\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Well, maybe not: http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/01/12/evergreen_solar_to_cut_800_jobs_as_it_tries_to_compete_with_china/
Adam Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Well, maybe not: http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/01/12/evergreen_solar_to_cut_800_jobs_as_it_tries_to_compete_with_china/ It is not very economical right now, but it may be more in demand down the road- and I don't mean in 10 or 20 years. Oil is a finite resource, but I am not sure if the human race will outlive it's availability or not.
3rdnlng Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 It is not very economical right now, but it may be more in demand down the road- and I don't mean in 10 or 20 years. Oil is a finite resource, but I am not sure if the human race will outlive it's availability or not. From all accounts we are sitting on more oil here in the US than Saudi Arabia was 50 years ago. Drill baby, drill.
DC Tom Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 From all accounts we are sitting on more oil here in the US than Saudi Arabia was 50 years ago. Drill baby, drill. You need better accounts.
3rdnlng Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 You need better accounts. http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html You're right DContrarian, I understimated our reserves.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html You're right DContrarian, I understimated our reserves. You dudes are missing the point of these amateur yet brilliant scam artists. They got $58 million to start a fake company based on a made up concept of getting energy from the sun. At the end all they had to do was to blame China. That is smart. Yes, the money was chump change but it is a start. Maybe next they can start a company to make electric cars out of bear crap harvested from hibernation caves while the bears are way in the summer and get a $2 Billion grant because the idea is so original. When they fail they can blame the bear crap because it dried up too much during global warming which highlight the urgency of the situation. Then they can start a new company which does the same thing only with polar bears.
DC Tom Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html You're right DContrarian, I understimated our reserves. Yeah, I figured. Your "accounts" dishonestly quote the highest end of the estimates as actual reserves. Like I said: you need better accounts. You'll take nonsense like that at face value, but think global warming is an absolute scam. Kinda makes you look like a bit of an idiot, doesn't it?
whateverdude Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) Yeah, I figured. Your "accounts" dishonestly quote the highest end of the estimates as actual reserves. Like I said: you need better accounts. You'll take nonsense like that at face value, but think global warming is an absolute scam. Kinda makes you look like a bit of an idiot, doesn't it? I don't know how you concluded that oil reserves were at the top of the estimated range but one things for sure the article could be a hell of a lot more credible if the author listed reference's. Edited January 13, 2011 by whateverdude
3rdnlng Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Yeah, I figured. Your "accounts" dishonestly quote the highest end of the estimates as actual reserves. Like I said: you need better accounts. You'll take nonsense like that at face value, but think global warming is an absolute scam. Kinda makes you look like a bit of an idiot, doesn't it? You have a reading comprehension problem. I stated that from all accounts the US is sitting on more reserves than Saudi Arabia was 50 years ago. The article stated that those reserves are about 3 times the reserves that all of OPEC has. I sarcastically respond to your sarcastic remark and you come up with insulting **** like this? What are you auditioning for the sequel to Grand Torino?
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 What is the problem... If they want to move production to China... Just tax their product up the ying-yang when it comes back into the country... Strip them of their US patents too. Sorry, I am a bit radical this morning.
DC Tom Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I don't know how you concluded that oil reserves were at the top of the estimated range but one things for sure the article could be a hell of a lot more credible if the author listed reference's. Because I've seen those estimates before. The Bakken field, for example: the figures for recoverable reserves have been quoted as high as 90Bbl...the most commonly accepted estimate is only 3.5Bbl. 100Bbl has been considered a freakin' pipe dream for about ten years now. Ditto oil shales - the 1.5Tbl estimate is half the 3Tbl estimate from a few years ago, and itself is the high end of the range (the low end of estimates, by the way, is 400Bbl - nothing to sneeze at, but recoverable only at extreme cost, and not soon). You have a reading comprehension problem. I stated that from all accounts the US is sitting on more reserves than Saudi Arabia was 50 years ago. The article stated that those reserves are about 3 times the reserves that all of OPEC has. I sarcastically respond to your sarcastic remark and you come up with insulting **** like this? What are you auditioning for the sequel to Grand Torino? You have a reality comprehension issue. You're quoting articles that are fantastical.
....lybob Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Because I've seen those estimates before. The Bakken field, for example: the figures for recoverable reserves have been quoted as high as 90Bbl...the most commonly accepted estimate is only 3.5Bbl. 100Bbl has been considered a freakin' pipe dream for about ten years now. Ditto oil shales - the 1.5Tbl estimate is half the 3Tbl estimate from a few years ago, and itself is the high end of the range (the low end of estimates, by the way, is 400Bbl - nothing to sneeze at, but recoverable only at extreme cost, and not soon). You have a reality comprehension issue. You're quoting articles that are fantastical. pretty good Tom - and you might also add the ratio of energy in to energy out- or resources in for energy out.
DC Tom Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 and you might also add the ratio of energy in to energy out- or resources in for energy out. i.e. "recoverable". Which I said. Unrecoverable estimates are significantly higher...the Bakken field's unrecoverable oil is estimated at something like a third to a half of a trillion barrels. Which always causes people to say "Well, with advanced technology that'll be recoverable, so it counts". Because I always base my reality on magic performed in the unforseeable future...
Recommended Posts