Peak Oil Is A Corrupt Globalist Scam
Hurt
Kind of.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/economy/peak_oil_globalist_scam.htm
Peak Oil is a Corrupt Globalist Scam
Infowars Network | October 04 2005
By Steve Watson, Alex Jones & Paul Watson
They make the profits on creating artificial scarcity.
"Peak oil" is pure military-industrial-complex propaganda.
Publicly available CFR and Club of Rome strategy manuals from 30 years
ago say that a global government needs to control the world population
through neo-feudalism by creating artificial scarcity. Now that the
social architects have de-industrialized the United States, they are
going to blame our economic disintegration on lack of energy supplies.
Globalization is all about consolidation. Now that the world economy
has become so centralized through the Globalists operations, they are
going to continue to consolidate and blame it on the West's "evil"
overconsumption of fossil fuels, while at the same time blocking the
development and integration of renewable clean technologies.
In other words, Peak oil is a scam to create artificial scarcity and
drive prices up. Meanwhile, alternative fuel technologies which have
been around for decades are intentionally suppressed.
This year in particular we have seen a strong hike in oil prices and
are being told to simply get used to it because this is the way it is
going to be. In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita gas prices have
shot up amid claims of vast energy shortages. Americans are being asked
to turn off lights, change thermostat settings, drive slower, insulate
homes and take other steps. Meanwhile the oil companies continue to
make record profits.
Even The New York Times pointed out that the recent "energy crisis"
seems to be purely tactical:
"To Mr. Bush's critics, the call for conservation smacked of
showmanship, or of shutting the garage door after the S.U.V. had been
stolen. After all, the president has spent the past weeks dropping into
the hurricane region from the fuel-guzzling Air Force One, which the
Air Force estimates costs $40,000 an hour to fly."
Flying in the face of the so called peak oil crisis are the facts. If
we are running out of oil so quickly then why are reserves being
continually increased and production skyrocketing?
in the 1980s OPEC decided to switch to a quota production system based
on the size of reserves. The larger the reserves a country said it had
the more it could pump.
Earlier this year Saudi Arabia reportedly increased its crude reserves
by around 200 billion barrels. Saudi Oil Is Secure and Plentiful, Say
Officials.
"These huge reserves enable the Kingdom to remain a major oil
producer for between 70 and 100 years, even if it raises its production
capacity to 15 million barrels per day, which may well happen during
the next 15 years,"
Is this the normal course of behaviour if we are currently at the peak
for oil production? The answer is no, it's the normal course of action
for increasing production.
There have also been reports that Russia has vastly increased its
reserves even beyond those of Saudi Arabia. Why would they do this if
they believed there would be no more oil to get hold of? It seems clear
that Russia is ready for unlimited future production of oil.
There is a clear contradiction between the peak oil theory and the
continual increase in oil reserves and production.
New untapped oil sources are being discovered everywhere on earth. The
notion that there are somehow only a few sources that the West is
trying to monopolize is a complete myth, promulgated by those raking in
the massive profits. After all how do you make huge profits from
something available in abundance?
A Wall Street Journal Article by Peter Huber and Mark Mills describes
how the price of oil remains high because the cost of oil remains so
low. We are not dependent on the middle east for oil because the
world's supplies are diminishing, it is because it is more profitable
to tap middle east supplies. Thus the myth of peak oil is needed in
order to silence the call for tapping the planet's other plentiful
reserves.
Richard Branson has even stated his intention to set up his own
refinery because the price of oil is artificially being kept high
whilst new sources are not being explored and new refineries not being
built.
"Opec is effectively an illegal cartel that can meet happily, nobody
takes them to court," Branson has said. "They collude to keep prices
high."
So if more refineries were built and different resources tapped, the
oil prices would come down and the illegal cartel OPEC would see
profits diminish. It is no wonder then that the argument for peak oil
is so appealing to OPEC. If no one invests to build refineries because
they don't believe there is enough oil, then who benefits? OPEC and the
oil elites of course.
It seems that every time there is some kind of energy crisis, OPEC
INCREASES production. The remarkable thing about this is that they
always state that they are doing it to ease prices, yet prices always
shoot up because they promulgate the myth that they are putting some of
their last reserves into the market. Analysts seem confused and always
state that they don't believe upping production will cut prices.
In a recent report the International Monetary Fund projected that
global demand for oil by 2030 would reach 139 million barrels a day, a
65 percent increase.
"We should expect to live with high and volatile oil prices," said
Raghuram Rajan, the IMF's chief economist. "In short, it's going to be
a rocky road going forward."
Yet independent analysts and even some within OPEC seem to believe that
the demand for oil is diminishing. Why the contradiction?
The peak oil and demand myth is peddled by the establishment-run fake
left activist groups, OPEC and globalist arms such as the IMF.
Rolling Stone magazine even carried an article in its April issue
heavily biased towards making people believe the peak oil lie.
The Scientific evidence also flies in the face of the peak oil theory.
Scientific research dating back over a hundred years, more recently
updated in a Scientific Paper Published In 'Energia' suggests that oil
is abiotic, not the product of long decayed biological matter. Oil, for
better or for worse, is not a non-renewable resource. It, like coal,
and natural gas, replenishes from sources within the mantle of earth.
No coincidence then that the Russians, who pioneered this research have
pumped expenditure into deep underground oil excavation.
We have previously scientifically exposed the scam behind peak oil.
Here is a 1 hour+ audio clip featuring Alex Jones' comments on peak oil
and then the analysis of respected scientific commentator Dr. Nick
Begich who presents evidence to suggest the idea of Peak oil is
artificial.
A dangerous fallout precedent being set is that people on both the left
and right believe wars are being fought in order to tap the last
reserves of oil on the planet. The "coalition of the willing", whoever
they may be for any given war, will not pay particular attention to
refuting this claim because it allows them a reason to start and
continue said war.
Even though many will see it as immoral, many will subconsciously
attach it as a reason for the war. In reality the war is purely for
profit, power and control, oil can be a part of that, but only if the
peak oil claim is upheld.
If we continue to let the corrupt elite tell us we are wholly dependent
on oil, we may reach a twisted situation whereby they can justify
starvation and mass global poverty, perhaps even depopulation, even
within the western world due to the fact that our energy supplies are
finished.
Peak oil is just another weapon the globalists have in their arsenal to
move towards a new world order where the elite get richer and everyone
else falls into line
Dan Bloomquist
Hurt wrote:
> Kind of.
>
>
> http://www.infowars.com/articles/economy/peak_oil_globalist_scam.htm
>
> Peak Oil is a Corrupt Globalist Scam
>
> Infowars Network...
Who is Alex Jones? Does he have an agenda?
http://www.infowars.com/
| October 04 2005
> By Steve Watson, Alex Jones & Paul Watson
>
> They make the profits on creating artificial scarcity.
Claim?
> "Peak oil" is pure military-industrial-complex propaganda.
Claim?
> Publicly available CFR and Club of Rome strategy manuals from 30 years
> ago say that a global government needs to control the world population
> through neo-feudalism by creating artificial scarcity. Now that the
> social architects have de-industrialized the United States, they are
> going to blame our economic disintegration on lack of energy supplies.
Quite different from what I read. Oh sure, the CFR has known about peak
oil for 30 years but that is not the same as, 'government needs to
control...' Or is it?
> Globalization is all about consolidation. Now that the world economy
> has become so centralized through the Globalists operations, they are
> going to continue to consolidate and blame it on the West's "evil"
> overconsumption of fossil fuels, while at the same time blocking the
> development and integration of renewable clean technologies.
Shades of rant. 'Renewable clean technologies...' At least the folks on
the sci. groups knows what cost is all about. Cost is the stumbling
block, not the 'conspirators'.
> In other words, Peak oil is a scam to create artificial scarcity and
> drive prices up. Meanwhile, alternative fuel technologies which have
> been around for decades are intentionally suppressed.
Alternatives are neglected. Cost, cost, cost. A U.S. GDP a year is
required to liquefy 4mbl/d of coal.
> This year in particular we have seen a strong hike in oil prices and
> are being told to simply get used to it because this is the way it is
> going to be. In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita gas prices have
> shot up amid claims of vast energy shortages.
Wow there cowboy. Lack of refinery capacity is real.
> Americans are being asked
> to turn off lights, change thermostat settings, drive slower, insulate
> homes and take other steps. Meanwhile the oil companies continue to
> make record profits.
Yes they do. So?...
> Even The New York Times pointed out that the recent "energy crisis"
> seems to be purely tactical:
>
> "To Mr. Bush's critics, the call for conservation smacked of
> showmanship, or of shutting the garage door after the S.U.V. had been
> stolen. After all, the president has spent the past weeks dropping into
> the hurricane region from the fuel-guzzling Air Force One, which the
> Air Force estimates costs $40,000 an hour to fly."
Yep, stupid stuff. But does A mean B?
> Flying in the face of the so called peak oil crisis are the facts. If
> we are running out of oil so quickly then why are reserves being
> continually increased and production skyrocketing?
What? Now that is a dumb insupportable claim. Production was swung in,
the capacity was already there.
> in the 1980s OPEC decided to switch to a quota production system based
> on the size of reserves. The larger the reserves a country said it had
> the more it could pump.
Duhhhh.
> Earlier this year Saudi Arabia reportedly increased its crude reserves
> by around 200 billion barrels. Saudi Oil Is Secure and Plentiful, Say
> Officials.
If they say it often enough it becomes truth?
> "These huge reserves enable the Kingdom to remain a major oil
> producer for between 70 and 100 years, even if it raises its production
> capacity to 15 million barrels per day, which may well happen during
> the next 15 years,"
More of the same....
> Is this the normal course of behaviour if we are currently at the peak
> for oil production? The answer is no, it's the normal course of action
> for increasing production.
The Saudi's say it so it must be true???
> There have also been reports that Russia has vastly increased its
> reserves even beyond those of Saudi Arabia. Why would they do this if
> they believed there would be no more oil to get hold of? It seems clear
> that Russia is ready for unlimited future production of oil.
Really!? Then why didn't they save their own butts rather than fall into
decline?
> There is a clear contradiction between the peak oil theory and the
> continual increase in oil reserves and production.
Still haven't seen numbers that back this claim.
> New untapped oil sources are being discovered everywhere on earth. The
> notion that there are somehow only a few sources that the West is
> trying to monopolize is a complete myth, promulgated by those raking in
> the massive profits. After all how do you make huge profits from
> something available in abundance?
Crank alert. A means B therefor it is true?
> A Wall Street Journal Article by Peter Huber and Mark Mills describes
> how the price of oil remains high because the cost of oil remains so
> low. We are not dependent on the middle east for oil because the
> world's supplies are diminishing, it is because it is more profitable
> to tap middle east supplies. Thus the myth of peak oil is needed in
> order to silence the call for tapping the planet's other plentiful
> reserves.
