"CRUDE" oil, an absolute must see program !!! [Archive]

View Full Version : "CRUDE" oil, an absolute must see program !!!

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

brian eiland

02-22-2008, 04:02 PM

Just saw this program ("Crude": 8-10 AM EST Feb 22) and it was simply the most well-done, informative and attention-grabbing program I've seen related to peak oil concerns. This program should be endorsed and viewed by every single member of this site.

"An Inconvenient Truth" this isn't. It's also not "Lost Worlds" or some other pompous History Channel program. It was concise, stuck to facts and experts and the production values were excellent. Two hours of enthralling oil and climate-related topicality.

See it. Spread it. It's important stuff.

Crude, The History Channel:
http://www.history.com/shows.do?episodeId=260656&action=detail

....other comments at Peak Oil Review
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic35978.html

An Inconvenient Truth", the climate change documentary that's been promoted by Nobel laureate Al Gore, has received mixed reviews from the global audience.

Regardless of whether or not you've seen the "Gore movie" or what you're already inclined to believe about oil and climate related issues, I highly recommend Crude: a new two-hour documentary that was aired earlier today on The History Channel. This is an unequivocally rave review. Crude scores 11 on a scale of 1 to 10.

I don't see anything new in terms of oil and climate related issues and concerns, but the program explains the science (much of it recent) behind terms like "peak oil", "greenhouse climate" and "global warming" in the most engaging way I've seen to date.

It's a landmark in terms of scientific narration and computer generated imagery and animation. From the way that oil was created in the age of the dinosaurs, through the emergence of the modern oil industry in Pennsylvania, to the game-changing discoveries in the Middle East and up to the present day, it puts the whole story together in the most viewer friendly and captivating style yet

the1much

02-22-2008, 06:59 PM

brian eiland

02-22-2008, 08:00 PM

do they talk about how the chemicals and "others" that come with the crude oil is as bad or worse to the enviroment then the oil itself?,,,,i drather ask a simple question like that before wasting time watching a movie that are full of facts ( usually for one side) and only told from 1 side of the issue.
TY brian
They don't attack oil as bad for the environment, but rather just document our absolute dependance on this product over the years for a VERY substantial portion of our living style....we are addicted to this product.

It traces the origin of this carbon product oil (and other fuels), its subsequent search and recovery by mankind, our subsequent use of the product, and how our reintroduction of the product into the earth's eco-system could result in a return to the conditions under which the oil was formed originally....a very compelling and scientific story that is without bias.

And this movie is COMPLETELY neutral as far as blaming anyone, or being one-sided. Believe me, it is the best presentation I have ever seen. And if you look around the web for other opinions I think you will find the same sentiments.

Interestingly, I beleve I saw a reference to this film having been made originally in Austrailia

brian eiland

02-22-2008, 08:11 PM

I just found a video of this film on a Google site. The sound is screwed up for the first couple of minutes, but then it seems to straighten out

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5797240072407639740 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5797240072407639740)

brian eiland

02-22-2008, 09:50 PM

Interestingly, I beleve I saw a reference to this film having been made originally in Austrailia

Yes, it appears so.

Crude - the incredible journey of oil, from its birth deep within our dinosaur-inhabited past, to its ascendancy as the indispensable ingredient of modern life.

Oil is one of the most sought after resources in the world and sweeps into almost every part of our modern lives, yet most people have little idea of the incredible 160 million year journey it has made to reach our gas tanks and plastic bags. What is its history? Where does it come from? When will it run out?

Shooting on locations around the world and using CGI animations to visualize both science and history, Crude helps make sense of the oil-driven world we live in. It connects the dots between geology and economy; between the past, present and future. Crude takes a step back from the day-to-day news to offer a fresh perspective on the amazing fluid that powers our lives.

Crude is directed by Australian filmmaker Richard Smith.

the1much

02-22-2008, 09:53 PM

coolz,,,TY ;)

Guest625101138

02-23-2008, 01:54 AM

Brian
Your glowing critique of the film was sufficient to get me to waste about 90 minutes. There is nothing new there. There are believers and non-believers. Nothing in the film will change people's minds.

To take the topic further:

It takes about 30 years to get a new technology accepted. If you cannot see a glint of something new now or a new way of doing things then it will not be in place in 30 years. So there is little chance the world will be weened off oil and other carbon based fuels before prices force alternatives. China and India are just beginning to industrialise by comparison with advanced economies. China is commissioning a 500MW power station every week - or its equivalent in larger stations now. Something like half of the world's steel production is going into China. Asia-Pacifica region will represent around 50% of air travel in 20 years - growing at 8%pa in China.

Think how fast we will be able to burn carbon based fuels when everyone has a 6000sq.ft air-conditioned house, a 2t BMW or Merc 4WD, weekly flight to see the football and a 1000HP cruiser for weekend recreation. The world will truly be a wonderful place.

So if you take the pessimistic view along the lines the film paints it is simply too late now. The change to conservation cannot occur at the required rate. No point in conserving the stuff. If you can afford to use it then better off using as much as you can right now. If you are a believer and, it is indeed running out, this will force the price up even faster; so it will accelerate change for different technology. Better to press the issue now than have a long, agonising decline that seems to be forming now. Short sharp pain is easier.

It is a little unfair though that the oil is located in the wrong place. (i.e. not on MY property) I also cannot imagine what possessed western goverments to recognise sovereignty of third world countries that are oil rich. We should just take the stuff for the common good. Why should all these backward places become world powers overnight simply because they happen to be in god foresaken places that are oil rich. High oil price is stuffing the US economy and making investors around the globe nervous - that hurts my back pocket.

Finally- So unless you want to waste 90 minutes don't bother watching the film - it adds nothing new.

Rick W.

the1much

02-23-2008, 09:10 AM

trust me you dont want oil on ya property,,,they dont pay much for oil in the ground that they have to pump,,,,then you got the smell of the brine water and oil,,then you got the spills that happen EVERY day,,,then if its on your property,,,,they just find a neighbor and pay him half of what they were gonna pay you and then they do directional drilling and get your oil from ya nieghbors land

rwatson

02-23-2008, 10:33 AM

I agree with Brian - it is a very usefull, informative and timely production, and re-inforces the importance and intimate part Oil plays in all our lives.
I dont think it takes the pessimistic view - just the realistic one.
Ricks view that we should use it up now to force the "new" technology shows that he missed a few key points from the flim.
This is the same view taken by the classic economists who say all demand will be met by some other product - the only problem is - there is no other product to compete - as the film emphasises.
Its like saying if a bus is falling off a cliff, suddenly everyone will get parachutes due to the sudden demand. But making parachutes takes a lot longer than the bus has before it hits the ground.
Sure, we might be able to get power from nuclear, or solar, and generate some sort of gas for autos, but oil is far more intrinsic in our lives than that - down to the packaging of foodstuffs and a million other uses, that no other product cannot provide as cheaply and easily - once again as the film says.
As far as having a "short sharp pain versus a long agonising decline" - thats about as sensible as spending your superannuation at the roulette table knowing you will never be able to earn as much money as easily, ever again.

And the comments about "refusing to recognise soveriengty of backward oil rich countries", I am ashamed to see that Rick is a fellow australian, and he seemed like such a nice fellow when I met him too. Even if you dont see the moral point of view, maybe if I bring a few "lads" around to Ricks place and "refuse to recognise his soveriengty" and take over his possessions including the 12 prototype pedal powered boats, he might get a new slant on the justice issue, which can only survive with respect for the rights of even "backward" people.

the1much

02-23-2008, 10:47 AM

i think before all this technology made our lives so much easier the people alive had better ( happiness),healthier,lives,,had waY better morals,,were way tougher,,,went to work no matter how they felt,,would break a leg, splint it up with 2 limbs, grab the horses or whatever, and went along their day as usual, work,home thingys, farm animal thingy's,,,,,and at the end of the day had a sense of accomplishment that most of us will never have,,,,,we think we do,,but what really is the big deal of going to some job that dont even make ya sweat,,wash ya car,,watch t.v......and buy ya meal at mcdonalds,,,,sad what we think is a big deal

brian eiland

02-23-2008, 07:26 PM

Brian, Your glowing critique of the film was sufficient to get me to waste about 90 minutes. There is nothing new there. There are believers and non-believers. Nothing in the film will change people's minds....don't bother watching the film - it adds nothing new.Rick W.

I don't believe I said there was anything new there. I posted:
...it was simply the most well-done, informative and attention-grabbing program I've seen related to peak oil concerns
...I don't see anything new in terms of oil and climate related issues and concerns, but the program explains the science (much of it recent) behind terms like "peak oil", "greenhouse climate" and "global warming" in the most engaging way I've seen to date.
_______________________________________________________

It takes about 30 years to get a new technology accepted. If you cannot see a glint of something new now or a new way of doing things then it will not be in place in 30 years. So there is little chance the world....
Lets see how long did it take for the USA to put a man on the moon once they decided to go for it !!! Do you remember the Apollo program. or were you even born yet.
_______________________________________________________

The change to conservation cannot occur at the required rate. No point in conserving the stuff
That's real optimistic. Lets burn it all up in automobiles so we have none for all the other products that are petroluem based....including all plastics and resins and etc, etc. And food producing items, etc.

Guest625101138

02-23-2008, 08:45 PM

Brian
With the aim of keeping the thread going -

I have only one issue with what you put in the previous post - That concerns Apollo. If you look at space exploration - moon visits are still not for the masses 30 years on. The first one was 1969 and 1999 has long gone and it is not happening regularly. My point is not that - it can be done. It is if it is accepted as everyday event. (There are people around who consider the moon landing was a hoax anyhow.)

If you take "space" as a technology eg global orbit - the first orbit was in the 1950s. We now see space orbit as a regular every day technology. Most notable are things like communications, GPS and Google Maps. These things did not exploit the fact that we could put objects into orbit for everyday uses for the masses until about 30 years after the original orbit. It is still not practical for us all to be circling the globe but we certainly make everyday use of orbiting craft. Again supports my opinion that it takes 30 years.

It is my expectation that anyone with half a brain can see that continued oil usage is unsustainable but there are apparently sensible people who consider the price increases a government conspiracy. You have posted on one of the other threads on climate change so you can know what I mean.

You do not have to scan through very many threads on this site to appreciate how little positive action is being taken to conserve carbon based fuels. You often see surface drives on 50ft pleasure craft capable of 60kts discussed here. The forum has whole threads dedicated to surface drives and the attendant monstrous fuel guzzling engines that power them. I get the feeling that many on this forum think 1 gallon per hour is real economy. Nothing is the only acceptable target.

So back to the topic - the little film will not make anyone change their mind about fuel consumption or the way they use carbon fuels. The journalists "revelation" that oil products are used everywhere in everyday life was a bit like the 14yo child learning that milk comes from cows or eggs come from chickens. I would hope educated people know a little about organic chemistry and how intricately our daily lives are tied to its exploitation.

Rick W.

Frosty

02-23-2008, 09:43 PM

Frosty

02-23-2008, 10:01 PM

Errr I think that after all said and done Brian is talking most sence here. He has at least watch the documentary and assesed it as he feels, which is what you are supposed to do. We need as much information as possible on this so as to make some desicions which the world seems reluctant to do, even reluctance to listen anymore about it, probably because there is so much controversy, confusion and worse --very much worse, bigotry.

I dont like Al Gore or his documentary , but I have watched it.

NOTE-- Al Gores documentary is shown in English schools with the additional comment that not all of it is true.

When I have seen "crude 'then I can comment on it.

brian eiland

02-23-2008, 10:01 PM

So back to the topic - the little film will not make anyone change their mind about fuel consumption or the way they use carbon fuels. The journalists "revelation" that oil products are used everywhere in everyday life was a bit like the 14yo child learning that milk comes from cows or eggs come from chickens. I would hope educated people know a little about organic chemistry and how intricately our daily lives are tied to its exploitation.
Regrettably not everyone in this world is as intelligent as you, so a 'little educational film' for the other masses can be helpful. It might surprise you that there are a lot of folks who have no idea that the whole plastics industry is based on petroleum. Many have no idea of the 'un-oxygenated ocean bottoms', nor the fact that it's the polar ice caps that facilitate the ocean mixing, or even that ocean currents are required. A lot of people have no idea where oil comes from, nor how a power plant or internal combustion engine works. My point is it was a good film, well presented.

I learned a few new things from this film. You didn't learn one thing??

Will it make people change their ways? This 'little film' was made in such a manner as to be understandable to the masses. And as such likely remembered by a large number of people. When they go to vote on an environmental subject, I'd be willing to bet that many will conger up an image from this film. They may not have retained an image of the term global warming, but I bet they retain an image of the potential cycle of things....one thing influencing the other, and so on down the line. It will have an impact.

I have only one issue with what you put in the previous post - That concerns Apollo. If you look at space exploration - moon visits are still not for the masses 30 years on. The first one was 1969 and 1999 has long gone and it is not happening regularly. My point is not that - it can be done. It is if it is accepted as everyday event. (There are people around who consider the moon landing was a hoax anyhow.)
My point here was very simple. We went from German V-2 rockets to putting a man on the moon in 9 years time....freaking amazing when you think about it.!! Apollo Space Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program)

Mankind can overcome amazing odds, if he puts a real effort into it.

brian eiland

02-23-2008, 10:07 PM

...on another forum I offered this concern of mine

One of my primary concerns in this debate is not so much the CO2 emmissions situation, but rather our wasteful usage of the hydrocarbon gift we've been given.

We (particularly USA) are not being good stewards of those hydrocarbon products. We are wasting a tremendous amount on private auto transportation. There are SO MANY other products in our daily lives that depend on the hydrocarbon product, and it would be a real shame to have to cut back on them as a resulting need for more auto fuel....but this could be the future, if we fail to practice some conservartion of those resources. And thus far our US Congress has failed to enact hardly ANY conservation bills.

I just spent 40 days in Thailand, one of the biggest auto markets in Asia. They've gone auto crazy, as will China and India, and Indonesia. If these populations adopt our model, think of the impact on the remaining oil reserves. We may not have enough for the plastics industry, let alone many others....we'll burn it all up as fuel for cars!!

Now at least in Thailand is more fuel conservative than the USA. I would guess that 80% of their vehicles are diesel engine powered, and relatively small diesels at that. And a big number are coming on as comman rail engines that are even more efficient. Compare that to the USA...no comparison.

I guess the point that the documentrary "Crude" made to me is that we have a finite resource of oil that we need to consider, not only in terms of an energy source, but also in the scheme of our earth's evolution.

It can't be wrong to seriously try to limit both oil usage and CO2 emissions if we desire to leave a liveable earth to the next generation, and the next one after that.

Frosty

02-23-2008, 10:41 PM

Ive just come back from India and believe me you could'nt get any more cars on the road and with fuel about 25% more than Thailand they run about in very small vehicles made by Piaggio,--single diesels,---yes amuzing to us,--but why not ?

When I was in India I bought a motorcycle. When I took it back to the Hotel many people came to look ,--all of them asked what consumption to the the liter does it get? Not one asked how big it was or fast it goes.

The point being they are very very fuel concious.

I think Im right in saying the airbus 380 uses 11 tons per hour. Sounds a lot does'nt it but im sure thats what the Chinese Singapore airpilot said on the BBc the other day.

If Emirates has ordered 40 of them!!! that alone is 400 tons of burnt fuel per hour in the sky.

1000 Americans own 900 cars, 1000 chinese own 9 cars. (someone told me that yesterday, I will ask for verification of the information if it is challenged).

Sean Herron

02-23-2008, 10:46 PM

Hello...

I got into carving roses from radishes - I got into it man - imagine a blue collar - sore ass lower back - knees all F'cked up - white guy listening to ZZ top - carving radie roses for some **** salad - just wanting to go to the range and pump off a few rounds...

I am trying to be a good man - but it gets under my skin...

Hell - we need some prison footage for whats her face - Martha..

Thing is - I am tired of my hate - it wears me down - this is a real point - my hate wears my tread thin - it is up to me to find some HOPE - and make good..

SH.

the1much

02-23-2008, 10:48 PM

i say we jus shoot ourselves now,,,,least we'll get the peace of mind knowing at least who killed us and is responsible ;)
and frosty,,,i just moved down south here on the border a few years ago,,,talk bout fuel usage at rates unbelievable to most us,,,i looked cross into mexico yesterday,,,and saw a station wagon pulled by 25 mules carring 47 1/2 mexicans ;)
( texas joke,,,,,how come there was only 3000 mexicans at the alimo?,,,,,they only had 3 station wagons ;) )

the1much

02-23-2008, 10:49 PM

You want to know what its about before watching it?
well ya,,,,,time is money,,,,and i have none ;)

Sean Herron

02-23-2008, 10:57 PM

Hello...

ARE YOU OK MAN...

I am sure there is some American English smoldering in the back of your head...

LET IT ALL OUT...

SH.

Frosty

02-23-2008, 11:03 PM

The much --I see youve got 454 points thats a nice round Chevrolet kind of number. But anyway you'lle be ok in Texas, oil is bubbling on the surface there isn it?

I remember seeing a 'small film about this guy out one day a hunting for some food, and up from the ground come a bubbling crude, oil that is, liquid gold. Well the first thing you know old Jeds a millionare, the kin folks say 'Jed move away from there' ,they said Californy is the place you aughta be, so the loaded up the truck and they moved to Beverlee.

Oh,-- Whats his name?---- Clampet! Yeah thats it,--hows he doing?

Texan without money ,--yeah

milliken

02-23-2008, 11:25 PM

I've spent 20 or so years of my life working in advanced energy generation and efficiency / pollution reduction. I've worked with small companies, big companies, and Universities. "Energy" and the production of power is at the heart of our food production, the heart of our mobility, the heart of our communication, the heart of our economy, and literally, the heart of 'man's control over his environment.

Over the last few years, I've grown to believe that the discussion has been so dominated but FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt - for so long that no reasonable conversation can be conducted. People 'know' too much and have formed opinion based on numbers, ideas, and facts, that are, themselves, simply guesses.

To that end, one of the most personally 'enlightening' experiences in my life was to discover the 'source' of some of the data in a CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. I was looking up a thermal conductivity and thermal expansion for a new material. I found the data that I was looking for and called up a University professor in knew was working in the field. After talking a bit, I came to learn that his graduate student was THE SOURCE for the data in the CRC. Cool! I then talked to the graduate student and he showed me the sample that was used.

Yes, THE SAMPLE. As in one piece of ceramic about the size of an eraser. It turned out that he had only made one sample from some old reagents. He'd hand mixed the components, sintered it, cut it, x-rayed it, measured properties, etc. He wrote four papers, submitted them for publication, gave his sample to a friend who then measured it and published another paper or two.

A SAMPLE. Made once. By one guy. Looking to get his degree and get out of school. And thus the 'fact' was created. What it taught me was to understand that sometimes 'facts' come about from sources that may or may not be truly represenative of the whole. That doesn't mean he was wrong. Sometime, if you're ever curious and really bored, look up the 'electrical conductivity' of aluminium oxide (Al2O3). It's always a funny example because, dispite being a 'simple material' that has been evaluated by hundreds of researchers, the "accepted" electrical conductivity measurement changes by almost SEVEN ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE depending on the year. The preponderance of data has settled on a more or less a 'commonly accepted value' but the variation itself is really amusing.

