🚀 go-pugleaf

Don Homuth wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 19:37:35 GMT, trijicon <dev@null.set> wrote:
> 
>> Don Homuth wrote:
> 
>>> Unlike the awlbidniss, the profits of which are dependent on
>>> Use and not Conservation, my operating Costs are dependent on
>>> conservation, not use.
>> Oil companies also profit by conservation, of CHEMICALS!
> 
> Nah -- those are a CODB, and their use is just part of that.

And when they can REDUCE that CODB they DO SO!

http://www.imperialoil.ca/Canada-English/News/Issues/N_I_EnergyConservation.asp

Energy conservation
Conserving Energy Only Makes Sense
(an article from the Imperial Oil Review - Spring 2000 Volume 84 
Nuimber 436)


 From production wells to refineries, energy conservation is good for 
the environment and for business by Russell Felton

"Are you telling me oil companies care about conserving energy?" my 
friend asked during an after-dinner discussion. "Why would they? Their 
business is selling fuel. The more fuel that's consumed, the more money 
they make - simple as that." Well, perhaps not quite so simple, at least 
as far as Imperial Oil is concerned. "The fact is that energy 
conservation, by our customers and in our own operations, is extremely 
important to Imperial Oil," says Brian Fischer, senior vice-president of 
the company's products and chemicals division. "It just makes good 
business sense any way you look at it."

Fischer's point, although probably not widely recognized, is well taken. 
Imperial and other petroleum companies have continually improved the 
quality of their fuels and lubricants over the years to complement more 
and more fuel-efficient engines and have offered high-efficiency 
home-heating furnaces and other products. "That's what our customers 
expect and demand," Fischer says. "Engine-cleaning detergent additives 
for gasoline and octane levels suited for specific types of engines are 
just two examples of fuel innovations that improve your car's gas 
mileage, and improving mileage means conserving energy."



> Conservation reduces Costs.  The awlbidniss isn't all that concerned
> about conservation of their product, however.

Another lie.

http://www.imperialoil.ca/Canada-English/News/Issues/N_I_EnergyConservation.asp

On average, the equivalent of more than eight percent of the energy 
contained in all the crude oil and natural gas produced in Canada today 
- almost a full month's supply each year - is consumed in getting those 
resources out of the ground, transporting them by pipelines and other 
means, and refining and manufacturing them into high-quality fuels, 
lubricants, petrochemicals and other products.

Take, for example, the transportation of natural gas from wells in 
Western Canada to Canadian and U.S. markets. About 10 percent of the gas 
produced is used to fuel the huge turbines that compress the gas and 
propel it through the network of pipelines that crisscross the 
continent. And in a typical petroleum refinery, the equivalent of about 
seven percent of the crude oil that flows through the refinery is 
consumed in the refining process to generate heat needed to distill the 
crude oil into its various hydrocarbon components and to transform those 
components into products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, butane and propane.



Imperial and other oil companies have also significantly reduced the 
consumption of energy in their own operations



The manufacture of petrochemical products also consumes large amounts of 
energy, especially to generate the very high temperatures required to 
"crack" gases such as ethane and butane to form ethylene, which in turn 
is used to make polyethylene, or plastics.

At Imperial, however, the part of its business that requires the most 
energy is the recovery of bitumen - a heavy, molasses-like form of crude 
oil - from the subterranean oil sands at Cold Lake, Alta. Here, in the 
singularly beautiful region of the province known as Lakeland, immense 
quantities of bitumen are suspended in layers of sand that perhaps 100 
million years ago were riverbeds. Since those sand layers are almost 
half a kilometre beneath the surface of the ground, for many years the 
bitumen was considered unrecoverable by any practical or economic means.