Where are these reserves?
> Richard Branson has even stated his intention to set up his own
> refinery because the price of oil is artificially being kept high
> whilst new sources are not being explored and new refineries not being
> built.
Wait a minute. Is this about refinery capacity or oil production
capacity? Do these guys know what they are talking about?
> "Opec is effectively an illegal cartel that can meet happily, nobody
> takes them to court," Branson has said. "They collude to keep prices
> high."
Who's 'law' are we referring to?
> So if more refineries were built and different resources tapped, the
> oil prices would come down and the illegal cartel OPEC would see
> profits diminish. It is no wonder then that the argument for peak oil
> is so appealing to OPEC. If no one invests to build refineries because
> they don't believe there is enough oil, then who benefits? OPEC and the
> oil elites of course.
Now it is a convoluted A means B.
> It seems that every time there is some kind of energy crisis, OPEC
> INCREASES production. The remarkable thing about this is that they
> always state that they are doing it to ease prices, yet prices always
> shoot up because they promulgate the myth that they are putting some of
> their last reserves into the market.
Jeee. Another stupid claim. Show us the record.
> Analysts seem confused and always
> state that they don't believe upping production will cut prices.
??? (dumb)
> In a recent report the International Monetary Fund projected that
> global demand for oil by 2030 would reach 139 million barrels a day, a
> 65 percent increase.
>
> "We should expect to live with high and volatile oil prices," said
> Raghuram Rajan, the IMF's chief economist. "In short, it's going to be
> a rocky road going forward."
Damn. I need some boots.
> Yet independent analysts and even some within OPEC seem to believe that
> the demand for oil is diminishing. Why the contradiction?
???? (boots)
> The peak oil and demand myth is peddled by the establishment-run fake
> left activist groups, OPEC and globalist arms such as the IMF.
I don't think boots are enough for this BS.
> Rolling Stone magazine even carried an article in its April issue
> heavily biased towards making people believe the peak oil lie.
>
> The Scientific evidence also flies in the face of the peak oil theory.
> Scientific research dating back over a hundred years, more recently
> updated in a Scientific Paper Published In 'Energia' suggests that oil
> is abiotic, not the product of long decayed biological matter...
So all those production numbers for the last 100 years are lies? What a
bunch of BS.
> Oil, for
> better or for worse, is not a non-renewable resource. It, like coal,
> and natural gas, replenishes from sources within the mantle of earth.
Unsupported claim.
> No coincidence then that the Russians, who pioneered this research have
> pumped expenditure into deep underground oil excavation.
Cite?
> We have previously scientifically exposed the scam behind peak oil.
BAWHAWHAWHAWHAW!
> Here is a 1 hour+ audio clip featuring Alex Jones' comments on peak oil
> and then the analysis of respected scientific commentator Dr. Nick
> Begich who presents evidence to suggest the idea of Peak oil is
> artificial.
Don't waste my time.
> A dangerous fallout precedent being set is that people on both the left
> and right believe wars are being fought in order to tap the last
> reserves of oil on the planet. The "coalition of the willing", whoever
> they may be for any given war, will not pay particular attention to
> refuting this claim because it allows them a reason to start and
> continue said war.
Where are the numbers?
> Even though many will see it as immoral, many will subconsciously
> attach it as a reason for the war. In reality the war is purely for
> profit, power and control, oil can be a part of that, but only if the
> peak oil claim is upheld.
Oh, there may be war. But because of the have nots. Why doesn't
Indonesia just increase production if the above claims are true?
> If we continue to let the corrupt elite tell us we are wholly dependent
> on oil, we may reach a twisted situation whereby they can justify
> starvation and mass global poverty, perhaps even depopulation, even
> within the western world due to the fact that our energy supplies are
> finished.
Oh brother...
> Peak oil is just another weapon the globalists have in their arsenal to
> move towards a new world order where the elite get richer and everyone
> else falls into line
I see. Let 'them' start WWIII and profit from obliterating the planet.
Do you see how stupid this sounds?
Best, Dan.
Art
Amen.
---
Art
Art
Amen.
---
Art
dre
> Kind of.
>
>
> http://www.infowars.com/articles/economy/peak_oil_globalist_scam.htm
>
> Peak Oil is a Corrupt Globalist Scam
sooo,why so late ????
why not 100 ears ago!!??
or 20???
now suddenly they want a bigger piece?
get real...
Roland Mösl
And the moon is made from green cheese
and You wirte laters to Santa Claus
Be happy, that oil becomes more expensive
cheap oil causes only cheap plunder technic
--
Roland Mösl
http://car.pege.org cars and traffic
http://live.pege.org building and live
http://www.pege.org
Roland Mösl
You shure are searching counter strategies.
When US reduces oil usage by 80%,
You will see oil prices drop below $30
The US has only to change to renewable energy
and abandon cheap energy wasting plunder technic.
Jan Rasmussen
> http://www.infowars.com/articles/economy/peak_oil_globalist_scam.htm
>
> Peak Oil is a Corrupt Globalist Scam
>
Well this about ties it up in a bow. "Oil production in 2007 will be 2m
barrels a day less than expected." This is crunch time.
We will all know if Peak Oil is real or not within three to four months.
And if, by some miracle, the United States recovers from hurricanes
Katrina and Rita then I will be the first to admit that all of us have had
our legs pulled by the most ornate and elaborate disinformation scheme
in human history; a scheme so detailed and masterfully orchestrated
that it controlled hundreds of databases, hundreds of press outlets,
every stock market and even involved a willing loss of wealth by the
world's richest one per cent. The latter is something I have never heard of before.
It might be possible that The Powers That Be want to scare us now about a peak
that may be three to five years off - but I doubt it. They just haven't been executing
things very well lately, have they? Even the market reports are schizophrenic,
dishonest and misleading to say the least.
The Oil Depletion Analysis Centre (ODAC) in the UK precisely detailed
for us some months ago, after an evaluation of projects slated to come online,
that absolute numeric shortages of oil were a certainty by 2007. The story below is
intended to suggest that all was well until the hurricanes screwed up the program;
without them, we're told, production would have been enough to meet demand for
the time being. But it seems to me that what we are seeing here is another book-cooking
episode where what was promised to keep share prices up was nothing more than
an accountant's flimflam. - MCR
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/092905_world_stories.shtml
Hurt
> When US reduces oil usage by 80%,
> You will see oil prices drop below $30
80%? Probably not for a long time. And it will drop, REGRETTABLY.
Hope "we" don't have to drop a few nukes in the Middle East to keep the
price from going that low. Folks, help save lives, stop driving around
aimlessly wasting gas.
andré
> http://www.infowars.com/articles/economy/peak_oil_globalist_scam.htm
>
> Peak Oil is a Corrupt Globalist Scam
>
I agree completely. Of course peak oil is a complete scam. Oil is
abiotic. There are enormous quantities in the earth mantle, and
everywhere on earth.
Dan Bloomquist
andré wrote:
>
> I agree completely. Of course peak oil is a complete scam. Oil is
> abiotic. There are enormous quantities in the earth mantle, and
> everywhere on earth.
Oh please...
Show the reserve study.
Best, Dan.
Roland Mösl
news:1128552600....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > When US reduces oil usage by 80%,
> > You will see oil prices drop below $30
>
> 80%? Probably not for a long time. And it will drop, REGRETTABLY.
> Hope "we" don't have to drop a few nukes in the Middle East to keep the
> price from going that low.
Income tax
VAT
basic social security
Imagine all this taxes vanish, all replaced by a tax on fossile fuel.
So it's no problem when oil goes down to $30,
when all the major taxes are abolished,
and replaced by a fossile energy tax.
> Folks, help save lives, stop driving around
> aimlessly wasting gas.
It will be no problem with rechargebale hybrids.
Sun delivers enough fuel - electric power
Hurricane Guy
1. Hurt Oct 4, 6:23 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy, sci.energy, alt.energy.renewable,
alt.politics
From: "Hurt" <hurt_beyond_rep...@yahoo.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: 4 Oct 2005 18:23:55 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 4 2005 6:23 pm
Subject: Peak Oil Is A Corrupt Globalist Scam
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Kind of.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/economy/peak_oil_globalist_scam.htm
Peak Oil is a Corrupt Globalist Scam
Infowars Network | October 04 2005
By Steve Watson, Alex Jones & Paul Watson
They make the profits on creating artificial scarcity.
"Peak oil" is pure military-industrial-complex propaganda.
_______________________________________________________________
I can't agree more with the author(s). I have no time to respond now
but the author is right on.
What we are seeing is the results of "The Bush 41 New World Order &
Global Governance" which is alive and well today.
Our only choice is to completely get away from fossil fuel and go to
Green Fuel and leave the Automobile and Oil Cartels in our exhaust and
in our rear view mirrors never to let them get into power again.
Turn the pumps directly over to the farmer. From the field direct to
the pump! Leave out the Cartels.
It is not the people's fault, we need pull our own Soldiers back home
and begin fighting for our own democracy and freedom if we want any
left.
You notice there is no big rush of people running to Saudi, Iraq or any
of those countries. They sneak in over here and use our fuel and we are
asked to conserve!
How about conserving by truning in all suspected aliens, that will save
a bunch of gas for those who honestly believe "Saving Gas is the
Solution"
Maybe a good Homeland Security Department will also save all the gas we
need until we can switch to green fuel.
Maximust
So, I take it you're shorting Light Sweet Crude on NYMEX and making a killing
doing it?
Hurt
> Income tax
> VAT
> basic social security
>
> Imagine all this taxes vanish, all replaced by a tax on fossile fuel.
Oil does not come from dead dinosaurs. But yeah, get rid of all those
nasty taxes and switch to broad based commodity taxes; basically. Use
less, pay less. Produce more, earn more. Sounds fair, doesn't it?
Remember, and this is really simple, and true, really, anything you tax
you will get less of. Tax income, you get less income. Tax value, you
get less value. Tax for social security, and you get less security.
If you're being honest. If you're in on the ponzi scheme you'll do
better to tax those things. But don't let the ignorant know.
> So it's no problem when oil goes down to $30,
Yes, for US it would be a problem. This is not a single issue. Oil
backs, as in IT IS, "our" money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
http://www.energybulletin.net/6118.html
> It will be no problem with rechargebale hybrids.
Hybrids are no panacea. They are marginally better when you consider
the potential disposal costs. Off peak (nuclear) rechargeable, turbo
biodiesel, hybrid, would be much better.
Hurt
> Show the reserve study.