Undeniably, humanity is consuming carbon fuel and putting CO2 into the air in a measureable quantity. Undeniably, that effort will continue and will chip away at the convenient and readily available supply. Undeniably, the earth will create a new equilibrium to accommodate the increased CO2 levels. The ultimate impact on human population is unknowable because of the complexity of the interactions.

Just something to think about the next time you 'know' something. Less yelling and more listening can sometimes help.

Guest625101138

02-24-2008, 01:13 AM

Apollo Space Program[/B] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program)

Mankind can overcome amazing odds, if he puts a real effort into it.

V2 rocket got into space in 1942. It was 27 years later that the US put a man on the moon. More like 30 years than 9 years. Support my point about the time required.

You have a more optimistic view of mankind than me. I see very little effort directed at conservation. Unless it hits the hip pocket there is little incentive to change.

My proposition is that there is so much momentum toward rampant consumtion of hydrocarbons that there is no way voluntary conservation will work. The USA is the model that most undeveloped countries aspire to.

No point in worrying about it or trying to change views here. Just do what you can to reduce reliance - sailing boats have to be one avenue for reduced consumption. I do see a few people on this forum wanting to convert their planing gas guzzlers to efficient displacement boats but this is simply hip pocket.

If voluntary conservation was to work you would need to see a huge and powerful movement in that direction now - I don't see it. It will be the hip pocket that forces the change as the demand continues and the stuff runs out. Prices will go up. Those that have it will become enormously wealthy and those that don't will need to redirect their economies.

Rick W.

Frosty

02-24-2008, 01:26 AM

Oh,--- I was just going to say that!!

Mathmatics will not save us ,--about time for some common sence, Sigh dont hold your breath.

Ive never seen these two abilities in the one person.

So who do you listen too ,--the quantum physics proffesor or the Taxi driver. The answer is both. Oh and you too!!

The problem is there is no answer, only history will tell us that we were right or wrong . How can we know what to do, we have never had this problem before.

I remember some big guy saying "fire your arrows straight up into the air"
Oh-- good idea.

Bit of common sence might have helped a bit there.

Frosty

02-24-2008, 01:31 AM

[QUOTE
You have a more optimistic view of mankind than me. I see very little effort directed at conservation. Unless it hits the hip pocket there is little incentive to change. Rick W.[/QUOTE]

I suppose we could try pessimism, and not talking about it. That might help.

02-24-2008, 09:55 AM

Here is a link to viewing the program online.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/

the1much

02-24-2008, 10:26 AM

first of all frosty,,,,,,i aint no freakin "texan" hehe,,,,these people still think somehow they won the revolutionary war,,,,,i keep reminding them of that wooden submarine they built to win the war,,hahhahaa
and for these people to get oil,,,,they have to pump 300 barrels of brine water,,,bout 5 barrels of parifen wax,,jus to get 1 barrel of crude oil,,,,and these big smart oil companies pay me $75 a day for a big "barrel" on a trailer that seperates the oil,gas,and water and tells them how much of each they got,,hahahahhaa.
oooo on the effort,,,,,,compared to the "effort" to kill ourselves,,,,there is basically nothing being done,,,,,,is like 1 dude bailing out a boat,,and 198 dudes bailing it in. even tho the efforts of the 1 is great,,appreciated,,,and very commendable,,,i have a feelin they gonna drown
as for the back of my head,and english,,,,trust me there aint nuffin dere ;)

brian eiland

02-24-2008, 11:22 AM

Here is a link to viewing the program online.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/
The problem with that video source is the 'streaming feature' is screwed up and results in broken sound thru-out.

My reference site at posting #4 works better although it has its own problems for the first 2 minutes....you need to turn up the volumn.

brian eiland

02-24-2008, 11:30 AM

V2 rocket got into space in 1942. It was 27 years later that the US put a man on the moon. More like 30 years than 9 years. Support my point about the time required.

Do you argue for argument's sake?

There was no goal of putting a man on the moon in 1942. That goal was defined by President Kennedy in 1961, and was realized by 1969. This nine year period does not support your 30 year figure.

At the time Pres Kennedy made this goal, we were very little beyond the stage of playing around with the old German V2 technology. That was my point.

TeddyDiver

02-24-2008, 11:47 AM

My point here was very simple. We went from German V-2 rockets to putting a man on the moon in 9 years time....freaking amazing when you think about it.!!
Yeah! It's obvious the real rocket science is Naval Architecture and not that simple, a=v/t and v=r/t. Rocket scientists, wussies:P

the1much

02-24-2008, 11:54 AM

heres your BBQ SH ,,,,,its made from oil feild pipe on a oilfield skid,,,,this dude is at all the BBQ cook-offs round here,,,,and yes the pic of the ass is me ;)
amn im gettin hungry :D

rambat

02-24-2008, 12:23 PM

Brian, here is a link to a great follow up effort about the concerns "Crude" brings to light.
One gentelman in NY is blazing the trail toward one solution without much backpeddeling to our western way of life, this is a must see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEdQRVQtffw

the1much

02-24-2008, 06:18 PM

hahahhaha i jus re-read a few of the posts,,,, i had 454 points,,,,damn,,,,i didnt even notice,,,hehehe,,,too bad a mod. musta,,,he couldnt let me know and give me 3 or 4 days ta rub it in to everyone,,hehehe ;) :D

Jimbo1490

02-24-2008, 07:06 PM

i think before all this technology made our lives so much easier the people alive had better ( happiness),healthier,lives,,had waY better morals

At least you prefaced this statement with "I think", meaning it is your opinion that... But the evidence points to the contrary as far as health at least.

You could probably make a good case for moral decline stemming from a life of ease, though. It would not be the first time, either. Think of ancient Rome. As soon as people are no longer occupied with the daily struggle for survival, then they have lots of extra time and material resources on their hands. Not all will use these wisely.

the1much

02-24-2008, 07:20 PM

At least you prefaced this statement with "I think", meaning it is your opinion that... But the evidence points to the contrary as far as health at least.

You could probably make a good case for moral decline stemming from a life of ease, though. It would not be the first time, either. Think of ancient Rome. As soon as people are no longer occupied with the daily struggle for survival, then they have lots of extra time and material resources on their hands. Not all will use these wisely.

the only thing on "your" side,,,,is life longevity,,,,,,and thats easily made null by looking at what was considered "work" and what one did once "home"(which was most likely 8 more hours of REAL work) so to the longevity "argument" i say " i'd rather be able to say i was tough,,,and knew what it was like to have a REAL day of work,365 days a year,,,,and be able to go to bed every night,,or look in the mirror, and know i was a REAL man,,,,,and ACTUALLY knew what that meant.
as for "health" facts,,,,there isnt any, so that argument cant be "argued" be either side with any relative "truths"

masalai

02-24-2008, 07:31 PM

The1, are you talking about posts or rep? I gave to Rep, honest, as Jeff will not allow me to give more... will tokens do? :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::D

Did you know there is a neutral one - pleasant gray - I do not know how that was done?????

the1much

02-24-2008, 07:58 PM

hahaha i was talking bout "rep" apparently mine said 454 the otha day hehehehe and i know,,,,Jeff says i need ta spread mine too,,,,,along with rep heh ;) :D

FranklinRatliff

02-24-2008, 09:26 PM

the1much

02-24-2008, 09:59 PM

does anyone realize just how many "oil wells" we have here in the u.s.,,,then add on top of that all of north america?,,,i know for myself,,every day i see bout 2 thousand,,,and on "break down" day and thursdays i see over 10,000 wells.,,hehehe,,the funny thing is how the "government" and "others" has alot of the "general" public fooled..hehehee,,,shoot in canada they got enough oil in their dirt, to keep most of the WORLD going at this rate for another 200 years,,,,hehehe ( that probably doesnt take in account for fat women using sun tan oil at an alarming rate because of global warming) ;)

Wittholz 35

02-24-2008, 10:35 PM

Guest625101138

02-24-2008, 11:22 PM

Do you argue for argument's sake?

There was no goal of putting a man on the moon in 1942. That goal was defined by President Kennedy in 1961, and was realized by 1969. This nine year period does not support your 30 year figure.

At the time Pres Kennedy made this goal, we were very little beyond the stage of playing around with the old German V2 technology. That was my point.

Brian
This whole topic is argument for argument sake. It has nothing to do with boats other than the obvious fact (some say opinion) that fuel for the ones that use it will get more expensive. And you can see by some of the comments that that is just a government conspiracy! And indeed it has now been confirmed here that the film of Armstrong was shot in a studio - at least I got half a day off uni to go home and watch the film on TV.

What I am arguing is that you need enabling technology about 30 years before that technology becomes common day. The will to actually do something is another matter. If you have mature enabling technolgies then, with a focused approach and huge committment, you can make a major change in about 10 years.

My view is that Bush went the wrong way and the alliance governments followed. Rather than agressively moving our dependency away from oil 7 or so years ago we went in to protect stable supply. The opportunity to adapt to limited oil supply in a less painless way is slipping.

How much oil does the US import? What will happen to the economy when it is USD200 a barrell? Is that when THEY (the governement conspirators) will release all the oil that is stockpiled securely in Texas!

Coming back to boats and the ethical question of oil conservation. If you had this yacht:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/17/wsaddam117.xml
and an oil well or two to supply it with fuel, pay for ites crew and provisioning would you leave it parked up?

I am sure if you could not bring yourself to use it for conservation reasons, you would find the majority on the forum or anywhere else would. So where is the will to reduce dependance on oil. The will will come from the hip pocket nerve or strong leadership from governments; not looking at a film that presents one side of an argument.

Rick W.

Jimbo1490

02-24-2008, 11:39 PM

Thanks for the link to the film. It may take 30 years to implement new technology but there are always the early adopters who show others the way who then show others the way. If we are going to have a chance at a smooth transition away from oil then we all need to do our part to conserve to make up for those who don't. Ride your bike to work, take mass transit, send out links about this video. No one is perfect but we can all improve a little without too much sacrifice.

Unfortunately all this "sacrifice" will be of no benefit at all. It won't help reduce CO2 output AT ALL (if that's one of your goals; I'll assume it is) since world energy needs are growing, not static. And it will do nothing to reduce the price of crude oil. So it amounts to completely pointless self-inflicted pain. Ultimately, conservation will by no means get us out of the crunch. At best it will buy us a few years, like 5 or so. We need more energy sources, as cheap (we can settle for nearly as cheap;) ) as fossil fuels.

The company I work for http://www.solarcity.com/ is coming out with a new financing program that requires nothing down and your monthly payment will be less than your old electricity bill.

The only way these 'alternatives' compete with fossil fuels is by being heavily subsidized. When the crude oil price is high enough that the alternatives can compete directly, then the subsidies can stop and the alternative energy industry could presumably be self-sustaining (profitable). But don't hope for the swift arrival of that turn of events; it will not be pleasant; overall the energy costs go up, WAY up. When we are living in a bearish 'expensive energy' economy rather than the booming 'cheap energy' economy that we are accustomed to, with NO MORE piles of cash all around to be used for R&D, how will we afford to innovate our way into the future?

Answer: We won't.

But the 'next generation' energy source is yet not on the horizon. Why not just harvest more crude oil? Technology marches on in our prosperity, NOT in our poverty!

It wasn't necessary that some great governmental body ban, tax or in any way curtail the use of stone to hasten the transition out of the stone age. To quote Bjorn Lomborg, " The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone; it ended because we found something better."

Likewise it is completely unnecessary and even counter-productive for the government to do any of the above WRT fossil fuels. When we find something better, we will surely begin using it!

By the way we never went to the moon. If we did we didn't film any of it up there and shot all of the footage in a studio because those shots are FAKE.

Ha Ha! Great joke! :D But this is not one of the humor threads (of which there are many).

You are joking, yes?
:P

charmc

02-25-2008, 12:26 AM

Rick,

To be fair, Brian is correct in characterizing his initial post. He did not claim that the film presented any solutions or took a political stance; rather he recommended it as a well crafted explantation of the role of crude oil and its derivatives in the contemporary world. Objective information presented in a clear manner is essential for any long term adjustment to the end of the era of relatively inexpensive crude. While it's obvious that you have an excellent grasp of technology, it is a sad fact that the vast majority of people have little or no idea of how crude oil is formed, extracted, transported, and made into useable products. The film serves, IMHO, a valuable purpose in giving this information in a clear and concise manner.

Brian,

While there have been exceptions for limited and well defined goals, such as the US effort to put a manned expedition on the moon. Rick has a good point about the fact that new technologies take a significant period of years from initial development to useful and common commercial deployment. I don't accept 30 years as a given, but it is good to remember that efforts to develop technologies based, for example, on alternative fuels, will most likely take at least 15-20 years, perhaps more, to become commonplace. That, of course, is not to say that we shouldn't try.

Personally, I've been disgusted by the short-sightedness exhibited by far too many Americans in the past 20 years. The concept of converting trucks into massive passenger vehicles and the exhibitionist culture of conspicuously wasteful and pointless consumption manifested in "poker runs" by showoffs in pseudo race boats represent a self-centered, shortsighted view based on a childish "I want mine now, and lots of it" mentality. Before any changes can have a measurable effect, the majority of citizens need to change their thinking.

masalai

02-25-2008, 12:42 AM

Very diplomatically put Charles, and a most persuasive case presented... Errr what was the point again?

Ageing processes - memory is good, it's just getting those thoughts out and recorded...

I am firmly of the opinion that, , , , , ,(Oh yes) , , , , it would be beholden on those who so desire, to find out what the need to know, and, - BUILD A BLOODY BOAT - - - Emmm, - - - 'cause that is why we are here? - - I thought :D:D

I am doing my little bit (as well as playing with my little red fishes.)... :D

Piece be into you, and may it taste as good as you desire:D

Frosty

02-25-2008, 12:46 AM

Ok hands up who thinks the septics went to the moon, (mmm looking around) --not many. My hands are firmly at my side.

Oh this would be a good thread. I know a lot about this.

masalai

02-25-2008, 12:48 AM

Boats?

TeddyDiver

02-25-2008, 02:54 AM

Kubric movies...

FAST FRED

02-25-2008, 07:39 AM

OIL is not the problem,

Energy is not the problem,

The problem is moving the energy (cheaply) to where its needed,

And storing it for use when its being created , but the demand is low.

Battery tech is FINALLY starting to change (125 years waiting) , and the newest power transmission experiments seem to prove Edison (champion of DC) was right and Telsa (champion of AC) was wrong.

The Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times" is working , and the tech being perfected today will solve the "oil problem" as soon as it beats oil on price.

The use of Kerosene will probably continue in jet aircraft for at least 2 more model generations, but the days of oil or gas in personal transport is coming to a rapid end.

"Rick has a good point about the fact that new technologies take a significant period of years from initial development to useful and common commercial deployment. I don't accept 30 years as a given, but it is good to remember that efforts to develop technologies based, for example, on alternative fuels, will most likely take at least 15-20 years, perhaps more, to become commonplace."

REALLY ?

How long did it take the internet to change the world? As long as it took to bury some fiber cable in most places.

Why would cheap transportation take 3 decades for acceptance, when the internet took less than one?

AS usual politicians only need to step out of the way , to make advances.

FF

the1much

02-25-2008, 07:44 AM

my dads whole house runs on 12v,,,,,,sad thing is he needs a generator to charge up his batteries hehe

charmc

02-25-2008, 12:13 PM

Energy is not the problem,
The problem is moving the energy (cheaply) to where its needed,
And storing it for use when its being created , but the demand is low.

Battery tech is FINALLY starting to change (125 years waiting) , and the newest power transmission experiments seem to prove Edison (champion of DC) was right and Telsa (champion of AC) was wrong.

The Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times" is working , and the tech being perfected today will solve the "oil problem" as soon as it beats oil on price.

Fred,

I agree with you on all of your comments above. They apply to many forms of energy. Hydrogen will become a viable energy source only when practical storage and transport methods are developed, or when the cost of dispersed generation plants becomes justifiable. As you said, development will accelerate with higher costs for oil and gasoline. You're right on electrical power also; the principle obstacle to practical electric power for autos has been battery development.

"Rick has a good point about the fact that new technologies take a significant period of years from initial development to useful and common commercial deployment. " REALLY ?

How long did it take the internet to change the world? As long as it took to bury some fiber cable in most places.
Why would cheap transportation take 3 decades for acceptance, when the internet took less than one?
AS usual politicians only need to step out of the way , to make advances.
FF

Here you and I disagree, although I think our difference is only over time estimates for technology deployment.

Cheap transportation would be accepted readily and rapidly ... but it's not here yet. It will take years of development to reduce the cost of producing plug-in or fuel cell powered vehicles, for example. Meanwhile there are the indirect but very real costs of alternative power. Nearly all technologies currently use energy and create waste products in large quantities in the process of making the alternative energy source.

Solar power seems like a relatively easy-to-implement technology, but it took more than 30 years of development to reach the current generation of more efficient PV cells. Developing and deploying the transportation and storage capabilities you correctly identify as major stepping stones on the road to practical alternative energy will take years, even without the interference of politicians. The Internet changed the world very rapidly, but I think you're wrong to call that a matter of a year or two. The technology that made the Internet possible is computer hardware and fiber optic cable. It took 30-40 years from initial prototypes to inexpensive desktop systems suitable for home use and fiber optic cable reliable and cost effective enough to be deployed across the oceans.

Your final comment on politicians is on target. Too often government subsidies go, not to support development of promising technologies, but to support technologies whose advocates have bought the ears of those who control government purse strings.

the1much

02-25-2008, 12:16 PM

go corn,,,,it itch's ya insides fer ya ;)

kach22i

02-25-2008, 01:40 PM

I'm watching it now, as I pay some bills.

Good stuff.

erik818

02-25-2008, 02:14 PM

So what if it takes 30 years for a technology to develop and become widely accepted? Almost any alternative energy source and storage method being discussed today existed in labs decades ago, so the stipulated time has already elapsed. The problem is to achieve economy. As I see it, alternatives are creeping down in cost and fossile fuel is going up. My guess, which is nothing but a guess, is that the crossover will be somewhere around EUR 2 - 3per liter diesel (or it's energy equivalent). That's not going to stop me from using my boat. There are already bio diesel substitutes available for a fraction of what I would be willing to pay before I get sails.

At the onset of WW2 it took the Swedish car community a couple of years to convert to wood gas and to set up a distribution chain for the fuel. The need was there.

Erik

charmc

02-25-2008, 02:38 PM

So what if it takes 30 years for a technology to develop and become widely accepted? Almost any alternative energy source and storage method being discussed today existed in labs decades ago, so the stipulated time has already elapsed. The problem is to achieve economy. As I see it, alternatives are creeping down in cost and fossile fuel is going up.

