what if the price of oil declines significantly?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Charles Russell on August 13, 2008 at 7:28pm

Was this a response to what I wrote? If it was I don't think you understood what I was saying. I certainly can't make sense of what you said either. I think you and I should be Congressmen. They seem to have the same problem.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rexrino on August 13, 2008 at 8:20pm

Or, perhaps we simply misunderstood one another....
Would you like to try again, perhaps PM?
I for one don't want to be misunderstood, and I have been know to misunderstand others.

Permalink Reply by Warner on August 13, 2008 at 3:03pm

We may indeed see gasoline at $2.50 or $3.00 levels again for a little while. But many factors
now effect the price of oil. Our willingness to go with the Pickens Plan will have an effect.

The US is a major market for oil. If we conserve and start using our own sources of energy
we will see a short term drop in prices. Bear in mind that the countries that export oil now
will need that oil for their own use in the coming years. As their wealth increases, so will their
need for their own product.

That is why we need to develope our own energy systems as soon as possible.

It will take many years and many billions to accomplish. As we channel funds to natural gas
and wind (the most promising now), we will still have high energy costs and that money will
be leaving the US instead of staying here.

That is why we need the FairTax now. It is a national sales tax that will end the income tax
forever. The FairTax is simple and effective and will save the tax payers $100s of billions
as the compliance costs of the income tax estimated to be $300 or $400 billion. This
money is now wasted on the income tax. We need to put it to good use. With the savings
when we have the FairTax we can pay the high energy bills and invest in new technologies
to create clean energy independence.

The FairTax dovetails well with the Pickens Plan.

You can learn more at www.FairTax.org.

We can do this with the right investment in the right direction.

Thanks

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Thomas Ketchum on September 1, 2008 at 3:50am

AN OPEN LETTER TO MR. T. BOONE PICKENS.

We have joined your effort to reduce U.S. dependency on imported oil and gas and, in that connection, are presenting you with a method for increasing the efficiency of present natural gas usage, as it relates to fertilizer production in the United States.

Our plan is proven to increase nitrogen delivery efficiency by more than 40%, compared to currently-used methods of creating dry chemical fertilizers and dumping them on the ground.

What we are offering you is a simultaneous solution to (1) Homeland Security, (2) Agriculture, (3) Environmental concerns, and (4) Economic Stimulus and Development concerns, which are of increasing interest to all Americans.

What we have to offer is a 100% environmentally “green” liquid fertilizer manufacturing installation and processes, along with patented formulae, which produce liquid ecological fertilizers (N-P-K, plus micro elements) using common non-toxic mineral compounds.
The formulations do NOT, per se, include any organic materials. However, here in Europe, these formulations are so ecologically friendly ("green") that they are certified for use in "organic" farming operations.

These machines produce N-P-K fertilizers WITHOUT EVER using dangerous, explosive, Ammonium Nitrate. Accordingly, you will find that a broad deployment of these machines, throughout our nation can be a big help in the "War On Terror", since they form the basis of restricting Ammonium Nitrate to a very very few, large industrial farm operations. As such, terrorists will have a much harder time making Oklahoma City-styled bombs.

We have erected a pilot facility (for sales purposes, so as to not give away formulae secrets during actual operations) near the city of Buzau (about 100 km from Bucharest). We are prepared to allow close inspection of this facility by you or your designated representatives and/or by the United States government in Bucharest, which could confirm any and all claims we make about this enterprise for anyone interested.

We are requesting that you or someone you trust undertake a “fact-finding” trip to Romania to witness the machinery and the processes after an initial evaluation by the aforementioned appropriate local representatives of the U.S. government who are presently in Bucharest.

Thereafter, we would ask you to seriously consider corporate sponsorship of a deployment of these machines along your proposed wind generation corridor (as spelled-out in the Pickens Plan). Thereafter, we ask that you propose legislation back in the Congress, which would place these machines in service throughout the United States in sufficient numbers and in broad enough distribution (as to area) so as to support subsequent legislation to strictly curtail and limit access to Ammonium Nitrate fertilizers, as a measure to assist in “the War on Terror”. The machines and processes are needed because, until now, no large-scale, commercially-viable alternative existed to Ammonium Nitrate fertilizers.