Note why Venezuela is so important.
http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/
The "unconventional" oil reserve of South America is the Venezuelan
Orinoco heavy oil belt with one to four trillion (with a "T") barrels
of oil.
News
"Hurt" <hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128629111....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Income tax
> > VAT
> > basic social security
> >
> > Imagine all this taxes vanish, all replaced by a tax on fossile fuel.
>
> Oil does not come from dead dinosaurs. But yeah, get rid of all those
> nasty taxes and switch to broad based commodity taxes; basically. Use
> less, pay less. Produce more, earn more. Sounds fair, doesn't it?
> Remember, and this is really simple, and true, really, anything you tax
> you will get less of. Tax income, you get less income. Tax value, you
> get less value. Tax for social security, and you get less security.
> If you're being honest. If you're in on the ponzi scheme you'll do
> better to tax those things. But don't let the ignorant know.
Look At Land Value Tax (LVT) and the teachings of Henry George.
> > So it's no problem when oil goes down to $30,
>
> Yes, for US it would be a problem. This is not a single issue. Oil
> backs, as in IT IS, "our" money.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
> http://www.energybulletin.net/6118.html
>
> > It will be no problem with rechargebale hybrids.
>
> Hybrids are no panacea.
They certainly clean up towns and cities, which have millions of lungs
exposed to unnecessary toxic fumes.
> They are marginally better when you consider
> the potential disposal costs. Off peak (nuclear) rechargeable, turbo
> biodiesel, hybrid, would be much better.
Nuclear? Not another one.
Hurt
> Look At Land Value Tax (LVT) and the teachings of Henry George.
And where do all commodities come from if not land; and water.
> They certainly clean up towns and cities, which have millions of lungs
> exposed to unnecessary toxic fumes.
Agreed. And noise. But one city's toxic fumes could be somebody's
landfill problem. Just putting it up for discussion.
> Nuclear? Not another one.
Sure, why not. Despite the scare tactics nuclear power has been
quietly humming away for several decades supplying about 20% of our
electricity. In France almost 80%.
Arnold Walker
"News" <Nos...@here.com> wrote in message
news:43459a63$0$2861$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
>
> "Hurt" <hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1128629111....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Income tax
> > > VAT
> > > basic social security
> > >
> > > Imagine all this taxes vanish, all replaced by a tax on fossile fuel.
> >
> > Oil does not come from dead dinosaurs. But yeah, get rid of all those
> > nasty taxes and switch to broad based commodity taxes; basically. Use
> > less, pay less. Produce more, earn more. Sounds fair, doesn't it?
> > Remember, and this is really simple, and true, really, anything you tax
> > you will get less of. Tax income, you get less income. Tax value, you
> > get less value. Tax for social security, and you get less security.
> > If you're being honest. If you're in on the ponzi scheme you'll do
> > better to tax those things. But don't let the ignorant know.
And you see the reason SSI wasn't made like a retirement pension or 401K.
Income Tax was just getting written into being legal and like many states
with lottery tickets.
SSI was a carrot...at a time when income tax would be voted down in voting
poll.
Part of the reason for resistance to flat tax or converting SSI to something
akin to a 401K.
Hell...during the 60's the US charged a third tax called surtax on top of
the income tax.
Some will argue that the surtax is back as a windfall tax.
>
> Look At Land Value Tax (LVT) and the teachings of Henry George.
>
> > > So it's no problem when oil goes down to $30,
> >
> > Yes, for US it would be a problem. This is not a single issue. Oil
> > backs, as in IT IS, "our" money.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
> > http://www.energybulletin.net/6118.html
> >
> > > It will be no problem with rechargebale hybrids.
> >
> > Hybrids are no panacea.
>
> They certainly clean up towns and cities, which have millions of lungs
> exposed to unnecessary toxic fumes.
>
> > They are marginally better when you consider
> > the potential disposal costs. Off peak (nuclear) rechargeable, turbo
> > biodiesel, hybrid, would be much better.
>
> Nuclear? Not another one.
>
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
News
>
> > Look At Land Value Tax (LVT) and the teachings of Henry George.
>
> And where do all commodities come from if not land; and water.
Look at and "understand" LVT. Google "Henry George", Georgism, LVT.
> > They certainly clean up towns and cities, which have millions of lungs
> > exposed to unnecessary toxic fumes.
>
> Agreed. And noise. But one city's toxic fumes could be somebody's
> landfill problem. Just putting it up for discussion.
Solve the problem at a local level and it cascades up.
> > Nuclear? Not another one.
>
> Sure, why not. Despite the scare tactics nuclear power has been
> quietly humming away for several decades supplying about 20% of our
> electricity. In France almost 80%.
They export the stuff to the UK too. They put their nuclear stations on the
Channel coast, so when they go belly up we get it too. Nuclear is a joke.
It is unnecessary. More efficiency and a reduction in energy usage is
needed. Not rocket science you common and sense and political will.
Hurt
"Jane, you ignorant slut."
--SNL
> > And where do all commodities come from if not land; and water.
>
> Look at and "understand" LVT. Google "Henry George", Georgism, LVT.
Just as I figured, not a lot to understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
I can give you very valuable land and you could do absolutely nothing
with it to benefit yourself or anybody else. History is replete with
such examples. Do you understand?
> Solve the problem at a local level and it cascades up.
Right. Just tap your magic shoes three times. Solve the problem and
the problem is solved. Absolutely. The economies of scale we are
dealing with are much more global, and therefore the problems are
global.
mike wilcox
No they're not global, low energy using countries & Cultures will get by
as they always have, first world nations will suffer the most. Each
community has its own + and - energy situation and will have to
determine what theirs is. In my area energy from garbage ( garbage to
fuel), hydro and wind are under utilized. In the future they will play a
larger part of the energy picture.
News
>
> "Jane, you ignorant slut."
> --SNL
>
>
> > > And where do all commodities come from if not land; and water.
> >
> > Look at and "understand" LVT. Google "Henry George", Georgism, LVT.
>
> Just as I figured, not a lot to understand.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
Poor definition.
> I can give you very valuable land and you could do absolutely nothing
> with it to benefit yourself or anybody else. History is replete with
> such examples.
LVT is a tax on the "value" of land, and land only, not the bricks on it.
No other tax, only Land Value Tax.
Income tax taxes your Labour, which is ludicrous.
> Do you understand?
It is you lacking understanding.
> > Solve the problem at a local level and it cascades up.
>
> Right. Just tap your magic shoes three times. Solve the problem and
> the problem is solved. Absolutely. The economies of scale we are
> dealing with are much more global, and therefore the problems are
> global.
Again you lack understanding. Think of...
Combined Heat & Power is easy to do on a district and individual level.
High efficiency domestic appliance implemation. Superinsulation standards
on buildings. Making buildings air-tight. Passive solar building
construction. Town planning to reduce vehicle usage. All many ways at
eating away at the problem if implemented. We don't need any nukes.
Hurt
> > with it to benefit yourself or anybody else. History is replete with
> > such examples.
>
> LVT is a tax on the "value" of land, and land only, not the bricks on it.
> No other tax, only Land Value Tax.
Yes, but what determines the value of land? Its mineral resources,
which are commodities. Its fertility to grow and raise commodity
foods. Its water availability. Its beauty, a public access commodity.
But the land will not produce any of that value by itself. It is the
use of the land which generates the value.
Bill Ward
wrote:
>
>"Hurt" <hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1128710949.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> "Jane, you ignorant slut."
>> --SNL
>>
>>
>> > > And where do all commodities come from if not land; and water.
>> >
>> > Look at and "understand" LVT. Google "Henry George", Georgism, LVT.
>>
>> Just as I figured, not a lot to understand.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
>
>Poor definition.
>
>> I can give you very valuable land and you could do absolutely nothing
>> with it to benefit yourself or anybody else. History is replete with
>> such examples.
>
>LVT is a tax on the "value" of land, and land only, not the bricks on it.
>No other tax, only Land Value Tax.
>
Is there a difference between LVT and the "property tax",
which we pay on unimproved land here in California? Who
would determine the "value"?
Regards,
Bill Ward
News
"Bill Ward" <bward...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:43474eee.37892672@localhost...
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 22:34:43 +0100, "News" <Nos...@here.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Hurt" <hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1128710949.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> "Jane, you ignorant slut."
> >> --SNL
> >>
> >>
> >> > > And where do all commodities come from if not land; and water.
> >> >
> >> > Look at and "understand" LVT. Google "Henry George", Georgism, LVT.
> >>
> >> Just as I figured, not a lot to understand.
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
> >
> >Poor definition.
> >
> >> I can give you very valuable land and you could do absolutely nothing
> >> with it to benefit yourself or anybody else. History is replete with
> >> such examples.
> >
> >LVT is a tax on the "value" of land, and land only, not the bricks on it.
> >No other tax, only Land Value Tax.
> >
> Is there a difference between LVT and the "property tax",
LVT is NOT a property tax.
News
> Right. Just tap your magic shoes three times. Solve the problem and
> the problem is solved. Absolutely. The economies of scale we are
> dealing with are much more global, and therefore the problems are
> global.
Energy can be tackled from many angles:
- high efficiency appliances,
- off-shore wind turbines
- tidal generation,
- better, faster and cheaper communications form more home working
- better town planning to reduce car usage,
- superior superinsulated buildings
- passive solar design for buildings, that heat and cool naturally
- distributed power generation, DistrictCHP, microCHP, miniCHP,
- mass introduction of hybrids and electric cars (all feasible due to Lith
Ion and Lith Poly batteries)
- usage of air as an accumulator in cars (never wears out and free and all
around us)
- etc, etc.
All the above makes a hell of a cumulative effect. If the governments make
the regs right now, in 10 years oil demand is right down, and nothing for
the taxpayer to fork out either. It takes 10 years to get a power station
up and running. And a clean environment and global warming tackled. A win,
win, win, all the way. We can see it, and I'm sure the governments can too.
This is where organisations like Greenpeace are very useful. They can set
the agenda.
Nuclear is totally unnecessary.
Rolf Martens
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com says...
>> Nuclear? Not another one.
>
>Sure, why not. Despite the scare tactics nuclear power has been
>quietly humming away for several decades supplying about 20% of our
>electricity. In France almost 80%.
>
You're right on that too, Hurt. Certainly, nuclear energy is
the superior energy source by far. And certainly, "peak oil"
is a big scam - a capitalist/imperialist such.
After those who still rule the world have managed to more or
less stop further development of nuclear energy and even to
prohibit its use in the future in certain countries, they now
more and more are going after the secondmost modern energy
source too, oil. This both with the giant "peak oil" hoax and
the ditto "manmade global warming" hoax.
Why is this? Why this raving desire to go backwards in time?