Erik,

All of our estimates of the crossover point are just that, estimates. Personally, I think it will be a process, already begun. The crossover will be a wide band, rather than a single point. Somewhere in the future we'll probably have a wide mix of energy sources in use, as well as far more efficient ways to convert energy into work.

the1much

02-25-2008, 03:11 PM

all ya need is old vegetable oil and you can run ya diesels without changing anything,,,for long time use you jus need diff. injectors and filter.,,,,,is a safe way of keeping emergency fuel on board heh ,,,,plus it attracts all the fat women as ya motor along hehe ;)

RatliffFranklin

02-25-2008, 03:58 PM

Fred,

I agree with you on all of your comments above. They apply to many forms of energy. Hydrogen will become a viable energy source only when practical storage and transport methods are developed, or when the cost of dispersed generation plants becomes justifiable. As you said, development will accelerate with higher costs for oil and gasoline. You're right on electrical power also; the principle obstacle to practical electric power for autos has been battery development.

Here you and I disagree, although I think our difference is only over time estimates for technology deployment.

Cheap transportation would be accepted readily and rapidly ... but it's not here yet. It will take years of development to reduce the cost of producing plug-in or fuel cell powered vehicles, for example. Meanwhile there are the indirect but very real costs of alternative power. Nearly all technologies currently use energy and create waste products in large quantities in the process of making the alternative energy source.

Solar power seems like a relatively easy-to-implement technology, but it took more than 30 years of development to reach the current generation of more efficient PV cells. Developing and deploying the transportation and storage capabilities you correctly identify as major stepping stones on the road to practical alternative energy will take years, even without the interference of politicians. The Internet changed the world very rapidly, but I think you're wrong to call that a matter of a year or two. The technology that made the Internet possible is computer hardware and fiber optic cable. It took 30-40 years from initial prototypes to inexpensive desktop systems suitable for home use and fiber optic cable reliable and cost effective enough to be deployed across the oceans.

Your final comment on politicians is on target. Too often government subsidies go, not to support development of promising technologies, but to support technologies whose advocates have bought the ears of those who control government purse strings.

Unless it's from a natural gas well, hydrogen is right now a form of energy storage not an energy source. It won't become an energy source until some means is found (perhaps artificial photosynthesis) that takes less energy to split hydrogen from water than what you get back.

charmc

02-25-2008, 04:23 PM

The recycled old veggie oil routine is great. There is a technology based on heating organic material under high pressure to break it down into oil products, similar to the way synthetic diamonds are made. The best part of that is that the contents of landfills are a feedstock. Good way to recycle the huge amounts of waste we produce. The process was proven on a lab scale 10-12 years ago, then a pilot plant was set up in Philadelphia. After a year or two of successful development at that level, the company began construction of a small commercial plant, which is operating now. The process is claimed to be 80 - 85% efficient, meaning it uses much less energy than typical ethanol and hydrogen production processes.

Widespread use has been delayed by unforseen problems at the Missouri plant. Most of the problems are typical of development of a new technology: changes in outside circumstances affecting the business model, and complaints and lawsuits by neighbors relating to odors. It appears that many of the complaints were inaccurate, as the plant is in the midst of a region filled with industrial plants and a slaughterhouse and poultry processing plant, all of which produce odors, and several lawsuits cited odors during periods when the plant was not operating. Nearly all lawsuits have been ruled as being without merit, but new ones are filed.

These are typical teething problems for new technologies. Ultimately, I believe, they will be resolved and there will be another source of fuel not dependent on Third World governments or the diversion of farmland from food production. The end product would make a good fuel for diesels.

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

Jimbo1490

02-25-2008, 06:58 PM

the1much

02-25-2008, 07:22 PM

The recycled old veggie oil routine is great. There is a technology based on heating organic material under high pressure to break it down into oil products, similar to the way synthetic diamonds are made.

Do tell, please what possible advantage this has over getting the ready-made stuff out of the ground:?:
ummmm,,,we can "grow" more corn syrup,,,,try growing an oil well ;)
and the corn grown today is made more for cattle food and corn oil then real food,,its even been genetically enhanced to be so,,,so ta hell with the cows and pigs,,,lets use it for something useful,,,,besides,,animals eat hay,,,,i think,,,,least i think ive seen one,,,just cant find no facts that say they do heh ;)
and charm... willie nelson is part owner of the largest bio-diesel distributer here heh,,,,smoke one fer me willie ;) heh

Jimbo1490

02-25-2008, 07:55 PM

Meanz Beanz

02-25-2008, 08:18 PM

One thing to keep in mind with peak oil is the "dynamics of resource depletion". It goes like this... the discovery curve is typically a bell shaped curve (idealised) and the exploitation curve (supply curve) typically reflects the discovery curve transposed by x years. In the case of oil it seems to be about 40 years but don't quote me. So draw or imagine a bell curve as being reflecting our capacity to pump (supply curve if you like) oil. Then overlay the consumption curve which is typically an exponential curve that starts back where the discovery curve began. The point at which the consumption curve and the supply curve diverge is where price pressure drives oil to prices that will encourage alternates giving them competitive advantage. This divergence becomes pronounced at the peak of the supply curve which is about 50% resource exploitation. The thing is that the exponential nature of the demand curve means that the peak of the supply curve actually occurs at about 90% of the time to resource exhaustion. So while it say took 90 years to use the first 50% of the resource the second half will be exploited in say 10 or so. There have been a number of studies looking a populations of various creatures using various resources and it seems the dynamic is loosely the same. You can argue that the various curves should be draw in different places because of factor x or y but the scary thing is that it has little real impact on the time line, things move around by a decade or so.

Now it will take us 20 years at break neck speed to wean ourselves of oil at best and we are a sleep at the wheel (maybe $100 oil will shake things up?). We only react to crisis which almost ensures we will have a period of economic pain in transitioning from one major cheap energy source to the next.

Even the wildest optimists would not suggest that we could double our resource base from here and yet doubling the amount of oil would buy surprisingly little time in the great scheme of things because of the above described dynamic (a few decades). So which ever way it turns this is a problem now with most of the data pointing to a 2005 peak, that nice flat spot on top of the bell before the chitty stuff starts up in earnest.

I'm an optimist I think we will solve this problem, keep in mind that every time the human race has had an energy crisis we have come out of the other side with a technology that supplies 10x the potential of the previous technology... then we set about using it, all of it. The next quantum leap is probably coming from quarter that you and I have not considered. Whatever it is, given our history, it needs to be big, very big. Maybe it will be a mix of things but we do always seem to develop a dominant technology. I wonder what it will be? I hope we don't start a war over what is left of the oil in the mean time, ooops, bit late for that, well lets say a bigger war. Wars always seem to happen in these big commodity cycles when push comes to shove over raw material.

The next couple of decades have some MAJOR challenges, energy being first and fore most. May we live in interesting times :D

Meanz Beanz

02-25-2008, 08:29 PM

$100 + is realistic. The Saudis lie about reserves (they never shrink! known as paper barrels in the industry), Ghawar is in decline, the North Sea is in decline, Cantarell is in decline. Demand at the margin is coming from Asia, the US is no longer the pivotal consumer like the Saudis are no longer the pivotal producer. That honor now belongs to Russia and if you think they are shy about using that power think again. The US used $10 oil to break Russia, the Russians remember it well... now they have the oil and the US has the addiction. You think that will end well? The fact is now that supply is so tight that anyone producing more than 1mbpd has power and don't Chavez and the Nigerian Rebels know it. Get used to high energy costs despite the economic contraction it will cause, the paradigm has changed.

Frosty

02-25-2008, 08:46 PM

Anybody want to buy a power boat. It only use 1 ton per day.

charmc

02-25-2008, 08:49 PM

Do tell, please what possible advantage this has over getting the ready-made stuff out of the ground:?:

I did cover that. "The best part of that is that the contents of landfills are a feedstock. Good way to recycle the huge amounts of waste we produce. ... The end product would make a good fuel for diesels." In the US, we generate more than 1/4 billion tons of waste annually. 32% of that is recycled now, with another 12% incinerated. Waste incineraters are permitted as power plants (the only way they are poltically palatable), but the process of burning garbage to make steam and electricity is so inefficient most plants generate not much more than needed to run the plant. The vast majority of garbage goes into landfills, huge pits that are filled with garbage and covered with dirt. Left alone, those landfills will be oil deposits in 50-60 million years. TDP improves that timeline a little bit, reducing it to hours. Turning huge mounds of garbage into useable oil now rather than 50 million years from now is the only advantage it has over pumping the ready-made stuff out of the ground. That and the fact that the oil it generates is #2 grade, ready for diesel use.

Meanz Beanz

02-25-2008, 08:56 PM

Anybody want to buy a power boat. It only use 1 ton per day.

Sell yer power boat and ya big old SUV or FWD or what ever.. while they are still worth something over scrap.

Frosty

02-25-2008, 09:06 PM

Meanz Beanz

02-25-2008, 09:11 PM

20 bags, WOW, just plumb the loo into the fuel tank and you can go anywhere :D

rasorinc

02-25-2008, 09:18 PM

masalai

02-25-2008, 09:21 PM

Jeeeees Frosty, an I tole you about coconut oil... Do not ad to diesel and preheat to 70 deg C and away you go smelling of all that asian cooking & no imported fat! (in your gut)

masalai

02-25-2008, 09:22 PM

I got FUSION:D.... Woooops - top secret...

Guest625101138

02-25-2008, 09:32 PM

I get my fuel from the back of Mc Donalds. I have to eat 20 bags of chips? (french fies for Americans) every day to keep oil consumption up.

Since I hav'nt took the boat out since April 2007 (hangs head in shame) it doesnt matter. When new fuels start to come in big, and countries cover it by law fuel will be cheap again ,---horaah pip pip.

I have about 600liters on board now that is worth 4 times what I paid for it.

Here comes my Mc Donalds delivery scoff scoff gulp choke scoff,---more salt please. Wowah ,-blood pressure about 180 psi.

Frosty
Beter than superannuation. I estimate five years from now you can scrap the boat and sell the fuel. Probably enough to buy a nice sailing cat.

Also you need to be careful who you tell about the quantity of fuel on board!

Reminds me of the tyre situation in the mining industry two years ago. You could get a new truck delivered inside 12 months. If you wanted it with tyres you had to wait 18 months. Now everything takes more than 2 years and China is only on the first rung of the modernisation ladder. India, Bangladesh and Indonesia are still trying to reach the first rung. (Have you seen the rate of car growth in China?)

I hope all those wells in Texas have plenty of oil to go around.

Rick W.

Meanz Beanz

02-25-2008, 09:42 PM

Reminds me of the tyre situation in the mining industry two years ago. You could get a new truck delivered inside 12 months. If you wanted it with tyres you had to wait 18 months. Now everything takes more than 2 years and China is only on the first rung of the modernisation ladder. India, Bangladesh and Indonesia are still trying to reach the first rung. (Have you seen the rate of car growth in China?)

That's the ol exponential demand curve kicking into high gear. Chinas numbers are just staggering without considering India, we in Oz are but a pimple on the butt of this thing!

Meanz Beanz

02-25-2008, 09:44 PM

I got FUSION:D.... Woooops - top secret...

Yeah but its 40' and the wife don't know about it yet.... right?

Meanz Beanz

02-25-2008, 09:46 PM

The answer to the problem is FUSION, PREFERABLY COLD FUSION. If our government put out a 20 billion-make that 40 billion reward for it's creation we would have it rather quickly--within 8 years. That's my 2 bits on the subject. Stan

Trouble is it takes time and money to replace 100 years of accumulated oil based energy infrastructure. If we have a viable answer today it will still take 20 years to roll it out.

the1much

02-25-2008, 09:54 PM

All good but not cheaper than the REAL cost of pumping crude oil, if we just drill more wells so that supply can once again keep up with demand. If we own the new wells (or at least a big bunch of them) then the oil cartel (OPEC) will become irrelevant as well and crude oil prices will return to their more realistic $50-60 a barrel. Then corn oil and all the others don't look so good. That's all I'm saying.

Remember that all of these alternative fuels are still hydrocarbons and still have the same by-products of combustion, namely CO2 and water, in about the same amount ITO Lbs/BTU.
ummm,,,,where do you get your figures??since i'm half owner of a company that rents equipment to these oil wells,,,,and that equipment also counts the barrels of water and oil that come out of the ground,(also the natural gas,,,,but that not counted in barrels) and i eat lunch every thursday with exxon,united,and other feild managers,,and i get the monthly report from conoco phillips,,,,where do you think converting corn is cheaper then pumping oil?
and crude oil will NEVER return to its 50 or 60 bucks a barrel,,,and only 14% of ALL new wells last year was in those "oil rich" countries,,,,,they've already got more wells then their ground "faults" will handle. the united states made it o.k. just 7 months ago to allow 1 more well an acre,,bringing total to 5,,,which even the industry has worries about.and after the new regulation,,,,most companies have exhausted their quota.
and frosty,,,,,i got a horse and 2 cows i'll trade ya fer the row boat ;)

Guest625101138

02-25-2008, 09:58 PM

That's the ol exponential demand curve kicking into high gear. Chinas numbers are just staggering without considering India, we in Oz are but a pimple on the butt of this thing!

Texas may have ALL the oil under the ground but Oz has most of the iron ore - and it just sits on the surface for the taking. We're laughing all the way to the bank.
http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUSN2521971920080225

Pity is it will run out as well - in 300 to 400 years. Not my worry.

Rick W.

the1much

02-25-2008, 10:05 PM

Texas may have ALL the oil under the ground but Oz has most of the iron ore - and it just sits on the surface for the taking. We're laughing all the way to the bank.
http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUSN2521971920080225

Pity is it will run out as well - in 300 to 400 years. Not my worry.

Rick W.
texas aint crap compared to them canukes that has oil ON TOP and mixed with their ground.,,,,,GO NORTH they say GO NORTH hehe :D

longliner45

02-25-2008, 10:05 PM

Meanz Beanz

02-25-2008, 10:08 PM

The odd thing about $100 is that so long as demand is strong, which it is, the oil rich countries have plenty of revenue so the incentive is to actually husband the resource and exhaust it slowly. Over producing a well can reduce the ultimate production from that well, once they figure they are in decline they will get more defensive about the resource. Irony is at $10 a barrel they had to pump as much as they could to keep the economics of their counties working. Then the incentive was to lie about quotas and reserves etc so they got to pump more. Hence the ME BS'ed its way to reserves it has not got during the bear market years. I know that's against economics 101 but economics 101 doe not deal with finite resources very well.

Meanz Beanz

02-25-2008, 10:09 PM

texas aint crap compared to them canukes that has oil ON TOP and mixed with their ground.,,,,,GO NORTH they say GO NORTH hehe :D

Expensive oil though!

Meanz Beanz

02-25-2008, 10:12 PM

can someone tell me if this is true?? in USA we have more oil resrves than aneywhere else in the world including the middle east ,,we have texas ,oklahoma louisianna ,the gulf of mexico the atlantic ,,pennsylvania ,kentucky and alaska ,,but choose to use the rest of the worlds supply,,why? dubui is gonna run out in 10 years ,,the middle east ?maybe 40 or 50,,,,,,whats going on,longliner

If its true it may be strategic. If you believe the powers that be planned the cordoning of of reserves way back in the 70's sometime. Why use yours when you can use theirs first? If it is true... how you find out ? For a critical resource a chit load of guess work goes on.

longliner45

02-25-2008, 10:21 PM

we have enough oil to power the military for 100 yrs,,,all over the place in storage tanks,,,,but I just cant imagine a oil full America while the rest of the world is dry,longliner

Meanz Beanz

02-25-2008, 10:29 PM

We can make fuel from coal, the US also has heaps of coal, but at what cost and how dirty? Cheap, clean energy is the issue.

longliner45

02-25-2008, 11:22 PM

we are investing billions in wind turbine tecnology,and water turbines,,,,some solar ,,what about Austrailia?,,not being confrontational,,,,just curious....longliner

Frosty

02-26-2008, 12:16 AM

Meanz Beanz

02-26-2008, 12:27 AM

In reality it don't matter what we do, we don't add up to one big northern hemisphere city, we are bit players, what ever we achieve is largely symbolic unless its a great new tech. But yeah all of the above... we are world leaders in solar just in case ya all did not know. For my money geothermal is the most promising supply of base load power and yeah we are doing that as well. I'd wager that per head we are out doing a lot of places...

Guest625101138

02-26-2008, 01:29 AM

Yeah whats the bloody Aussies doing about it,--bugger all mate.

I see that in Melbourne today they have set up a dummy refugee camp to show the aussies how terrible living in a camp with no home or country to go to.

What they are really saying is the Aussies should let more refugees in and be a little more compassionate and less greedy. They have hundreds of thousands of miles of unoccupied land.

Im not being curious,,,,, just ,,,,confrontational.

Frosty
We are building massive desalination plants to overcome our water shortage. Started before we committed to Kyoto I should add.

Why put up with water shortages when we can just burn some of our crappy brown coal to produce an abundance of water. Water is our issue not oil.

In fact isn't oil used around the Mediterranian to produce purified water. If you have heaps of the stuff why not use it to make life easier.
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=30894
At 25halalas per litre for diesel YOU could even afford to use your boat. (To save you the effort of converting that is USD0.07/litre). About 1/20th the cost of diesel in Oz. But then we have so much filthy coal we just let it burn in the ground:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=80140&rss=yes%5D
Maybe you should convert to coal and make a trip down here to bunker.

Rick W.

masalai

02-26-2008, 01:41 AM

Yeeee Haaaaa

Replying to your message requiring my attention on the "CRUD" thread.... Woooops, CRUDE - - -Eh did not see the E, Eh

The 20/30 year thing is not far off the mark - from crowded suburb to fully operational nukulululuar power plant or major cole fired electric system the oft quoted time lag is in the vicinity of 20/30 years which also needs a lot of infrastructure, training, design, earthquake & other anal ysis etc...

It's just that this time-lag was presented by some proponents, including all the ground work & research to be up and fully running.....

Frosty

02-26-2008, 01:50 AM

Yup ,--I guess so,----- Yaaaawn.

Oh Oh heres something interesting the bastards are putting the beer up during happy hour at the yacht club,---yeah I know,--- bloody disgusting.

happy hour beer will be 4 ringet from 3 ringet ---thats --thats nearly 1 ringet increase. 3 ringet to an AU dollar.

I dont know what that is in %

Meanz Beanz

02-26-2008, 01:59 AM

I'm sure you will work it all out.

Meanz Beanz

02-26-2008, 02:47 AM

Water is our issue not oil.

Oil is everyones issue like it or not.

Peak oil is as serious as it gets for the way the world is structured currently. Without adequate oil we cannot feed the world the way we currently do. Oil is a component in everything we touch and do everyday, its a massive task to rearrange ourselves to use other methods and energy sources to a level that will maintain our current standard's of living. In fact with current technology its not achievable in the required time frame. An energy crisis of huge proportions is developing, it will damage economies, lead to famine and possibly war. Peak oil is everyone's problem and needs to be taken seriously at all levels. Solve the energy issues and the rest can be overcome, even seemingly inefficient solutions like desalination can make sense if enough energy is availble at a low enough cost. As for water, well it seems like we in Australia will have some temporary relief from drought as the decadal cycles turn. Lets hope we use the time wisely and prepare for what undoubtedly will be a rougher cycle next time.

intrepid71

02-26-2008, 12:25 PM

Unless it's from a natural gas well, hydrogen is right now a form of energy storage not an energy source. It won't become an energy source until some means is found (perhaps artificial photosynthesis) that takes less energy to split hydrogen from water than what you get back.

