By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Wiki has some good background on the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale
The reason we have not seen development of this resource up until now is that it was not economic. The industry will develop over the next few decades as the technology and environmental issues get sorted out. The industry really needs to build a few commercial size plants on private land before we open the flood gates.
Overall, your comment is disturbing. Federal restrictions are in place for a reason. Too many companies and people would trash this country in an instant if given the opportunity. Just look at the Super fund list if you want examples of how companies have come in made their fast buck and left the garbage for everyone else to clean up.
"This perpetuates the narrative that other countries in the planet are here to provide us with the necessary goods or services,..."
This is a quote from Jerome a Paris on the The Oil Drum: Europe. It says a lot about America. The sad part about it is that an American living in ND, MN or NY could give a rip about someone living in Colorado. Just give me my oil so I can drive my gas guzzling Sequoia or whatever.
I for one am glad that other countries and people in the U.S. are pushing back.
Read below... I guess the oil companies underestimated the Albertan government and the Canadians.:) And look all the royalties will go toward infrastructure, investment and lower taxes further-YES !!!
Alberta Unveils New Royalty Plan for Energy Sector; 20% Increase Projected Over Current Levels
28 October 2007
Alberta’s share from oil sands projects under the new royalty regime (hatched blue) compared to other countries. Source: Alberta Royalty Review Panel
Saying that “Future generations of Albertans will receive a fair share from the development of their resources,” Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach last week unveiled the Canadian province’s new royalty regime for the energy sector. Under the New Royalty Framework, oil and gas royalties are expected to increase by C$1.4 billion in 2010, a 20% increase over currently projected revenues for that year.
Actual revenues will depend on future prices and production levels in the province. Therefore, the Alberta government’s annual budget development process will not change. The new royalty regime includes the following components:
Conventional oil. The government will simplify royalties for conventional oil, eliminating specialty royalty programs and tiers. Royalties will be set by a sliding rate formula containing separate elements that account for oil price and well production. Royalty rates will range up to 50%, with rate caps at $120 per barrel.
Oil sands. The government will increase its royalty share from oil sands development by introducing price-sensitive formulas both pre- and post-payout, rather than implementing an industry-wide tax on oil sands production.
The base royalty will start at 1%, and increase for every dollar the world oil price, as reflected by West Texas Intermediate (WTI), is priced above $55 per barrel, to a maximum of 9% when oil is priced at $120 or higher. The net royalty will start at 25% and increase for every dollar oil is priced above $55 per barrel to 40% when oil is priced at $120 or higher.
There is no grandfathering for existing oil sands projects. The government will work with Syncrude and Suncor over the next 90 days to reach an agreement on a transition plan to the new royalty framework. In the event an agreement cannot be reached, the government will take other measures to ensure a level playing field for all industry stakeholders.
The government will adopt a permanent generic “bitumen valuation methodology” by June 30, 2008, after consulting with stakeholders and independent advisors.
The province will exercise its existing right to receive “royalty-in-kind” on oil sands projects (i.e. raw bitumen delivered to the Crown-operated Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission in lieu of cash royalties). Because this bitumen can be sold or used for upgrading or refining, royalty-in-kind can be sold by the province to support value-added, upgrading projects in Alberta.
The province will ensure that eligible expenditures and definitions of oil sands projects (also known as “ring fence” definition) that determine when a project has reached payout are tightly and clearly defined. Environmental “costs of doing business” will continue to be recognized as eligible expenditures.
Natural gas. Gas royalties will be set by a sliding rate formula sensitive to price and production volume. New royalty rates will range from 5-50% with rate caps at C$17.50/MMBtu.
The government will eliminate all tiers, but will retain natural gas programs for the Otherwise Flared Solution Gas Royalty Waiver Program, which improves air quality through solution gas conservation. New incentives consistent with the current Deep Gas Drilling Program will be implemented to support development of costly deep reserves. Royalties for natural gas liquids will be set at 40% for pentanes and 30% for butanes and propane.
Substantial legislative, regulatory and systems updates will be introduced before changes become fully effective in January 2009.
Canadian press characterized the energy industry as “reeling” after the announcement.
Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach found himself brushing off comparisons to a South American socialist revolutionary Friday as he defended his aggressive plan to increase Alberta’s energy royalties by 20 per cent. Stelmach told listeners to radio talk show that he shouldn’t be compared to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who recently raised royalty and tax rates on all foreign oil companies as part of a nationalization plan.
