Article

2004-04-11 China-Japan-Koreas

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Phil B 2004-04-11 3:29:27 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Um, Phil, just to point out here...thats 10 bucks per barrel AFTER you buy the barrel of oil (so in essence approximately 25-30 dollars per barrel of oil currently + 10 to convert to synth oil depending on how refined the oil/crude is). Now thats IMPORTS. If you are using your own national sources then 8 dollars per barrel is when it becomes profitable...even 9 or 10 dollars is too much. Most of this has to do with terms of drilling and pumping it over to its destination. When ya throw in synth oil conversion then it jumps the price closer to $20 bucks per barrel. At those prices you're got a better chance to strike a deal with a gulf country for a bulk purchase of oil and reduced prices.

Posted by Valentine 2004-04-11 3:49:55 AM|| 2004-04-11 3:49:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 sorry Valentine I didn't understand your comment. SASOL turns coal into gas and then into petroleum products. There is no crude oil used in the process.

Posted by Phil B 2004-04-11 4:33:00 AM|| 2004-04-11 4:33:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Why would you need to convert crude oil to sythetic fuel.Deffinatly talking coal to syn-fuel.

Posted by Anonymous4110 2004-04-11 7:38:38 AM|| 2004-04-11 7:38:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 It would be better to force the big 3 automatkers to disgorge the secrets of the fabulous fish carbureator.

Posted by Shipman 2004-04-11 8:04:44 AM|| 2004-04-11 8:04:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 From '79 to '83 I worked for Exxon Research in Texas. At that time they had working pilot plants for both liquefaction and gasification of coal. Once our friends the Saudis saw that we were serious about synfuels, they immediately moved to pump more oil and lower prices. For as long as they can, they will keep the price of oil just low enough to make synfuels un-economic.

Posted by PBMcL 2004-04-11 12:17:07 PM|| 2004-04-11 12:17:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 PBMcL: From '79 to '83 I worked for Exxon Research in Texas. At that time they had working pilot plants for both liquefaction and gasification of coal.

A process has existed for at least 60 years. The Germans were using a similar process during the war. Then Allied warplanes took out their plants and that was it for the German war effort. By keeping oil prices high, OPEC is playing with fire - we have alternatives, and they're getting cheaper every day.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-04-11 1:32:54 PM|| 2004-04-11 1:32:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 ZF- by '79 the processes had been improved, and no doubt today they could be better still. But building the plants is still extremely capital-intensive and time-consuming. As mentioned above, investors would require price guarantees before risking billions of $.

Posted by PBMcL 2004-04-11 1:54:20 PM|| 2004-04-11 1:54:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 There is a coal gasification plant in Indiana and one in North Dakota. The one in North Dakota takes coal directly from the mine via conveyor belts. It also smells awful depending on wind direction. The one in Indiana does not. Population centers are too close to get away with that.

Posted by Zpaz 2004-04-11 2:08:16 PM|| 2004-04-11 2:08:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I should add the Dakota plant makes other products. I don't know if the smell is due to gasification or not.

Posted by Zpaz 2004-04-11 2:11:25 PM|| 2004-04-11 2:11:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Oopsy my mistake..thats what I get for writing at 4 in the friggin morning lol. What I was trying to say had my head been clear is that to compete with home drilled oil the usual price (at least in the US) is about $8 per barrel so in essence the costs to make a barrel of oil/synthoil needs to be lower than that or very close to the same cost. Anything more expensive than that and it becomes hard to compete with home drilled oil sources, against imports its competable unless the purchase of the imports is in large bulk. Much of the reason the canadian oil sands has dropped to $10 per barrel and still dropping is that the government for a long time took the risk as you said of subsidizing the industry with a view towards long terms profits paying off.

Now I'm not saying the process is bad, its just pretty expensive in the short run is all until you get the plants up and working full blast.

Posted by Valentine 2004-04-11 4:07:53 PM|| 2004-04-11 4:07:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Right. No one in the US would dare try to make money off a nearly unlimited fuel source because it is capital intensive.

Posted by Shipman 2004-04-11 5:28:47 PM|| 2004-04-11 5:28:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Ship - Now, now - the article is using the modern American farming model - y'know, tractors and combines and shit. If you employed the far less expensive ancient Saudi Arabian model and imported a shitload of Pakistanis, worked them half to death in 130 degF, housed them in tin sheds, clothed them in $3 jumpsuits available used in "Taliban Alley" in Al Khobar, and fed them table scraps - I'm sure the numbers would jibe. That's the model they apply to all works requiring physical labor. I always found the army of Pakistanis who walked the miles and miles of highway alongside the tanker trucks watering the scraggly trees that were planted in the divide of freeways the King traveled to be a particularly educational sight. We mustn't become hide-bound - we should be open to "new" possibilities, no? Heh. ;->

Posted by .com 2004-04-11 5:43:11 PM|| 2004-04-11 5:43:11 PM|| Front Page Top

08:48 Gentle
15:45 Old Grouch
06:55 B
06:45 Phil B
06:23 Zenster
06:23 Mike
06:08 B
01:01 Super Hose
00:57 Super Hose
00:38 Aris Katsaris
00:33 Zenster
00:33 Super Hose
00:24 Super Hose
00:19 Super Hose
00:13 .com
00:10 .com
00:09 mojo
00:07 Jen
00:06 B
00:03 Raj
23:59 .com
23:58 Raj
23:57 Zenster
23:53 Aris Katsaris