Only with a nation-wide mandate to increase efficiency in nitrogen delivery, such as can be achieved by the large-scale use of these machines, can the aforementioned 40+ % increase in natural gas use efficiency be had, as it relates to natural gas use in fertilizer production.

With these machines, you eliminate a readily-available explosive from the public domain. This does not even touch the other benefits to be had from these remarkable fertilizers.

In the spirit of patriotism, we are prepared to work with you to ensure that costs for deployment of this technology is not prohibitive and also does not run counter to either good business or the National Interests of the United States.

Specifically, we offer to train trainers here in Romania and there, in the United States, once domestic production is funded and, otherwise, fully supported.

We have all information at the ready to support our proposal, immediately. Please contact us, directly, for more specific information.

Think how many people would be put to work simply manufacturing the machinery (places like closed shipyards or other facilities closed during a recent economic slowdown would be perfect, for example).

We hope to hear from you or from someone of equal vision for a more energy self-sufficient future for the United States.

While we would rather keep this simple and deal, exclusively, with one man of vision and means, we are prepared, in any case, to license those who might wish to use our inventions on some lesser scale.

Sincerely,

Thomas L. Ketchum, Jr.
and Elena M. Ketchum
for
SC Thopy7 SRL
Strada Dr. Ion Nanu Muscel, Nr. 13, Ap. 3
Bucharest, Romania
050521

fax: 011-40-21-410-8910
office: 011-40-73-100-3792
email: FOLPLANT@AOL.COM

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Robert D. Jones on October 14, 2008 at 11:57am

For all the folks who were participating in this discussion over the past few months, sorry I have been silent. However, Ike did, in fact, make an impression on me since I live in Houston and chose to stay home for the festivities. Interesting experience -- I've ridden out typhoons (Pacific version), hurricanes, and even flown through hurricanes (by accident). But, Ike was a different kind of storm.

But enough of that... How about an update on the concept of what happens if oil price declines -- the subject that started last July? Well, the price has declined. We have gasoline below 3.00 a gallon here in Houston now and there is a waning focus on alternative fuels. That focus is caused by a bit more than the price of gasoline, however.

There is a SERIOUS flaw in the Pickens Plan that must be addressed. You may recall that I was investigating the applicability of CNG as a vehicle fuel. Well, I've found out a number of things and I will go into more detail later. Suffice it to say that the conversion is impossible if your vehicle is older than 2007 -- and even then kits are limited in terms of engines/vehicles. There are none for small trucks, for example. So, that part of the plan is simply not viable and we need to quickly come up with some kind of alternate fuel to "tide us over" or change the CNG process and EPA approval process to make the conversions viable for individuals -- they are OK for vehicle fleets in a local setting.

More later -- specifics on conversion, available fueling stations, and the installation of a fueling station at your home.

Glad to be back -- but not pleased with the news. Throws the whole Pickens Plan into limbo, in my engineering and management view.

Bob Jones
Houston, Texas

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Hugh Hemington on October 15, 2008 at 2:09pm

I spoke to a guy from BAF Technologies (CNG conversions) yesterday at the Clean Vehicle Technology Expo. I asked him, "What vehicle is the easiest one to convert -- which one takes the least time?"

He told me that the Ford F-150 was the EASIEST! 45 minutes under to hood, changing the injectors, and mount the tank in the bed behind the cab. Another converter I saw there specializes in the Chevy Malibu. He said that the fuel lines used by GM are already rated to carry natural gas, so they don't have to be changed! He's affiliated with http://www.cngcars.la I believe.

Yes, if you convert a vehicle, you need to keep it for a while to make it pay, but the engine WILL last longer with no carbon in the fuel to wear it out. If you're going to keep the car for a while, you probably want to start with a new or newer car anyway so the rest of the car lasts as long as the engine. We have to get past the idea that our vehicle is supposed to be traded in every two years or that it's supposed to get us laid!