“I can tell you that this isn’t Venezuela. This is Alberta,” the premier said. “Alberta is without a doubt the best place to invest in North America. We have the lowest personal income taxes, low corporate taxes.”
—CBC News
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) had earlier reviewed the report of the Alberta Royalty Review Panel which formed the basis for the new royalty regime, and concluded that the Panel did not achieve the government’s objectives in finding the balance between a reasonable royalty and tax system and a healthy, sustainable oil and gas industry.
CAPP said that it found faults with the report in a number of areas, including flawed data; incorrect costs; activity assumptions; and international comparison and government take.
Well apparently the town first selectman thought the same thing and had the town engineer look at the dams to figure out if they could be refurbished to provide local hydroelectric power.
Homegrown Hydro
As our ancestors duly observed, Connecticut has a lot of hills and a fair amount of rain throughout the year. Those crafty Yankees knew that water moving downhill would turn a waterwheel and power a mill or factory. They built dams to increase and control water power.
Many of these dams were abandoned over the years, as steam and then electrical power replaced the waterwheel. But many — perhaps hundreds — of those dams are still there, in varying degrees of repair.
Energy from fossil fuels has become problematic. Water power is clean. Wouldn't it make sense to use those dams again?
Canton First Selectman Dick Barlow thinks so. Canton was home to one of the state's premier factories, The Collins Co., maker of world-renowned blade tools. The company, in the eponymous Collinsville section, ran on power from hydroelectric generators at two dams on the Farmington River.
The generators fell quiet after the company closed its doors in 1966. Northeast Utilities bought and scavenged the machines for scrap metal. Barlow figures it's time to put them back into service. He and his fellow selectmen plan to ask the finance board for $20,000 to hire a consultant and a lawyer to help navigate the complex licensing process.
The town engineer estimates each of the two dams would need $3 million worth of work. But depending on the size of the new generator, the upper dam could earn up to $138,000 a year for the town by selling electricity to the grid, and the lower dam could bring in $118,000, after bonds were paid off.
This is a very promising idea. State utility and environmental officials ought to help the town navigate the regulatory rapids, and other towns should be looking at their dams with an eye toward doing the same thing. The water in the Farmington River is not imported from the Middle East. Its use doesn't add to greenhouse gas emissions. The more power we can derive from hydroelectric sources, the better off we'll be.
Here is a follow up to the first article.
Green certification for hydro dams
The June 10 editorial "Homegrown Hydropower" pointed out the advantages of generating power at Connecticut dam sites, specifically the upper and lower Collinsville dams along the Farmington River. The town of Canton is quite sensibly looking into this possibility. After all, the dams are already in place, they have produced hydropower in the past and increasing local energy self-sufficiency is, in itself, a good idea.
That said, even good ideas, if poorly executed, can turn into bad ideas. On the other hand, well-executed good ideas can become models, and restarting hydropower production at Collinsville could be a proud example of the right way to do hydro in Connecticut.
At the very least, the project would use existing dams rather than further segmenting the Farmington River with new impoundments. Also, the project would require installation of fishways, helping to mitigate the present barriers to upstream fish passage. But it could be so much more.
What would make this project a true model is to have it meet the criteria for certification developed and tested over time by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute. LIHI is an independent nonprofit that recognizes that well-done hydropower can be "green."
LIHI has standards for impacts of dams on flow, water quality, fish passage, species of concern, watersheds, cultural resources and public access and recreation. Thus LIHI certification addresses many of the concerns about damage to the river expressed by local citizens who know the value of a healthy river system to public health, wildlife, recreation and tourism.
Many consumers already seek sources of green energy and pay a premium for it. By providing a credible, rigorous green designation, LIHI certification would also add value for the hydropower producer.
Hydro could be a win-win situation on the Farmington, but it is not a one-size-fits-all solution for all rivers.
Anyone who has ever driven through CT will tell you that there are rivers everywhere and that many of those rivers have old dams attached to old factories or mills right on top of them. The dams are already built they just need to be refurbished and have modern turbines put in which is a lot easier and less expensive then building new dams.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imp- orts/current/import.html
Imports make up about 60% of our consumption.
Oil - production:
8.322 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil - consumption:
20.8 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil - exports:
1.048 million bbl/day (2004)
Oil - imports:
13.15 million bbl/day (2004)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html
And this site will give you a breakdown of what we turn a barrel of oil into. Oil is used for everything from aviation fuel and asphalt to lubricants and waxes.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbbl_m.htm
The only issue is the cost and when will it happen.