If the second law of thermodynamics is to be believed, you will *never* produce any net energy from the following H2O => H2 + O => H20. I doesn't matter what sort of shenanigans occur in between, barring a nuclear reaction, if you start with water and end with water, you will always have a net energy loss. If that wasn't the case, you would have yourself the makings of a perpetual motion machine.

charmc

02-26-2008, 12:47 PM

Hydrogen as fuel for transportation is being considered because it will reduce CO2 emissions and because, if produced using bacteria or other non-combustible energy converters (solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear), it reduces dependence on crude oil and its volatile suppliers. A lot of the greenie simpletons who look to movie stars for their life guidance think it's energy conservation also, but no serious person thinks that.

milliken

02-26-2008, 01:01 PM

If the second law of thermodynamics is to be believed, you will *never* produce any net energy from the following H2O => H2 + O => H20. I doesn't matter what sort of shenanigans occur in between, barring a nuclear reaction, if you start with water and end with water, you will always have a net energy loss. If that wasn't the case, you would have yourself the makings of a perpetual motion machine.

Ultimately, that's true. People in power generation tend to look at hydrogen as a difficult to produce, difficult to store, costly to move energy transport medium more akin to an electron than to a chemical reactant. The 'well to wheels' efficiency of hydrogen generation isn't that great in most scenerios. When combined with something like a reversible solid oxide fuel cell system and nuclear power (i.e., something like being evaluated by DOE/INEL) the overall economics are better but there is some ..uh.. curiosity.. about the idea of producing large amounts of hydrogen next to a nuclear power plant. :P

The modern breeder reactor isn't a bad source of energy, partiuclarly if the US would adopt a more pragmatic view toward operation and decommishining. Does anyone REALLY expect the US to truck a radioactive core from the site of operation across 1000-2000+ miles of open road to end up storing it in the deserts of the west? What's INFINITELY more likely and probable is that in 50 years, we'll have 27 gigantic concrete mountains - staritng with Yankee and each about the size of a cooling tower - that memorialize our early endevors in spliting the atom. That doesn't help mobile transporation but it would help with baseline production.

Bacterial / biomass production of hydrogen isn't bad either but it's not a panacea - it's essentially an alternate form of solar/geothermal conversion. The problem with that approach is 'energy density'. "Growing things" be it algae, bacteria, or corn all grow because it's in THEIR best interest to grow and they're going to reproduce within they're own constraints. Despite the "Maxrix" concept, I can't turn my dog into a furnace for my house by simply stuffing 5000 kCal of food into his mouth eveyr hour. Likewise, try as I might, I can't 'make' an anaerobic digester, cornfield, or algae farm produce more energy than what the organic thing can reasonably accommodate. Once they're done growing, I have to then expend energy to 'concentrate' the biomass and convert it into a reasonable fuel - again, not a 'cheep' prospect from an energy efficiency standpoint.

intrepid71

02-26-2008, 01:50 PM

Ultimately, that's true. People in power generation tend to look at hydrogen as a difficult to produce, difficult to store, costly to move energy transport medium more akin to an electron than to a chemical reactant. The 'well to wheels' efficiency of hydrogen generation isn't that great in most scenerios. When combined with something like a reversible solid oxide fuel cell system and nuclear power (i.e., something like being evaluated by DOE/INEL) the overall economics are better but there is some ..uh.. curiosity.. about the idea of producing large amounts of hydrogen next to a nuclear power plant. :P

The modern breeder reactor isn't a bad source of energy, partiuclarly if the US would adopt a more pragmatic view toward operation and decommishining. Does anyone REALLY expect the US to truck a radioactive core from the site of operation across 1000-2000+ miles of open road to end up storing it in the deserts of the west? What's INFINITELY more likely and probable is that in 50 years, we'll have 27 gigantic concrete mountains - staritng with Yankee and each about the size of a cooling tower - that memorialize our early endevors in spliting the atom. That doesn't help mobile transporation but it would help with baseline production.

Bacterial / biomass production of hydrogen isn't bad either but it's not a panacea - it's essentially an alternate form of solar/geothermal conversion. The problem with that approach is 'energy density'. "Growing things" be it algae, bacteria, or corn all grow because it's in THEIR best interest to grow and they're going to reproduce within they're own constraints. Despite the "Maxrix" concept, I can't turn my dog into a furnace for my house by simply stuffing 5000 kCal of food into his mouth eveyr hour. Likewise, try as I might, I can't 'make' an anaerobic digester, cornfield, or algae farm produce more energy than what the organic thing can reasonably accommodate. Once they're done growing, I have to then expend energy to 'concentrate' the biomass and convert it into a reasonable fuel - again, not a 'cheep' prospect from an energy efficiency standpoint.

Hydrogen may never be an energy source for us, but it is too soon to tell if it might not be a good storage medium for transportation applications. It is difficult to handle and has low energy density when you factor in containment, but it burns easily and produces only water vapor as an exhaust. Fuels cells could potentially offer higher efficiency but at the moment they are too expensive and fragile.

The question then becomes what is the most efficient way to produce it. Currently hydrogen is produced mostly by steam reforming with natural gas. Since the goal is to get off fossil fuels, this isn't good solution. Nuclear energy seems like one approach, but the public is going to have to be convinced that the safety and waste issues have been solved.

I don't know much about bacterial or biomass production, but it sounds like an interesting concept.

This guy believes he has invented a breakthrough that would make solar PV about 100 times more economical than it currently is. Instead of using the electricity to help power the grid (which is a problem at very large scales because solar is not an on-demand source) he intends to produce hydrogen with it. Eventually he would like to have the hydrogen used directly as fuel for everything, but for the near term he plans on using the hydrogen for upgrading low quality coal to high value hydrocarbon liquids.

http://www.usoal.com/

http://www.mokindustries.com/

TeddyDiver

02-26-2008, 03:21 PM

It's much easier to transport electricity than hydrogen so with hydrogen there would be a huge industry of small scale electrolysis plants. Everyone could have their own... It's a nightmare for oil/refining industry.. They are allready lobbing bils against it..
Next there's police on the road. Stop please. Howdy Sir! May I check you got any moonshine hydro in the tank...:P

charmc

02-26-2008, 03:44 PM

This guy believes he has invented a breakthrough that would make solar PV about 100 times more economical than it currently is. Instead of using the electricity to help power the grid (which is a problem at very large scales because solar is not an on-demand source) he intends to produce hydrogen with it. Eventually he would like to have the hydrogen used directly as fuel for everything, but for the near term he plans on using the hydrogen for upgrading low quality coal to high value hydrocarbon liquids.

http://www.usoal.com/

http://www.mokindustries.com/

Sounds like a significant advance in reducing the cost of solar PV panels, and an interesting business plan. This is the kind of stuff the private sector starts to develop as the costs of traditional fuels rise.

I remember reading that there are some projects using hydro and geothermal power generators to split hydrogen. Denmark, possibly Iceland also, I think.

Meanz Beanz

02-26-2008, 04:13 PM

This is the kind of stuff the private sector starts to develop as the costs of traditional fuels rise.

As much as the public hate it, the best thing to combat high oil prices is "high oil prices". We need the impetus of high oil prices to get the private sector working hard on this one, the sooner the better.

Frosty

02-26-2008, 08:00 PM

Unfortunately Hienz you are correct.

When fuel gets unafordable electric cars will come, they will have to.

The problem is the fuel industry is huge, many countries have oil,-- cutting fuel tomorrow would turn the entire world into extreme financial difficulty. It will take a long time,-- and needs to.

It is coming and places like Dubai know it and are diversifying interests, infact have been for a long time.

More trouble for places in the middle east in the future I fear for those who do not diversify now.

Meanz Beanz

02-26-2008, 08:28 PM

Speaking of electric cars they can make sense now, all that is missing is wide public acceptance and hence a decent "mass market"

Maybe $100+ oil will start to turn a few heads...

It's a ball tearing Mini QED! (http://www.autoblog.com/2006/07/21/pml-s-mini-qed-boasts-640-in-wheel-electric-horsepower/)

charmc

02-26-2008, 08:37 PM

It's a ball tearing Mini QED![/URL]

Cool. I can imagine guys in Mini QEDs and Teslas racing each other in near silence. :D

Meanz Beanz

02-26-2008, 08:47 PM

They would probably play the noise of revving engines and turbo waste gates on those insane stereos they have. After all it seems to be all about the noise. Maybe they will clip playing cards onto their mud guards so that they flap in the spokes :D.... I dunno but being left in peace is not probable IMO, unfortunately.

Looking forward to seeing more electric hybrid tech for boats :D

Frosty

02-26-2008, 09:06 PM

The recent increase over the last week from 88 to 100 was discussed on Bloomberg. There was no reason for the increase. It was felt that the reason was as flimsy as investor speculation or even the suggestion of dealers enjoying the novelty of dealing with oil at over 100.

Surely the technology for accessing oil betters daily, apart from rhetoric rattling from Iran (which could be snuffed out like a candle if needed) seemingly affecting the price of oil.

I agree with Bush, some stability in the market for very important commodities needs thinking about. The stock market and share holders are becoming too powerful and we are left to their manipulations.

Some action as,-- investing in oil requires a minimum 6 months period for instance as a suggestion.

Immature investors that crap there pants at the prospect of sitting on investments over weekend are not good for the market or the world.

But all this concern is miniscule when the Government themselves want high oil prices. You dont see any complaining do you.

High oil prices will drive us (no pun intended) to alternative fuels then the government need not to bother about being accused of apathy of reducing co2.

The man in the street pays for it again.

charmc

02-26-2008, 09:38 PM

Damn, Frosty, you did it again!

Just when you've convinced everyone you're a doddering curmudgeon who spends his days bitching about trivia, you go and spout some intelligent, insightful, and thoughtful observations.

Maybe you're twins? :D

Meanz Beanz

02-26-2008, 10:00 PM

Yeah I have been listening to that spin since 30 dollar oil. All the way up its has been speculators, fear premium etc etc. They had it wrong then and they have it wrong now supply is starting its inexorable march down while demand is marching up as per the curves I described in my earlier post.

Technology has improved markedly for oil extraction but all that means is we can get the oil up faster and maintain flow rate. That's not to say there is anymore available so all it means is that the drop off will be faster (the back side of the bell curve will be steeper) The downside is when they push a well too hard they can put it into shock and reduce the net amount of oil that they can ultimately recover. It looks like the Meskins did just that with Cantarell, now the decline is spectacular.

The worst thing that can happen to any market is the government. The current market gyrations are a result of government action, they stabilise nothing and screw up everything all the while telling you its for your own good. If they stop screwing with the money supply the markets will sort the damage out and stabilise. However if they continue, which they will, things will get worse, which they will. Australia is currently growing its money supply at 23% (Bloomberg) and we have pollies on the telly scratching their heads over "inflation". No chit Sherlock, even a five year old can tell you that making that much more of something makes it worth less.

If you make restrictions on who can buy, how long they can hold all you will succeed in doing is drying up capital for industries that badly need it. This had nothing to do with shareholders per-say but more to do with the debt levels standing behind the stocks (leverage, margin lending etc) and hedge funds exploiting that in a predatory fashion (susceptible to short selling raids ala the speculation over ABC Learning). Remove the leverage and you remove the volatility. Where does the leverage come from... ? oh yeah that's right 23% per annum increase in the money supply by our ultra easy Central Bank might have something to do with it. Never ask government to solve a problem they made in the first place.

Immature investors control diddley swat in terms of capital, sure Johny daytrader bails out every weekend but keep in mind the stats say 80% of these characters lose almost all they bring to the table. Think of them as topping up your super, they certainly help mine out. They help provide liquidity to the market which ultimately makes it a safer market, just not usually for them!

The man in the street pays, yes always, if is not tax its inflation which by the way is no mystery its what central banks do, they are a one trick pony. The more money they create the wealthier those at the top of the chain become (government & the financial industry love it + you might have noticed the 'inexplicable' wealth divide that has been emerging in Oz) and slowly but surely the money slips out of the man on the streets back pocket. Its so subtle that they have been effectively taxed with out them realizing where it went... governments nirvana.

longliner45

02-26-2008, 10:34 PM

jumping in a little late here,electric cars ,,ok ,but when you plug them in to recharge,,,someone is throwing in another shovle of coal at the river(power plant ,,) ,,ethanal ,,a good idea ,,causes more pollution to produce than a barral of oil,,,no answers here ,longliner

Meanz Beanz

02-26-2008, 10:42 PM

What if its a Geothermal plant? + The thing gets 80mpg in petrol electric mode, that's a big saving in fuel and would be even better if it where diesel electric.

longliner45

02-26-2008, 10:48 PM

we have no geothermo plants here that can keep up with rising power demands,,,,but thats not to say it cant happen,,Im glad some people still worry about it though,,,,,thanks beanz,longliner

masalai

02-26-2008, 11:04 PM

No No No No No No, Yes (I love some of the characters in "The Vicar of Dibbley")
Frosty, On post 104 - - - It goes beyond that, it is all those young puppies, still wet behind the ears & nappy rash, force fed theory till their ears pop, can talk the talk but not a dime worth of intelligence or experience.

Lightning fast reflexes and quick typing to keep with/parallel with any market movement. This forces exaggerated shifts and near suicidal panic for anyone dealing on the markets slightly older than necessary to shave...

Crash all windows machines and sanity WILL return as these hyper-reactive fools will fall on the floors of stock & commodities exchanges in a dead panic. Things will return to some level of stable sanity during the downtime:D:D:D:P

Meanz Beanz

02-26-2008, 11:14 PM

LOL yeah this is nothing to do with over leveraged boomers now is it (a boomer which I am but no leverage :D)... The puppies ain't got the wealth, it is the boomers & brain dead super funds that are the bulk of this market. The only hyper active puppies to worry about are those running hedge funds, now they are source of fun just take a look at a chart of AED Oil :eek:

masalai

02-26-2008, 11:23 PM

It's the academically "qualified" babies, with no experience and no understanding what chaos they are causing via market instability so "they can close up", who play with that money & cause economic hardship. They have no brains, balls, or common sense....

Meanz Beanz

02-26-2008, 11:41 PM

Nope, its the leverage no matter who's hands it is in that is at the core of this. That's why futures markets are shark pit's, remove the leverage and no one is forced to sell if the fundamental situation still holds good. Add leverage, or more to the point to much leverage and any correction can fuel margin calls and liquidation. One great irony here is that those using margin are making their stock available to be loaned out for short sales. A hedge fund can borrow a margined stock holders stock to sell against them and drive the stock price down forcing the stock holder to a margin call and potential liquidation thus creating the supply of stock at a lower value so that the hedge fund can then buy and return the loaned stock. Lack of leverage/margin defuses this situation. Hedge funds are desperate to maintain profitability in the current market environment, they appear to have turned predator. Hence I will not use margin and make sure that any agreement with a broker precludes authority to loan my stock.

The thing is excessive margin lending will fuel a simlar dynamic with out hedge fund games, all you need is a trigger as we have recently seen from the Urapeeing markets.

masalai

02-27-2008, 12:06 AM

I will bow to your incisive wisdom, Thanks Heinz... . . .I still reckon all the market babies with billion dollar investment funds at their disposal should be given six strokes of the 6 ft rattan every morning before they start trading for the day:D

Frosty

02-27-2008, 02:04 AM

Theres all kinds of players, all of them know what they are doing. You cant be a player without confidence real or not.

Hienz will do what he thinks is best of course. The market must have differing strategy to work.

I still say the market is too free and in the future ,--maybe far future it will not be as free.

The market is simply being able to invest in a company you have confidence in, the company also benefits from your money. But being able to trade so heavily it can bankrupt the company or end up being owned by some one else at the end of the day is hardly good for anyone but a few.

masalai

02-27-2008, 04:44 AM

Well put Mister Frosty, sadly I am told to spread it elsewhere first? - - Dunno where? so here are some tokens of my appreciation in being able to read some very wise and sage words... :::::::::: :::::::::: :D

Meanz Beanz

02-27-2008, 04:51 PM

I still say the market is too free and in the future ,--maybe far future it will not be as free.

The market is simply being able to invest in a company you have confidence in, the company also benefits from your money. But being able to trade so heavily it can bankrupt the company or end up being owned by some one else at the end of the day is hardly good for anyone but a few.

The market in total is not as free as you probably believe but that's another story.

Stocks are a secondary market they only effect the company directly in terms of their ability to raise capital or if the company directly owns the stock as an investment. If a stock in a company with a sound business model is driven down to an unrealistic level and there is no desperate need to raise capital it should have very little impact on the daily business. ABC Learning will not close centers because the stock copped a shellacking per-say. If they do it will have more to do with their debt obligation and how that is managed. The market is sending a clear message that they want to see conservative debt levels in companies, that's what they will respond to. Trading will bankrupt no one but the foolish, restricting trading on the other hand will bankrupt companies and severely limit the ability of both new and existing companies to raise capital. Stop the tidal wave of newly minted money that the worlds central banks are creating and you will contain inflation and curtail volatility, its that simple. The more aggressive CB's are running at close to 50% PA (Russia) the laggards are running in the teens and Oz is now in the 20s... it's insane. Welcome to the 1970's only its global and on steroids, that's why gold is knocking on the door of $1000oz and a good part of the reason that oil is fudging around the $100 mark. Global stagflation MII here we come, ya think they would take a lesson from Mugabe.

Masalai you might have a point about the hedge fund operators (the young guns), they seem to be missing some major fundamental shifts in favour of short term profit opportunities. No doubt we are staring down the barrel of greater hedge-fund regulation but that will only occur after the damage has been well and truly done. These guys are the kings of leverage and don't it fling them right out of the pond when it goes wrong. More coming in 2008/09.... this is going to be a show they will not forget in a while.

Anyway enough this is to much like a day at the orifice. :D

masalai

02-27-2008, 05:18 PM

Latest reports lead me to believe that the US is about to experience a "zero gravity" period as the greenback is sold off to place elsewhere. As I predicted earlier - expect the D (Depression) word as Recession is almost confirmed (3 months of negative growth). Housing DOWN, greenback DOWN, sentiment DOWN, oil UP (bad for US economy) gold UP (lots of other people are bracing/hedging/exiting cash), lots of "nervous nellies" out there as markets are very jittery/volatile...

Trouble is, someone in the whitehouse sneezes,,, Australia, and many other countries, catch flu... What did I just hear - - sounded like "Aaaaatchew!", - - is that German for something?