I'd rather drive a reliable CNG car I can get now than keep that sporty racer when I look my friends in the face while they're hold the flag that draped their veteran child's casket.

You can contact bafinfo@baftechnologies.com for fleet conversions or your Ford dealer for single units. I'm not affiliated with them in any way -- I'm just passing this along.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Robert D. Jones on October 15, 2008 at 3:56pm

Appreciate the info. However, you are still talking California. And, interestingly enough, the kit for the Ford is only for the late model 150, not for the Ranger for any model year or any engine.

The problem for folks outside California remains as I stated in the previous input. I wish it were not so, but that is what I found out (and I have already visited all the that showed up when I googled CNG). Discouraging to a believer.

Bob

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mark on October 14, 2008 at 1:19pm

I believe that even if gas were to drop to $2.00 a gallon we should still be pursuing this plan as zealously as possible. Even at $2.00 a gallon, we will still be shipping out $100's of Billions a year to Oil Wealthy nations. A constant drain on our (financial) resources as well as maintaining the fundementaly flawed constant of deriving energy from a depletable resource. Not to mention the continued output of green house gases and the vast determental consequences associated there with. The the next the Middle East &OPEC feels like pulling our leash, we will still be at their mercy. We need to move aggressively towards sustainable, non-greenhouse gas creating energy production for ours and our progeny's future.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Robert D. Jones on October 14, 2008 at 3:46pm

Afternoon Mark,

I totally agree. We must pursue alternative fuels. In my view, it is not an economic problem, rather it is a matter of national security. But we must recognize that the economic impact is the primary driver for most folks. They are going for the cheapest fuel -- and today that happens to be gasoline.

As for the aggressive move -- the question remains move toward what? I think that wind power is, at best, a stop-gap measure. Ditto for drilling. My gut (plus experience living in an area where nuclear was the power source) tells me nuclear is the primary answer for home power. For vehicles, I think the hydrogen engine is the answer, whether it comes as a fuel cell powered vehicle or literally as a hydrogen burning engine.

But, that technology is decades away, assuming we invest hugely. Since we don't have enough money to invest in everything, the trick is to determine the most bang for the buck. We (the people) simply don't have the data to make that decision at this time. My view is that considerable research needs to be done in a hell of a hurry in order to winnow the field to something workable -- and then pour on the bucks and brains.

My problem with the Pickens Plan is not the general intent. It is that by advocating CNG -- a fuel source that is simply not available to the common folks -- a degree of doubt has been introduced in the equasion. I am not against CNG; it appears to be the closest thing to an economic competitor to gasoline -- except you can't get there from here.

I am told that CNG burns considerably cleaner than gasoline. If that is true, we need legislation to change the rules for qualifying CNG power conversion kits for vehicles. As is, they must meet the same standards imposed on gasoline powered cars. Apparently, they can do that, but the cost to jump through all the EPA hoops makes it not economically feasable for the kit makers to qualify many vehicles, none older than 2007 models. The kits also have to provide the electronic bridges to allow the car's original EPA sensors to operate normally. Again, if CNG is so clean, why not cut the kit providers some slack?

I'm for pursuing alternatives -- I just don't like to see alternatives proposed that are literally not available to the general population. Detracts from both the message and the motives of the messenger don't you think?

Bob Jones

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Hugh Hemington on October 15, 2008 at 1:42pm

The cheapest fuel I can find, and DID find is Natural Gas. I pump it at home for $1.30 per "gge", and I get 36 MPG.

If even HALF of the households with natural gas, who don't need to drive more than 130 miles a day bought an NGV, it would have a huge impact on the problem.

There have been a few flaky conversion kits. Allowing them to proliferate in the market is not a good idea. The major auto makers already have CNG cars they sell elsewhere, or have sold here. Let's get them into the market HERE!