Mustn't even the capitalists lose lots of money from this,
instead of maximizing their profits, as used to be their
prime concern?
But today, they more and more fear for their entire system of
exploitation and oppression. They fear the revolutionary
potential of the workers and the oppressed peoples. And
therefore, for political reasons, they want to create mass
unemployment and to keep the internationally-exploited
countries in underdevelopment, so as to have them still
provide dirt cheap labour power for themselves. Political
concerns now must override directly economic such, they
reason, and therefore it is that they want retrogression,
"back to earlier, happier times!" (for some very few).
These campaigns of theirs against the most modern energy
sources are part of a massive attack against practically
everybody on earth. A "green" warfare, I've called it, for a
kind of warfare it certainly is, in which mainly some not
openly violent methods are being used, and some openly-violent
such too, for instance in the war against Iraq, which not
least is aimed at preventing oil production and oil use.
Those who are profiting from the entire totally bankrupt
world "order" of today are waging war on a global scale so
as to protect that "order".
Concerning oil, you're right of course that it does not come
from "dead dinosaurs" (etc) but has abiotic origins and is
plentiful on earth. Everybody can check out the science on
this, above all at http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm and
also for instance at the former homepage of Thomas Gold, now
saved at my homepage.
I on my part have written about this in several "UNITE! Infos"
since 1996, including some relatively recent ones, headed
"Why is the oil price so high"? See my homepage including its
Links section.
Rolf M.
Malmö, Sweden
www.rolf-martens.com
Alex Terrell
News wrote:
>
> > > Nuclear? Not another one.
> >
> > Sure, why not. Despite the scare tactics nuclear power has been
> > quietly humming away for several decades supplying about 20% of our
> > electricity. In France almost 80%.
>
> They export the stuff to the UK too. They put their nuclear stations on the
> Channel coast, so when they go belly up we get it too.
That happens often doesn't it. We're quite happy to accept nuclear
power, as long as its produced on the other side of the chanel!
Actually, it seems the British Public is now slightly in favour of
nuclear, since they see it preferable to being dependent on Russian
gas.
> Nuclear is a joke.
> It is unnecessary. More efficiency and a reduction in energy usage is
> needed. Not rocket science you common and sense and political will.
A huge reduction in energy use would indeed cut down Greenhouse gas
emissions. But its much less likely to happen than a huge program of
nuclear build. On its current path, world energy consumption will
probably quadruple over the next few decades.
Hurt
> Energy can be tackled from many angles:
I support and encourage all VIABLE alternatives, but it takes energy to
extract and direct energy. It requires infrastructure. Stuck in the
desert with nothing else you can barely even use oil for purposeful
energy. It requires machines, delivery vehicles, roads, chemicals,
etc. All of which require more raw forms of energy. Lots of it. If
it took more than a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil it would
be almost useless as an energy source. That's what many advocate when
they support these so-called green energies. How much oil energy does
it require to make today's solar panel? Does it break even in energy
consumption and energy production? Some say no.
Hurt
> You're right on that too, Hurt. Certainly, nuclear energy is
> the superior energy source by far. And certainly, "peak oil"
Nuclear energy is the GREATEST source of energy bar none. It is the
stored energy of the cosmos. Look at the energy densities; nothing
else comes remotely close.
http://www.uic.com.au/whyu.htm
Energy Conversion: Typical Heat Values of Various Fuels
Firewood 16 MJ/kg
Brown coal 9 MJ/kg
Black coal (low quality) 13-20 MJ/kg
Black coal 24-30 MJ/kg
Natural Gas 39 MJ/m3
Crude Oil 45-46 MJ/kg
Uranium* - in light water reactor 500,000 MJ/kg
(MJ = Megajoules), * natural U
The difference in the heat value of uranium compared with coal and
other fuels is important (though both are used at about 33% thermal
efficiency in the power station). A one million kilowatt (1,000 MWe)
power station* consumes about 3.1 million tonnes of black coal each
year, or about 24 tonnes of uranium (as UO2) enriched to about 4% of
the useful isotope (U-235). This requires the mining of over 200 tonnes
of natural uranium which may be recovered from, say, 25-100,000 tonnes
of typical uranium ore.
Hurt
> After those who still rule the world have managed to more or
> less stop further development of nuclear energy and even to
> prohibit its use in the future in certain countries, they now
> more and more are going after the secondmost modern energy
> source too, oil. This both with the giant "peak oil" hoax and
> the ditto "manmade global warming" hoax.
>
> Why is this? Why this raving desire to go backwards in time?
> Mustn't even the capitalists lose lots of money from this,
> instead of maximizing their profits, as used to be their
> prime concern?
MISERY and IGNORNACE wanting company. That's what it boils down to.
We must organize and overcome IT. The internet is the great enabler.
One of the greater problems we have is that truly intelligent people
are too passive and fearful. To that I say, arm yourself. With
knowledge first, with force if necessary.
News
"Rolf Martens" <rolf.m...@comhem.se> wrote in message
news:J2O1f.147949$dP1.5...@newsc.telia.net...
> In article <1128637533....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
> >> Nuclear? Not another one.
> >
> >Sure, why not. Despite the scare tactics nuclear power has been
> >quietly humming away for several decades supplying about 20% of our
> >electricity. In France almost 80%.
An d the watset which remains for 100s, if not 100s, of years. And the odd
accident that has lasting effects.
Nuclear is a silly idea and the point is not necessary at all.
<snip incoherent babble>
News
>
> > Energy can be tackled from many angles:
>
> I support and encourage all VIABLE alternatives, but it takes energy to
> extract and direct energy. It requires infrastructure. Stuck in the
> desert with nothing else you can barely even use oil for purposeful
> energy.
99% of people do not live in the desert,
> It requires machines, delivery vehicles, roads, chemicals,
> etc. All of which require more raw forms of energy.
Implementing all the points I made can be done in about 5 years, 10 years
for the few like town planning. Getting a nuclear power station up and
running is about 10 years.
News
>
> > You're right on that too, Hurt. Certainly, nuclear energy is
> > the superior energy source by far. And certainly, "peak oil"
>
> Nuclear energy is the GREATEST source of energy bar none.
This one must be mental.
News
"Alex Terrell" <alext...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128778611....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> News wrote:
>
> >
> > > > Nuclear? Not another one.
> > >
> > > Sure, why not. Despite the scare tactics nuclear power has been
> > > quietly humming away for several decades supplying about 20% of our
> > > electricity. In France almost 80%.
> >
> > They export the stuff to the UK too. They put their nuclear stations on
the
> > Channel coast, so when they go belly up we get it too.
>
> That happens often doesn't it.
When it does it, it does it in big way. It only has to happen once. It is
not like a fire at an oil refinery. Get some logic please.
> We're quite happy to accept nuclear
> power, as long as its produced on the other side of the chanel!
No we are not. Most people on the south coast of England do not like the
idea of amass of nuclear plants on the opposite coast.
> Actually, it seems the British Public is now slightly in favour of
> nuclear, since they see it preferable to being dependent on Russian
> gas.
I prefer Russian gas.
> > Nuclear is a joke.
> > It is unnecessary. More efficiency and a reduction in energy usage is
> > needed. Not rocket science you common and sense and political will.
>
> A huge reduction in energy use would indeed cut down Greenhouse gas
> emissions. But its much less likely to happen than a huge program of
> nuclear build.
Nonsense. Implementing the points I made renders nuclear redundant. And
its cost the taxpayer nearly "nothing" at all.
> On its current path, world energy consumption will
> probably quadruple over the next few decades.
And there is no need to do so, if correct measures are taken.
Hurt
> > I support and encourage all VIABLE alternatives, but it takes energy to
> > extract and direct energy. It requires infrastructure. Stuck in the
> > desert with nothing else you can barely even use oil for purposeful
> > energy.
>
> 99% of people do not live in the desert,
Are you retarded. I am using an extreme example to get across the FACT
that it requires infrastructure (energy), which yes we (the West) have,
based on previous energy expenditures (largely oil). Yet it still
would require massive amounts of energy to implement "your points".
You can't use wind power from the windmill you have yet to build. And
you would have to build a whole lot of them to come close to replacing
the energies we now derive from oil, nuclear, and hydro. So either you
spread that construction over time and/or (more like AND) you have to
drastically reduce the typical Western lifestyle that everyone seems to
want to the point that they risk their lives to get it. A tide you're
unlikely to overcome. Not to mention that prosperity seems, if not
definitively IS, the best form of population control. We might not
have the luxury of time to wait for your vision of utopia; exclusively.
> Implementing all the points I made can be done in about 5 years, 10 years
> for the few like town planning. Getting a nuclear power station up and
> running is about 10 years.
It takes 10 years because retards, most notably politicians, succumb to
the fear mongers and extortionists that have alternative agendas.
Regulation and safety are certainly important, but they shouldn't be
bureaucratic impediments to actually building reactors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
http://www.eskom.co.za/nuclear_energy/pebble_bed/pebble_bed.html
Arnold Walker
"Hurt" <hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128787510.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
Given that they hold over half of the world radioactive minerals.
Arnold Walker
,so far.
Arnold Walker
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:11288080...@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Arnold Walker
babble.
Instead of looking at the universe and noting nuke is the engine driving it.
And that manmade efforts so far are but a pect of dust by comparison.
Rolf Martens
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com says...
Precisely. That's why the present-day massive campaign
precisely against that energy source, since decades back now,
by those who (still) rule the world, is such a clear sign that
the present world "order" is very sick indeed.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
>
Rolf Martens
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>> After those who still rule the world have managed to more or
>> less stop further development of nuclear energy and even to
>> prohibit its use in the future in certain countries, they now
>> more and more are going after the secondmost modern energy
>> source too, oil. This both with the giant "peak oil" hoax and
>> the ditto "manmade global warming" hoax.
>>
>> Why is this? Why this raving desire to go backwards in time?
>> Mustn't even the capitalists lose lots of money from this,
>> instead of maximizing their profits, as used to be their
>> prime concern?
>
>MISERY and IGNORNACE wanting company. That's what it boils down to.
>We must organize and overcome IT. The internet is the great enabler.
>One of the greater problems we have is that truly intelligent people
>are too passive and fearful. To that I say, arm yourself. With
>knowledge first, with force if necessary.
I agree on that too.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
News
>
> "News" <Nos...@here.com> wrote in message
> news:43480d03$0$95146$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> >
> > "Hurt" <hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1128787510.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > > You're right on that too, Hurt. Certainly, nuclear energy is
> > > > the superior energy source by far. And certainly, "peak oil"
> > >
> > > Nuclear energy is the GREATEST source of energy bar none.
> >
> > This one must be mental.
> Yes ,forgot to post on Moveon.org with folks that blindly parrots the
> babble.
