It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Shell's profit soars to record $9 billion

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by Sublime620

Since I was being sarcastic. But thats just me.

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:42 AM
By the way, what does synthetic fuel require? Costs, production, etc.

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:43 AM
reply to post by Sublime620

There is competition in the oil industry. Foreign competition from China, Russia, Libya, Mexico and other companies. Thanks to America and the lack of refineries and the no drilling for oil here we have to buy from other countries. Computer companies are in competition building and selling computers, automobile companies are in competition to build and sell automobiles and oil companies are in competition to drill, refine and sell oil to it's customers.

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by deltaboy


Sci-Tech Encyclopedia: Synthetic fuel

A gaseous, liquid, or solid fuel that does not occur naturally; also known as synfuel. Synthetic fuels can be made from coal, oil shale, or tar sands. Included in the category are various fuel gases, such as substitute natural gas and synthesis gas.

Syncrude is a synthetic crude oil, a complex mixture of hydrocarbons somewhat similar to petroleum. It is obtained from coal (liquefaction), from synthesis gas (a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen), or from oil shale and tar sands. Syncrudes generally differ in composition from petroleum; for example, syncrude from coal usually contains more aromatic hydrocarbons than petroleum. Gaseous fuels can be produced from sources other than petroleum and natural gas.

The most important source of synthetic crude oil is the tar sand deposit that occurs in northeastern Alberta, Canada. Tar sand is a common term for oil-impregnated sediments that can be found in almost every continent. The routes by which synthetic fuels can be prepared from coal involve either gasification or liquefaction.

Gasification can yield clean gases for combustion or synthesis gas, which has a controlled ratio of hydrogen to carbon monoxide. Catalytic conversion of synthesis gas to liquids (indirect liquefaction) can be carried out in fixed- and fluidized-bed reactors and in dilute-phase systems. Another method for producing synthetic fuels from coal involves gasification of the coal to a fuel gas that may be used as such or as a source of synthetic liquids. See also Coal gasification; Fluidization.

Coal liquefaction is accomplished by four principal methods: direct catalytic hydrogenation, solvent extraction, pyrolysis, and indirect catalytic hydrogenation (of carbon monoxide). See also Coal liquefaction; Hydrogenation; Pyrolysis; Solvent extraction.

Shale oil is readily produced by the thermal processing of oil shales. The basic technology is available, and commercial plants are operated in many parts of the world.

Wikipedia: synthetic fuel

Synthetic fuel or synfuel is any liquid fuel obtained from coal, natural gas, or biomass. It can sometimes refer to fuels derived from other solids such as oil shale, tar sand, waste plastics, or from the fermentation of biomatter. It can also (less often) refer to gaseous fuels produced in a similar way.


The process of producing synfuels is often referred to as Coal-To-Liquids (CTL), Gas-To-Liquids (GTL) or Biomass-To-Liquids (BTL), depending on the initial feedstock. Synthetic crude may also be created by upgrading bitumen (a tar like substance found in tar sands), or synthesizing liquid hydrocarbons from oil shale and synthesis gas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and methane.

The best known synthesis process is the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis which was used on a large scale in Germany during World War II. Other processes include the Bergius process, the Mobil process and the Karrick process. An intermediate step in the production of synthetic fuel is often syngas, a stoichiometric mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which is sometimes directly used as an industrial fuel.



The leading company in the commercialization of synthetic fuel is Sasol, a company based in South Africa. Sasol currently operates the world's only commercial coal-to-liquids facility at Secunda, with a capacity of 150,000 barrels a day [1]. Other companies that have developed coal- or gas-to-liquids processes (at the pilot plant or commercial stage) include Shell, Exxon, Statoil, Rentech, and Syntroleum [2]. Worldwide commercial gas-to-liquids plant capacity is 60,000 barrels per day [3], including plants in South Africa (Mossgas), Malaysia (Shell Bintulu) and New Zealand (Motor-fuel production at the New Zealand Synfuel site has been shut down since the mid nineties, although production of methanol for export continues [4]. This site ran on the Mobil process converting gas to methanol and methanol to gasoline).

Commercialization in the United States

Numerous US companies (TECO, Progress Energy, DTE, Marriott) have also taken advantage of coal-based synfuel tax credits established in the 1970s, however many of the products qualifying for the subsidy (for example slurries or briquettes) are not true synthetic fuels since they are not the portable, convenient, end-user liquids that the credit was established for.[neutrality disputed] The coal industry currently uses the credit to increase profits on coal-burning powerplants by introducing a "pre-treatment" process that satisfies the technical requirements, then burns the result the same as it would burn coal. Sometimes the amount gained in the tax credit is a major factor in the economic operation of the plant. The synfuel tax credit has been used primarily in this manner since the cheap gas prices of the 1980's killed any major efforts to create a transportation fuel with the credit, and its continuation is seen as a major "pork project" win for coal industry lobbyists, to the tune of $9 billion per annum.[neutrality disputed][1]The total production of such synfuels in the US was an estimated 73 million tons in 2002.

The United States Department of Energy projects that domestic consumption of synthetic fuel made from coal and natural gas will rise to 3.7 million barrels per day in 2030 based on a price of $57 per barrel of high sulfur crude (Annual Energy Outlook 2006, Table 14, pg52).


Synthetic fuels require a relatively high price of crude oil in order to be competitive with petroleum-based fuels without subsidies.[dubious – discuss] However, they offer the potential to supplement or replace petroleum-based fuels if oil prices continue to rise. Several factors make synthetic fuels attractive relative to competing technologies such as biofuels, ethanol/methanol or hydrogen:

* The raw material (coal) is available in quantities sufficient to meet current demand for centuries
* It can produce gasoline, diesel or kerosene directly without the need for additional steps such as reforming or cracking
* There is no need to convert vehicle engines to use a different fuel
* There is no need to build a new distribution network

Environmental aspects

Liquified coal emits twice as much carbon dixoide as burning oil, so carbon sequestration is proposed to prevent an adverse impact on greenhouse gas emissions.[2]

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:48 AM
reply to post by Solarskye

They are not competing with each other, per se. Oil companies are not trying out out-match each other on prices.

It's a completely different scenario because it's a necessity.

It would be similar if we gave water over to corporations to control. I promise you the bill would not be $30 a month.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by Sublime620]

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:49 AM
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. If you want to 'blame' someone for how much something 'costs'. you have to concur on that is 'cost' and what is 'profit'.

Ask the simple questions first, The one's that can't be obfuscated with MBA nonsense about their so-called 'sophisticated mathematical models' and analysis of the incredibly complex: "I have some oil, you want to buy some? - OK, how much?". Consumerism is the notion that we are supposed to 'accept' the decree of someone getting their marching orders from an actuarial chart, instead of accepting that it is the challenge of business to accept that THE MARKET determines what profit can be made. We have moved passed that now, we are virtually slaves of the 'model' and when we dare question it, we are being 'unrealistic.' Fantasy made reality - thank you corporate America.

Where is the WEALTH GOING? spreadsheets and statistics aside, the 'money' is going somewhere. Where is it? Someone, somewhere has been bleeding the world economy on a whim, and yes there is a 'they/him' to blame.

This game of analyzing their market is their game. They 'provide' the data, and we accept it like cattle. There is NO transparency so no one really knows what the deal is, we only have our trustworthy fiscal reporting agencies and mechanisms to go by. Many here seem poised to accept them at their word. Can you be that naive?

This is about taking a finite supply of a material and, rather than making a living off of it, making a killing of of it. Do you actually expect the practice to change all by itself? Can we possibly be persuaded that the commercial interests are the 'victims' here?

Yes I blame Bush and the Congress and the Senate - because they offered no resistance to the abuse, made no effort to solve the discrepancy of profit vs. abusive profiteering. They made no mention to the public regarding the 'true' nature of the energy business in this country and in fact seemed hell-bent on keeping it under wraps (at least until we were inevitably committed to the Iraq debacle - I guess he had promises top keep to the real 'citizens' he is concerned with.)

Our public servants have a duty to us. They abrogated that duty in deference to play a Hollywood game called 'politics'. Thanks gang - yes - it IS your fault.

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:55 AM
I love how they are able to flaunt record profits in our faces!

This is my argument against BIG OIL!!!!!

The inflation of gas prices is proven to be artificial solely by of the fact there are record profits made.

Its like this....

Gas prices go up, you would expect there wouldn't be any profits made above average. The price of manufacturing and producing the oil has basically stayed the same, so one would expect the profits to do likewise. But when we see these evil tyrants flaunt their profits in our faces, we can only assume the prices went up artificially. Its the only way it makes sense. WE pay more at the pump because they said "something bad is happening". And that extra 2 dollars a gallon they are making goes directly into the pockets of the people responsible for the inflation. Its an utter outrage!

So when I hear people say...."its not the oil companies fault!"

I just want to strangle them

Not only because of the record profits. I can live with just that....

Its the blatant attempts to cover up new technologies!

People have come up with ideas that could save this planet and change it forever. Running a car from water out of your garden hose is a huge threat against the OIL industry. So what do they do? They hush the people up that invent earth friendly technology because, if you run your car with water, THEY ARE OUT OF BUSINESS!!!!

Its as simple as that!

They are 2 times as evil as everyone thinks they are!

Thats my piece

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:33 PM
I just went to get gas the man was in the process of raising prices and I had to wait a few minutes.

As I was kicking my own butt for not being a tad few moments earlier he said to me:

The prices are raising 4 cents a day, so I suggest when you pass a gas station today look at the price and see what it is tomorrow and the next day.

You add it up and maybe you will stand with the truckers that went to Washington to show there madness.

The weather is getting nice and whenever I can do something without using the car I am. Emergenies and food shopping is the way I am going to try and go.

If we all don't cut it down drastically they are going to continue this.....we make them who they are and we can break them, remember that.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by observe50]

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:38 PM
Yes they are making uber cash off you know who? US!
We are the ones putting up with the high prices.

We are the ones who are willing to pay these prices for our gas.

For some time I was really angry at these companies.. Until I took some time to understand who is truely to blame.

Get a mirror out, and look into the eyes of the guilty.

We are the ones filling their pockets with gold. So you want to be angry?
IF we are all going to keep on paying it, and paying it then they will keep on making money and more money.. Shove it in our faces and say idiots!
HAH.. Keep on paying us slaves..

You and me are to blame for this..
Time to take some action, and stop trying to dance around the bush, blamming everyone but ourselfs for this mess.

Take a good look at this thread written by a respected member donwhite.
$4 Gasoline? Who Sets the Price Anyway? Does He Have A FAce?

[edit on 29-4-2008 by zysin5]

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:52 PM

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
We should be thankful that investors are still interested or we'd have no gas.

Thankful? Why?

I wish they would. Then maybe the idiots in charge would push more incentives toward R&D for alternative fuel.

I could care less whether my car was fueled by gasoline/oil. I'd much rather have a solar/battery powered vehicle. We could all be driving vehicles that operate on non-fossil fuel, but the effort was stifled in the mid-80's by corporations pushing for larger profit margins.

Our children and our children's children will pay the biggest price for what we, as a species, failed to stop. And that price has nothing to do with any world currency.

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:55 PM
reply to post by observe50

I completely understand your point.

Once the prices reaches a certain point, I won't care anymore. If they continue to rise by 4¢/day it won't be long before it will be more economical to rent a place in the city, rather than drive the 30 minutes into town everyday.

I will then rejoice because I'll be giving my money to a small business (land lord) owner rather than some gluttonous oil corporation.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by tyranny22]

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:57 PM
Sorry to jump right in here, but the headline grabbed me. Shell company and the other big oil companies are only making small beans compared to those who are really in charge of the global oil market. And the oil producing nations are not the ones reaping the profits either.

I urge y'all to visit this thread and to watch the video...

Revelations of Big Oil Chaplain Lindsey Williams...You Pay National Debt at the Pump

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:57 PM
Not guilty here - haven't driven for years.

Here's a thought:

Let's say oil costs (for example) $100 a barrel - set by opec, and all the other producers play ball.

Then it goes up to $110 - straight away this increase is passed on to the customer.

Then it drops to $90 a barrel, and stays that way - ever seen any of those savings passed on to the consumer?

There is more than a small degree of collusion in the way ALL corporations act - they may pretend to be enemies, but behind closed doors they're anything but.

Record profits are being made simply because the people who run the big oil companies rip you off at every turn, here's another way.

I've got nothing against reasonable profits, but shrub has generated the myth that richer corporations make for a richer populace - it simply doesn't work like that except in the bush world of drip-down economics, which as we have seen over the last few months is a complete shambles, and a government cop-out.

The fascination with the so-called free market will come to an end sooner or later - but by then the damage caused may be too great.

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 01:05 PM
Ya'll might want to have a look at this thread, started by our very own Justin Oldham.

Speculation: Conspiracy or Coincidence?.

Some great reading on the speculators that are affecting the prices of commodities, including oil.

Oh and just to add another record breaker to the mix.

Petro-Canada, the worst performer among Canada's largest oil companies, said first-quarter profit rose 82% on higher oil prices and production.

Net income climbed to $1.08-billion, or $2.20 a share, from $590-million, or $1.18, a year earlier, the Calgary-based company said today in a statement published on its Web site. Revenue rose 36% to $6.62-billion.

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 01:21 PM
reply to post by jackinthebox

Yes, Yes and yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you got that article too, I was absorbing this information like a sponge.

BTW on another note with some posts.

While more refineries will alleviate the prices of fuel in our nation still will not end the fuel dependency.

We need oil independance, either to be Dependant on our own production of oil or with some alternative oil but right now Ethanol has prove to be a nothing more than a waste of food resources.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by marg6043]

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 01:27 PM

Originally posted by GAOTU789

Petro-Canada, the worst performer among Canada's largest oil companies, said first-quarter profit rose 82% on higher oil prices and production.

What!? Not 83%? Slackers.

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 01:34 PM
reply to post by jackinthebox

Everyone's making money. They are all guilty. Just because oil companies hide their profits better, doesn't mean they are off the hook.

They're all screwing the world out of hard earned money by price gouging a necessity item.

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 01:37 PM
reply to post by Sublime620

Don't get me wrong, oil companies suck, literally. They're vampires to our wallets, and to the Earth itself. But there is a much bigger problem that most people are unaware of. The oil companies are like a front. They're there to take the heat.

[edit on 4/29/0808 by jackinthebox]

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 01:41 PM

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by Sublime620

Don't get me wrong, oil companies suck, literally. They're vampires to our wallets, and to the Earth itself. But there is a much bigger problem that most people are unaware of. The oil companies are like a front. They're there to take the heat.

Agreed. They are willing (gleeful) participants in a global wealth fleecing scam. Club-members, if you will.

PS - Love your Lindsey Williams signature line, he's got their number!

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 01:50 PM
reply to post by marg6043

You are correct there. Breaking our dependence on oil all together is the only way to end this cycle. However, I think most people want to go about it the wrong way. Simply ending our use of oil all together for these other energy sources is not feasible. Things like solar and wind energy are expensive and not realistic as a mainstream energy source. The fact remains that oil is the most abundant, efficient energy source on the planet right now, and we have to own up to that.

I still maintain the best course of action for us would be to start using our own oil here in the US as a short term solution. This break for foreign oil dependency would free up the resources on our economy to devote much more time and energy into developing a new energy source that is feasible to institute on a nationwide scale. Eventually we could do away with oil all together and move on.

I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

new topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in