Meanz Beanz

02-27-2008, 05:29 PM

Yes, in fact if you do the stats as they did years ago before they got tricky about things they are in recession now (2 Q's negative) and depression is a real danger, some say unavoidable. Either way its a stinking pile that needs to compost for a while before you will grow much out of it. When it bites it will bite Asia and there by Oz so yes I agree, thing is exactly when ? These things can have tremendous momentum, 2009 through 2012 is looking like the crisis window. Lots of cheap Catamarans for sale if you still have the where with all to run one :D It will be the tale of two Australias, the SE corner will take it hard, the farmers and miners should do OK then good again. We have seen enough evidence of that trend already.

masalai

02-27-2008, 05:40 PM

What is your feeling on housing/land (Buderim with a STUNNING view from 300 ft ASL? or Brisbane, Mc Mansion type suburb around 70m ASL?

Meanz Beanz

02-27-2008, 06:24 PM

In my view housing is in for a big adjustment, again its the debt levels that will fuel it albeit a slower moving market than stocks. There is already significant signs of stress out there, add higher fuel, food and money costs and it will take its toll. Basically we are to far from the historical ratios, housing is up to 8x average income, 3x being more normal. On top of that rental yields are low, but I guess improving. Anyway wages will have to rise to cover higher rent OR prices will have to fall in nominal terms until we get back close to the time honoured ratios. In reality it will probably be some combination of this but both are a devaluation in real terms, basically I believe there are better things to own for investment purposes. If you want land, its my opinion that productive farm land will be the thing to have.

Consider this, real estate is the baby boomers investment of choice and they are leveraged into it. The boomers as a generation start to retire this year so they will be looking to cover exposure to debt, selling down a bit consolidating etc. Making sure that income covers debt with a safety margin as they move into a more conservative retirement mode. Things are getting tougher, as they do the boomers collectively will have to sell more in order to keep head above water. Basically there is a lot of supply to come to market if the pressure is turned up. Now look at the following generations, they don't have the wealth that the boomers have and have a very different attitude to debt and housing. They are more mobile, live more for today (borrow & spend on fun... deposit? what deposit?) and as you get younger they are less willing to be slaves to mortgages. Add to that the boomers are 25% of the population and closer to 33% of the working population, the follow up generations are smaller even if you discount their financial status. So just the basic demographics tell you that what ever the boomers like is a sell at the moment.

Once this debt situation is resolved RE will come good but other things will do better across that period. We are looking at inflation, capital I. That means that non debt based tangible assets will have a distinct advantage, did I hear, "oh yeah commodity boom!" in the background? These cycles run 18 to 20 years but I think this one will be longer. Either way it kicked off in 1998 so we are ten years in. It might take a serious break soonish with Asia recession fears but the tidal wave of money being chucked at the scene will make sure its a shortish break in the scheme of things. I reckon by the end of this you will see ETF's on everything tangible being traded like stocks where in the 90's. The financial industry will be spruking copper this, coal that, zinc this... you get the picture. When that happens start planning your exit strategy because by then things will be getting silly and the banks will be making big dividend sense again.

Anyway beyond owning a house that meets ones basic needs I am very cautious on residential real estate at the moment. For that matter I don't own a house at the moment but plan to buy some time in the next couple of years.

In a way I hope that is a bad call, it will mean way to much social distress but hey no one forced people to loan to the eye teeth in a competitive house buying frenzy. Some of us just walked away shaking their heads when ACA started housing stories and reality T.V went to town on the whole thing.

All JMO and DYODD... not licenced to give financial advice and all the rest but you asked.

Buderim with a view does sound nice :D

masalai

02-27-2008, 06:38 PM

Both will be on the market some time - own both... Mc Mansion will go within a year for Au$750k? - - Any takers?

the1much

02-28-2008, 04:07 PM

i could live without oil,,,but then i'd start smellin like frosty looks ;),,,and it may keep my wife away,,,,,what a life :D
the only reason oil hit 100 bucks a barrel was because some freak millionaire wanted to be the first person in history to pay $100,,,,,,their (gov.) is looking into pressing some stupid "traders" law crap.,,hehehe,,then everyone hit the band wagon and it never recovered,,,,,man i should of invested in "shares" not freakin equipment.

the1much

02-28-2008, 04:10 PM

and wind turbine is begining to be a big biz. here,,,in fact, they generate more electric then the transmission lines can handle,,,and a company just leased a BUNCH of "land,,,,water,,? heh) of the east coast to put a few thousand out in the middle of the big blue for drunk sailors to hit hehe ;)

masalai

02-28-2008, 04:37 PM

Depends which oil, Coconut oil used to be the base for premium aromatic soaps (because, in pure form does not smell, & of its capacity to hold perfume) Richard Branson even used Coconut oil to fuel one of the engines on a jet plane:D

Meanz Beanz

02-28-2008, 04:42 PM

A prudy smelling jet plane, what a wonderful thing and it didn't even flame out.

masalai

02-28-2008, 04:50 PM

Gives a strange meaning to "Mile High Club":D no grass up there but sure smells sweet...

the1much

02-28-2008, 05:08 PM

why drink and drive when ya can smoke and fly ;) ; )-~~~

Meanz Beanz

02-28-2008, 05:11 PM

Oil closed @ 102.59 today and the futures market is in "backwardation" (now that's a word worthy of a US politician) and has been for a while now. Basically backwardation means that people will pay a higher price for near dated contracts, contango is the norm and the opposite. Backwardation is a good indication of supply shortage which runs against what we are being told. All the while OPEC are talking about CUTING production. The cynic in me wonders if they simply can't pump anymore so politically the logical thing to do is construct a positive spin for a cut.

Attached is an oil chart in Aussie dollars, as you can see the price is falling a little for us at the moment and $102 oil is to do with the US dollar falling out of bed as much as it is tight supply. When oil starts to run from these levels against the Aussie, Swissie and the Loonie then we start to really worry.

Apologies for being serious and doubly so for posting a chart on a boat site but its worth it if a few of you go find out more about peak oil.

Meanz Beanz

02-28-2008, 05:14 PM

Had curry last night, don't smell purdy but I reckon I could run one of them wind turdbines, prolly over load my grid. Now that's India's power needs taken care of and there seems to be plenty of political hot air available in the US so what to do with China?

masalai

02-28-2008, 05:25 PM

Impregnate their fuel (coal, diesel & petrol) with the active ingredients of marijuana and they would all be happy & laughing....:D

Meanz Beanz

02-28-2008, 05:33 PM

:eek: A gazillion peeps wid da munchies :eek: Would make a locust plague look like a church picnic. They'd use all the rest of the oil in one day just frying chips!

Hmmmmmm... M I think you better rethink that one... I mean what if they got horny? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

masalai

02-28-2008, 05:42 PM

OK, I do not know drugs, You pick the chemical?

Petros

02-28-2008, 05:55 PM

the1much

02-28-2008, 05:57 PM

hmmmmmm,,,,,hungry, high women,....hmmmmmm,,,, sounds like my kind of woman, swallow anything that gets past their lips heh :D

masalai

02-28-2008, 06:03 PM

Is your name Bill & married to Hilary & know Monica?:P:D:D:D:D:D A good head job is like the first time - not easily forgotten:D

Meanz Beanz

02-28-2008, 06:26 PM

OK, I do not know drugs, You pick the chemical?

LOL I dunno mebe we just recycle dead hippies :D

the1much

02-28-2008, 06:33 PM

us old hippies dont die,,,,we just smell like it :P :D :rolleyes: :P

Meanz Beanz

02-28-2008, 06:38 PM

Coconut oil...seems to me if we switch to a sweet smelling coconut oil economy we would use up the world supply in perhaps a few days. I do not think there is any future there. there is not enough land to grow enough coconuts to supply our needs. Then what? Try again with something else? lets just stick with crude oil, there is perhaps 700 years worth of known and estimated supply. There is about 100 years worth of known reserves, why hurry to consume all the coconuts in our cars and airplanes?

Where did you get those numbers from? 700 years... no way. 100 years worth of reserves at the last century's consumption rate maybe. The exponential increase in demand can more than cut that in half, in fact if total unchecked by other sources the models suggest as low as 10%. There is oil sands etc quoted but that's expensive energy, peak oil is about the end of "cheap oil" not the end of oil. We won't get to use it down to the last drop, that last drop will be soooooo expensive it would be mind boggling. All the numbers and the price dynamic changes around peak production and all the numbers suggest we are just past peak or at the best its 2010. Your life as you know it depends on cheap energy, the western world does. Everything changes markedly as energy prices rise.

Peak Oil = End of Cheap = Major economic issue.

Branson's effort with Coconuts was just a heads up to say hey look naysayers alternates can work... They are not serious about it as a fuel source its more a prod at the conservative aviation industry to get them thinking about the challenges ahead.

Meanz Beanz

02-28-2008, 06:44 PM

us old hippies dont die,,,,we just smell like it :P :D :rolleyes: :P

They tell me hippie cremations are a blast :P :D

the1much

02-28-2008, 06:53 PM

there a bong,,,,my "smoking" friends are bidding on my lungs when i die ;)

masalai

02-28-2008, 07:03 PM

Ahhh Heinz, Hippies are still around "Nimbin" in NSW....

Sunshine Coast was declared the most expensive place to live in Australia (TV channel 7 news????)

The BMW set (pretend hippies) hang out around Maleny, but the Ferrari and Porshe & Merc etc are competing for car-parking space...

Meanz Beanz

02-28-2008, 07:17 PM

The Folk Festival used to be fun, can't imagine the VW's replaced by Bimmers & Mercshadees

masalai

02-28-2008, 07:26 PM

Those people travel up from NSW & elsewhere.... The pseudo hippies live in the region - politely called "tree-changers"... That is why housing costs (land) is so high.... They use the 4x4 bimmer, torag & so-forth, as it usually happens when it is WET...:D:D:D - No helipad yet. - I may go if they do...

the1much

02-28-2008, 07:49 PM

we dont have to worry bout oil,,,,we all gonna be in jail soon,,,,u.s. crime rate down,,,% of people in jail up now its 1 out of every 100 people is now incarcerated,,,1 out of every 36 hispanics,,,and 1 out of every 16 of african americans,,, can we say african americans anymore??,,,and if their called "african" american,,,shouldnt i be called "whatever" american?,,,,,magine,,,i gonna be first dude called an hippie-american,,,,heh ;)

the1much

02-28-2008, 07:51 PM

do you aussies have like british australians???you know as an "ethnic" name,,,or is everyone born there known as australians?

Meanz Beanz

02-28-2008, 07:55 PM

Ya mean Pommy Bastards?

the1much

02-28-2008, 07:58 PM

that jus makes me laugh to say heh,,i know the basturd part hehe,,,but that pommy word is a new one fer me heh

the1much

02-28-2008, 08:01 PM

the1much

02-28-2008, 08:06 PM

i guess as an old hippie i think it would be so much smarter ( cause us hippies dont have the brain cells to spare for thinking) to call everyone thats born here, or gets citizenship,,,,ummmm,,,,,errrr,,,,,,,,americans,,heh

Meanz Beanz

02-28-2008, 08:20 PM

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pommy

You don't hear terms like that so much anymore... Australian means almost anything in terms of racial/cultural heritage. However we still have a soft spot for beating up on the British, especially with bats and balls....

I say thats just not cricket old chap :D

the1much

02-28-2008, 08:26 PM

i think the dingo ate your baby,,,,,loved that "sienfield" episode,,hehe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u324c5Oi5M
is bout what i think of brits heh

masalai

02-28-2008, 11:49 PM

I dunno what... - I was told I was a bastard once & I replied, "That is what it says on my birth certificate, What is your excuse?" - - - took him quite a while to work it our - by then I was far enough to hear him swearing and cursing....:D

Does that count for ethnicity? else I have it on good authority he was from Portland, was Catholic, married and did a real con-job on my poor naive mum.... By the name of Robert Ballard, Married (wife in USA), & was in Townsville around mid August 1944... Would love to hear from him.... He would have to be more than 82 but likely guess would be 88?

tinhorn

02-29-2008, 01:58 AM

every time we make out a job application or anything to do with state or government,, they NEED to know what "ethnic" group your classed as,,,,i always tell em im not ethnic,,,,but i am a baptist hehehe,,,,,maybe thats why i couldnt find any help after i broke my neck ;)

If you were born in the US, you're a native American, right? I was born here, of Swedish and German ancestry, but I check the Native American box just to throw off their stats.

Apologies for being serious and doubly so for posting a chart on a boat site but its worth it if a few of you go find out more about peak oil.

It's been great learning from you guys.

OK, I do not know drugs, You pick the chemical?

That would be THC. So I'm told.

Frosty

02-29-2008, 09:08 AM

After being the strongest sperm of an ejaculation of 5 million or more, then managing to get an education and not get run over by a bus, it would appear that --"what tribe did you come from " is immaterial.

the1much

02-29-2008, 09:34 AM

you would think,,,,,but as usual our "american" way,,is everything but american,,,hehehe,,,,,we are the largest group of "minorities" there is...hehe,,,,everyone that isnt what they call plain ole "americans" can get special help,,get government grants,,,free education,,free medical care,,free meds,,housing,,,,,,**** we'll even buy ya a house then let ya pay us half back,,if you can,,but if not dont worry.,,then if you go for a job interview,,and some plain ole white dude gets the job,,and you either black,gay,anything but "white",,,you can sue the place and saying they didnt hire you cause you was a "rag-head" or whatever,,,im trying to start a new "minority",,, old white fumed out hippies with no problem telling people to suck my left ,,toe ;)
mann,,,,,cant wait fer all my tax breaks,,,it'll be like my friend that ownes his own church hehehe ;)

FAST FRED

03-01-2008, 07:12 AM

One of the biggest marketing failures in my lifetime was the inability of the "A&P" lobby to get grass legalized.

Always thought they would greet you at the door , give you a hit on a bong , and a shopping cart!

Figured it would tripple their bottom line.

FF

the1much

03-01-2008, 08:38 AM

the sad thing is,,,,,,there's 16 states that have legalized weed for medicinal use,,,,,but the state cops wont arrest ya,,,,but any federal agency (d.e.a.,,b.i.d.e.) they'll all arrest ya for buying it at ya pharmacy

Meanz Beanz

03-01-2008, 04:50 PM

Hey Tinhorn,

This is a good place to start if you want to follow through...

Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy (http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches)

Some presentations Matt Simmons (http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Desert-Coming-Saudi-Economy/dp/047173876X)

masalai

03-01-2008, 09:13 PM

the1much

03-01-2008, 11:20 PM

i aint no expert,,,,**** i aint even got a good guess,,,but the town i live in now was "made"(economical and population growth) back in the early 80's,,so i've been told,,,now,,,,with oil " at such shortage" this place has gotten bigger by 58% in since 2005 ( info from kmid news) ,,and just a year ago i had 1 seperator,,,wondering if i should build another,,,,today i have 5 (almost 6 ) and if i built 30 more,,i would have them all rented out in less then a week,,,,,and its not because there isnt any oil :D

masalai

03-01-2008, 11:36 PM

So who is telling lies? & why is the price going up faster than a missile?

What are your separators for - separating the oil from other stuff?

Did you look at the presentation that Heinz posted? above at 159??? They are in the industry and supposedly analysed all the international data they could get....

Why is your country still in the middle east shooting itself in the foot?

All I want to know . . . . is who is up whom, and, who is paying the rent (apart from China & middle eastern country money paying huge amounts for US assets) & why is that stupid "W" trying to emulate "Mugabi" by printing money... Hasn't any one got the balls to tell him that that will stuff an economy FAST, - just look at Zim-land... Friends on a missionary visit there, needed a large garbage bag full of money, just to go out for a meal...

The World has gone mad... & am I the only sane one left?????

the1much

03-02-2008, 01:36 AM

my separators take everything coming out of the wells,,and separates the oil/water/gas from the crap,and then counts each one,,,,,,,is basically a cross between a toilet and aseptic tank hehe
and its easy to figure out who's lying about how much there is,,,its the people making money from it,,,,,,,****,,,,every time Mas. comes over to buy a bag of weed i tell him,,,ooo man,,,there was 50lbs.,,,now i only got 5 lbs. left,,,,price just jumped :D

tinhorn

03-02-2008, 03:17 AM

masalai

03-02-2008, 03:31 AM

the1,
I don't need your artificially grown grass, the stuff from above 10,000 ft (like tea) has more THC & better flavour... Like Bill C, never inhaled any good stuff so lost interest & sex was a better hit:D:D:D:D

It is a problem in PNG, so the locals say to stop it growing put it as a "priority crop" with the department of primary industries & it will fail as an economic crop :D:D... Until then there is a thriving trade for Kalashnokovs, (bought in the middle east for less than US$80), and traded for US$1000 wholesale worth of dried heads, loaded onto a light aircraft & sold in Aus as "New Guinea Gold"

Frosty

03-02-2008, 04:13 AM

De do do do, de da da da, thats all I want to say to you.

Look out its the Police,--- I got a police record.

AAahhhhhh thank you.

Frosty

03-02-2008, 04:14 AM

Oh no its not the drivel thread is it? oh geeez

Oh Oh Im so sorry,-- now I look like a right Dork.

masalai

03-02-2008, 04:44 AM

I thought anything not strictly related to boats was drivel (oral diarrhoea), or dribble (booze/excess food - NOTE it is NEVER excess booze:D)

Good behaviour rules - refrain from smoking during intercourse (in all forms)

the1much

03-02-2008, 08:17 AM

we got a dude right now thats trying to get the o.k. to grow weed for industrial use ( i knew i smoked alot but not nuff to be called "industrial"),,,sad thing is all he wants to grow are male plants,,so no bud,,,,,,and the gov. is still giving him crap,,,,the University of Maine in Orono (UMO) has one of the largest pot garden i've ever seen,,,,,,stuff was like smoking pine needles,,,,,what a waste of 6 hours to sneak in :(

masalai

03-02-2008, 03:26 PM

Somewhere south (Tasmania?) pot is legally being grown for the Hemp - to make rope & fabric. Also Opium is legally grown - to supply the medical market - You guys need some enlightening - so next post is a collection of "test results" from a local Catholic primary school...

masalai

03-02-2008, 03:28 PM

Can you imagine yourself to be the nun that is sitting at her desk grading these papers all the while trying to keep a straight face and maintain her composure!

PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE WORDING AND SPELLING. IF YOU KNOW THE BIBLE EVEN A LITTLE, YOU'LL FIND THIS HILARIOUS! IT COMES FROM A CATHOLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEST KIDS WERE ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ABOUT THE BIBLE WERE WRITTEN BY CHILDREN.

THEY HAVE NOT BEEN RETOUCHED OR CORRECTED.

INCORRECT SPELLING HAS BEEN LEFT IN.
__________________________________________________________________

1. IN THE FIRST BOOK OF THE BIBLE, GUINESSIS. GOD GOT TIRED OF CREATING THE WORLD SO HE TOOK THE SABBATH OFF.

2. ADAM AND EVE WERE CREATED FROM AN APPLE TREE. NOAH'S WIFE WAS JOAN OF ARK. NOAH BUILT AN ARK AND THE ANIMALS CAME ON IN PEARS.