> Instead of looking at the universe and noting nuke is the engine driving
it.
> And that manmade efforts so far are but a pect of dust by comparison.
You have missed the point. There is no need for this highly dangerous
method of power generation. The answer is not "wasting" energy in the first
place. Build and design to not uses massive amounts of energy.
News
> > 99% of people do not live in the desert,
>
> Are you retarded.
You are the only retard around here - sorry a few more of them are here too.
> I am using an extreme example to get across the FACT
> that it requires infrastructure (energy), which yes we (the West) have,
> based on previous energy expenditures (largely oil). Yet it still
> would require massive amounts of energy to implement "your points".
It would not. It is all there right now.
- Energy efficient appliances are here,
- cars which consume less fuel are here,
- cleaner cars are here
- homes that require little energy to heat and cool themselves are here.
- cleaner more efficient distributed power generation is here
All of this is proven and readily available technology that can be
implemented immediatly by government laws enforcing it. Also at no cost to
the taxpayer. A win, win, situation.
> > Implementing all the points I made
> > can be done in about 5 years, 10 years
> > for the few like town planning. Getting a
> > nuclear power station up and
> > running is about 10 years.
>
> It takes 10 years because
....it take 10 years. In that time alternative cleaner, and none to less
polluting measures can be taken that renders nuclear power totally
unnecessary.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND.
Do you work for an oil company, or the nuclear industry? These
organisations have been known to plant trolls on these groups. Some of them
were clearly obvious.
News
>
> "News" <Nos...@here.com> wrote in message
> news:43480d02$1$95146$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> >
> > "Rolf Martens" <rolf.m...@comhem.se> wrote in message
> > news:J2O1f.147949$dP1.5...@newsc.telia.net...
> > > In article <1128637533....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com says...
> > >
> > >
> > > >> Nuclear? Not another one.
> > > >
> > > >Sure, why not. Despite the scare tactics nuclear power has been
> > > >quietly humming away for several decades supplying about 20% of our
> > > >electricity. In France almost 80%.
> >
> > An d the watset which remains for 100s, if not 100s, of years. And the
> odd
> > accident that has lasting effects.
> >
> > Nuclear is a silly idea and the point is not necessary at all.
> >
> > <snip incoherent babble>
> A silly idea that has worked better than virtually all your alternate
ideas
> ,so far.
Does the nuclear industry supply your pay packet? It is amazing how people
will tell themselves lies when their monthly pay cheque get in the way. All
rational thinking dissolves.
Solar Flare
"News" <Nos...@here.com> wrote in message
news:4348d65b$1$23423$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
andré
>
> Oh please...
>
> Show the reserve study.
>
> Best, Dan.
There can't be any true reserve study, since oil is deep inside the
earth mantle. You can't estimate exactly the reserves. All you can say
is that there is between 10^2 and 10^5 more oil you can obtain than
present estimations claim.
All present reserve studies, since they use this stupid theory of
biogenic oil, are pure swindles. And peakoilist say that too. They say
that the annual reserve study is made with the participation of the
CIA. For them, of course, it leads to an overestimation of the
reserves. But, it is exactly the contrary. They vastly underestimate
the reserves.
alext...@yahoo.com
News wrote:
> > > They export the stuff to the UK too. They put their nuclear stations on
> the
> > > Channel coast, so when they go belly up we get it too.
> >
> > That happens often doesn't it.
>
> When it does it, it does it in big way. It only has to happen once. It is
> not like a fire at an oil refinery. >
It doesn't.
> It only has to happen once. It is not like a fire at an oil refinery.
Small accidents can happen in nuclear plants as well. You should worry
more if you have a LNG terminal on your dorrstep than a 3rd Generaton
nucelar plant.
> Get some logic please.
Logic tells me that Coal will kill more Britons between 1900 and 2100
than civil nuclear power.
> > We're quite happy to accept nuclear
> > power, as long as its produced on the other side of the chanel!
>
> No we are not. Most people on the south coast of England do not like the
> idea of amass of nuclear plants on the opposite coast.
>
I haven't heard anyone complaining about it.
> > Actually, it seems the British Public is now slightly in favour of
> > nuclear, since they see it preferable to being dependent on Russian
> > gas.
>
> I prefer Russian gas.
>
As long as it flows. You don't prefer it when it stops because Russia
doesn't like our foreign policy.
> > > Nuclear is a joke.
> > > It is unnecessary. More efficiency and a reduction in energy usage is
> > > needed. Not rocket science you common and sense and political will.
> >
> > A huge reduction in energy use would indeed cut down Greenhouse gas
> > emissions. But its much less likely to happen than a huge program of
> > nuclear build.
>
> Nonsense. Implementing the points I made renders nuclear redundant. And
> its cost the taxpayer nearly "nothing" at all.
>
I haven't seen your points, and I'm sure their all logical and
sensible. But if you can't even get people to put in low energy light
bulbs, its unlikely their going to reduce their energy consumption by
80%.
> > On its current path, world energy consumption will
> > probably quadruple over the next few decades.
>
> And there is no need to do so, if correct measures are taken.
Even then, I can't see China, India and others doing anything other
than increasing their energy consumption, significantly.
Hurt
> It would not. It is all there right now.
>
> - Energy efficient appliances are here,
> - cars which consume less fuel are here,
> - cleaner cars are here
> - homes that require little energy to heat and cool themselves are here.
> - cleaner more efficient distributed power generation is here
THERE HERRRE!
Where? Where? In whose home? In what driveway? Yours? Once again,
are you retarded. Sure they are here conceptually; but listen
carefully, YOU, STILL, HAVE, TO, PRODUCE, THEM. What power source runs
the sheet metal factories, tools, and assembly lines? What small
fraction of power could ALL the windmills in the world provide for
these power requirements, right now? What small fraction is the power
savings from these new efficient machines in comparison to their actual
production energies?
> All of this is proven and readily available technology that can be
> implemented immediatly by government laws enforcing it. Also at no cost to
> the taxpayer. A win, win, situation.
Government enforcement with NO COST to the taxpayer?! He, he. I
suppose next you'll be telling me someone has discovered a perpetual
motion machine. Or are you working on a new comedy routine. I thought
the consumers get to decide what they purchase.
> Do you work for an oil company, or the nuclear industry? These
> organisations have been known to plant trolls on these groups. Some of them
> were clearly obvious.
No but if anyone from those industries likes my posts I'm more than
willing to be put on a payroll.
Mike McWilliams
> "Hurt" <hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:1128552600....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>When US reduces oil usage by 80%,
>>>You will see oil prices drop below $30
>>
>>80%? Probably not for a long time. And it will drop, REGRETTABLY.
>>Hope "we" don't have to drop a few nukes in the Middle East to keep the
>>price from going that low.
>
>
> Income tax
> VAT
> basic social security
>
> Imagine all this taxes vanish, all replaced by a tax on fossile fuel.
>
> So it's no problem when oil goes down to $30,
> when all the major taxes are abolished,
> and replaced by a fossile energy tax.
>
Riight... and watch your already pathetic social welfare system
collapse... sounds like a good time not to live in a big city.
>
>>Folks, help save lives, stop driving around
>>aimlessly wasting gas.
If the US stopped fighting for oil, they would stop dying for it.
>
>
> It will be no problem with rechargebale hybrids.
>
> Sun delivers enough fuel - electric power
>
The sun delivers fuel, but not at the density required to keep everyone
moving at the same lifestlye we enjoy now.
The days of middleclass transportation freedom will disappear.
Arnold Walker
third world living is not the answer either.
We don't need to waste energy on low energy sources.
And puff dreams.....
Arnold Walker
lies.
Over reality these days.And socialist babble has been the downfall of any
location
it has touched.You really need to reach past your feel good view......and
see what actually works.
News
>
> > It would not. It is all there right now.
> >
> > - Energy efficient appliances are here,
> > - cars which consume less fuel are here,
> > - cleaner cars are here
> > - homes that require little energy to heat and cool themselves are here.
> > - cleaner more efficient distributed power generation is here
>
> THERE HERRRE!
Not another one. What world is this one from?
News
<alext...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128886682.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> News wrote:
>
> > > > They export the stuff to the UK too. They put their nuclear
stations on
> > the
> > > > Channel coast, so when they go belly up we get it too.
> > >
> > > That happens often doesn't it.
It only has to happen once. An oil fired station can burn for days with no
lasting effects.
> > When it does it, it does it in big way.
> > It only has to happen once. It is
> > not like a fire at an oil refinery. >
> It doesn't.
Nuclear doesn't have an accident? Where have to been?
> > It only has to happen once. It is not like a fire at an oil refinery.
>
> Small accidents can happen in nuclear plants as well. You should worry
> more if you have a LNG terminal on your dorrstep than a 3rd Generaton
> nucelar plant.
I worry nore about a nuke plant, not a oil burner.
> > Get some logic please.
>
> Logic tells me that Coal will kill more Britons between 1900 and 2100
> than civil nuclear power.
You are crystal ball gazing. From 2005 coal will very few, as stack
emissions are cleaner.
> > > We're quite happy to accept nuclear
> > > power, as long as its produced on the other side of the chanel!
> >
> > No we are not. Most people on the south coast of England do not like
the
> > idea of amass of nuclear plants on the opposite coast.
> >
> I haven't heard anyone complaining about it.
Obviously not down your street.
> > > Actually, it seems the British Public is now slightly in favour of
> > > nuclear, since they see it preferable to being dependent on Russian
> > > gas.
> >
> > I prefer Russian gas.
> >
> As long as it flows.
In fact I prefer less gas and not use Russian. It is possible to reduce
energy consumption by 20-25% with 109 years by using then points I
mentioned.
> > Nonsense. Implementing the points I made renders nuclear redundant.
And
> > its cost the taxpayer nearly "nothing" at all.
>
> I haven't seen your points, and I'm
> sure their all logical and
> sensible.
They sure are.
> But if you can't even get people
> to put in low energy light
> bulbs, its unlikely their going to reduce
> their energy consumption by
> 80%.
You make only low energy available. Simple.
> > > On its current path, world energy consumption will
> > > probably quadruple over the next few decades.
> >
> > And there is no need to do so, if correct measures are taken.
>
> Even then, I can't see China, India and others doing anything other
> than increasing their energy consumption, significantly.
World pressure can do something about that. China will consume more as it
is the workshop of the world and increasing too. China is aware of energy
efficiency and 3/4 of all solar panels are installed in China.
News
Oh not this view. Energy efficiency doe not mean you go without. It means
not using energy (passive solar heating, town planning on human scale, etc)
and using it efficiently (low energy appliances, cars, etc)
News
I don't work in any energy industry. As a boy I do recall the ruined lungs
of the older people through rampant coal burning.