So how does that differ from Alaska and the leases to BP, Exxon and Conoco Phillips? 85% of Alaska's revenue is from OIL. Alaska and the Feds have fought over the oil since I got there in 1970. They are always up on the slope doing surveys to make sure they each get their fair share of the revenue. Alaska renegotiated the per barrel tax when the flow went down. Alaska residents pay NO state Income tax. No state sales tax and EVERY man, woman and child resident gets a check each year from the profits on the oil permanent fund. So tell me how Alberta is doing better with their oil revenues for the citizens of Alberta.
Oh, and $100k per year is about the low end for oil field workers in Alaska.
I am trying to find the article I read that claims the oil companies get as much as $2500 per barrel for all the Other stuff besides gas and diesel. That could explain the large profits.
Now the dam itself is leaking so they are having to spend money on that unintended maintenance.
The museum part is fun (or was while it lasted), but I'd rather see little inflow turbine devices used. Those gizmos are unobtrusive and do a lot less damage to the fish habitat (and don't interfer with navigation either).
Dam relicensing is a major undertaking; cheaper to just go smaller scale. We have this notion that big projects mean more efficiency but I'd rather be off the grid with something low maintenance fueling my lifestyle that has the smallest footprint possible. Or maybe you missed all the stories in the last week about the "modest" sized dams in the midwest failing?
Over in Japan, they've come up with an interesting way to peel off some energy that would otherwise be wasted:
Vibration-generating power from bridges (Straightline)
My wife has a cousin that went to BC during the Vietnam war. He has a generator on the stream running through his place. It keeps the greenhouse warm in the winter for year round food. And all his household electric. He built the system with salvage stuff. It can be done if you are willing to just do it. He has it on some kind of little dam that also provides his water.
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/
extract it is mature, may provide a very significant boost to domestic energy
supply. According to Rand Corporation, the oil resource in place within the
Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, ranges from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels, of which between 500
billion and 1.1 trillion barrels are recoverable. According to Rand, “the
midpoint in our estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the
proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.” The U.S. has more oil locked in shale
than any other country on Earth but impediments exist to accessing and
developing this resource. "
The term "oil shale" is misleading as there is no oil in the shale. According to Wiki the shale contains kerogen, a solid mixture of organic chemical compounds, that can be converted into synthetic crude oil. Given enough time and pressure, it will become petroleum and natural gas.
But anyhow, the process is more of a mining operation with enormous inputs of water and energy. Just consider that the shale has to be cooked in site for several years at around 900 degrees F.
So this brings into question... how scalable is shale "oil" really going to be? What kind of energy return will it provide... will it even be positive? Where will the water and electricity come from?
I suspect that oil shale processing will be one of those never-quite-ready-for-primetime deals... sorta like Jack 2 in the gulf where it may not ever be economically viable to drill for the stuff.
Here's the usual Wiki reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale
Petrobras may produce shale oil in Utah
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 06/13/2008 11:28:46 PM MDT
Petroleo Brasileiro SA, Mitsui & Co. and Oil Shale Exploration Co. may produce shale oil in Utah for $45 to $50 a barrel as early as 2013, said Demarco Epifanio, the Petrobras executive responsible for the project.
A viability study for the project will take a year and, if positive, the companies will build a shale-oil plant in Utah in 2010 and start production between 2013 and 2015, Epifanio said.
Petrobras, Mitsui and Oil Shale Exploration Co., also known as OSEC, signed an agreement Monday to study the extraction of oil from shale deposits in Utah.
Plan Would Lift Saudi Oil Output
Saturday June 14, 6:35 pm ET
By JAD MOUAWAD
Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil exporter, is planning to increase its output next month by about a half-million barrels a day, according to analysts and oil traders who have been briefed by Saudi officials.
The increase could bring Saudi output to a production level of 10 million barrels a day, which, if sustained, would be the kingdom’s highest ever. The move was seen as a sign that the Saudis are becoming increasingly nervous about both the political and economic effect of high oil prices. In recent weeks, soaring fuel costs have incited demonstrations and protests from Italy to Indonesia.
Saudi Arabia is currently pumping 9.45 million barrels a day, which is an increase of about 300,000 barrels from last month.