California has a lot of fueling sites, but we need more. We can get fueling sites built or added to gasoline stations here and elsewhere.

While we wait for hydrogen to "get real" -- with economical generation and cost-effective fuel cells, we have the "bridge" available now. There are no technical problems preventing natural gas from satisfying a huge part of our passenger vehicle and heavy truck needs.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Robert D. Jones on October 15, 2008 at 3:48pm

Hugh,

I assume that you won't mind if I talk to both your notes with one response.

CNG -- Please understand that I'm for it. I've spent considerable time looking into the viability of it's use in this area (Houston, Texas). The results were discouraging, at best. The closest station (last time I looked -- which was before Ike) was in Dallas. There were a couple of company fueling sites in North Houston that were not available for the rest of us. The lowest price was something like 1.65 per gallon at those private fleet stations.

But availability is only half the issue -- and by far the easiest to solve. If I were able to get a conversion kit for my light truck, I would put in a home refuling center in a heartbeat. I don't drive that many miles, but I would do it because I believe fully that we must get off the foreign oil dependency. You don't have to convince me -- I have been associated with the oil business all my life (my dad was a wildcat oilman here in Texas) and I spent a good deal of time in the military. I am aware of the depletable resource situation on the one hand and I have always believed that you do not make yourself dependent on a potential enemy for a vital resouce on the other.

But, no matter how strong my motives, I must deal with the reality I see. CNG may well be available in California and even several other states. Interestingly enough, as I said in a note a month or so ago, it was available here (there was a fueling station less than five blocks from my home) several years ago. It closed for lack of interest. Not too shocking since all the CNG vehicles were fleet owned and they fueled at company stations. The blunt truth is that even if the fueling station was still there, it would be of no value to me because I am not able to convert any of my cars to use CNG. As an aside, even if I owned one of the vehicles with EPA approval, the closest company approved to do the conversion is in Dallas and there are no maintenance facilities anywhere close. So the position is that I have to purchase new cars and a fueling station to participate. I simply can't afford to buy new cars simply to be able to run CNG, even as interested as I am in getting off the foreign oil dependency.

Which brings me back to what I believe to be the salient issue. If the Pickens Plan is serious about the need to convert to CNG across the land, we must have some relief from the EPA rules. People must be in a position to convert the cars they own to CNG for a reasonable price. I do not advocate flaky kits, but I do think that we have to get it to the point when normal citizens can participate -- or it simply isn't going to happen.

And that is my concern with the Pickens Plan, as it stands. I see lots of advertisements touting both the plan and the wonders of CNG. However, when you investigate you run head-on into the simple fact that vehicles that run on CNG are simply not available to the common citizen. Further is is pretty apparent that situation will not change in the reasonable future. Shucks, we may well have the hydrogen fueled vehicle before we have CNG as a common fuel across the land.

Touting a solution that is virtually impossible is not the way to get the Nation moving in the right direction -- to the energy indepence we all advocate.

Regards,

Bob

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Hugh Hemington on October 15, 2008 at 1:25pm

World oil reserves will not support economical use of petroleum as a motor fuel, for more than another twenty to thirty years! Middle East oil reserved will not last that long. Right now, they have a system of patronage, distributing money through a network of thousands of "princes" to keep their population happy. They are already failing, sending terrorists away with handfuls of sweaty cash to come and attack us.

Right now they have sand and oil. In twenty years, they'll just have sand. Sand and a lot of really unhappy people! If we're dependent on them or OWNED by them when that happens, we'll send our children and weapons off to another war to defend them.

Regardless of what a gallon of gasoline costs, the cost of remaining dependent on it is too high!

Regardless of what you think the world oil reserve is, everyone agrees there's a limit to it! Only Bugs Bunny waits till the last moment to pinch off the fuse leading to the bomb! If this one blows, we won't be blinking, and covered in soot, we'll be gone. Period.

With the "fuse lit", the question isn't, "How much longer can we wait?" The question is, "Why would we wait any longer?"

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last