> > It amazing how folks will believe their own
> > lies.
> Over reality these days.And socialist babble
Not another one. I bet you vote Republican and have gun under the bed, in
case the reds end up there and are in NRA. Being a good republican means
using energy like crazy.
Don Ocean
Damned if you didn't just describe close to 300 million Americans! ;-p
>
>
Arnold Walker
When the Democrats couldn't.
Of course, Democrat do have an advance in that if you have a legecy of do
nothing.
It real hard to crictize to the depth that they have the Republicans.
Rolf Martens
gru...@no-log.org says...
everybody above all a website on this:
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm
Also, see some articles at my own website, and some other
links there.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf Martens
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>> It would not. It is all there right now.
>>
>> - Energy efficient appliances are here,
>> - cars which consume less fuel are here,
>> - cleaner cars are here
>> - homes that require little energy to heat and cool themselves are here.
>> - cleaner more efficient distributed power generation is here
>
>THERE HERRRE!
>
>Where? Where? In whose home? In what driveway? Yours? Once again,
>are you retarded. Sure they are here conceptually; but listen
>carefully, YOU, STILL, HAVE, TO, PRODUCE, THEM. What power source runs
>the sheet metal factories, tools, and assembly lines? What small
>fraction of power could ALL the windmills in the world provide for
>these power requirements, right now? What small fraction is the power
>savings from these new efficient machines in comparison to their actual
>production energies?
Preciesely. Those "alternative" things are all very inefficient
and expensive. The propaganda saying they're "OK" is anti-energy
propaganda too, a swindle with very bad intentions behind it.
>> Do you work for an oil company, or the nuclear industry? These
>> organisations have been known to plant trolls on these groups. Some of them
>> were clearly obvious.
>
>No but if anyone from those industries likes my posts I'm more than
>willing to be put on a payroll.
And those who really are writing on behalf of some oil
industries are typically big advocates of the "peak oil" hoax.
Those who really are writing on behalf of some nuclear-energy
industries are often supporting the "manmade global warming"
hoax, as are some other and well-intentioned "pro-nukes" too.
You, Hurt, don't seem to belong in either of those cathegories.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
>
Rolf Martens
arnold...@consolidated.net says...
>With China,India ,and many third world countries coming on line ....
>third world living is not the answer either.
>We don't need to waste energy on low energy sources.
>And puff dreams.....
You're right. That's what practically everybody on earth
doesn't need.
Unfortunately, the planet still is being ruled by some
others, very few but very powerful, and they are forcing
everbody, more and more, to live according to the puff dreams,
with particularly bad effects in countries such as China and
India.
Rolf M.
Rolf Martens
arnold...@consolidated.net says...
>
>
>
>"News" <Nos...@here.com> wrote in message
>news:4348d65b$0$23423$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
>
>>
>people
>> will tell themselves lies when their monthly pay cheque get in the way.
>All
>> rational thinking dissolves.
>So ,You work for Moveon .Org .It amazing how folks will believe their own
>lies.
>Over reality these days.And socialist babble has been the downfall of any
>location
>it has touched.You really need to reach past your feel good view......and
>see what actually works.
Actually, the "peak oil", "manmade global warming" and anti-nuclear-energy
hoaxes precisely are not socialist but capitalist hoaxes, only camouflaged,
phony"socialist" such.
In Russia and China, for instance, long ago when those countries
were really socialist, the correct theory on oil (abiotic) was
developed, and nuclear energy too.
That trick of some people's pretending to be "anti-establishment""
but in reality precisely peddling the establishemet's hoaxes is
an important one in this context.
Rolf M.
Rolf Martens
Nos...@here.com says...
>> > Does the nuclear industry supply your pay packet? It is amazing how
>> people
>> > will tell themselves lies when their monthly pay cheque get in the way.
>> All
>> > rational thinking dissolves.
>
>> So ,You work for Moveon .Org .
>
>I don't work in any energy industry. As a boy I do recall the ruined lungs
>of the older people through rampant coal burning.
>
>> > It amazing how folks will believe their own
>> > lies.
>
>> Over reality these days.And socialist babble
>
>Not another one. I bet you vote Republican and have gun under the bed, in
>case the reds end up there and are in NRA. Being a good republican means
>using energy like crazy.
Not only (US) Republicans (with whom I on my part very much
disagree on most points) need efficient energy sources such as
nuclear energy and oil. Practically everybody on earth does.
Propaganda angainst those things, and in favour of inefficient
energy sources, or in favour of decreased energy use, who needs
that?
Only some very few, very powerful and very reactionary people -
they are the ones who lie behind the "peak oil", "manmade global
warming" and anti-nuclear-energy hoaxes. Others should not believe
them or help disseminate them.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
News
Puff dreams? They went a long time ago - in the USA in the 1950s.
Governments and political parties used to promise dreams to people: full
emplyment, superior housing, a social securtity net, high medical stadards,
etc. Most of the western world has dropped this dream promising as there
are few dreams to promise anymore - although I can think of many. They are
saying we will protect you from the external evils of the world - the US
with the reds under the bed scarmongering has been doing this since the
1950s.
Hurt
> Preciesely. Those "alternative" things are all very inefficient
> and expensive. The propaganda saying they're "OK" is anti-energy
Some actually are less efficient; some more. Many are marginally more
efficient, which is good. I am not against alternative "greener"
energy. And we do waste too much very often. But you have to be
realistic about energy supply, and the economics of energy supply.
Renewables will not be a dominant source of our energy without a LOT of
investment and energy. That is reality.
> And those who really are writing on behalf of some oil
> industries are typically big advocates of the "peak oil" hoax.
"Peak Oil" is not necessarily a hoax. The peak can be economic in
nature, not physical.
Hurt
> Those who really are writing on behalf of some nuclear-energy
> industries are often supporting the "manmade global warming"
> hoax, as are some other and well-intentioned "pro-nukes" too.
Climatic change, that will greatly affect us, definitely is taking
place. It seems due largely to celestial (solar) changes. But... it
may well be that human activity is adding and/or modifying those
changes. It may also NOT be CO2 predominantly.
alext...@yahoo.com
News wrote:
>
> Nuclear doesn't have an accident? Where have to been?
No western nuclear plant has had an accident to rival the devestation
from coal mining. It takes Communism to create that sort of cock up,
and even there, the death toll is less than the annual death toll from
coal mining and smoke inhalation in China.
snip
> > > > We're quite happy to accept nuclear
> > > > power, as long as its produced on the other side of the chanel!
> > >
> > > No we are not. Most people on the south coast of England do not like
> the
> > > idea of amass of nuclear plants on the opposite coast.
> > >
> > I haven't heard anyone complaining about it.
>
> Obviously not down your street.
>
I think I heard that some elements in Kent county council are
disappointed that Dungeness got a license extension. The safest option
would be to shut the place down as quickly possible and replace it with
a 3rd Generetion reactor.
snip
>
> > But if you can't even get people
> > to put in low energy light
> > bulbs, its unlikely their going to reduce
> > their energy consumption by
> > 80%.
>
> You make only low energy available. Simple.
I actually don't make any light bulbs available. But I can't control
what people buy. I suppose you could go into a communist style planning
system and force people to become light bulb martyrs, but that's a bit
like the system that gave us Chernobyl.
>
> > > > On its current path, world energy consumption will
> > > > probably quadruple over the next few decades.
> > >
> > > And there is no need to do so, if correct measures are taken.
> >
> > Even then, I can't see China, India and others doing anything other
> > than increasing their energy consumption, significantly.
>
> World pressure can do something about that. China will consume more as it
> is the workshop of the world and increasing too.
World pressure will have no impact on Chinese energy consumption. Only
prices will.
> China is aware of energy efficiency and 3/4 of all solar panels are installed > in China.
China is aware of energy security. That's why they have the biggest
plans for new nuclear build. Perhaps in 20 years we'll be buying their
designs.
I'm surprised at the 3/4 of all solar panel figures. Do you have a
reference? I would have though Germany would be in the lead in this
area as they subsidise it heavily through tax breaks.
alext...@yahoo.com
andré wrote:
> There can't be any true reserve study, since oil is deep inside the
> earth mantle. You can't estimate exactly the reserves. All you can say
> is that there is between 10^2 and 10^5 more oil you can obtain than
> present estimations claim.
This means about between 10^2 and 2*10 ^5 more than can be burnt
without causing disastrous global warming.
>
> All present reserve studies, since they use this stupid theory of
> biogenic oil, are pure swindles.
What percentage of the world's geologists believe in this stupid
theory?
News
> In article <1128892010.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >> It would not. It is all there right now.
> >>
> >> - Energy efficient appliances are here,
> >> - cars which consume less fuel are here,
> >> - cleaner cars are here
> >> - homes that require little energy to heat and cool themselves are
here.
> >> - cleaner more efficient distributed power generation is here
> Preciesely. Those "alternative" things are all very inefficient
Nonsense!!
> and expensive.
Again Nonsense. Deveci in Scotland has made heatingless homes, that cost
little extra to build. Many in the USA have done the same. Stilring engine
boilers (distributed power generation) are being fitted in Manchester.
Once all points are implemented widely any cost premium would come right
down.
> The propaganda saying they're "OK" is anti-energy
No it is not. It is saying let's use less energy.
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>...Deveci in Scotland has made heatingless homes...
What's a "heatingless home"?
>Many in the USA have done the same.
Can you name one?
Nick
Rolf Martens
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com says...
It actually is a big hoax. There is neither a physical nor
an economic "peak". One again, see above all
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf Martens
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com says...
>
Yes, some change of the climate, probably, as you say, due
to solar changes above all, have always taken place. In the
Medieval Warm Period, for instance, appr 800-1200 AD, the
temperature was somewhat higher than today, in one earlier
period even higher. The dominant "greenhouse gas" is water
vapour, which accounts for some 95% of the greenhouse effect.
Changes in the CO2 level will not affect the climate very
much, studies of the past indicate. Man's influence on the
climate is small.
Certainly, the "manmade global warming" propaganda is a big
hoax, and there are some very reactionary motives behind it.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf Martens
alext...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>News wrote:
>
>>
>> Nuclear doesn't have an accident? Where have to been?
>
>No western nuclear plant has had an accident to rival the devestation
>from coal mining. It takes Communism to create that sort of cock up,
>and even there, the death toll is less than the annual death toll from
>coal mining and smoke inhalation in China.
In 1986, when the Chernobyl disaster took place, the Soviet Union
since a long time back was no longer a socialist country, but a
social-imperialist one. And lots of things indicate that what
took place was not even a cock-up but a manmade "accident" with
some nasty political motives behind it.