While they are reaping record profits, the Saudis are concerned that today’s record prices might eventually damp economic growth and lead to lower oil demand, as is already happening in the United States and other developed countries. The current prices are also making alternative fuels more viable, threatening the long-term prospects of the oil-based economy.
OPEC does not want us to get too comfy with any alternative to OIL.
But Alberta does not have a permafrost problem. No provincial tax. They do have full scale development going on. They get free universal healthcare, and gov. subsidized education, typical perks of living in Canada.:)
So Alberta has great salaries, free healthcare, affordable education, and now good jobs. Sounds like a good place to live thanks to the royalties they recieve on the oil profits that oil companies only wish they could keep, but the Alberta gov is putting it to good use now. Oh, and they also have great skiing, breath taking views within a few hours ride to the rockies, good hockey, great nightlife, and a future.
I wish Alaska the best but I would take Alberta any day.
If only everyone could make $100K per year, we could retire early with a good investment strategy, which is what many are doing there now. Unlike the rest of the country struggling to make ends meet with much less. We all wish we had oil reserves in our back yards.
The median income in the Arctic Oil field is about $100k per year. Most are working 12 hours per day 7 days per week for half the year to make that.
Has it occurred to the socialists among us that the oil companies already are nationalized? Ownership of most companies in the US is in the hands of stockholders which are made up of people (individuals) or representatives of people (pension funds). Those greedy oil execs are just following the direction of their masters--US.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Til now vehicle makers mainly used one single type of drive, an ICE, powered by two fuels, gasoline and diesel.
In the next 10-20 years we will be faced with a smorgasbord of options from every vehicle maker tailored to individual market segments based on usage and cost.
Pure gassers will likely be decreasing in numbers but still useful for certain very cost conscious customers.
PHEVs are perfect for suburban drivers with 'normal' commutes, but they will probably be at a premium.
'Traditional' hybrids are useful for certain drivers with costs that may be very inexpensive even down to $15000.
Diesels will apparently be cost effective for highway drivers only due to the high cost of the fuel.
Fuel cell / hydrogen fueled vehicles have great potential if the infrastructure can be developed. Again probably for premium vehicles for specialized uses.
Gasoline, Diesel fuel, Biodiesel, Butanol, Corn Ethanol and Celluosic Ethanol may power any of the combustion engines noted above.
The vehicle makers have to then decide which choices from the menu make the most sense for which segments.
In Honda's case specifically it seems to me that due to the capability and low cost of their IMA that there is little on the horizon that improves their small vehicles as much as their IMA does. Now for their midsized vehicles they have entirely different choices to make from the menu. One choice they are testing this month is the diesel TSX. The Clarity is another option.
Only if you hold actual voting stock, and then USE it to vote in the Board of Directors. Stocks in pension finds tend not to be voting shares.
Maybe not, and who can blame them, but how much pull do they have with the oil futures traders, who have been a big part in pushing oil prices up?
The increase could bring Saudi output to a production level of 10 million barrels a day, which, if sustained, would be the kingdom’s highest ever."
According to the most recent BP Statistical Review the Saudi's pumped on average a little over 11 mbpd in 2005 in which case 10 mbpd will be a little more than a million shy of that impressive mark.
The new production will help to cover some of the declines from regions such as Mexico, Venezuela, the UK, Norway, and the U.S. There is little doubt that whatever the Saudi's reserves actually are, they are vast.
I've never doubted that SA has reserve production capacity but this past year I have been more concerned with Russian production which has been down this year. Until recently Russia production has actually been greater than Saudi production (but the Saudis export more). With proven reserves at probably less than 80 billion barrels I suspect that Russian production is either entering decline or very close to it. If they are in decline, this will be extremely bad news for global production. I'd guess that we will have a better idea by fall. By that I mean if the Russian production trend for, say, 10 months is down, then it's game over for them.
BTW, that post on Petrobras looking into developing the Green River Shale is really bizarre. If it can be economically done, I'd rather have a home grown company doing it. Oh, and if you look up the energy and water needed to process that shale, you might wonder if it will ever be viable.
Do they get the other half of the year off to do whatever they want? If that's the case it doesn't sound like too bad of a deal. That averages out to 42 hours per week for anyone else who has to work the entire year.
I could do some serious bicycle touring in 6 months of riding. Sign me up.
That is an interesting number. It seems high given that oil is only going for about $130 a barrel. Or is this a situation where, when they collect a barrel of the other stuff it is worth $2,500, but that it might take 200 - 300 barrels of crude before you have enough of X to make a barrel.
