Skip to comments.
Montana's Coal Cowboy(synfuel ping)
CBS ^
| Feb. 26, 2006
| Miguel Sancho
Posted on 03/03/2006 6:57:14 AM PST by isaiah55version11_0
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 last
To: Final Authority
"I think after capitalization for the scale this has to be done at, a dollar a gallon seems too cheap..." ![](http://webpages.charter.net/aircover/USAflag.gif)
The cost in materials/heat is $192 for every 4 barrels of coal oil...and there are 42 gallons in every barrel.
So that's $192 to get 168 gallons (4 barrels * 42 gallons per barrel).
$1.14 per gallon of "diesel."
41
posted on
03/03/2006 11:56:17 AM PST
by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Rodney King
Thanks... But I don't remember it! Probably all those blows to the head and shoulders. But apparently you recovered nicely.
42
posted on
03/03/2006 12:43:56 PM PST
by
John O
(God Save America (Please))
To: Southack
The cost you cite apparently is materials and the variable costs of energy. Add into that overhead, transportation, capitalization costs of the plant and other variables then I think the costs become quite high. Although crude is selling for between $50 and $60 right now, the cost to get it to the tanker for export I think is less than $10.
Hey, I'd love to buy $1.14 #2 fuel to heat my house.
BTW, way back in 1979 didn't Jimmy Carter get the ball rolling on this? Is it too late to thank him?
To: Southack
Hmmm, interesting analysis.
From that we could reasonably assume that the delta between the coal cost and the oil cost could be returned to the customer. That would be a potential savings of $56 dollars or about $14 per barrel. That would put the break even point at about $48 per barrel.
Not bad considering the current market.
To: Final Authority
"The cost you cite apparently is materials and the variable costs of energy. Add into that overhead, transportation, capitalization costs of the plant and other variables then I think the costs become quite high. Although crude is selling for between $50 and $60 right now, the cost to get it to the tanker for export I think is less than $10." ![](http://webpages.charter.net/aircover/USAflag.gif)
Crude oil is unrefined, hence the name: crude.
Crude oil and coal oil refineries have nearly identical overhead, capitalization, and transportation costs.
Coal oil, however, is ready to be burned in diesel vehicles without further refining costs. It hasn't been economically viable in the past because crude oil hasn't been above $50 per barrel for extended periods of time. As recently as 2001 we were seeing $12 per barrel for oil (hard to believe, I realize).
In the past, the low price of crude oil has kept refiners away from coal oil...but we're above the break-even point now, and we appear to be staying above that point for some time to come...so investment money may begin going into coal oil (finally).
China just opened up a major coal oil refinery last year, so the hand writing is on the wall. And the longer that crude stays above $50 per barrel, the more we'll shift toward using our reserve fuel: coal oil.
45
posted on
03/03/2006 2:00:45 PM PST
by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: taxcontrol
"Hmmm, interesting analysis. From that we could reasonably assume that the delta between the coal cost and the oil cost could be returned to the customer. That would be a potential savings of $56 dollars or about $14 per barrel. That would put the break even point at about $48 per barrel. Not bad considering the current market." ![](http://webpages.charter.net/aircover/USAflag.gif)
The rule of thumb back in the 1970's was that oil above today's $50 per barrel was a break-even for coal oil, and that long-term prices (no one invests based upon a mere temporary price spike, of course) above $60 per barrel would start to give refiners the incentive needed to begin making initial coal oil investments.
You can make a case that we are finally there...at that investment point.
46
posted on
03/03/2006 2:07:59 PM PST
by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Southack
It would be nice to see a fast track approval process put in place for companies building such plants. Not looking for a grant or tax relief, just a short cut through the red tape.
To: taxcontrol
48
posted on
03/03/2006 2:17:34 PM PST
by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Southack
How about the cost of getting the sulphur out of the coal? Does coal now compete with sweet crude?
To: Final Authority
![](http://webpages.charter.net/aircover/USAflag.gif)
Coal and crude oil are non-uniform. Some variants have sulfur, some don't; some have a little, some a lot.
50
posted on
03/03/2006 3:47:17 PM PST
by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Eric in the Ozarks
There was a lignite coal plant in North Dakota in the 1970s. It flopped.
Thats because the price of oil was between $5.00 and $10.00 a barrel at that time!! In the early 1970's I was paying $.25 a gallon for premium.
51
posted on
03/03/2006 4:14:24 PM PST
by
painter
(We celebrate liberty which comes from God not from government.)
To: painter
Yes but this thing hung around through the 1990s, sucking up taxpayer money. In 1976, gas was $.85/gallon. $.85 in 1976 dollars is more expensive than $2.25 today.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson