Why we will still need oil and gas in the future

February 29, 2016 by Andreas Kleinschmidt

Worldwide, total oil demand keeps growing. Low prices are fueling this trend. To remain competitive, oil companies need to reduce their production costs. Siemens is supporting their efforts with a comprehensive portfolio of products and services for electrification, compressors and rotating equipment, automation, and digitization along the entire production chain—from oil drilling to processing in refineries.

Oil prices have plummeted in the space of just a few months. In the summer of 2014 a barrel (159 liters) of "black gold" cost over $100. In January 2016 a barrel cost less than $40.

What happened? On the one hand, more oil had reached the market; on the other, demand had decreased. It was not the first time oil prices took a hit. They have always been volatile, but even more so during the past decade, explains Lisa Davis, the member of the Siemens Managing Board who is responsible for Siemens' power businesses, in particular the oil and gas business.

The low price of oil is both a challenge and an opportunity for the industry. Well-run oil and gas (O&G) companies that are strong today are likely to emerge even stronger after prices rebound. While the availability of oil fields and the associated equipment is always paramount for them, during a slump they have every reason to also focus on cost-effective production. Often this means bringing in new technologies and further improving processes.

Tricky Tasks for Production Engineers

Siemens can help them do this. It has bought the Rolls-Royce company's aeroderivative turbine business and acquired Dresser-Rand, a leading partner in the industry. "We have a lot to offer, especially in the three areas of electrification, automation, and digitization," says Lisa Davis. "In all three, the aim is to achieve higher degrees of efficiency."

Offshore oil is particularly expensive to produce - innovative technology can help

Lowering production costs is not just an imminent need of the industry. It is also a long-term trend. Most of the "easy oil" has already been extracted – oil that can be produced cheaply because it is onshore, close to the surface, and conveniently spilling out of the ground under high pressure when first tapped. In the future, oil will increasingly have to be extracted from deposits that are deep underground or offshore. Gas will have to be transported from remote locations via pipelines or as liquefied natural gas (LNG) by LNG tankers. That will be a much more tricky task for production engineers.

On the whole, it is becoming harder to produce oil and gas. But there is also good news: this needn't make oil and gas more expensive, as long as production methods are being continuously improved. In the past, technological innovations and more efficient processes have made production cost-effective under increasingly challenging conditions.

A number of trends are already taking shape:

  • In the future, existing fields will operate longer and their yield will be increased by injecting water or gas, such as CO2, which boost the pressure of the reserve.
  • Unconventional extraction methods such as the hydraulic fracturing of stone formations containing oil or gas (fracking) is likely to spread beyond the U.S.
  • The production of heavy oil from oil sands will become more environmentally friendly and less energy-intensive.
  • The global market for liquefied natural gas (LNG) will continue to grow strongly. As a result, gas that is being flared, and thus wasted, today can be used and marketed in the future.
  • One day the vision of automated oil fields at the bottom of the sea, working maintenance-free over decades at depths of several thousand meters, may be realized.
One day fully automated oil and gas fields could become a reality - Siemens is working on the necessary technologies at its development center in Trondheim, Norway

At the same time, alternatives to oil and gas are becoming increasingly viable. Electric cars may become more commonplace in the future. And renewable energy sources such as wind power are becoming more economical and could partially crowd out fossil fuels. According to British Petroleum (BP), four fifths of the current growth of worldwide energy consumption is taking place in emerging economies. But even these countries' growing appetite for energy may subside at some point.

With less "easy oil" available and interesting alternatives to oil and gas becoming more viable, the way forward is clear: O&G companies need to reduce their production costs. Some are leading the way by bringing more automation to oil fields and using data analysis in smarter ways. Simply put, in the future more valves will be opened and closed by machines than by people. And it will more often be machines, not humans, that decide when to open or close the valves. Flying workers to offshore oil platforms in helicopters may one day be the exception rather than the rule.

Automated equipment produces a constant stream of data—measurement data that can be mined, aggregated into big data and transformed into smart data through intelligent analysis. And smart data helps us to understand production processes better.

For example, visualization software from Siemens is already making it possible for users to immerse themselves in a virtual 3D model of a drilling platform. In-depth virtual training sessions enable technicians to prepare themselves for maintenance assignments. This is already saving customers real money. For instance, the crew of an offshore oil processing platform in Africa was able to begin its training on a virtual model while its future workplace was still under construction. Virtual training sessions reduced the time needed for training sessions on board, and as a result the oil platform entered service two months earlier than planned.

Another opportunity to reduce costs opens up when mechanical and electrical drives become smaller and lighter in response to the scarcity of space on oil platforms and pipeline stations. Aeroderivative turbines such as those that Siemens recently took over from Rolls-Royce Energy are a good example.

Every year, five percent of capacity must be replaced

Will the price of oil remain low, possibly for years to come? No one knows. But there is one lesson that the history of the oil and gas industry has taught us: Although the price of oil can swing wildly, the growth of demand is surprisingly stable. There have been price peaks above $140 and troughs below $20, but over the long term average global energy consumption has grown steadily between one and two percent annually. In addition, roughly five percent of existing production capacity has to be replaced every year in order to offset the decreasing yield of aging oilfields. Meanwhile, new oilfields are being developed and the output of existing fields is being increased through the injection of gas.

Automation and digitalization are expected to keep oil and gas competitive in the decades ahead. Whether we like it or not, every year the human race is likely to burn a bit more oil and gas than it did the year before. In absolute numbers, our demand for energy is growing. However, the proportion of oil and gas in the total amount of energy consumed could decline.

That will probably hold true until, one day in the future, it will be more economical to leave the remaining oil in the earth's crust rather than extracting it. The necessary adjustments during this long period of transition will in any case bring great business opportunities for those who have the courage to innovate and try out new ways to produce and use oil and gas.

"When you look at the growth in consumption, it quickly becomes clear that oil and gas will remain very important for the next few decades at least," says Lisa Davis. "Of course we also need renewable energy sources. At least for the time being, we simply need everything we have. And that includes and ."

Explore further: Oil and gas industry worker death rate down by a third

Related Stories

Lifting crude oil ban means lower gasoline prices

December 21, 2015

Lifting the ban on crude oil exports will reduce gasoline prices in the United States, according to an analysis co-written by Charles Mason, the H.A. True Chair in Petroleum and Natural Gas Economics at the University of ...

New scrubber does not pollute sea water

February 23, 2016

Fresh-water gas exhaust scrubbers produce so little effluent that, in the future, it will be possible to build ships with zero effluent discharge into the sea, reveals a new study from the University of Vaasa, Finland.

Recommended for you

67 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
2.9 / 5 (10) Feb 29, 2016
https://en.wikipe...sumption

Electricity is approximately 18% of total world energy consumption. Most energy we use is due to direct use of fossil fuels, to produce heat, steam, pressure, mechanical force, chemicals, materials etc.

This direct use of fossil fuels is 10x cheaper than using electricity out of renewable sources for the same purposes, and the scales tip more in favor of fossil fuels when you add the cost of stockpiling the energy.

The problem is thus: the energy sector is currently between 5-10% of the GDP in each country. Suppose we replace all the fossil fuel energy consumption with renewable energy at 10x the price: the cost of the energy sector approaches 50% of GDP - assuming that the economy grows with it.

Our societies are built on the fact that energy is only 5-10% of the cost production. If that increases to 50%, most everyday things would become completely unsustainable and we would face immediate collapse of society.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (15) Feb 29, 2016
his direct use of fossil fuels is 10x cheaper than using electricity

Fossil fuels are only cheaper if you ignore all costs beside production. but there ARE other costs. Some of them come down the line but they have to be paid nonetheless.

And that "10x" factor is one of your (usual) made up figures.
It would do you some good to actually read up on facts instead of making stuff up. Would improve your cred no end.

Eikka
5 / 5 (5) Feb 29, 2016
The only solution to the problem is making alternative energy radically cheaper to produce and store, or dispatch otherwise.

We have to solve very down to earth problems like, how to produce asphalt if you can't use oil, or how to make concrete and iron and glass, and how to do it on the cheap. The problem is not simply about making electricity to recharge your smartphone - you have to make the smartphone too, with the same sources of energy.

That means you also have to take into account processing losses, for example how much more energy is needed to turn electricity into fertilizers vs. the Haber-Bosch process which runs directly on natural gas.

That's why renewable energy, or any form of clean energy we might come up with, has to be far cheaper than fossil fuels are now to actually replace them, and why we are actually very far from getting rid of fossil fuels.
Eikka
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 29, 2016
Fossil fuels are only cheaper if you ignore all costs beside production. but there ARE other costs. Some of them come down the line but they have to be paid nonetheless.


We are paying them by not dealing with them. People die, environments are ruined, the climate is going to hell. That's the price of our current use of fossil energy.

The point is that we can't bear the cost any other way with our current level of technology, or how we're using them. The greatest irony is solar panels made with chinese coal.

And that "10x" factor is one of your (usual) made up figures. It would do you some good to actually read up on facts instead of making stuff up. Would improve your cred no end.


I'm not making up stuff. Check out oil, gas and coal bulk prices, and compare to what we're actually paying for renewable energy production over the world. 1:10 ratio is not an exaggeration. It's actually rather optimistic.

Ignoring that is truly living in a fantasy land.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 29, 2016
The only solution to the problem is making alternative energy radically cheaper to produce and store, or dispatch otherwise.

Well, guess what is currently happening.

Don't worry your pretty little head. All the signs are saying that renewables will be able to do all that you just mentioned....and we won't have to burden our children with paying the debt (in real money or health-wise). That's a win-win for humanity if ever I saw one.

Yes, there are oil based products that will still use oil. But as long as it isn't being burned that is just as much a problem as produced by mining any other substance (i.e none at all).
No one is saying you can't dig up oil - just that you shouldn't use it for energy production and sending the environment and the climate all to hell in the process.
Eikka
3 / 5 (6) Feb 29, 2016
Well, guess what is currently happening.

Don't worry your pretty little head.


Don't be a condescending asshole. It would help your credibility to no end.

All the signs are saying that renewables will be able to do all that you just mentioned


Oh, when can I buy your solar-power cement? Most of the things only exist in the realm of daydreams, and what does exists in theory, such as power-to-fertilizers by synthesis ARE many times more expensive.

But as long as it isn't being burned that is just as much a problem as produced by mining any other substance


It is being burned, because you can't get rid of the waste otherwise. Well, other than dumping it on the ground.

(i.e none at all)


You know that's not true. Mining produces extraordinary amounts of waste, such as the mountains or radioactive stuff made by REE mining, or lakes of acid left behind by lithium extraction, because it's not cost-effective otherwise.
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Feb 29, 2016
For example: here's the reason why the cost of solar panels has been going down lately:

http://www.washin...595.html

the byproduct of polysilicon production -- silicon tetrachloride -- is a highly toxic substance that poses environmental hazards.


Chinese companies are simply dumping it on the ground to push down the cost of production of solar panels. There's less actual progress going on than people are willing to believe, instead, the companies producing the stuff are cheating by every means possible.

It's vital that we don't confuse this kind of "progress" with actual advancement in the field of renewable energy.
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 29, 2016
Don't be a condescending asshole. It would help your credibility to no end.

I have no problems with my cred. I don't need to make stuff up (i.e. lie) to make my point. That's your MOD.

Oh, when can I buy your solar-power cement? Most of the things only exist in the realm of daydreams

Stuff doesn't happen immediately. We didn't go from the first motor driven car to ubiquitous automotive mobility overnight. Why are you constatly acting as if you expected this to happen for the shift to renewables? I know you have a very "Hollywood" view of what science is - but you need to check reality once in a while.
orti
3 / 5 (2) Feb 29, 2016
Must be those big evil oil companies manipulating the market to their advantage.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 29, 2016
Oil is not "produced" by drillers, it is extracted and depleted.

This writer betrays his bias buy using those words of the industry.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 29, 2016
@ glam-Skippy. How you are again? I am good again me, thanks for asking.

This is not me being mean or making the personal insult at you. This is me following your good example and debating the technical and science stuffs.

Oil is not "produced" by drillers, it is extracted and depleted.

This writer betrays his bias buy using those words of the industry.


Oil is produced, just like gold and bauxite and diamonds and pulp wood. The Skippy that brings him out of the ground "produces" him. Just like the witness in court "produces" the evidence. It is not the "words of the industry", it is the common English that EVERYBODY uses.

Now if I was being mean or making the personal attack I would say something like "you are battling at windmills" but I am not so I won't.

Goobers usually have trouble with normal everyday words so it's okay Cher, we won't hold it against you.

gkam
1 / 5 (9) Feb 29, 2016
Why are you here, Ira? To make your silly comments and personal jokes?

This is a science site, and many here actually have educations and/or experience in it.

Depletion is not production, no matter what your oil buddies tell you. Do they ask for an "Extraction Allowance"??

Do they?
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 29, 2016
Why are you here, Ira?
You ask that a hundred times, the answer has not changed.

To make your silly comments and personal jokes?
Pot kettle black from day one Cher.

This is a science site, and many here actually have educations and/or experience in it.
Then you should start doing more reading and less writing because you obviously missed something. Or a lot of things.

Depletion is not production, no matter what your oil buddies tell you.
I don't have any "oil buddies", I am mostly persona non grata with those peoples. Mines produce, wells produce, witnesses produce, fields produce, you are playing the goober emotional semantical game with the words.

Do they ask for an "Extraction Allowance"??
If they come ask me they are out of luck.

Do they?
If they come ask me they are out of luck.
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Feb 29, 2016
Any real environmentalist knows the difference between production and depletion. They are not "producing" anything when they take it out of the ground, they are extracting and depleting it.

They admit it themselves when they want us to pay them for "Depletion".
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 29, 2016
Depletion is not production

Depletion was when you were burning $150 a month on gasoline.
You are only lying to yourself now, as everyone is on to you.
El_Nose
4.8 / 5 (4) Feb 29, 2016
The article is on point in the sense that yes, we will probably use oil and byproducts for a long time going forward. But I do feel they ignore the fact that prices are low because OPEC is choosing to keep them low. They have stated that they wish to derail US oil production and the best way is to push prices lower until the companies trying to extract oil in USA go out of business. That and they have stated that they can only keep oil prices this low for about another year and a half. Couple this with Iranian oil now entering the market after decades of sanctions oil prices will be low for a year or two. Hopefully US oil producers will not go under from this blatant use of oligarchy power in oil production. This business practice is illegal in almost every developed country, but we cannot boycott OPEC oil. And we cannot become self sufficient until OPEC lets us. - quite the conumdrum
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Feb 29, 2016
"You are only lying to yourself now, as everyone is on to you."
-------------------------------------
You doubted my role in the 553rd Recon wing, too, remember?

Can you try to be less disgusting? Shall we tell your mother?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (10) Feb 29, 2016
Any real environmentalist knows the difference between production and depletion. They are not "producing" anything
Maybe you should find one and ask him. But don't try greenpeace - no environmentalists there eh? From their website:

"Intensive development work carried out by the oil and gas industry is generally accompanied by large-scale PR campaigns. These are focused on making local residents believe that oil drilling and production are absolutely harmless and will positively contribute to the overall development of the region and its infrastructure."

You could look the word up...

"Produce vb
5. to furnish or supply; yield: a mine producing silver."

-Or, as usual, you can fabricate your own definition and pretend that 'real experts' like yourself all know what you're talking about.

Naturally.
Can you try to be less disgusting?
Nothing more disgusting than an old man pretending to be what he isnt.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 29, 2016
Like the OBE, otto?

I have been reading the Defamation Act of 2013.

And answer my question: Do they ask for a "Production Allowance" or a "Depletion Allowance"?

Is it so hard?
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 29, 2016
I have been reading the Defamation Act of 2013.
Choot you have trouble even reading the articles that the nice peoples at physorg put up for us, good luck with you making any sense out of government legal stuffs.

And answer my question: Do they ask for a "Production Allowance" or a "Depletion Allowance"?
I sure am glad you are not the type to try any of that semantics arguing.

You pay for the production, when you use their stuffs unless you are stealing it from somebody. Depletion is for when they start running out and they can't produce it to sell to glam-Skippy. Or the peoples he is stealing it from if that is how he gets out of paying for the production.

Who is the couyon on here that is supposed to be helping to get rid of all the silly semantical arguing going on around here? He must have taken the day off, eh?
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Feb 29, 2016
I see you have slipped back into the phony goober-speak again, but I will figure it out.

What is the allowance they ask for, Ira? Is it Production or Depletion?
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 29, 2016
P.S. glam-Skippy. A few other of those semantic things you hate so much that peoples do come to mind. Are you still having trouble with the definition of what a "car" is? Or what the definition of what "smog" is? Or the definition of "infrared"? Or the difference between "Btu" and "kWh" (which you can't convert between)? Or how about the difference between "force" and "kinetic energy"? How about the difference between how "FM" radios and "heterodyning" radios work?

You sure do get schooled a lot around here. By a Cajun goober no less. Got one more gem you threw at us while playing your role. Tell me about the "Digiplexer" you were playing with when you heard the submarine sinking? (As if you have any idea what you were trying to talk about.)
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Feb 29, 2016
"How about the difference between how "FM" radios and "heterodyning" radios work?"
--------------------------------------

FM radios do use heterodyning, usually in two stages.

Personal comments and attacks are all you do, Ira. I know there are real professionals there, because I worked with some of them. None of them pretended the silly goober-speak you attempt.

If you want to find out about the digiplexer, look up Radiation, Inc., who built it. Then, you can apologize, to show me there is such a thing as Cajun Honor.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Feb 29, 2016
I see you have slipped back into the phony goober-speak again, but I will figure it out.

What is the allowance they ask for, Ira? Is it Production or Depletion?

They ask for a depletion allowance. So what? What they do is still oil, gas, and such like production. They produce oil. It is a finite resource so they want to get a depletion payment for it. Don't change the meaning of the word "production" though, does it?

Hooyeei I wish that couyon who is always crying a semantic games would come around to help you out. glam-Skippy, you are just as dumb today as you were yesterday, like a cypress stump. You got those in California? Cypress trees? If you do check one out, they are really dumb.
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 29, 2016
"How about the difference between how "FM" radios and "heterodyning" radios work?"
--------------------------------------

FM radios do use heterodyning, usually in two stages.
Wrong! But you can't help your self, eh? What IF frequency is used to demodulate a FM signal? Uh, Uh, Uh, right you are none. That's why with FM it is called a discriminator instead of a mixer. glam-Skippy you are the gift that keeps on giving.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 29, 2016
How do they get from MHz to audio? Do you really know how radios work?

Ever worked on FM? They usually have two IFs. I don't know how yours works, but the those in the real Air Force used two Intermediate Frequencies.

It's been a long time, but the ones I remember are the FM-622 and the ARR-52.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 29, 2016
Oops, we had the PRCs, which were FM/VHF, and our ARC-89 did AM, FM, FSK, AME and both sidebands, but was UHF.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Feb 29, 2016
How do they get from MHz to audio?
This hardly the place to school you in radio, so I will make it short Cher. The stage that does that is called a discriminater. It detects the amount of shift in frequency FM or phase PM. It does not do anything more than that. ALL the information is carried on variations of frequency FM or phase PM

Ever worked on FM?
Yes indeedy I have and do.

They usually have two IFs.
If you are trying talk about the transmitter, those are called multiplier stages. The modulation takes place before then. If you are talking receivers you are talking out your butt, they don't use them.

I don't know how yours works,
I know you don't You don't really know anything about this other than a few buzz words you use wrong.

those in the real Air Force used two Intermediate Frequencies.
Sure they did, sure they did. 60 year old radio tech memory? Or the current holder of a GROL and Extra Class licenses.Yeah GROL Skippy.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 29, 2016
No, Ira, your selection of phrases from the book is not accurate or is incomplete. The multiple stages used by the transmitter are usually for power, not frequency.

It has been 48 years since I last worked with it, but I think the first IF is around 5MHz, and the second is the universal 455 KHz.

"Yeah GROL Skippy."

(snicker), . .
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 29, 2016
No, Ira, your selection of phrases from the book is not accurate or is incomplete.
You are wrong. No way around that Skippy.You are just wrong. Appealing to authority is incomplete, you don't have the knowledge to back it up.

The multiple stages used by the transmitter are usually for power, not frequency.
No Cher, they are to raise the frequency from the modulation stage to the final frequency BEFORE the final stage, the PA (Power amplifier).

t has been 48 years since I last worked with it, but I think the first IF is around 5MHz,
Seriously? And you are going follow that with,,,,,
and the second is the universal 455 KHz.
You are talking AM there Skippy. AM or it's cousin SCSSB.

"Yeah GROL Skippy."

(snicker),
Thought you wold like that.But that is why I know what I am talking about and you are doing a really bad job of faking it. You don't know nothing about radio Cher, the Air Force lost when they were trying to train you.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 29, 2016
"You don't know nothing about radio Cher, the Air Force lost when they were trying to train you."
----------------------------------

Ask Stumpy about my performance reports and the recommendation of the Commander , or I could just copy them here, . . .
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 29, 2016
Okay, I looked up the ARR-52. We had 36 on each aircraft, plus many more of other kinds.

"R-1170 - ARR-52A VHF RECEIVER 162.5-173.5 MHz AM, FM and video using 31 crystal-controlled channels. Solid -state sonobuoy receiver consists of five plug-in modules; 26 MHz 1st IF, 5 MHz 2nd IF. Conversion possibilities for 2 meters, VHF weather, satellite TV, etc. (See Oct 74 CQ Mag.) Reguires external control and 18 VDC. Less cover. 7.5x2.5x10, 9 lbs. Used,

https://www.fairr...ryid=167
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Feb 29, 2016
"You don't know nothing about radio Cher, the Air Force lost when they were trying to train you."
----------------------------------

Ask Stumpy about my performance reports and the recommendation of the Commander , or I could just copy them here, . . .


Whatever Cher. You are wrong again, and don't know how a normal well adjusted person would handle it. Skippy, if you were half as smart as you want everybody to think you are, you would have at the beginning, back on the Apollo postums just said, "oops, it's been 50 years since I was doing this and forget a lot of it".

You notice I explain where and what you get wrong, and your only replies are "I did" or "I used to" or "I was", with the "you never" or "you don't know".. But because I don't spend half of my letter allotment in every postum telling WHAT I did, I got a lot more room to explain where you are going wrong. And yeah Cher, in the radio you are mostly wrong, and what I said it right. You are a couyon.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 29, 2016
" And yeah Cher, in the radio you are mostly wrong, and what I said it right. You are a couyon."
------------------------------------

How many IFs in the ARR-52? Ever seen a real one? Did you notice it was used for sonobuoys, like we used in Igloo White? Except we took it down to radio and added sensitive seismic sensors. I remember when one of the national labs came in to make and record seismic background. We had the inventor over there with us, making the modifications for test and manufacture.

Did you find the digiplexer? Thought you had me again, didn't you?
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Feb 29, 2016
Okay, I looked up the ARR-52. We had 36 on each aircraft, plus many more of other kinds.

"R-1170 - ARR-52A VHF RECEIVER 162.5-173.5 MHz AM, FM and video using 31 crystal-controlled channels. Solid -state sonobuoy receiver consists of five plug-in modules; 26 MHz 1st IF, 5 MHz 2nd IF. Conversion possibilities for 2 meters, VHF weather, satellite TV, etc. (See Oct 74 CQ Mag.) Reguires external control and 18 VDC. Less cover. 7.5x2.5x10, 9 lbs. Used,

https://www.fairr...ryid=167


If you really knew what you talking about you would know that that is a lot of DIFFERENT radios packed into a single unit. You are mixing up the AM side with FM side. Cher, your table top AM/FM radio uses TWO completely DIFFERENT sets of circuitry for the AM and FM, it's like TWO radios in one box. The principles of AM are not the same as FM. They have nothing in common except maybe the box they live in.
Uncle Ira
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 29, 2016
How many IFs in the ARR-52? Ever seen a real one? Did you notice it was used for sonobuoys, like we used in Igloo White? Except we took it down to radio and added sensitive seismic sensors. I remember when one of the national labs came in to make and record seismic background. We had the inventor over there with us, making the modifications for test and manufacture.
Yet you still don't know the fundamentals, the "how" it works.

Did you find the digiplexer? Thought you had me again, didn't you?
Did not need to find him Cher, I know what it is. So yeah, I still have you. AGAIN.
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 29, 2016
P.S. glam-Skippy. Much as I love showing everybody what a couyon you are, I got to cut it short because Mrs-Ira-Skippette has some chores she thinks the fate of mankind rests on them getting done right now.

@ Everybody. I swear and cross my heart that glam-Skippy is NOT the Ira-Puppet-Skippy I use to make my self look smart. He is a real life couyon and really is as stupid as he appears. And you notice that ol Ira-Skippy can explain how the radio works, with the right words, and all glam-Skippy can do is the Wiki-Warrior-Boog-a-loo and throw out the jargon in the wrong places.

I will fool around with you some more later if I can Cher. Now you can do your "I was in the business" stuffs without me distracting you. Maybe Captain-Skippy and Otto-Skippy and all the other goober Skippys will also take a break so you can "BE THE MAN". Laissez les bons temps rouler Couyon-Skippy.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (5) Feb 29, 2016
Oil is the most useful industrial chemical today, you can't run machines without oil.
Cars, manufacturing equipment, construction equipment and most of today's human creations require oil.
But what about tomorrow?
I think someday, relatively soon, drones and 3d printers are going to fundamentally change all of those things.

I would like to see a future were plastic has been replaced with home recycling materials for 3d printers. Drones have 3d printers to create massive structures. Even the old cliche of flying cars, drones and self driving car technology are paving a path.

All those things will drastically reduce the demand for oil, along with renewables and the nuclear technologies.
Classic oil will become a pretty archaic thing. We might be able to use so little, it might be worth it to find a better molecule to engineer

But of course, as demand drops the price will, so we'll be seeing the gargoyles claw their way back with the "shut up its cheap" argument
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 29, 2016
I have been reading the Defamation Act of 2013
The Defamation Act 2013 (c 26) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
https://en.wikipe...Act_2013

last time i checked, we were not England, nor were US citizens required to adhere to English law unless on sovereign soil

1- can you prove otto is English living IN England?
2- will England allow you to file suit being a non-resident?
3- are all the PO servers in England? (this applies to each and every comment you consider using as "evidence")
4- are you paying PO?
5- is PO listed as a FOR PROFIT org?
6- planning on using Libel tourism?
7- considering the situation, you are also liable for the same actions you condemn [pick a name] for and it would, when filed, open you to reciprocal counter suit

Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 29, 2016
Ask Stumpy about my performance reports and the recommendation of the Commander
two things:

1- QUESTION: what does that have to do with you not knowing what GROL or heterodyning is (as demonstrated in the NASA vid) or your failure above WRT radio tech talk with Ira
... i've looked up Ira's comments and they're accurate: of course, this is because he was tested to actually receive his license (one reason that i decided NOT to get mine - too lazy)

2- why drag me into this when i cannot authenticate anything yet? and i SURE can't validate the claims that you had a GROL or any other license

and it doesn't take dragging ME into this when the doc's you sent are public access by your own approval

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Feb 29, 2016
Oil is the most useful industrial chemical today, you can't run machines without oil.
Cars, manufacturing equipment, construction equipment and most of today's human creations require oil.
But what about tomorrow?
...
All those things will drastically reduce the demand for oil, along with renewables and the nuclear technologies.
Classic oil will become a pretty archaic thing. We might be able to use so little, it might be worth it to find a better molecule to engineer

But of course, as demand drops the price will, so we'll be seeing the gargoyles claw their way back with the "shut up its cheap" argument

Thanks for bringing back the topic, Steve.
Unfortunately any massive shift in energy sourcing will demand an equally massive economic shift. Which prob'ly won't be pretty for the regular guy on the street...
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 29, 2016
No, I did no give you permission to publish my social security number. You did it anyway. You are responsible for any problems.

You said disgusting things about me, Toots, and I will not forget.

Meanwhile, otto may be busy transferring assets.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2016
I did no give you permission to publish my social security number.
yes, you did, by accepting the conditions i gave before you sent anything
You are responsible for any problems.
nope. talked to a lawyer ... they agreed with me
You said disgusting things about me
never made a false claim here yet... it you could prove it, you could take me to court
OOPS.. Never-mind! you can't
LMFAO
I will not forget.
i await the day i get the e-mail from your lawyer
I hope you will name me in your suit!

momma needs a new cruise to Europe

ROTFLMFAO

Oh! and BACK ON TOPIC
Why aren't you able to refute Ira with any reputable links proving you are correct?
i know that Ira can link references to you proving what he said... it is even references on a couple GOV sites...

so... you at least have a GROL, right?

can you demonstrate the FCC is wrong?

let me know...
Im takin off, but feel free to rant'/post for me later!
THANKS
KBK
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2016
The Rossi 1 megawatt e-cat reactor test, which was a year long....a highly controlled and immaculately documented test...which was done by a major third party tester, that test has come to an end.

It has shown to be, in the leaked bits so far, to be approx 20 to 80 COP.

The official report is due in about one month.

This is one technology among dozens which can do similar, which all show 'over unity' compared to thermodynamic theory as it stands.

The reasons and the logic behind the above article..this is article not covering the billion pound elephant in the room. The coming boom in over unity type technologies, for a start.

This is due to media ownership bias, and so on.

This can't be hidden anymore. Likened to all past forms of hidden war and hidden struggles... the public will be the last to know.

(Tokamack reactors, recognized by science.. are 'over-unity' and billions of $ are poured into them, recognized...as they retain centralized power for oligarchy.)
humy
4.7 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2016
all this talk of which is cheaper or more 'comparative' , fossil fuels or renewables, is totally irrelevant.
That is because for environmental reasons, we are going to HAVE to eventually go all renewable and stop all fossil fuel burning regardless of the costs else humanity is eventually going to be in real trouble.

Besides, the extra costs of going all renewable may be more than offset by the huge saving in costs (eventually ) in having to relocate all our major coastal cities and people to higher ground due to sea level rise if we do nothing to stop burning fossil fuels!

greenonions
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2016
Steve
so we'll be seeing the gargoyles claw their way back with the "shut up its cheap" argument
But renewables will be cheaper. When the economic power shifts, the supports will come off fossil fuels, and the cost of wind/solar etc. will continue to fall (it is a technology, rather than a finite resource) - we will move past fossils. I think the transition will happen faster than many predict. There is so much happening in research right now - they will not all be dead ends. Thermal storage - http://cleantechn...-energy/ Cheaper batteries http://cleantechn...54-mark/ http://www.greent...-battery Better pv panels - http://www.greent...lar-Cell etc. etc. etc.
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2016
Steve
so we'll be seeing the gargoyles claw their way back with the "shut up its cheap" argument
But renewables will be cheaper. When the economic power shifts, the supports will come off fossil fuels, and the cost of wind/solar etc. will continue to fall (it is a technology, rather than a finite resource) - we will move past fossils. I think the transition will happen faster than many predict. There is so much happening in research right now - they will not all be dead ends. Thermal storage - http://cleantechn...-energy/ Cheaper batteries http://cleantechn...54-mark/ http://www.greent...-battery Better pv panels - http://www.greent...lar-Cell etc. etc. etc.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2016
Besides, the extra costs of going all renewable may be more than offset by the huge saving in costs (eventually ) in having to relocate all our major coastal cities and people to higher ground due to sea level rise

Not to mention all the wars fought for these resources.
For comparison: The US could have paid for going 100% renewable by not going to war in Iraq (1+2) and Afghanistan....and would now be free of any terrorist nightmares with a lot more money every year going towards sensible things (education, health care, ....) instead of military spending.

The cost of oil is not just "pump it up and ship it". There's a lot of costs that are paid by the taxpayer before and after the 'pump it' part.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2016
antialias
The US could have paid for going 100% renewable by not going to war in Iraq (1+2) and Afghanistan

That is such an interesting question. Who gets to make these decisions? If the American people had been asked to vote - do you want to go to war, or to invest trillions into an infrastructure - that will create jobs, cheap energy, and eliminate our dependence on countries that don't like us? Surely it would be no contest in favor of the latter. But somehow - those decisions get made by a small group, and we go along.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2016
Who gets to make these decisions?

War is big business. Military spending means no-bid-contracts. Which in turn means money straight from taxpayers to capitalists without any oversight.
The US is a capitalist country.
You do the math.

Using that money to build up renewables would put a lot of capitalists in the military and old energy sector out of business - or at the very least put a hefty dent into their profits. The wealth would go to the people. That would be socialism! Can't be having that.

I mean: democracy actually wortking for the people (by the people)? That's crazy. Where do people come up with ideas like that?

(BTW: Where do you think all that money in the SuperPACs comes from? "Concerned citizens"? Suuuure. They want nothing in return. Absolutely.)
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2016
Steve
so we'll be seeing the gargoyles claw their way back with the "shut up its cheap" argument
But renewables will be cheaper. When the economic power shifts, the supports will come off fossil fuels, and the cost of wind/solar etc. will continue to fall (it is a technology, rather than a finite resource) - we will move past fossils. I think the transition will happen faster than many predict..

Green, you've set the perfect scene for revolution...:-)
People WITH the money are preparing to keep it, by bullying the common person into thinking it's in his own best interest to throw his own lot in with them...
An OLD trick...
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2016
Ask Stumpy about my performance reports and the recommendation of the Commander , or I could just copy them here, . . .
And how would this change the fact that you apparently don't know the difference between am and fm???
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2016
And answer my question: Do they ask for a "Production Allowance" or a "Depletion Allowance"?
Like I say why don't you ask the real environmentalists over at greenpeace? They apparently know what the word means and how to use it.

You proved that you dont.
No, I did no give you permission to publish my social security number. You did it anyway. You are responsible for any problems
Hey where's that? Provide a link please.

Unless of course there was some non-disclosure prearrangement whereby stumpy agreed not to disseminate george kamburoffs personal info if it wasn't already in the public domain?

Otherwise it appears george is willing to give his ss# to the world like he does all of his other personal info.

A reasonable assumption.

Psychopaths often make this sort of mistake because their delusion tells them that they are incapable of making it.

So when they invariably do its always the fault of the untermenschen around them.

What a joke you are george.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2016
Military spending means no-bid-contracts
More delusion...

"Overview Of the DoD Procurement Process

"1) Sole source procurements are made when there is only one company that can fulfill the contract. This procurement is rare and must be documented very well by the government

"2) Multiple award contracts (MAC) such as GSA schedules, Navy Seaport-e and Air Force NETCENTS II involve companies obtaining a contract and then compete for task orders.

"3) Normal procurement is split between simplified acquisitions (those below $25,000) and all the rest...

"Purchases over $25,000 are publicized on Federal Business Opportunities website. On this website you will find Requests for Proposals (RFP's) for practically everything the government purchases."

-IOW you're just plain wrong. Again.

This can happen when we allow ideology to replace reason yes?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2016
"ROTFLMFAO"
-------------------------------

That's what your brother-in-hiding Stumpy hurls at me, thinking he just said something.
greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2016
Whyden
People WITH the money are preparing to keep it, by bullying the common person into thinking it's in his own best interest to throw his own lot in with them...
You really lost me there Whyden - could you expand on that one for me.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2016
Whyden
People WITH the money are preparing to keep it, by bullying the common person into thinking it's in his own best interest to throw his own lot in with them...
You really lost me there Whyden - could you expand on that one for me.

Money buys politicians. Money then manipulates media to convince public that protection is needed (ie - from terror orgs).Disregarding the fact that Money created the terror orgs, in the first place. Public tax dollars then go into stronger, "more prepared" policing agencies.
Anyway - sorry. Pet Peeve came to surface...
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2016
Like the OBE, otto?

I have been reading the Defamation Act of 2013.

And answer my question: Do they ask for a "Production Allowance" or a "Depletion Allowance"?

Is it so hard?

A strawman by any other name is still...

Opps, never mind.
LifeBasedLogic
Mar 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
Mar 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2016
Not to mention all the wars fought for these resources.
For comparison: The US could have paid for going 100% renewable by not going to war in Iraq (1+2) and Afghanistan....and would now be free of any terrorist nightmares
No of course not. We'd just have a full-blown caliphate bent on world conquest to deal with. And their terrorist operatives would have nuclear IEDs.

And you would be living in eurabia where you would either be wearing a burka or be stoned to death.

Why doesn't THAT keep you up at night aa?
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2016
"unless you can produce empirical evidence in a peer reviewed study published in a reputable journal", . . .
----------------------------------

He means Wiki.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2016
"unless you can produce empirical evidence in a peer reviewed study published in a reputable journal", . . .
----------------------------------

He means Wiki.
no beni-kam
i mean very specifically what i said: a reputable peer reviewed journal... you know, like Science Magazine? Physical Review Physics Education Research? those journals that don't have your "thesis"?

so much for your argument of "stop the sniping", eh?

LMFAO

gkam
1 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2016
Oh, how about the NASA catalog of studies and reports? Official enough for you? I saw my name in it, . . where's yours? I am real, and you are not. I am open, and you hide. I stand up for something, and you cower in the woods behind a phony name, too scared to tell us who you are, so you can take responsibility for your words and deeds.

It is what real people do, Stumpy, Ira, otto. Real People, not snipers.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2016
I am real, and you are not. I am open, and you hide. I stand up for something
Yeah you're the real imbecile who discloses his name, address, phone#, AND SS# on the internet.

You're george kamburoff the fucking moron.

Nice to make your acquaintance.
jimbo92107
3 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2016
All this is going to change on March 17th, 2016.

http://www.e-catworld.com/

The end is nigh for fossil fuels.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2016
Fossil fuels will taper off, perhaps dramatically as seen by purveyors, but not fast enough for many of us.

Then, we can start the cleanups of the toxic sties.

I doubt the e-cat magic box will save us.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.