Yes. In my case I worked 3 weeks and was off 3 weeks. BP & Conoco Phillips are mostly on a 2 week on 2 week off rotation. The real money is made after 40 hours per week when it is all time and a half. That works out to 106 hours pay for the weeks worked. Most also get vacation weeks at full overtime pay. I worked on average 22 weeks per year. Most of the 25 years I put in up there. The only poor paying jobs are the house keepers and cooks. They are mostly on a 4 week on and 2 week off schedule. Contract labor will work right through the summer and then get off in the winter. Oil rig people work the opposite when most of the drilling takes place in the winter months. Which is about 8 months of the year.
I would agree that oil could drop, just not down to $60 a barrel for any length of time. The long term lower limit is probably a bit higher. Offshore oil in the Gulf of Mexico is costing $70 a barrel to produce. If you drop the price to $60 those projects start shutting down - less supply, higher prices again.
Do you think demand will slow? Looks to me like demand will stay strong.
Only someone who has never lived in the arctic would say that. Those guys might make $100 grand in 6 months, but they go through hell to get it.
Just like those guys who work the crab boats in "Deadliest Catch." They might make $20 grand in a month, but you'll never catch me applying for that job.
Really. Have you checked housing costs in Fort McMurray recently? The quote I like from their newsletter is:
More than 20 per cent of our market is listed as over $800,000, and what we need are homes listed in the $600,000 to $800,000 range to move the market a little more,"
http://specials.bowesonline.com/2/homesmay08/07.html
http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/
$100,000 a year probably doesn't go that far if your house is over $600,000 and mobile homes go for $350,000.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=01527859-f522-40e6-8fe1-2- - 2c86d6835ea&k=95073
I wonder what a 30 year mortgage is on a $600K house?
Answer - about $4,000 a month at 7%. Add in insurance and property taxes....forget the pain at the pump, now we are talking real pain. :shades:
At least in the Arctic all your room and board is paid by your employer. You can afford to have a home someplace decent. If you can handle the lousy weather and being away from home half the time.
But with a wife and kids in a home in Edmonton a few hours away,and with her working, a dual income home say where the worker commutes to Edmonton to see his family and working wife, it is manageable. People seem to be doing pretty well there. It is not ideal but working in the oil fields never is right, they work very hard. Besides, Alberta's infrastructure is not just built around oil. They have a thriving tourist industry, business is booming, Pharmaceutical and Biotech companies are taking off, and a lot of other investment. It has a diversified economy now. Once the oil is gone hopefully they will have something else to fall back on. I would still take Alberta any day over Alaska. There's more to do in Edmonton population 730,000, a 3 hour commute from Fort McMurray than say Anchorage Alaska, population 270,000. Besides there is more business opportunity and potential in Alberta than Alaska which the royalties from the oil profits has made and will continue to benefit from it. Location for Alberta is also good, it borders the states and has good trade with the US. When the oil companies get too pissed off, they can petition the US gov. to invade Alberta, it could be another Iraq for them if they don't like the 20% royalty rate, I am sure Britain won't mind the US taking over.:)
Your pain at the pump is higher.
In Anchorage they are paying about $4.20 a gallon.
Alberta is running about $1.35 a liter or $5.10 CAD a US gallon (1 gallon = 3.785 liters)
5.10 CAD = 4.95434 USD (currency conversion)
Your cost = $4.95 a gallon, their cost = $4.20.
Anchorage is the place to be. :shades:
The temps in Dec, Jan & Feb are higher in Anchorage too, making for a nicer winter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchorage%2C_Alaska#Climate
I also think Canada is beautiful. I am not sure why we let the Brits hang onto it during the Revolution. Must have been something to do with France our ally. I have been across the Province of Alberta on a trip from Alaska to the Midwest in 1977. I loved the Calgary Zoo. The Edmonton Mall was not there when I drove through last. I would like to see that. I even considered buying a retirement home on Vancouver Island not far from Victoria.
Not to get too far off the subject. Maybe the biggest draw to Canada is the availability of diesel cars and small PU trucks. I wanted a Smart ForTwo diesel that was being sold in Victoria by the boatload. The dealer told me they sold as fast as they came off the truck. 72 MPG could be a reason.
EEC testing rates the 999 cc Smart at 4.7 L/100 km (60 mpg imp/50 mpg US) for the gasoline model and 3.4 L/100 km (83 mpg imp/69 mpg US) for the diesel.
