Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › $7 gasoline in the near future???
- This topic has 475 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 4 months ago by donaldduckmoore.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 1, 2008 at 2:50 PM #232069July 1, 2008 at 4:25 PM #231931ArrayaParticipant
Just so these tree huggers, global warming alarmists could shut up and stay out of the news.
LOL. Sick of em being right, huh
Gas will never make it past 7-8. We will be in depression after that.
Sorry, nature is breaking your economic model. Time for a new one. I wonder what our masters have in mind?
July 1, 2008 at 4:25 PM #232054ArrayaParticipantJust so these tree huggers, global warming alarmists could shut up and stay out of the news.
LOL. Sick of em being right, huh
Gas will never make it past 7-8. We will be in depression after that.
Sorry, nature is breaking your economic model. Time for a new one. I wonder what our masters have in mind?
July 1, 2008 at 4:25 PM #232062ArrayaParticipantJust so these tree huggers, global warming alarmists could shut up and stay out of the news.
LOL. Sick of em being right, huh
Gas will never make it past 7-8. We will be in depression after that.
Sorry, nature is breaking your economic model. Time for a new one. I wonder what our masters have in mind?
July 1, 2008 at 4:25 PM #232102ArrayaParticipantJust so these tree huggers, global warming alarmists could shut up and stay out of the news.
LOL. Sick of em being right, huh
Gas will never make it past 7-8. We will be in depression after that.
Sorry, nature is breaking your economic model. Time for a new one. I wonder what our masters have in mind?
July 1, 2008 at 4:25 PM #232115ArrayaParticipantJust so these tree huggers, global warming alarmists could shut up and stay out of the news.
LOL. Sick of em being right, huh
Gas will never make it past 7-8. We will be in depression after that.
Sorry, nature is breaking your economic model. Time for a new one. I wonder what our masters have in mind?
July 1, 2008 at 6:58 PM #232016AecetiaParticipantThe U.S.’ Untapped Oil Bounty
There’s enough oil to power the nation for three centuries without OPEC’s help — IF we’re willing to go after it.
By Jim Ostroff, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letterhttp://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html
July 1, 2008 at 6:58 PM #232140AecetiaParticipantThe U.S.’ Untapped Oil Bounty
There’s enough oil to power the nation for three centuries without OPEC’s help — IF we’re willing to go after it.
By Jim Ostroff, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letterhttp://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html
July 1, 2008 at 6:58 PM #232148AecetiaParticipantThe U.S.’ Untapped Oil Bounty
There’s enough oil to power the nation for three centuries without OPEC’s help — IF we’re willing to go after it.
By Jim Ostroff, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letterhttp://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html
July 1, 2008 at 6:58 PM #232187AecetiaParticipantThe U.S.’ Untapped Oil Bounty
There’s enough oil to power the nation for three centuries without OPEC’s help — IF we’re willing to go after it.
By Jim Ostroff, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letterhttp://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html
July 1, 2008 at 6:58 PM #232200AecetiaParticipantThe U.S.’ Untapped Oil Bounty
There’s enough oil to power the nation for three centuries without OPEC’s help — IF we’re willing to go after it.
By Jim Ostroff, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letterhttp://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html
July 1, 2008 at 7:37 PM #232026xironmanParticipantOk,
Let’s write off Kiplinger from making any sense whatsoever. First the idiotic comments on oil shale, at this point we don’t even know if it will produce positive net energy. You do realize the process includes creating a freeze wall underground and then heating everything in it for a couple of years. $50 per barrel production costs, ha! it is so energy intensive that production costs will outstrip the cost of oil itself. Oh yeah, where is all the water going to come from to make the process work… I guess the west does not have drought to worry about. Then f’ing Bakken Play being 100 billion barrels, even the ever optimistic EIA says we will only be able to get at 4 billion or so using ultra high technology horizontal and MRC wells. As for the off shore resources, 80% of that is available to be drilled today in the gulf, no action needed. Finally oil sands. Lets see, where are you going to get all that stranded natural gas to heat the sands and crack the long chain hydrocarbons that makes it work in Alberta. I just ain’t here. Dumb.
July 1, 2008 at 7:37 PM #232149xironmanParticipantOk,
Let’s write off Kiplinger from making any sense whatsoever. First the idiotic comments on oil shale, at this point we don’t even know if it will produce positive net energy. You do realize the process includes creating a freeze wall underground and then heating everything in it for a couple of years. $50 per barrel production costs, ha! it is so energy intensive that production costs will outstrip the cost of oil itself. Oh yeah, where is all the water going to come from to make the process work… I guess the west does not have drought to worry about. Then f’ing Bakken Play being 100 billion barrels, even the ever optimistic EIA says we will only be able to get at 4 billion or so using ultra high technology horizontal and MRC wells. As for the off shore resources, 80% of that is available to be drilled today in the gulf, no action needed. Finally oil sands. Lets see, where are you going to get all that stranded natural gas to heat the sands and crack the long chain hydrocarbons that makes it work in Alberta. I just ain’t here. Dumb.
July 1, 2008 at 7:37 PM #232159xironmanParticipantOk,
Let’s write off Kiplinger from making any sense whatsoever. First the idiotic comments on oil shale, at this point we don’t even know if it will produce positive net energy. You do realize the process includes creating a freeze wall underground and then heating everything in it for a couple of years. $50 per barrel production costs, ha! it is so energy intensive that production costs will outstrip the cost of oil itself. Oh yeah, where is all the water going to come from to make the process work… I guess the west does not have drought to worry about. Then f’ing Bakken Play being 100 billion barrels, even the ever optimistic EIA says we will only be able to get at 4 billion or so using ultra high technology horizontal and MRC wells. As for the off shore resources, 80% of that is available to be drilled today in the gulf, no action needed. Finally oil sands. Lets see, where are you going to get all that stranded natural gas to heat the sands and crack the long chain hydrocarbons that makes it work in Alberta. I just ain’t here. Dumb.
July 1, 2008 at 7:37 PM #232197xironmanParticipantOk,
Let’s write off Kiplinger from making any sense whatsoever. First the idiotic comments on oil shale, at this point we don’t even know if it will produce positive net energy. You do realize the process includes creating a freeze wall underground and then heating everything in it for a couple of years. $50 per barrel production costs, ha! it is so energy intensive that production costs will outstrip the cost of oil itself. Oh yeah, where is all the water going to come from to make the process work… I guess the west does not have drought to worry about. Then f’ing Bakken Play being 100 billion barrels, even the ever optimistic EIA says we will only be able to get at 4 billion or so using ultra high technology horizontal and MRC wells. As for the off shore resources, 80% of that is available to be drilled today in the gulf, no action needed. Finally oil sands. Lets see, where are you going to get all that stranded natural gas to heat the sands and crack the long chain hydrocarbons that makes it work in Alberta. I just ain’t here. Dumb.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.