>China is aware of energy security. That's why they have the biggest
>plans for new nuclear build. Perhaps in 20 years we'll be buying their
>designs.
Present-day, capitalist, China probably will not really build
many nuclear power plants either. Its reactionary rulers too
support the energy strangulation plans of the US etc governments.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf Martens
alext...@yahoo.com says...
they're in the pay either of oil companies or of some reactionary
governments. Many of them today probably know the truth on the
matter anyway. You yourself, and others, can look up, for
instance, http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm on this.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf Martens
Nos...@here.com says...
energy instead of more and more of it?
This is an out-and-out reactionary, extremely retrogressive
programme, extremely harmful to practically everybody, and
suited only to the - political - "needs" of some very few
and very powerful people.
Rolf M.
News
<nicks...@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:difflq$h...@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> News <Nos...@here.com> wrote:
>
> >...Deveci in Scotland has made heatingless homes...
>
> What's a "heatingless home"?
A misnomer really. A house that requires a small amount of heat.
Heatingless, comes from no full heating system. Sometimes called zero-heat.
> >Many in the USA have done the same.
>
> Can you name one?
Saunders et all?
News
People in general don't care as they trust the powers that be to make sure
things are clean, safe and work.
The powers that be, can implement the simple points I outlined by
legislation, then no nuclear stations are needed. It can only be driven by
governments, or EU, etc, as the free market has failed to deliver. The free
market is only concerned with vested interest, that is why we burn oil like
crazy and propulsion units pollute like mad.
> This is an out-and-out reactionary, extremely retrogressive
> programme, extremely harmful to practically everybody, and
> suited only to the - political - "needs" of some very few
> and very powerful people.
I am coming to the conclusion you are mad. Implementing an energy effective
programme that reduces pollution and conserves energy resources is not
reactionary and retrograde in any way whatsoever. It will advance
technology as the means to provide the low, to no, energy usage is pursued.
It will reduce the power of the oil moguls though, which is a good thing,
and take people out of fuel poverty.
News
<alext...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128977001.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> News wrote:
>
> >
> > Nuclear doesn't have an accident? Where have you been?
>
> No western nuclear plant has had an accident to rival the devestation
> from coal mining. It takes Communism to create that sort of cock up,
> and even there, the death toll is less than the annual death toll from
> coal mining and smoke inhalation in China.
Warped logic. Two wrongs do NOT make a right.
> > > But if you can't even get people
> > > to put in low energy light
> > > bulbs, its unlikely their going to reduce
> > > their energy consumption by
> > > 80%.
> >
> > You make only low energy available. Simple.
>
> I actually don't make any light bulbs available.
> But I can't control what people buy.
The governments can.
> I suppose you could go into a communist style planning
> system and force people to become light bulb martyrs, but that's a bit
> like the system that gave us Chernobyl.
Grow up. Governments right now stipulate that white goods appliances have to
be a minimum efficiency, they also stipulate minimum pollution for factories
and cars, etc. They can stipulate a minimum efficient level of light bulb
too.
> > > > > On its current path, world energy consumption will
> > > > > probably quadruple over the next few decades.
> > > >
> > > > And there is no need to do so, if correct measures are taken.
> > >
> > > Even then, I can't see China, India and others doing anything other
> > > than increasing their energy consumption, significantly.
> >
> > World pressure can do something about that. China will consume more as
it
> > is the workshop of the world and increasing too.
>
> World pressure will have no impact on Chinese energy consumption. Only
> prices will.
If they pollute like mad and the rest of the world say stop it or we don't
buy your products, then they will do something about it.
> > China is aware of energy efficiency
> > and 3/4 of all solar panels are installed
> in China.
>
> China is aware of energy security. That's why they have the biggest
> plans for new nuclear build. Perhaps in 20 years we'll be buying their
> designs.
Because of globalisation, they are becoming the workshop of the world, and
energy they need. They are also aware of pollution too. They are to
introduce production of the Prius in China for Chinese use only.
> I'm surprised at the 3/4 of all solar panel figures. Do you have a
> reference? I would have though Germany would be in the lead in this
> area as they subsidise it heavily through tax breaks.
There was link in one of threads recently.
Nick Pine
>> >...Deveci in Scotland has made heatingless homes...
>>
>> What's a "heatingless home"?
>
>A misnomer really. A house that requires a small amount of heat.
Just a wee dram at teatime? :-)
>> >Many in the USA have done the same.
>>
>> Can you name one?
>
>Saunders et all?
Not "many," and there's no "al" :-(
Nick
Hurt
> >"Peak Oil" is not necessarily a hoax. The peak can be economic in
> >nature, not physical.
>
> It actually is a big hoax. There is neither a physical nor
> an economic "peak". One again, see above all
Oh, I wouldn't bet the farm on that. It depends on who is "peaking".
And who can you trust and/or tolerate. Oil is the "gold" that backs
our (USA) money. If we are indeed a FREE nation, and I do believe we
still are (on average), to lose control of that "gold" could mean the
end of our FREEDOM. On the bright side I think China will do alright,
in any event.
Hurt
> Certainly, the "manmade global warming" propaganda is a big
> hoax, and there are some very reactionary motives behind it.
It's more hoax than not. What it, like Kyoto, really is about is
slowing down the industrialized nations in the "theory" that the third
world needs to "catch up". And that is RIDICOULOUS to the EXTREME.
Sure we can help those that can be helped to achieve Western standards,
but a large number, if not majority, might never be able to sustain
those standards on their own. So we'd be creating a perpetual, and
VERY LARGE, welfare class. Look at Israel as an example. Sure many
there are very capable, but many are not. A population of what is it
less than ten million has milked US for billions, if not trillions.
Can you imagine a billion or more like that.
News
news:digfd4$i...@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> News <Nos...@here.com> wrote:
>
> >> >...Deveci in Scotland has made heatingless homes...
> >>
> >> What's a "heatingless home"?
> >
> >A misnomer really. A house that requires a small amount of heat.
>
> Just a wee dram at teatime? :-)
Aye, just the odd bottle or two of single malt.
Robert Gordon uni even cost out the difference between a zero-heat and a
traditional home to put matters to rest.
> >> >Many in the USA have done the same.
> >>
> >> Can you name one?
> >
> >Saunders et all?
>
> Not "many," and there's no "al" :-(
Nick, I have a Fine Homes book on eco homes, which all have no full heating
system. So, there must be many of these guys in the US snidely building
these homes. :-)
Are you saying Scotland is ahead of the US? Deveci has also designed
apartment blocks with no full heating systems. I know of one 5 floor timber
framed apartment block in London, that most of the apartments have never
even turned on the heating systems - one was put in, in case.
andré
Rolf Martens a écrit :
> >What percentage of the world's geologists believe in this stupid
> >theory?
> >
> Many of them probably will *say* they believe in it, since
> they're in the pay either of oil companies or of some reactionary
> governments. Many of them today probably know the truth on the
> matter anyway. You yourself, and others, can look up, for
> instance, http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm on this.
>
> Rolf M.
> www.rolf-martens.com
I agree completely.
And I have a testimony which confirm that from a former Schlumberger
employee (This is the leader company in oil prospecting). He has worked
for Schlumberger for some years, until recently. He says :
"For numerous occasions, I have had the opportunity to speak with
geophysicians of the company. And I can assure you that internally the
abiotic oil theory is largely admitted as being right...
... But the company position is "no-comment", because it doesn't
correspond to the company's short/average term interests...
... I am not a specialist of the domain. This message is only the
reflection of talks with geophysicians of the company who feel
frustrated with the commercial /communication strategy from the big
bosses."
So, yes. It seems that many of them know that the abiotic oil theory is
the good one. But, of course, if they speak of it publicly, they will
be sacked.
Rolf Martens
gru...@no-log.org says...
Thank you very much for that information, André. It goes to confirm
my guess on this.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
alext...@yahoo.com
evidence seems to support oil coming from organic matter.
More importantly, oil fields do run out. Hubbert defined the production
rules for oil fields, and so far he's been pretty much right. If oil
fields are being fed from the mantle, then the process is too slow to
make any difference.
The only thing that could make a difference is deep drilling, as done
by the Russians. however, the only website I found proposing this
(http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html) seems so screwed
up as to lose credibility.
If this were the case, other oil companies would be doing it. Perhaps
Shell and Exxon and BP could have a justification to hide this
technology (but not the ability) but there are plenty of oil
exploration companies who would develop this.
So I'd conclude that Abiotic oil theory is up there along with:
- MMR vaccine causes Autism
- Global Warming has nothing to do with humans
These theories are supported by some Scientists who know more about
about it than you or I, but they are going against the vast majority of
scientific consensus.
alext...@yahoo.com
andré wrote:
>
>
> And I have a testimony which confirm that from a former Schlumberger
> employee (This is the leader company in oil prospecting). He has worked
> for Schlumberger for some years, until recently. He says :
>
> "For numerous occasions, I have had the opportunity to speak with
> geophysicians of the company. And I can assure you that internally the
> abiotic oil theory is largely admitted as being right...
>
> ... But the company position is "no-comment", because it doesn't
> correspond to the company's short/average term interests...
Let's see. If the Abiotic theory were taken seriously, there would be a
need for huge amounts of new, ultra deep drilling in the USA. Now who
would benefit most from that?
Schlumberger.
Arnold Walker
<alext...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129190225.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I did a little bit of research, and I admit I'm no geologist, but the
> evidence seems to support oil coming from organic matter.
You can find a turkey processing in full operation with oil as by a
product of their waste material.
The Butterball plant in St Louis......
>
> More importantly, oil fields do run out. Hubbert defined the production
> rules for oil fields, and so far he's been pretty much right. If oil
> fields are being fed from the mantle, then the process is too slow to
> make any difference.
>
> The only thing that could make a difference is deep drilling, as done
> by the Russians. however, the only website I found proposing this
> (http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html) seems so screwed
> up as to lose credibility.
>
> If this were the case, other oil companies would be doing it. Perhaps
> Shell and Exxon and BP could have a justification to hide this
> technology (but not the ability) but there are plenty of oil
> exploration companies who would develop this.
>
> So I'd conclude that Abiotic oil theory is up there along with:
> - MMR vaccine causes Autism
> - Global Warming has nothing to do with humans
>
> These theories are supported by some Scientists who know more about
> about it than you or I, but they are going against the vast majority of
> scientific consensus.
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Rolf Martens
alext...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>I did a little bit of research, and I admit I'm no geologist, but the
>evidence seems to support oil coming from organic matter.
>
>More importantly, oil fields do run out. Hubbert defined the production
>rules for oil fields, and so far he's been pretty much right. If oil
>fields are being fed from the mantle, then the process is too slow to
>make any difference.