3. LOTS WIFE WAS A PILLAR OF SALT DURING THE DAY, BUT A BALL OF FIRE DURING THE NIGHT.

4. THE JEWS WERE A PROUD PEOPLE AND THROUGHOUT HISTORY THEY HAD TROUBLE WITH UNSYMPATHETIC GENITALS.

5. SAMPSON WAS A STRONGMAN WHO LET HIMSELF BE LED ASTRAY BY A JEZEBEL LIKE DELILAH.

6. SAMSON SLAYED THE PHILISTINES WITH THE AXE OF THE APOSTLES.

7. MOSES LED THE JEWS TO THE RED SEA WHERE THEY MADE UNLEAVENED BREAD WHICH IS BREAD WITHOUT ANY INGREDIENTS .

8. THE EGYPTIANS WERE ALL DROWNED IN THE DESSERT. AFTERWARDS, MOSES WENT UP TO MOUNT CYANIDE TO GET THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

9. THE FIRST COMMANDMENTS WAS WHEN EVE TOLD ADAM TO EAT THE APPLE.

10. THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT IS THOU SHALT NOT ADMIT ADULTERY.

11. MOSES DIED BEFORE HE EVER REACHED CANADA. THEN JOSHUA LED THE HEBREWS IN THE BATTLE OF GERITOL.

12. THE GREATEST MIRICLE IN THE BIBLE IS WHEN JOSHUA TOLD HIS SON TO STAND STILL AND HE OBEYED HIM.

13. DAVID WAS A HEBREW KING WHO WAS SKILLED AT PLAYING THE LIAR. HE FOUGHT THE FINKELSTEINS, A RACE OF PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN BIBLICAL TIMES.

14. SOLOMON, ONE OF DAVIDS SONS, HAD 300 WIVES AND 700 PORCUPINES.

15. WHEN MARY HEARD SHE WAS THE MOTHER OF JESUS, SHE SANG THE MAGNA CARTA.

16. WHEN THE THREE WISE GUYS FROM THE EAST SIDE ARRIVED THEY FOUND JESUS IN THE MANAGER.

17. JESUS WAS BORN BECAUSE MARY HAD AN IMMACULATE CONTRAPTION.

18. ST. JOHN THE BLACKSMITH DUMPED WATER ON HIS HEAD.

19. JESUS ENUNCIATED THE GOLDEN RULE, WHICH SAYS TO DO UNTO OTHERS BEFORE THEY DO ONE TO YOU. HE ALSO EXPLAINED A MAN DOTH NOT LIVE BY SWEAT ALONE.

20. IT WAS A MIRICLE WHEN JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD AND MANAGED TO GET THE TOMBSTONE OFF THE ENTRANCE.

21. THE PEOPLE WHO FOLLOWED THE LORD WERE CALLED THE TWELVE DECIBELS.

22. THE EPISTELS WERE THE WIVES OF THE APOSTLES.

23. ONE OF THE OPPOSSUMS WAS ST. MATTHEW WHO WAS ALSO A TAXIMAN.

24. ST. PAUL CAVORTED TO CHRISTIANITY, HE PREACHED HOLY ACRIMONY WHICH IS ANOTHER NAME FOR MARRAIGE.

25. CHRISTIANS HAVE ONLY ONE SPOUSE. THIS IS CALLED MONOTONY

(I love pirating threads - adds to the entertainment value when the thread gets booring:D)

Meanz Beanz

03-02-2008, 05:50 PM

Thanks Heinz, ILLUMINATING to say the least, Here is a page to set the "monkeys" jabbering....
- - - - - "Most Oil Pundits Scoff At Peak Oil Issue
Energy optimists loudly deny that Peak Oil is a serious risk.
CERA proclaims it is decades away and followed by a lengthy “undulating plateau.”
Optimists base thesis on:
– Recovering more oil now in place
– More undiscovered oil
– Increase in oilfield technology
– Increase in non-conventional oil
All are “faith based” beliefs
SIMMONS and COMPANY INTERNATIONAL"

Been sailing :D

Matts worth listening to, his company understand oil tech very well, he has become a very wealthy man by financing the right projects, this guy is no Muppet when it comes to oil. The book has been read on capital hill and taken seriously... this is not some effort by an attention seeking journo.

Saudi... there are a few things to keep in mind about that place.

1. It runs on oil, little else in the way of serious economic activity.
2. Lots of bored, unemployed youth that rely of social security cheques.
3. They are largely Wahabi, as I understand it a little more prone to the extremes of Islamic culture.
4. They have been injecting their wells and using other means to maintain flow rate, that's fine but it means when the decline comes it will be rapid.

OK... take the oil revenue out of that picture (or reduce it below a critical level) and you have the makings of civil disorder on a wide scale. Most people don't seem to appreciate that in one resource states you don't' get to exploit the resource down to the last drop because at some point you tend to get some sort of social blow back. They already have troubles in Saudi but its such a tight state that the news mostly does not travel. Saudi is under very real threat of some sort of civil war occurring if oil revenue runs to low. That will really mess world oil flows up just take a look at Iraq's production figures. Think that's a fantasy? I have been told by some very credible sources that over the last five years the Saudi Royals (5000 of them, not a small group) have been buying property in Switzerland. They do it Saudi style... pull up in a limo with the agent, wind the window down and say yey or nay and move on to the next one. :rolleyes: Anyway the upshot is those closer to the deals reckon they are preparing bolt holes. Hearsay yes but credible, they can't really know when they will need them but you don't have to learn to much about the place to see the wisdom in having an insurance policy. When to oil goes the Saudi Royals are going to become very unpopular very quickly, that's a when... not an if.

Meet Ghawar, she is dying..... maybe. (http://www.energybulletin.net/27024.html)

Meanz Beanz

03-02-2008, 06:09 PM

No points today M but the mispellings gave the whole family a laugh.

Meanz Beanz

03-02-2008, 06:18 PM

masalai

03-02-2008, 06:50 PM

Know any "Royals? with a spare couple of million Au$, I know of a couple of very good "bolt-holes" that need financing... Does a remote tropical island paradise attract? . . . They will be capable of independent self sustainability and no cockroaches - as per "Sanctury Cove promotion"

Meanz Beanz

03-02-2008, 06:56 PM

Apparently a history of neutrality in war is attractive. It certainly ain't the climate! So what does that tell you? :eek: They can't be all that hoptomistic.

No roaches huh? Can people survive that?

masalai

03-02-2008, 07:09 PM

It seems to work at "Sanctuary Cove", except during the annual boat show, but access is restricted to the shopping prescient & marina. . :D:D:D:D (I am not talking about the insect.... Mortein etc needed there... The term was first used about the time Frank Sinatra "performed" at the opening ceremony...

the1much

03-02-2008, 07:11 PM

Test results from Jim = eeerrrrrrr,,,,this some good **** ;)
im from the woods,,,,,pine needles are good to me heh :D

masalai

03-02-2008, 07:26 PM

I may be in more ****, here; http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/, in calling a fool a fool....:D:D:D:D

the1much

03-02-2008, 07:35 PM

the "container refund" thing is the way to go,,,,more then just the obvious pro's,,,as big if not bigger then recycling ,,you wouldnt believe the litter it stops, or in place of stopping,it gets people out to pick it up ;).,,and,,its big biz.,,i've seen people make millions of dollars from the refund law.,,say the deposit is 5 cents ,, you bring it to a "redemption" <hehe sounds like church healings heh) center,,get ya 5 cents back,,the center has to separate them and count them,,,,they get 8 cents from the bottling companies ,,(3 cent profit)

masalai

03-02-2008, 07:58 PM

Wait till you see my comment:P:P

Frosty

03-03-2008, 02:02 AM

I dont smoke drugs ,--Im afraid of fire, epecially when its so close to my nose and lips. But I do take a liquid form of tranqilizer can you guess what it is ,--Buuurp, It begins with B and ends in r and has got 2 e's in the middle.

Difficult I know but its a lovely word and it sounds like deer.

Oh **** wrong thread again. Oh sod it,--- sue me!!

masalai

03-03-2008, 02:08 AM

Pisspot, look at your rep.... Durnkenness is profitable:D . . If you do not believe me, click on "Post Feedback" foy your post #182:D

Meanz Beanz

03-03-2008, 02:51 AM

OK your Sue.

masalai

03-03-2008, 02:56 AM

How was work Heinz? Nothing much doing here, except to cook dinner for mum:D

charmc

03-05-2008, 03:45 AM

So who is telling lies?

& why is the price going up faster than a missile?

What are your separators for - separating the oil from other stuff?

Did you look at the presentation that Heinz posted?

Why is your country still in the middle east shooting itself in the foot?

who is up whom, and, who is paying the rent ... ?

& why is that stupid "W" trying to emulate "Mugabi" by printing money... ?

Hasn't any one got the balls to tell him that that will stuff an economy FAST?

am I the only sane one left?????

Everyone.

Dunno.

Yup (Duh).

Yup.

Dunno.

Dunno, and dunno.

Dunno.

Nope.

Nope.

GOB's are sane by definition; ranting about the state of the world proves we're sane (and perceptive). :D

masalai

03-05-2008, 04:48 AM

Thank you Charlie, Someone stole my bank acc of "Rep Points"????

What is a GOB - (Thinks Jeees I an a dumbarse. . . "Goons may say :- "He fallen in the water Eccles") - - :D:D:D "Grumpy Old Bastard":D:P

You wanna correct me in "Why are my rudders..."? too?

Thanks for the loan Heinz, - - broke at the moment - points in the mail:D

Meanz Beanz

03-05-2008, 05:25 AM

Everyone.

That seems to be the thing with oil, the incentive always seems to be to lie about what you have, what you can pump, where it is etc etc. There always seems to be some benefit in deceit, I suppose it is because oil is power. Its mind blowing what isn't known about our global reserves, its all computer models and promises about reserves taken at face value. Even the much vaunted US inventory numbers are "modeled" or in other words an educated guess... nobody measures or counts ANYTHING above the company level. The biggest oil companies in the world are the NOC's (National Oil Companies) so of course they are all reporting accurate numbers :rolleyes:

Matt Simmonds reckons that if we have a supply disruption for any reason and the level of "hydro-carbons" (oil, petrol, diesel, etc) are significantly drawn down we may not be able to "re-fill" the system. That is supply will not stay ahead of demand long enough to rebuild reserves.

Thats why oil is $100 and going higher in the mid term.

Meanz Beanz

03-05-2008, 05:28 AM

Glad to see you kooking 4 ur mudder Mas :D

GOB's are sane.... mebe. I dunno? I'm crazy so beyond that little else matters :D

FAST FRED

03-05-2008, 06:13 AM

Really dont see what the problem is!

In the US we have enough coal that refines to oil at about $30 a bbl., for 200 years or so.

With Canada we are blessed with shale oil , again a few hundred years worth.

And "clean coal " in the west that makes fine electric.

Only 1/3 of the Gulf of Mexico is being worked , although the deposits in the other areas are well known.
China is drilling the GOM for Cuba, but we don't?

Florida , California and other states have tons of easily recoverable oil, just "illegal" to get it out.

Add the decades of crude in an Arctic Wilderness and you begin to wonder if its time to send some politicos to Wall Mart for a job their Qualified for?

Even drunken Teddy Kennedy (the swimmer) stopped wind farms so far out on a bank that he couldn't see them on a sober day. So much for "alternate energy".

No question China and India have huge energy demands that effect the world market.

But I can hardly understand why the US at least, is shooting herself in the head paying stoopid money for energy we already own?

FF

the1much

03-05-2008, 07:52 AM

its funny seeing prices go up,,,it works like this,,,,oil at this set price,,,,someone blows a refinery up (last week in big springs,,,Alon refinery went,,,boom,,then,,,bang,) so they got an excuse to raise the price $10 a barrel,,,well that means gas went up too,,,,so for the drilling company to get there and use their big diesel engines,,,,they need to pay higher price for gas,,,,which they pass onto the oil company,,who in turn passes it to us.,,now that the well is dug,,,they need a "pulling" unit to come and put the rods and pump in,,,,well, their price to do it went up,,cause of that gas price,,which the oil company passes to us,,,,then,,after its been set to pump,,you need a roustabout crew to lay all the pipe,,their price went up,,and passed,,and passed again,,,then its time for my separator,,which the price goes up every time the gas does,,,so that gets passed,,,,,then the oil company itself ( more independent oil companies drill oil, then the big companies) needs to maintain all these wells,,,and that takes gas,,,ALOT of gas to ride around those oil leases,,and since even the oil companies pay for their gas,,,thats gets passed along,,,,,,,,sad freakin circle huh,,,,its a circle jerk with most of us in the middle

masalai

03-05-2008, 04:23 PM

Heinz, all this doom and gloom reminds me of the pessimists poem "....We'll all be rooned, said Hanrahan, before this year is out...." & a good Australian narrative poet too:D

Meanz Beanz

03-05-2008, 04:27 PM

FF, where did you get the $30 a barrel number from for coal to fuel? Shale oil is still uneconomic at today's prices, I think you might be thinking of oil sands which again is expensive oil to retrieve. The whole focus of peak oil is the end of cheap oil at its ramifications, not the end of available oil. Keep in mind that the US has not been able to build a refinery in, oh I dunno but its been decades, I know of one guy who has been trying for 15 years to get a new site up. Assuming that you can do $30 coal conversion how long do you think it will take to design and build such a plant? My understanding is it takes the better part of a decade to design, build and commission a modern oil refinery (I need to check that) assuming that the go is given tomorrow. The go will not be given on coal conversion until things are already desperate, then it will be too late as a crisis will be well underway. The point here is not that we don't have options but that we are headed to a crisis point where we are to dependant on the the current set of choices and have no viable succession plans in place. We are literally "crisis managing" our most vital resource and this will lead to economic pain.... that my friend is the problem. If only we could switch one hundred years of infrastructure across as quick as we can talk about the options.

The other thing to keep in mind is that Asia's demand is growing exponentially, when people typically say things like a few hundred years worth they are thinking flat ie @ today's consumption rate. Draw an exponential curve and put a time line on it, that will given you an idea of how "a few hundred years worth" can easily become a "few decades worth".

We are actually approaching an inflection point where we need an energy source with many times (10+) the potential oil provided . That is if we repeat the lesson of every previous human energy crisis where we come out of the other side with 10x the demand and usage that we went into it with. We need a quantum shift in energy tech, not just a few extra barrels.

Don't get me wrong, I think it will be done... just not in an orderly fashion, we have a history of doing our best work under pressure and only responding seriously to crisis.

Meanz Beanz

03-05-2008, 04:41 PM

The oil industry are "price takers" not "price makers" as are all commodities. The price is set in the international futures markets and is a response to competitive pressure. Futures are forward looking by their very nature, the oil market is deep, liquid and chok full of very sophisticated players. Today's oil price is simply there assessment of where price needs to be to maintain adequate supply given all current realities and potential risks.

The telling thing here is that higher price SHOULD prompt big oil to go find more and this is not happening at the moment. Big oil is taking its profits and buying back shares of its stock and buying junior oil where it makes sense. They are literally "drilling for oil on the NYSE"... why? because the know that the odds are well against them on the discovery front. Yes they are looking but not with the gusto that's going to fix $100 oil. They are making the decision, on behalf of share holders, that the best way to return value to them is by husbanding their resources. Once upon a time and according to econ 101 that should be by finding more resources but out here in the real world it ain't working that way.

Meanz Beanz

03-05-2008, 04:42 PM

Heinz, all this doom and gloom reminds me of the pessimists poem "....We'll all be rooned, said Hanrahan, before this year is out...." & a good Australian narrative poet too:D

Don't get me going about the credit crisis... oih! There is opportunity in all this :D , thats what I am busy looking for :D

masalai

03-05-2008, 04:44 PM

Come on then, POST!, It is your thread:D Too lazy to make a new post, so surprise him when he wakes up!:D:D:D:D:D

Meanz Beanz

03-05-2008, 04:56 PM

Errrr well sorry bout that... but the OP has nicked orrrfffff. WOW that was a good coffee :D What me, hyper active, never... Gotta go fix a centerboard now so I can sail this weekend. Broke it chasing a pack of Bronze Whalers in shallow water :D

masalai

03-05-2008, 05:12 PM

Errr Heinz, I just realised this thread should be elsewhere like "Community" - "Open Discussion" - Oh well, no one has objected & we all know where it is now :D:D:D:D:D

Frosty

03-05-2008, 07:57 PM

Hey I saw onth telly last night that in Norway if you buy a hybrid car and you can,--you get free parking.

It went on to say that everything you need now is here,-- the cars the maintenance the parking. They cost just a little more than normal but it is soon recovered by the free parking, Thats good init ,I like that.

How come the price of oil does'nt shudder when news like that emerges but it will if Bush says nucilar. I think I can work it out.

Fuel cell cars leave in thier wake breathable oxygen ,drinkable water and heat. Some one is dragging thier feet on this. The oil companies are too big.

Although I would like to see a cleaner world I am thouroughly motivated by alternative fuels so we can tell the Arabs to STICK IT.

Although Dubai is better the Arabs have not spent thier money wisely.Most going to one or a little more families. Look at the degenerate Brunai family.

Back to the rice paddies,--and will no doubt have there hand out asking for money in a 100years time.

I have'nt had my coffee yet, It has arrived, its here at the side of me, but I have'nt slurped at it yet.

Meanz Beanz

03-05-2008, 08:33 PM

Fuel cells are effectively a medium of energy transfer not a source. i.e. you need energy to create the hydrogen to begin with.

Don't think of the oil companies as too big and think of them as energy companies. Aside from the national oil companies which are political beasts and the truly big oil companies the rest will be leading the charge into viable alternates when they are convinced they have some/one. These people are not stupid but they do have a very clear idea about what it takes to supply energy on a massive scale. These guys net about 9%, considering the size and nature of the investment the return ain't huge. Software and pharmaceuticals do much better in terms of return yet they don't get the flack that the oils do. We can't live with out them, at least not yet, yet we bitch about them making any profit, stick road blocks all around them, tax them extra if they make to much profit (hell they might do something stupid like find more oil if we didn't punish them with taxation) and then bitch if there product ends up costing too much. These buggers are doomed anyway they turn :D

rambat

03-06-2008, 12:14 AM

Beanz, you forgot, the biggest profiteers on oil are the EU nations. They tax fuel a lot more than 9%. I am always left wondering why it is assumed if Americans are ever asked to pay $5 a gallon, we in the US would be compelled to create the innovations and systems needed to wean off oil. Why don't we see those green EU proponents making it happen? They have been squeezed by their own "benevolent" governments by 200% confiscatory fuel taxation for decades. Its not "big" oil stifling alternatives, its those with the most to lose. Something to think about if we are actually thinking about it.

Meanz Beanz

03-06-2008, 01:18 AM

The 9% was a reference to their profit margin. Caltex Australia made 1.5c per litre last year, not much really when you consider their investment.

Yeah taxes are the biggest take all over the world, government risks nothing, takes the most and invests the proceeds least wisely. You would not mind so much if they where busy contributing to the solution but nah...

