thing I would like to add is that I have heard how "unsafe" small cars are... with the proper airbags and crumple zones small cars can be very safe. I see so many people that drive HUGE SUV's or trucks that have no intension of ever putting anything in them. They tote around one person...

If people simply bought cars and trucks that fit their needs better I bet we could cut down on fuel consumption by 50%.

I know that is a pipe dream, and some people like chugging 8 MPG to go to the store, but hopefully someday people will open their eyes and see we can't continue like this.

Originally Posted by scale only 4 me

look here
http://buyersguide.caranddriver.com/...karma#features

Just like the Volt,, it has a 4 banger gas motor,, when using that to generate power it get 27mpg,,, my wife's mini van does that on the hwy,, along with many many other gas powered cars,,

It's just a toy rich people can brag about to their rich friends,, How is this going to help the average Joe enough for our tax dollars to be spent on it??

Not going to help the average Joe. But the technology is the thing and how that gets developed down the road as it were. I sense that even without the loan you'd be pi$$ed about them because they make a high end luxury car. None of this has any bearing on the original point of the thread, will this impact the availability of A123 cells for hobby use.