>
>The only thing that could make a difference is deep drilling, as done
>by the Russians. however, the only website I found proposing this
>(http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html) seems so screwed
>up as to lose credibility.
So you didn't find the important scientific site on this:
Gas Resources Corporation, Houston, Texas, USA (J.F. Kenney):
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm ?
>If this were the case, other oil companies would be doing it. Perhaps
>Shell and Exxon and BP could have a justification to hide this
>technology (but not the ability) but there are plenty of oil
>exploration companies who would develop this.
And another writer, andré, recently told us on this thread that
privately, geophysicists employed by a leading prospecting firm
largely admitted that the abiotic theory is the correct one -
only, the firm itself probably would sack them if they said so
publicly.
There are some very powerful interests behind the "bio-origins" scam
and the "peak oil" scam - as well as behind the "manmade global
warming" ditto.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf Martens
alext...@yahoo.com says...
No, ordinary people would be the ones who would benfit the
most from really efficient oil exploration and production.
Companies like Schlumberger always see a "great need" not to
say and do things that the ruling politicians are very much
opposed to. And what those polticians very much want to do
today is *strangle" such exploration and production.
Does this seem strange? They have a very strong motive
for this however - see some articles on "Why is the oil price
so high?" at my homepage.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
alext...@yahoo.com
because that would push oil prices up"
Abiotic extremists: "Governments don't want to recognise oil is abiotic
because that would push oil prices down".
Neither arguments hold.
- Some Governments and some firms have an interest in higher oil prices
(e.g. Saudi Arabia, Exxon, maybe Volkswagen)
- Some Governments and some firms have an interest in lower oil prices.
(e.g. USA, General motors, Walmart)
If oil were abiotic, the US would be drilling 20km down.
Schlumberger has an interest in more drilling. They would love oil to
be abiotic.
There is no conspiracy here.
Bill Ward
Alex, you might want to read "The Deep, Hot Biosphere" by
Thomas Gold. He presents some intriguing evidence for
abiotic oil, and raises what seem to be legitimate questions
about the biogenic theory.
I'm not a conspiricy enthusiast, and I'm not entirely
convinced, but I do recommend reading the book. It does not
have the aroma of pseudoscience to me. Gold has a
traditional science background and approach, pointing out
experiments that could disprove the theory, as well as
evidence supporting it.
Regards,
Bill Ward
tkgo...@ktcnslt.com
Snip...
Here are some of less favorable reviews of Gold's book..
Reviewer: Mark McMenamin (South Hadley, Ma USA)
"There is a place in geology for fruitful speculation, but Gold's
thesis misses out. Speaking as a geologist, we actually do have a clear
understanding of how oil, gas and coal (e. g., Hypersea) form. The
reason most oil is found in the Middle East is because of ancient
oceanic productivity in the Tethyan seaway resulting from marine
upwelling during the Mesozoic. Gold's thesis is therefore unnecessary.
I edited the English translation of Vladimir Vernadsky's book The
Biosphere. Vernadsky tells us that there is indeed a Deep Hot
Biosphere. It has formed, however, by bacteria moving downward, not by
organisms coming up from the earth's interior where temperatures and
pressures make life impossible. I nevertheless have grudging admiration
for Gold. I tip my hat to anyone who can convince the Swedes to spend
tens of millions to drill a hole in the Siljan impact structure!"
"For two decades Gold has peddled his notions about the formation of
petroleum, and even coal, as a result of diffusion of methane from the
mantle. In his view, this is from non-biogenic carbonaceous matter that
accreted along with the rest of the planet. This book simply ties the
hypothesis to recent discoveries of primitive, heat-loving organisms in
boreholes extending down a couple of kilometres. Like any scientist,
Gold selects his evidence, as is his privilege, but becomes more
fanciful than anyone else would choose to and retain any credibility.
It is not so much the evidence that he chooses, but the vast amount
which he ignores. Among this is the growing realization that the Earth
underwent a stupendous impact shortly after it formed, shedding a mass
of incandescent rock vapour that gave birth to the Moon, and perhaps
allowed the Earth's core to separate from the mantle. The last gave the
mantle an oxidizing nature. Far more probably than Gold's hypothesis,
the early Earth may have been completely molten at temperatures far in
excess of those thought to pertain now. Both consequences spell an
unlikely survival for abundant carbon-hydrogen compounds in the deep
Earth. This is not a book for those scientists prone to apoplexy, nor
for lay readers who wish to see the full breadth of knowledge. Being
imaginative and well-written it has reached the science best-seller
list, but then so did Erich von Daniken."
2nd item.. is that chemistry equilibrium is all wrong.
High temps and low concentrations of available hydrogen do not
favor the formation of hydrocarbons from raw carbon. Hydrocarbons are
relativily unstable and can only exist in a narrow range of temp and
pressure. (Note: there are several significantly more stable compounds
which are favored over long chain HC's.)
Additionally, 46% of the earth's mass is made up of oxygen atoms.
Any hydrocarbons hanging around since earth's formation would have
been oxidised long ago.
3rd item.. Even IF there is some mechanism for the abiotic origin of
oil. It hasn't refilled any of the 1000's oil reseviors we've
discovered so far. Likewise exceptionally deep drilling almost always
ends up as net energy sink. Thus it is a big non-sequitur in the grand
scheme of things.
tkgo...@ktcnslt.com
Snip...
Here are some of less favorable reviews of Gold's book..
Reviewer: Mark McMenamin (South Hadley, Ma USA)
"There is a place in geology for fruitful speculation, but Gold's
thesis misses out. Speaking as a geologist, we actually do have a clear
understanding of how oil, gas and coal (e. g., Hypersea) form. The
reason most oil is found in the Middle East is because of ancient
oceanic productivity in the Tethyan seaway resulting from marine
upwelling during the Mesozoic. Gold's thesis is therefore unnecessary.
I edited the English translation of Vladimir Vernadsky's book The
Biosphere. Vernadsky tells us that there is indeed a Deep Hot
Biosphere. It has formed, however, by bacteria moving downward, not by
organisms coming up from the earth's interior where temperatures and
pressures make life impossible. I nevertheless have grudging admiration
for Gold. I tip my hat to anyone who can convince the Swedes to spend
tens of millions to drill a hole in the Siljan impact structure!"
Fropm another unfavorable review:
Dan Bloomquist
Bill Ward wrote:
>
> Alex, you might want to read "The Deep, Hot Biosphere" by
> Thomas Gold. He presents some intriguing evidence for
> abiotic oil, and raises what seem to be legitimate questions
> about the biogenic theory.
I've left the issue of abiotic oil alone for one very important reason.
The theory does not yield produceable oil. Just like we know there are
methane hydrates in the ocean, they don't count because they are
presently unrecoverable. Deep wells may turn up evidence of fossil fuels
but they do not contribute to the many millions of barrels a day of oil
that we demand.
So, back to the subject, is peak oil for real? Most likely if we look at
the available information critically. And the real problem is that we
don't know the depth of OPEC's exaggerations. If oil peaks sooner than
later, we are not prepared.
Peak oil is the most important challenge the world faces yet most folks
are oblivious of the implications or that it could likely happen in the
next year or three.
> Bill Ward
Best, Dan.
mike wilcox
I would gather from the events of the past two months that we are at
peak oil now or slightly past it. We are using everything that is coming
out of the ground now and demand is increasing.
Bill Ward
>Bill Ward wrote:
<snip>
Reviews may vary. I read the book and was favorably
impressed, but not convinced to the point of
closed-mindedness. Read it and see what you think of the
specific evidence he cites.
> 2nd item.. is that chemistry equilibrium is all wrong.
>
> High temps and low concentrations of available hydrogen do not
>favor the formation of hydrocarbons from raw carbon. Hydrocarbons are
>relativily unstable and can only exist in a narrow range of temp and
>pressure. (Note: there are several significantly more stable compounds
>which are favored over long chain HC's.)
Hydrocarbons have recently been formed in the lab under
conditions of high temperature and pressure similar to that
found in the regions in question. It was reported by
Science News a few months back. Links have been posted in
this NG.
>
> Additionally, 46% of the earth's mass is made up of oxygen atoms.
> Any hydrocarbons hanging around since earth's formation would have
>been oxidised long ago.
Misleading. Only the oxygen in compounds capable of being
reduced by hydrocarbons counts. That is a lot less than 46%
Most of the earths oxygen is combined with silicon. Iron
oxides qualify, and are mentioned in the book.
Also, the theory implies not just left over HCs, but that
they are currently being formed from primordal elements, .
>
>
> 3rd item.. Even IF there is some mechanism for the abiotic origin of
>oil. It hasn't refilled any of the 1000's oil reseviors we've
>discovered so far.
Some _are_ refilling. How much of this is from oil coming
up vs oil moving sideways has AFAIK yet to be proven.
>Likewise exceptionally deep drilling almost always
>ends up as net energy sink. Thus it is a big non-sequitur in the grand
>scheme of things.
If deep holes were _always_ dry, I would agree. But how do
you explain _any_ oil where it shouldn't be found by
existing theory? The book describes such findings.
I'm not trying to sell anything to anyone, or have any axe
to grind. I just think that commenting on the specific
evidence cited in the book is more useful than commenting on
reviews.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Bill Ward
I'm more interested in the abstract question of where the
oil originally came from than immediate problems. We've got
a whole lot of people (who know a lot more about it than I
do) working on those.
I agree that immediate oil supplies are unlikely to be
affected by the question of its origin. But if deep oil
were _proven_ to be common and plentiful, it could affect
mid term thinking, and thus prices, even if it's hard to
reach with present technology. I hasten to add I haven't
seen any unequivocal proof, but I find Gold's theory and
evidence interesting.
Thanks for your comments, Dan.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Alex Terrell
demand are inelastic over short time frames but less so over longer
times frames.
For example, sales of SUVs have started to fall in the USA.
If Americans pay for oil what the Europeans were paying 10 years ago,
perhaps the US might reach the level of efficiency Europe had 10 years
ago. But it'll take a few years.
LongmuirG
> Europeans were paying 10 years ago,
> perhaps the US might reach the level > of efficiency Europe had 10 years
> ago. But it'll take a few years
Hmmm. European efficiency. That must be all those 2 tonne
Mercedes-Benz's with oversized engines that can accelerate like a bat
out of hell??
More seriously, the European approach to energy efficiency (i.e. raise
taxes on fuel) has set up a very interesting future conflict. EU
governments have their tax snouts very deeply into the oil trough,
hogging most of the price that the end-user of oil is prepared to pay.
>From an OPEC producers perspective, that must look really unfair.
Expect some major OPEC-EU conflict in the future over more equitable
sharing of the economic rent on oil.