FAST FRED

03-06-2008, 05:45 AM

where did you get the $30 a barrel number from for coal to fuel?

This was the estimate given last year in Aviation Week & Space Tech

magazine for folks in those industrys.

How long to build a plant ? a few years , How long to get the permits?

Well, Will Rogers mentioned "WE have the best congress money can buy" 70 years ago , and only the price has changed.

FF

Meanz Beanz

03-06-2008, 06:35 AM

Coal-To-Oil: America's Energy Solution? (http://research.investopedia.com/news/IA/2007/Coal-To-Oil_Americas_Energy_Solution_SSL_RTK_SYNM.aspx?ad=IA_RSS_762007)

Coal to oil conversion gaining interest in China (http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0816-wsj.html)

He notes that coal-to-oil plants are extremely expensive -- "[a] single plant capable of producing about 80,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day -- less than 0.5% of America's daily oil diet -- would cost an estimated $6 billion or more to build" --

Does not sound like a couple of years... these type of things are a massive undertaking and exceedingly so if you are talking about replacing a meaningful volume of oil production. It typically takes a decade to get new major oil discoveries on line and refineries of any sort are a touch more complex.

$48 bl is the estimate to do it cleanly, $30 for China to do it dirty.

I can't see it flying in the current political climate until there is a real crisis --- climate change and all. Actually sounds cheaper than oil sands which are very expensive to extract in terms of energy. Oil in Texas in the hey day consumed as little as one barrel to extract 30, expensive oil can get to 1 to 3 i.e. close to point less. I can't find the current cost of oil sand extraction but I do know that they are blowing out by around 50% over estimates, so we have to be wary of estimates.

The devil lives in the detail with these things (http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/Peabody%20Energy.pdf) and while I can see that coal will play a much bigger role going forward I can't see a clean, easy switch over. That being the main issue around peak oil, not the "back to the stone age" picture that some camps are promoting.

Meanz Beanz

03-06-2008, 06:37 AM

"We have the best congress money can buy" 70 years ago , and only the price has changed.

I was told that you also have the best legal system that money can buy :D

Meanz Beanz

03-06-2008, 06:44 AM

Love this quote...

The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett

Frosty

03-06-2008, 07:03 AM

Hey I heard a good one,

The arse is functional of- eerrrr-thats not right,-- eeerm--- hang on. Errr

Did you know some people can lick thier own arm pit,--I can. Try it, its easy.

Meanz Beanz

03-06-2008, 03:36 PM

Why on earth would you ....?

Thailand eh ? Where about in Thailand?

Frosty

03-06-2008, 07:19 PM

Oh, far south east of the North west bit in the middle.

If you dont lick your arm pit you will never know if you can or not. Some people can lick their elbow but this take years of training. Why should dogs have all the fun. Most animals can lick any part of thier body ,--but humans are intelligent,-- like me.

Meanz Beanz

03-06-2008, 07:30 PM

You are in Thailand right? and you are licking your arm pits? Well yeah can't say as I blame you really ! Not like there are any purdy Thia girls to get to know eh? They prolly wouldn't lick your pits anyway, not even the ones with a meter.

You licky long time?

Frosty your a multiple personality type ain't you ? an "altered" ego... no? :D

the1much

03-06-2008, 09:50 PM

i licked my toe once,,,,well,,,,,was caught once ;):P :P :D

masalai

03-06-2008, 10:22 PM

The1- you bored? still action at "A shipping container...."

Meanz Beanz

03-11-2008, 02:45 AM

Sigh...

masalai

03-11-2008, 02:50 AM

Ain't he a spoilt little girl?

Meanz Beanz

03-11-2008, 02:58 AM

I think we have "peak" thread...

charmc

03-11-2008, 11:39 PM

Mas,

Did you see his latest "Pizza delivery" effort? Sad .... very sad, because it looks a bit better than the original "serious" effort. Anyway, he showed respect for you and the1 ... named it in your honor. :D :D

Frosty

03-12-2008, 02:21 AM

Ain't he a spoilt little girl?

Im not an expert on primates although I have dated a few and drink with em frequently, yet I think im right in saying that Meanz Beanz is in actuall fact a ,,,,female.

Looking at the avatar can you see the attractive lines to the lower jaw indicating that of a female, and the long eyelashes. Why with a bit of paint and some lip stick that avatar could pass as a very pretty kiwi woman.

masalai

03-12-2008, 02:36 AM

Don't blame me I was talking about spit the dummy bobobobob who gave us all pizzas:D That is all your invention - yours to enjoy (Boy has that Frosty been in the jungles too long) .... Was it your mum/dad I nearly shot whilst patrolling the Malay/Thai border looking for Cheng Peng and his mates back in '65?

masalai

03-12-2008, 02:41 AM

Oooooh, I didn't see that edit... I am touched, what an honour:D:D:D:D:D

Frosty

03-12-2008, 02:53 AM

Well no that wouldnt be them ,why back in 1965 me Mum n Dad would be in Blighty with their 14 year old son trying to convince him that sckool was good for him.

Although the young man listened it could be seen in his eyes that he was'nt convinced and that playing with swans in the park was more fun, but guilt riddled him. Returning home at night without a single blob of ink on his hands the young man was saddened at his truantism.

Had the teachers spotted his hidden genius and taught him about stuff he wanted to learn about,-- well,--- man may have been on Mars today
and we would have already invented itricarnolous power. But allas, now the world will have to wait.

Meanz Beanz

03-12-2008, 05:39 AM

Looking at the avatar can you see the attractive lines to the lower jaw indicating that of a female, and the long eyelashes. Why with a bit of paint and some lip stick that avatar could pass as a very pretty kiwi woman.

You've been out with too many Maori drag queens, bet thats why you walk that way.

masalai

03-12-2008, 06:58 AM

Phew, Thank goodness for that "Tarzan", I am in enough **** from enemas, to worry about shooting jungle folk....

Meanz Beanz

03-12-2008, 06:10 PM

What's da matter Mas? I can't take a shot at old fart in retort? A bipolar multi personality one at that :D

This place is becoming a mine field :p

masalai

03-12-2008, 08:48 PM

Tarzan is Frosty, son of apes? I thought as he lives in the jungles with "Maori drag queen gorillas" - How do we differentiate between you two then? - I thought I was supporting your position - too many gorillas leads to confusion...

Meanz Beanz

03-12-2008, 08:55 PM

Now I am confused completely! :confused: :rolleyes:

There is only one of me... him, well I can't say.

masalai

03-12-2008, 08:58 PM

Weeell Heinz, after much research, it seems to have started at post 217 by Frosty, and from there things went "ape" so to speak...

the1much

03-12-2008, 09:02 PM

i didnt research nothing,,,,,,,now your confusing me :D

Frosty

03-12-2008, 09:05 PM

We dont have apes,--well I aint seen any,-loads of crab eating Macacs and some other little black faced bastards with long tails, I dont know what they call them. Probably 'black faced bastards' They are the ones that mastibate on the wall above the swimming pool staring at the girls in bikinis. That makes me jealous. If I did that they would call the police I suppose.
They also come into the toilet block and watch me having a crap, if they start mastibating again I fire the arse washer at them.

That shower block is getting like a jungle, I saw a spider in the sink last week, It made me scream, I had to get a Phillappine girl to get it for me.

Oh and Oh lizards Geeeez theres one that lives in the sewer pipe under the shower block , geez he must be 5 feet!

You know those stick insects( look like a stick) I saw one of those the other day on the diesel metering shed door, just near the top, it was 5 inches long. Do you know it looked just lik a bit of old twig,--it was'nt I saw it move.

the1much

03-12-2008, 09:53 PM

hahahahaha,,,,,damned frosty,,,now i dont feel alone,,,well i do, but,,,anyways,,,hehe,,in maine where im from,,we got a few little spiders,,,some small snakes,,,,FREAKS OF NATURE MISQUITTO'S big nuff to carry them monkeys away,,,,,but then i move to the "land of non-skid" and theres like spiders as big as my hand,,,rattle snakes,,,black widows,,all kinds of creepy crawlies,,,,,i was walking 1 day,,shoe string become untied,,saw that string chasing me,,,,,i screamed like bobby boiy having his first "period",,,jumped 6 feet in the air,,and was doing 80mph. before i hit the ground,,,,,,,after 1/2 mile and i stopped,,,had to look around ta see how many people see and heard me,,,,man i now know why they make "adult diapers" :(
;)

the1much

03-12-2008, 10:17 PM

hey how come these "little" countries government makes people be "green" but we "dumbas*'s that we are cant do something as simple as isrial does, and make it law that all water heaters must be "solar powered",,( and no that doesnt mean just letting the sun warm it up,,,hehe,,and have you noticed how we STRIVE to get smart enough to "not kill ourselves",,,and all these "smarts" are bringing us back to "windmill" times,,,,solar ( except now we dont need to set it in a barrel in the sun,,,,,we have panals,,),,,animal,,,,and " community" farming,,,hehehe,,,,just like it was before oil,,,,,funny as hell,,,,we think it sooooo hard to just be "simpler",,,and revert back a few years,,,heh ;)

FAST FRED

03-14-2008, 05:20 AM

Jewish World Review March 12, 2008 / 5 Adar II 5768

Big corn and ethanol hoax

By Walter Williams

Printer Friendly Version
Email this article

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | One of the many mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for oil companies to increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. President Bush said, during his 2006 State of the Union address, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." Let's look at some of the "wonders" of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline.

Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. The water content of ethanol also risks pipeline corrosion and thus must be shipped by truck, rail car or barge. These shipping methods are far more expensive than pipelines.

Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel — oil and natural gas — to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers — all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 or 12 percent.

Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn't make it in a free market. That's why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there's a double tax — one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone.

There's something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar cane and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce.

Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. The fact that the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a worldwide impact on food prices.

It's easy to understand how the public, looking for cheaper gasoline, can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the country's largest producer of ethanol. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm state congressmen into believing that it would be political suicide if they didn't support subsidized ethanol production. That's the stick. Campaign contributions play the role of the carrot.

The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there's a large benefit for them — higher wages and profits. The millions of gasoline consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uninformed and have little clout. After all, who do you think a politician will invite into his congressional or White House office to have a heart-to-heart — you or an Archer Daniels Midlands executive?

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Walter Williams Archives

© 2006, Creators Syndicate.

the1much

03-14-2008, 08:29 AM

1 acre of corn will also make enough syrup to sweeten 10,000 soda pops's
more then 75% of corn grown is for,,,,syrup. hehe ;)
<There's something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar cane and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce.>

we did that so we wont have to bow to brazilians like we do the rag-heads,,,,geesh,,,we're a first world country,,,with no money,,,and you guys are to freakin cheap to buy girl scout cookies from us,,,so tariffs are all we have,,,,,geesh,,,,help a country out,,,hehehehe ;)

masalai

03-14-2008, 12:12 PM

Just goes to show how "freakin stupid" humanity is...

NeiNastran

03-14-2008, 01:33 PM

I would like to think of myself as an environmentalist. But I also believe in market forces and economics. The biggest factor that is going to effect the switching from oil to other fuels is price. When it becomes too expensive to keep using fossil fuels, new markets will emerge to compete with fossil fuels. Bio Diesel is already alive and well in the U.S as it has become comparable in price to good old unleaded. What looks really killer is all this research into Algae as a new fuel. Apparently it produces a huge energy return compared to it's mass. Whereas corn/ethanol doesn't produce nearly enough fuel per it's mass. Anyway, check out National Geographic for more info.

FEA (http://www.nenastran.com)

charmc

03-14-2008, 01:44 PM

FEA,

Yup, far, far, better than the corporate agribusiness welfare scam foisted on us by "our" politicians and the know-nothing anti-oil tree huggers who don't know the first thing about ethanol but promote just because it's not oil (Of course, the pols aren't ours; we only vote them in. They belong to the ones who pay for them. :mad: )

Market forces are at work; ethanol can fill a role in the fuel spectrum, but there are many other ways to make it, all more efficient than the corn-based process. Some of the other plants require much less water and are not presently food sources, so are much better raw material. The algae process is just out of the lab and beginning the development stage. The future isn't too bad, if we could just get the politicians to stop interfering.

Meanz Beanz

03-14-2008, 02:24 PM

Corn based ethanol is politically inspired madness. Government should never distort free markets in such away, all it does is corrupt the situation and damage those who can offer real solutions.

Meanz Beanz

03-14-2008, 02:34 PM

That Algae driven process sounds intriguing. I wonder if it will deliver on its promise?

NeiNastran

03-14-2008, 03:19 PM

The politics goes both ways. The corn farmers are huge political force and they get subsidized by the government. I'm sure they see huge $ when government wants to push for ethanol. So I bet they are influencing the political opinion on this matter. Ethanol is probably the worst bio-fuel available in terms of harm done to the environment by farming it and the amount of waste created by all the unused material.

Meanz Beanz

03-14-2008, 03:34 PM

Not sure what you mean by "The politics goes both ways" but yes the only reason that corn is subsidized for ethanol production is the power of their lobby group, hence "Corn based ethanol is politically inspired madness". The irony is that they did it to bail the corn farmers out just when myriad other factors where swinging into favour for corn production. They didn't really need the help and will not need it going forward as demand for corn over and above ethanol is growing quite well. It was typical of the sort of bad timing you get with non market driven actions. Talk to a Mexican about it, corn being one of their staples... they have dark thoughts about the US on the matter. Brazil can make ethanol competitively, let them do it otherwise you will pay the cost indirectly through your own food bill.

the1much

03-14-2008, 03:43 PM

subsidized ???,,,some of them ONLY get money from the gov.,,to grow crap that their gonna plow under,,,,how it works is cool,,,,say i buy 100 acres,,farm it 2 years,,then hit the gov. fer that subsidy,,,and im such a bad farmer,,,i only grow 2 acres of ca-ca,,,,,,,,guess what the gov. pays me??? hehe ;)

Guest625101138

03-14-2008, 04:53 PM

..............
Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. ...........

Fred
Couldn't help but take a swipe at this...... I passed through the US last week and it is clearly a country desperately in need of more food.

Simple solution to both problems is get rid of the big trucks and big bodies that go into them. Ride bikes.

Actually Australia is a strong challenger for the fattest nation on earth - our food is generally cheaper.

Rick W.

rwatson

03-14-2008, 10:20 PM

I believe Rick and Fred have solved our energy crisis!

No more burying or burning dead obese human bodies - we will boil them down for oil (like they used to do with whales) after any re-useable organs have been removed - and run diesel engines on the product!!

I have about 2000 kilometres around my middle, I am sure.

Hey - it worked in the film 'Matrix'!!

masalai

03-14-2008, 10:45 PM

and "Soyulent Green" Who cares ablut spelling if you know you will be useful in the "afterlife" even if you don't get the invite upstairs:D:D:D

longliner45

03-16-2008, 12:27 AM

weve had enough,,,,,get readdy for the shock,,we are gonna start drilling our own oil,,,,leaving the saudies and arab emmerants behind ,they only have a few years of oil left,,,,,comes a time when enviornment gives way to nessesity,,,,mark my words,,,,,longliner

masalai

03-16-2008, 01:13 AM

WHY NOT PROCESS ALL THOSE HIGHLY FLAMMABLE BUSHES (sorry caps lock on & too lazy to fix:D:D:D) , lit to make a backburn/firebreak... the1's separator could put you both in the oil business...

Look at his post on the "turpentine" infused bushes (not "W", but he might be useful too if rendered down... rw - need them FRESH not nice when they are all smelly and rotting. . and frozen - needs too much heat th thaw then render...

rwatson

03-16-2008, 02:53 AM

A guy in scotland who worked at an abbotoir used to bring all the waste bits (offal, scraps etc) back to his house, stick them all in a home made 'generator'. As the stuff breaks down (rots) it generates a real lot of heat.
You have to have reeeealllly good neighbours though as I understand it!

the1much

03-16-2008, 09:06 AM

its called compost,,,and it can get over 200 degrees if mixed right. and LL,,we are drilling,,,everyday,, have been for 5 years that i know of (thats how long i been in the "land of non-skid),,,and i dont have the money to start drilling Mas. it takes a million dollars a week to drill,,,and well,,,my "meds" take priority hehe ;)

brian eiland

03-16-2008, 09:29 AM

Jewish World Review March 12, 2008 / 5 Adar II 5768

Big corn and ethanol hoax

By Walter Williams

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | One of the many mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for oil companies to increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. President Bush said, during his 2006 State of the Union address, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." Let's look at some of the "wonders" of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline.

Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. The water content of ethanol also risks pipeline corrosion and thus must be shipped by truck, rail car or barge. These shipping methods are far more expensive than pipelines.

Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel — oil and natural gas — to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers — all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 or 12 percent.

Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn't make it in a free market. That's why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there's a double tax — one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone.

There's something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar cane and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce.

Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. The fact that the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a worldwide impact on food prices.

It's easy to understand how the public, looking for cheaper gasoline, can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the country's largest producer of ethanol. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm state congressmen into believing that it would be political suicide if they didn't support subsidized ethanol production. That's the stick. Campaign contributions play the role of the carrot.

The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there's a large benefit for them — higher wages and profits. The millions of gasoline consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uninformed and have little clout. After all, who do you think a politician will invite into his congressional or White House office to have a heart-to-heart — you or an Archer Daniels Midlands executive?

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free.

Thanks Fred, for bringing this forum conversation back on trac. (I do wish a few of these folks would take there extraneous conversations over to the "Drivel Thread (http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17986)")

I worked for a short while in the offshore oil business in SE Asia. It can prove interesting to read about some of these world oil problems as seen from other viewpoints than the USA sources. A fellow named 'trouty' brought these to our attention once before...interesting reading

Pipelineistan, Part 1: The Rules of the Game
By Pepe Escobar
Asia Times
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA25Ag01.html

War against terrorism? Not really. Reminder: it's all about oil.

A quick look at the map is all it takes. It's no coincidence that the map of terror in the Middle East and Central Asia is practically interchangeable with the map of oil. There's Infinite Justice, Enduring Freedom - and Everlasting Profits to be made: not only by the American industrial-military complex, but especially by American and European oil giants.

Where is the realm these days of former US secretary of state James Baker, former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, former White House chief of staff John Sununu and former defense secretary and current Invisible Man Dick Cheney? They are all happily dreaming of, and working for, the establishment of Pipelineistan.

Pipelineistan is the golden future: a paradise of opportunity in the form of US$5 trillion of oil and gas in the Caspian basin and the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. In Washington's global petrostrategy, this is supposed to be the end of America's oil dependence on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). This is of course the heart of the matter in the New Great Game - compared to which the original 19th-century Great Game between czarist Russia and the British Empire was a childish tin soldier's diversion.

Afghanistan itself has some natural gas in the north of the country, near Turkmenistan. But above all it is ultra-strategic: positioned between the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia, between Turkmenistan and the avid markets of the Indian subcontinent, China and Japan. Afghanistan is at the core of Pipelineistan.

The Caspian states hold at least 200 billion barrels of oil, and Central Asia has 6.6 trillion cubic meters of natural gas just begging to be exploited. Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are two major producers: Turkmenistan is nothing less than a "gas republic". Apart from oil and gas there's copper, coal, tungsten, zinc, iron, uranium, gold.

The only export routes, for the moment, are through Russia. So most of the game consists of building alternative pipelines to Turkey and Western Europe, and to the east toward the Asian markets. India will be a key player. India, Iran, Russia and Israel are all planning to supply oil and gas to South and Southeast Asia through India.

It's enlightening to note that all countries or regions which happen to be an impediment to Pipelineistan routes towards the West have been subjected either to a direct interference or to all-out war: Chechnya, Georgia, Kurdistan, Yugoslavia and Macedonia. To the east, the key problems are the Uighurs of China's far-western Xinjiang and, until recently, Afghanistan.

More, much more than Afghanistan is involved. What's at stake is Eurasia. Zbigniew Brzezinski, stellar hawk and Jimmy Carter's former national security adviser, used to wax lyrical on Eurasia: "Seventy-five percent of the world population, most of its material riches, 60 percent of the world's GNP, 75 percent of sources of energy, and behind the US, the six most prosperous economies and the six largest military budgets." Brzezinski is on record stressing that the US would have to make sure "no other power would take possession of this geopolitical space".

The numbers are clear. According to the United States Energy Information Administration, in 2001 America imported an average of 9.1 million barrels per day - over 60 percent of its crude oil needs. In 2020, the country is projected to require almost 26 million barrels per day in imports. So Pipelineistan, in the Caucasus and in Central Asia - for the West and Japan but especially for America itself - cannot but be the strategic-military No 1 goal.

In this geostrategic grand design, the Taliban were the proverbial fly in the ointment. The Afghan War was decided long before September 11. September 11 merely precipitated events. Plans to destroy the Taliban had been the subject of international diplomatic and not-so-diplomatic discussions for months before September 11. There was a crucial meeting in Geneva in May 2001 between US State Department, Iranian, German and Italian officials, where the main topic was a strategy to topple the Taliban and replace the theocracy with a "broad-based government". The topic was raised again in full force at the Group of Eight (G-8) summit in Genoa, Italy, in July 2001 when India - an observer at the summit - also contributed its own plans.

Nor concidentally, Pipelineistan was the central topic in secret negotiations in a Berlin hotel a few days after the G-8 summit, between American, Russian, German and Pakistani officials. And Pakistani high officials, on condition of anonymity, have extensively described a plan set up by the end of July 2001 by American advisers, consisting of military strikes against the Taliban from bases in Tajikistan, to be launched before mid-October.

More recently, while most of the planet that has access to news was distracted by New Year's Eve celebrations, and only nine days after Hamid Karzai's interim government took power in Kabul, Bush II appointed his special envoy to Afghanistan. It comes as no surprise he is Afghan-American Zalmay Khalilzad - a former aide to the Californian energy giant UNOCAL. Khalilzad wasted no time in boarding the first flight to Central Asia. The Bush II team now does not even try to disguise that the whole game is about oil. The so-called brand-new American "Afghan policy" is being conducted by people intimately connected to oil industry interests in Central Asia.

In 1997, UNOCAL led an international consortium - Centgas - that reached a memorandum of understanding to build a $2 billion, 1,275-kilometer-long, 1.5-meter-wide natural-gas pipeline from Dauletabad in southern Turkmenistan to Karachi in Pakistan, via the Afghan cities of Herat and Kandahar, crossing into Pakistan near Quetta. A $600 million extension to India was also being considered. The dealings with the Taliban were facilitated by the Clinton administration and the Pakistani Inter Services Agency (ISI). But the civil war in Afghanistan would simply not go away. UNOCAL had to pull out.

American energy conglomerates, through the American Overseas Private Investment Corp (OPIC), are now resuscitating this and other projects. Already last October, the UNOCAL-led project was discussed in Islamabad between Pakistani Petroleum Minister Usman Aminuddin and American Ambassador Wendy Chamberlain. The exuberant official statement reads: "The pipeline opens up new avenues of multi-dimensional regional cooperation, particularly in view of the recent geopolitical developments in the region."

But there are practical problems with these "new avenues". Specialists at the James Baker (who else?) Institute in Texas stress that the main beneficiaries would be Turkmenistan and Afghanistan - which in itself is not a bad idea: Afghanistan would make a little money and perhaps be a little more stable. As far as the gas is concerned - liquefied and exported from Karachi - it would be too expensive compared with gas from the Middle East.

UNOCAL also has a project to build the so-called Central Asian Oil Pipeline, almost 1,700km long, linking Chardzhou in Turkmenistan to Russian's existing Siberian oil pipelines and also to the Pakistani Arabian Sea coast. This pipeline will carry 1 million barrels of oil a day from different areas of former Soviet republics, and it will run parallel to the gas pipeline route through Afghanistan.

Khalilzad is a very interesting character indeed. He was always a huge Taliban supporter. Four years ago, he wrote in the Washington Post that "the Taliban does not practice the anti-US style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran". Khalilzad only abandoned the Taliban after Bill Clinton fired 58 cruise missiles into Afghanistan in August 1998, in retaliation for the alleged involvement of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Only one day after the attack, UNOCAL put Centgas on hold - and two months later abandoned plans for the trans-Afghan pipeline.

A little more than a year ago, Khalilzad was reincarnated in print in The Washington Quarterly, now stressing his four mains reason to ged rid of the Taliban regime as soon as possible: Osama bin Laden, opium trafficking, oppression of the Afghan people and, last but not least, oil.

Afghan diaspora sources in Paris acidly comment that Khalilzad will be regarded as nothing less than a traitor by fiercely proud and independent Afghans. Born in Mazar-i-Sharif in 1951, he is part of the Afghan ruling elite. His father was an aide to King Zahir Shah. Khalilzad was studying at the notoriously conservative University of Chicago when Afghanistan was invaded by the Red Army in December 1979.

Later he became an American citizen and a special adviser to the State Department during the Reagan years. He was a strident lobbyist for more US military aid to the mujahedeen during the anti-USSR jihad - campaigning for widespread distribution of Stinger missiles.

Khalilzad was undersecretary of defense for Bush I, during the war against Iraq. After a stint at the Rand Corp think tank, he headed the Bush-Cheney transition team for the Defense Department and advised Donald Rumsfeld. But he was not rewarded with any promotions. The required Senate confirmation would raise extremely uncomfortable questions about his role as UNOCAL adviser and staunch Taliban defender. He was assigned instead to the National Security Council - no Senate confirmation required - where he reports to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Rice herself is a former oil-company consultant. During Bush I, from 1989-92, she was on the board of directors of Chevron, and was its main expert on Kazakhstan. Chevron has invested more than $20 billion in Kazakhstan alone. As for The Invisible Man, Vice President Dick Cheney, he was for five years a director of Halliburton, one of the top companies rendering service to the oil industry: present in 130 countries, 100,000 employees, turnover of almost $20 billion, a member of the Fortune 400. Cheney did a lot of business with the murderous Myanmar dictatorship, and invested heavily in Nigeria.

Both Cheney and Bush II spent an important part of their careers in Arbusto, a small company directed by Cheney. Arbusto never made money, but was handsomely supported by very wealthy Saudis. Among the shareholders there was one James Bath, very cozy with Bush I and chief money launderer for shady Gulf superstars, including one Salem bin Laden, one of the 17 brothers of Osama bin Laden.

All American secretaries of state since World War II have been connected with the oil industry - except two: one of them is Colin Powell, but in his case the president, vice president and national security adviser are all part of the oil industry anyway.

So everybody in the ruling plutocracy knows the rules of the ruthless game: Central Asia is crucial to Washington's worldwide petro-strategy. So is a "friendly" government in Afghanistan - now led by the always impeccably dressed and fluent English speaker Hamid Karzai. It does not matter that independent minds from Central Asia in exile in Europe unanimously ridicule Karzai as nothing else than a Taliban himself, and his Northern Alliance ministers as a bunch of crooks.

As for US corporate-controlled media - from TV networks to daily newspapers - they just exercise self-censorship and remain mute about all of these connections.

http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA25Ag01.html

brian eiland

03-16-2008, 09:33 AM

Pipelineistan, Part 2 - The Games Nations Play
By Pepe Escobar
Asia Times

Two months ago, the White House was deliriously happy with the official opening of the first new pipeline of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium - a joint venture including Russia, Kazakhstan, Oman, ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil and a bunch of other minor players.

This $2.65 billion pipeline links the enormous Tengiz oilfield in northwestern Kazakhstan to the Russian port of Novorossiysk on the Black Sea: from there, the sky - ie the world market - is the limit. Bush II, according to the White House, is developing "a network of multiple Caspian pipelines that also include the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, Baku-Supsa, and Baku-Novorossiyisk oil pipelines, and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline". So one of the key nodes in the American petrostrategy is composed by Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey.

The pipeline consortium for Baku-Ceyhan, led by British Petroleum, is represented by the law firm Baker & Botts. The principal attorney is none other than Texan superstar James Baker - secretary of state under Bush I and chief spokesman for the Bush II 2000 campaign when all gloves were off to shut down the Florida vote recount.

Texas-based, scandal-prone Enron, together with Amoco, Chevron, Mobil, UNOCAL and British Petroleum, were all spending billions of dollars to pump the reserves of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Baker, Scowcroft, Sununu and Cheney have all closed major deals directly and indirectly on behalf of the oil companies. But now the Enron scandal has just exploded right in the face of the oil industry - and Bush II's administration. It will be very enlightening to see what the American tradition of investigative journalism will make of all this.

Enron once had a market value of $70 billion. It filed for bankruptcy in December 2001 after admitting it ovestated its profits by almost $600 million. Paul Krugman wrote that "Enron helped Dick Cheney devise an energy plan that certainly looks as if it was written by and for the companies that advised his task force". The Enron big-time crooks - close pals of Cheney and Bush II - dwarf any Asian "crony capitalists" Americans were carping about before and after the Asian financial crisis.

There's no shortage of crooks in the oil industry. Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan have intimate relations with Israeli military intelligence. A so-called "former" Israeli intelligence agent, Yousef Maiman, president of the Mehrav Group of Israel, is nothing less than "Special Ambassador", official negotiatior and even policymaker responsible for developing the enormous energy resources of Turkmenistan.

Maiman is a citizen of the gas republic by presidential decree - signed by the Turkmenbashi himself, the fabulously megalomaniac Saparmurad Niazov, former member of the Soviet Politburo. Maiman, according to the Wall Street Journal, is actively involved in advancing the "geopolitical goals of both the US and Israel" in Central Asia. He certainly does not beat around the bush: "Controlling the transport route is controlling the product." Nobody knows where Mehrav's money comes from.

Mehrav's planned pipelines bypass both Iran and Russia. But after the conquest of Afghanistan, oil sources in Singapore say Mehrav may consider dealing with Iran. It's all to do with the importance of the Turkish market. Russia and Turkmenistan are fiercely competing to conquer the Turkish gas market. Considering the strategic relationship between Turkey and Israel, the Israeli game remains preventing Turkish strategic dependence on Iran. Turkey is a NATO member and a key US ally. The US and Britain routinely strike against Iraq from Turkish bases - from which they patrol the unillateraly-declared Iraqi "no-fly zones". These "no-fly zones" are obviously not sanctioned by the UN.

Mehrav is also involved in a murderous project to reduce the flow of water to Iraq by diverting water from the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers to southeastern Turkey. And Magal Security Systems, an Israeli company, is also involved with Turkey: it will provide security for the 2,000 km-long oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.

Crook-infested Enron - the biggest donor to the Bush campaign of 2000 - was ubiquitious: it conducted the feasibility study for the $2.5 billion trans-Caspian pipeline being built under a joint venture signed almost three years ago between Turkmenistan and Bechtel and General Electric. The go-between in the deal was none other than the Mehrav Group. Chairman Maiman spent a fortune hiring the Washington lobbying firm Cassidy and Associates to seduce official Washington with the trans-Caspian pipeline project.

The intrincate relationship between Israel, Turkey and the US means that as much as the trans-Caspian pipeline, the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline is also absolutely crucial. It could be extended to bring oil directly to thirsty Israel. During the Clinton years, oil giants were under tremendous pressure to build East-West pipelines. But all of them preferred to build North-South pipelines - much cheaper, but with the inconvenience of crossing Iran, an absolute anathema for Washington.

Russia already has a contract with Turkmenistan to purchase 30 billion cubic meters of gas a year. This represents a big blow to the US field of dreams, the trans-Caspian gas pipeline. This also means that Russia will never let go of its sphere of influence without a tremendous fight. The Central Asian republics are on its borders, Russia has dominated them for centuries and they are home to millions of Russians. Russian is still the language they all use to do business with each other.

Thanks to master political chess player Vladimir Putin, Russia is now on the cosiest terms possible with Washington - and US-Iran antipathy is apparently receding. Russia may eventually become a partner in at least some of Washington's petrostrategy games in Central Asia - like the Caspian Pipeline Consortium. The regional map also reveals that Iran, besides holding important gas reserves, offers the best direct access from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf, where oil and gas can be quickly exported to Asian markets.

Iran assumes, not entirely without reason, that it is the rightful guardian of Central Asia because of centuries of ethnic, historical, linguistic and religious ties. And Iran is very conscious that American military links and now physical presence in Central Asia are part of a strategy to encircle it. But even amid so many geopolitical and ideological pitfalls, the fact remains that as long as the US is militarily involved in Afghanistan, there will be some sort of US-Iranian diplomatic engagement.

Under the control of the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), pipelines from Central Asia will also reach China's Xinjiang. Oil sources in Singapore stress that this will certainly spell a slump for the sea routes across the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. Washington is more than aware through its think tanks of the consequences: an extremely likely strategic realignment between China, Japan and Korea.

The Chinese have their sights on only one terrifying prospect: the encirclement of China by the US. UNOCAL is dreaming about profits. Washington is thinking about the robust Chinese economy. Whatever "war against terror" distractions, China remains the key strategic competitor to the US in the 21st century. With Afghanistan in the bag, UNOCAL dreams of monster profits in the Asian market - much higher than in Europe - while Washington closely monitors the Chinese economy: growth of 8 percent in 2000, 7 percent in 2001, and needing all the oil and gas it can get. Chinese strategists are working around the clock to develop local forms of energy production.

What happens next will be closely linked to the deliberations of the Shanghai Five, now Shanghai Six, or more burocratically, the Shangahi Cooperation Organization (SCO): China and Russia, plus four Central Asian republics (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Takijistan and Uzbekistan). Manouvering with extreme care, China is using the SCO to align Russia economically and politically towards China and northeast Asia. At the same time, Russia is using the SCO to maintain its traditional hegemony in Central Asia. The name of the game for solidifying the alliance is Russian export of its enormous reserves of oil and gas.

Since the NATO war against Yugoslavia and the de facto occupation of Kosovo - where America built its largest military base since the Vietnam War - China and Russia have their minds set on Chechnya and Muslim Xinjiang. For the moment, at least, America has absolutely no way of interfering in these domestic problems, since China and especially Russia are endorsing the war against terrorism.

The Taliban were never a target in the "war against terrorism". They were just a scapegoat - rather, a horde of medieval warrior scapegoats who simply did not fulfill their contract: to insert Aghanistan into Pipelineistan. All the regional players now know America is in Central Asia to stay, as Washington itself has been stridently repeating these last few weeks, and it will be influencing or disturbing the economy and geopolitics of the region. The wider world is absolutely oblivious to these real stakes in the New Great Game.

The US at the time of the Gulf War did not show any interest in replacing "Satan" Hussein. That would seriously compromise the American design to establish bases on the Arabian peninsula on the convenient pretext of helping poor Arab sheikhs against the Iraqi Evil Monster. More than a decade later, Satan Hussein is still there, Bush I is now Bush II, and assorted Pentagon hawks are still fuming, trying to fabricate any excuse to blow Saddam back to Mesopotamian ashes. But Saddam will not be attacked, because Saddam is the ultimate reason for American military bases in the Gulf - a splendid affair because on top of it all it is a free ride, the expenses being paid by the ultra-flush sheikdoms. Now, after the (also unfinished) New Afghan War, American forces are already establishing themselves in Central and South Asia to once again "protect the interests of the free world".

It is never enough to remember that after the end of the communist regime in Afghanistan, the American strategy was to deliberately let Islamic extremism go wild - a perfect way to scare the unstable regimes in the Central Asian neo-republics. Islamic fundamentalism has always been a key card in the American strategic design since the Cold War days when the CIA subcontracted to the Pakistani ISI the arm-them-to-their-teeth policy regarding the mujahideen. It is always easy to forget that the good-guys-turned-bad-guys were once were hailed by Ronnie Reagan himself at the Oval Office as "the moral equivalent of the founding fathers". America has been trying hard to "get" Afghanistan - the heart of Asia in Antiquity, the Pipelineistan crossroads of Asia nowadays - for more than 20 years. In the process, the mujahideen transformed Afghanistan, with CIA blessing, into the world's leading producer of heroin, opening the crucial and ultra-profitable drug pipeline Afghanistan-Turkey-Balkans-Western Europe. More than a martini, oil-arms-drugs is the classic CIA cocktail. This "Drugistan" road has just been spetacularly reopened after the fall of the Taliban.

Pipelineistan is not an end in itself. Oil and gas by themselves are not the US's ultimate aim. It's all about control. In Monopoly, Belgian writer Michel Collon wrote: "If you want to rule the world, you need to control oil. All the oil. Anywhere." If the US controls the sources of energy of its rivals - Europe, Japan, China and other nations aspiring to be more independent - they win. This explains why pipelines from the Caucasus to the West have to be America-friendly - ie Turkish or Macedonian - and not "unreliable", meaning Russian-controled. Washington, always, has to control everything: that's what Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger always said. The same goes for the military bases in Saudi Arabia, and now in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

There's no business like war business. Thanks to war against Iraq, the US has its military bases in the Persian Gulf. Thanks to war against Yugoslavia, the US has its military bases in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia. Thanks to war against the Taliban, the US is now in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Not to mention the base in Incirlik, Turkey. The US is also in the Caucasus - in Georgia and Azerbaijan. Iran, China and Russia are practically encircled. There's no business like show business. Raise the curtains. Enter Pipelineistan. (Applause).

http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA26Ag01.html (http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA25Ag01.html)

the1much

03-16-2008, 11:17 AM

hehe another "i cant believe they said something off topic" dudes,,,and apparently doesnt read or write the same way people have conversations.
i thought forums where "conversations" carried out by typing,,,am i off topic again?
isnt it off topic for your first sentence to be about off tpoic?,,,im just confusing myself now,,hehe ;)
and i'd like to read brians post,,,but theres too much cut-n-pasting,,maybe should have just gave the link to the page ;)

View Full Version : "CRUDE" oil, an absolute must see program !!!

Legal • Boat Design Forums • Gallery • Directory • Boat Design & Boatbuilding Bookstore • Powerboat Ads • Sailboat Ads
powered by vBulletin which is copyright ©2000-2012 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Web Site Design and Content Copyright ©1999-2012 Boat Design Net