What's not to love? Abigail's Smart Fortwo, which she has been tooling around Washington, DC, as part of a focus group, is engineered by Mercedes
Smart's quirky design hides a radically sensible car. The Fortwo can park practically anywhere, even sideways in a compact garage spot. A diesel model, like Abigail's, gets nearly 70 miles to the gallon, making supergreen hybrids such as the 55-mpg Toyota Prius look like gas-guzzlers. And this year, a major study ranked the Fortwo's tailpipe the least polluting in the world, ahead of more than 1,200 cars.
So why can't we buy them in the USA?? So you Canadians have a lot to be thankful for. You got oil and the Smart Fortwo diesel
I do believe that Canada is now getting the Gas powered Smart like we are getting in the US. FWIW the mileage that the diesel gets does not make up for the extra price of diesel is over premium.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Edmonton has underground pedestrian tunnels downtown for the winter, unlike Anchorage. And the Fringe is a hoot. But both have winters too long for me anymore. :shades:
Gas eased up two more cents here in Boise in the few days to $4.09 RUG.
Oh, my Anchorage bud is hot to get LNG going in his fleet (his fleet being an old Silverado).
These guys are enabling us to get fuel, hooray for them, except for that one lamer dude who keeps doofing out and blaming the world.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Even if Honda could get a Clarity out to the general public at a price they would find tenable, the various solutions to the extremely restricted availability of the fuel are still a long way from solving that problem.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
All right, let's cut to the chase, pardon the pun. Is the real fun showing them plunk under the ice, down below, where Ozzy Osbourne lives, down below, where it's cold and icy and..umm...hellish?
And no, I don't watch NASCAR. I am going to watch Kobe and Company try to dispatch Baaaa-ston tonight, 6PM Pacific time. Ahh, haaa-haa-ha, Stayin' Alive, Stayin' Alive, ahh-haa-haa-ha, Stayin' Alive, uhh-hh-ive a-ha-huh.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Cheaper Gas in Missouri
RUG was spotted at $3.85/gal this afternoon on my way to work.
The difference between 72 MPG on the diesel and 36 MPG on the gas version would mean that diesel would have to be double gas price. Last I checked here in San Diego gas is averaging $4.49 and diesel $5 per gallon. I cannot determine if you are correct that Canada is getting screwed out of the diesel Fortwo. It could be the reason they are not selling as they did in past years. At 36 MPG I would just buy a Yaris if I even wanted a small car with that lousy mileage.
In 2005, a total of 4,080 smarts rolled off car lots. The company passed the 10,000 mark in Canada in August 2007. But even with a cheaper new model and gas prices continuing to climb, smart sales haven't shifted into higher gear — between the gen-two launch in December 2007 and April 2008, just 1,350 sets of keys were handed over to Canadian buyers.
How depressing :sick:
Now I live in a 15 minute city, meaning that if it takes more than 15 minutes to get there, you probably don't need to go. So, I don't spend a lot of time on the road, and I was curious if I would notice any great differences from the past.
First a genuine surprise. Found out my dad just bought a Prius. After years of New Yorkers, Continentals, Caddys, a big body Benz, and numerous conversion vans and Suburbans and an Escalade as family haulers, my dad bought a small fuel efficient car. Of course he still has a Chrysler 300C and a Ford Excursion in his personal fleet, but this is seismic in proportions. This man is the epitome of the "Buy American - Buy Big" consumer. I had to check to see if I was at the right house. He knows my wife and I are somewhat in the market so he just raved on the virtues of hybrids. Ok, but I would have guessed a hybrid Tahoe for him, not a Prius. Maybe hell is having a cold snap. He was a bit surprised to learn that outside the Highlander and the GM's, there aren't any mid to large hybrid family haulers available.
SUV's abide. I come from a small farm town where they just love their trucks, and some can actually justify them. I expected the highways to just be crawling with small fuel sippers, but both trips showed that there are still tons of trucks and SUV's out there. Saw quite a few new ones, so someone is buying them. In my home town they are still by far the most prevalent buggies around.
There was a noticeable difference on I81. A long ribbon through the Shenandoah Valley with long slow grades, traffic usually zips right along in spite of the presence of VA's notorious highway patrol troopers. Trucks usually slow down quite a bit, but the inside lane usually moves right along. Not this trip. I stuck to the left lane and had to slow down to well below the posted speed limit often. Traffic was not heavy, just slow. Maybe folks are slowing down some, as I have heard. Didn't make my trip any longer that I noticed. Just kept plugging along and I got to where I was going. The views were beautiful as always.