Then in the mid-1960s, after years of research and experimentation, 
Imperial began recovering bitumen using what is referred to as the "in 
situ" or "in place" method. By drilling wells into the subterranean 
layers and injecting steam at a very high temperature and pressure, 
Imperial engineers were able to heat the bitumen until it flowed and 
could be pumped to the surface. Here, heavy natural gas liquids could be 
added to the bitumen to thin it so it could be transported by pipeline 
to Canadian and U.S. refineries equipped to handle it.

Having proven that this in situ recovery method worked, and having 
gained experience in working with it, Imperial began bitumen-recovery 
operations on a commercial scale at Cold Lake in 1985. Today, after a 
series of expansions, the Cold Lake operation is Canada's second-largest 
source of crude oil, and its 132,000 barrels of bitumen a day account 
for more than half of Imperial's total crude oil production. Spread over 
about 60 square kilometres, the operation comprises more than 3,200 
wells, which are not scattered individually about the landscape but 
arrayed in clusters, or "pads," of 20 to 30 wells each to minimize the 
ecological impact on the evergreen forest that covers much of the 
region. It is, in reality, one of the outstanding success stories in the 
history of the Canadian oil industry and has also led the way for in 
situ oil-sands recovery projects in other parts of the world.

This steam injection process does, however, require enormous amounts of 
energy - in particular, large volumes of natural gas to generate the 
steam that is injected into the subterranean beds for up to six months 
at a time, as well as to operate pipelines and other facilities. The 
"gas bill" at Cold Lake ($135 million in 1999) accounts for more than 50 
percent of the total direct operating expenses for the entire operation. 
Some of this gas is purchased externally, but most of it is produced by 
Imperial at Cold Lake and other operations and would otherwise be sold 
into commercial markets. The loss of potential revenue to Imperial is 
substantial, and therefore the financial prize - let alone the 
environmental one - for finding ways to improve energy efficiency at 
Cold Lake is also considerable.

Economic considerations - that is to say, the opportunity to reduce 
costs by reducing energy consumption - provide a powerful motivation for 
all of Imperial's operations (in the "downstream," or manufacturing and 
marketing, sector, as well as in the "upstream," or oil and gas 
producing, operations) to become more energy efficient. Says Fischer: 
"Across Imperial's four refineries, energy accounts for one-third of 
total operating costs. That adds up to around $200 million a year or, to 
put it another way, more than one dollar for every barrel of crude oil 
processed. When you consider that the industry's after-tax profit margin 
has typically averaged between one and two cents per litre of product 
sold, you can see that saving energy is sound business."

Consider, too, that under the Voluntary Challenge and Registry (VCR) 
program, aimed at encouraging Canadian industries and companies to 
reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases 
from their operations, Imperial has been exceeding a commitment to 
improve the energy efficiency of its refining operations by at least one 
percent a year.


>> You absolute ASS!
> 
> If I keep this up, you should turn blue in the screen real soon.  Alas
> -- I have a meeting later on.

I hope you get run over by an oil truck!

>>> So I scheduled some maintenance on the house, 
>> Blah, blah, blah...
> 
> Conservation works!  More folks should 

ESAD!

>>> The awlbidniss doesn't Want you to experience lower prices.  
>> Does ANY business that runs for profit want to GIVE their product away?
> 
> No one's talking about Giving it away.  Just what the cost and price
> ratio really is.
> 
> For all the Talk about Conservation as a useful goal, the awlbidniss
> would as lief you not do that, because it would lower the use of their
> product, and then they'd have to increase Price yet again.

You sure hate how capitalism works doncha?

> Which they won't really mind doing, once y'all have become used to the
> next Price Point.

Yet it is OPEC that sets the peg, not US oil companies, you lying piece 
of SHIT!

>> Maybe you want us to have STATE-RUN oil ?
> 
> If you'd care to post a chart of the difference in consumer cost
> between private and state-run petroleum, feel free to do that at your
> convenience. 

I can tell you in state sponsored nations it can be as low as .14c/gallon.

> You won't, though.

Oh really?

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/price.html

> The direct answer is

You fucked up again - ASSHOLE!