The FCX Clarity is at minimum 5 years away from being a viable, mass-produced car. Simply gearing up the factory to produce enough of them to sell in all U.S. states would take a year. Then, constructing the nationwide network of hydrogen fueling stations would take two years or more. Then, like gas-electric hybrids, the consumers would require another year or two to believe enough in fuel cell cars to plunk down money to buy them.
In addition, consumers would need a huge incentive to buy a car whose fuel costs $5 per gallon and only gets 30 miles per gallon. Plus, in the next few years, new models of hybrids will be produced that get 60/70 mpg on gasoline and batteries.
I love the idea of the Clarity, because I love the idea of cutting OPEC out of the personal transportation system in our country. But fuel cell cars have a lot of pitfalls to avoid before becoming a practical alternative to what we have today.
Interesting. I would guess that there is a 50/50 chance that aliens have taken over his mind.
"but both trips showed that there are still tons of trucks and SUV's out there."
I would expect there will tons of those vehicles for a long time to come. It will take years of sustained higher prices before we cycle through the entire auto fleet (20 years? 30 years?)
I also see a ton of pickups in my travels. When you have farming, lots of construction and oil rigs popping up all over the place (Middle Bakken), that comes with territory.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121355902769475555.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The problem with KSA peaking on production is that consumption will continue to rise. There will be a few hundred thousand barrels less each year for export as they consume more and more internally.
"I suspect that Russian production is either entering decline or very close to it. "
The Russian government got a little greedy when they increased the tax rate. It killed exploration and production. They are doing the same thing Mexico did, milk the oil cow for every drop but forget to feed it. Eventually the cow dies. No more milk, no more oil...
Are you about ready to start producing a couple million barrels a day out of Bakken?
Alberta better look out if they start getting greedy..
Trust me, there's a world of a difference between the heavy oil in Alberta and the light sweet crude underneath the Bakken play in Southeastern Saskatchewan. Now that the Alberta government are implementing oil royalties, trying to dip into oil companies' pockets, Saskatchewan property is starting to look more attractive.
Don't be surprised to see an exodus of smaller oil companies looking to exploit the rich oil resources in the neighboring province.
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/bakken-oil-production/613
I'm ready,
Some minor issues: There is a shortage of water for the frac jobs. The labor market is also tough. People have already been burned by oil booms. They are very cautious about investing lots of money in things like housing.
The next big boom might be coal to liquids. A feasibility study is still ongoing for a plant up by Underwood, ND. It won't make that big a difference, however. The military wants the nice clean fuel and the plant would only be in the 30,000 to 50,000 barrel a day range.
A 50,000 barrel a day plant would need 15 million tons of lignite a year. State coal production would jump 50%! And I have no idea where they will get those giant truck tires to use at the coal mine - there is a shortage from what I hear.
That was the short answer.
True if the diesel got 72 MPG and the gas only got 36, but thats not the case is it? According to the information in your post its only 69 MPG for diesel and 50 for gas.
At 36 MPG I would just buy a Yaris if I even wanted a small car with that lousy mileage.
But the Smart gets an EPA estimate of 41 MPG so your Yaris gets much less mileage. Plus many people are reporting mid to upper 40's highway in the Smart.
I cannot determine if you are correct that Canada is getting screwed out of the diesel Fortwo.
Last time I checked the Smart Canadian site they were only offering the gas version.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Without a big influx of our tax money thats not going to happen any time soon. You have a classic which came first situation here. People won't but a hydrogen powered car without places to fuel them up, inventors won't invest in building fueling stations if there is not a lot of drivers driving the cars. Thats the big issue with that type of car.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That is an issue all across the country. Transport of oil, gas & electricity. The infrastructure is maxed out most places. Even if we started drilling today in ANWR there would not be capacity on the Alyeska pipeline to carry the oil. There was talk of adding another 4 footer to the line. That could take several years to complete. The gas line through Canada has some strong issues. Maybe ND will get a refinery and sell finished product. Keep all the money in ND. Smart move if your state will approve. Adding pipelines from source to market will be nearly as big an issue as finding oil.
Canada only gets the gas version now, because the diesel doesn't pass their current emission standards. Ironically, they got the diesel in the first place because the old gas model didn't pass emissions at the time.