Peak Oil
Henry
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4019
"Robert Hirsch, author of Peaking of World Oil Production:
Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (a.k.a. the
Hirsch Report), appeared on CNBC this morning. He said flat
out that new technologies and new drilling won't solve the
peak oil problem, and that we should expect $12-15/gallon
gasoline followed by rationing."
--
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Don't let Bush do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
Sean_Q_
>
> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4019
>
> "Robert Hirsch, author of Peaking of World Oil Production:
> Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (a.k.a. the
> Hirsch Report), appeared on CNBC this morning. He said flat
> out that new technologies and new drilling won't solve the
> peak oil problem, and that we should expect $12-15/gallon
> gasoline followed by rationing."
Does that mean I should keep my Virago 250? What about all the people
who have bought the big SUV's? These monsters are still selling around
here; I see lots of new ones.
SQ
John A. Weeks III
Henry <9-...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
> "Robert Hirsch, author of Peaking of World Oil Production:
> Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (a.k.a. the
> Hirsch Report), appeared on CNBC this morning. He said flat
> out that new technologies and new drilling won't solve the
> peak oil problem, and that we should expect $12-15/gallon
> gasoline followed by rationing."
How come the peak oil people act just like the tinfoil hat
people did 10 years ago? Are they just as crazy? Or just
as stupid?
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
Brent P
>
> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4019
>
> "Robert Hirsch, author of Peaking of World Oil Production:
> Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (a.k.a. the
> Hirsch Report), appeared on CNBC this morning. He said flat
> out that new technologies and new drilling won't solve the
> peak oil problem, and that we should expect $12-15/gallon
> gasoline followed by rationing."
There is no shortage of oil. None. Zero zip. Put in an order with the
saudi's they will sell you as much as you can buy.
The scarcity is artifical. The main reason for the price increase is the
dollar.
Here, some simple math. Oil used to be ~$30/bbl. Now it's ~$130/bbl. The
euro used to be ~85 cents. That's 35 euro/bbl then. Now a euro is
~$1.58. That's 82 euro/bbl. Oil in euro terms is only 2.34X while in
dollars it is 4.33X. Now in terms of gold, because the euro inflates
too, oil isn't that much different.
http://www.kitco.com/ind/saville/may022006.html
And silver:
http://www.itulip.com/images/OilvsSilver2003-2006-25.gif
As of today's close, 1960s 90% silver US coin, $0.35 face is worth
$4.55. Gasoline is still less than 35 cents a gallon in
US constitutional money.
Peak oil is a fraud. High prices are due to fiat money. There are no
shortages, there is no production supply problem of any significance.
Oil companies continue to increase their reserves faster than sales.
Kenneth P. Turvey
On Wed, 21 May 2008 20:23:43 -0500, John A. Weeks III wrote:
> How come the peak oil people act just like the tinfoil hat people did 10
> years ago? Are they just as crazy? Or just as stupid?
Even if they are wrong today, they are doomed to be right before long.
We just aren't making any new oil, and we won't be any time soon, in any
quantity that matters.
--
Kenneth P. Turvey <kt-u...@squeakydolphin.com>
Timberwoof
Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nope. Not true, Brent. My father's a petroleum geologist and he confirms
it. Keynesian economics only works where resources are plentiful; what
you're proposing is just wishful thinking.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
Ten Steps to Fascism: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html
Timberwoof
"John A. Weeks III" <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> In article <g12epn$f5p$2...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Henry <9-...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>
> > "Robert Hirsch, author of Peaking of World Oil Production:
> > Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (a.k.a. the
> > Hirsch Report), appeared on CNBC this morning. He said flat
> > out that new technologies and new drilling won't solve the
> > peak oil problem, and that we should expect $12-15/gallon
> > gasoline followed by rationing."
>
> How come the peak oil people act just like the tinfoil hat
> people did 10 years ago? Are they just as crazy? Or just
> as stupid?
What do you mean? The peak oil people I know have presented their
research with plenty of past examples that prove their hypothesis and
methods correct. It's sound science, if you'd just look into it.
Look the first peak-oil nutcase presented his bad news in the 1950s ...
and was proven right earlier than he predicted. And all the principles
of peak oil get proven over and over at oil fields all over the world.
There's only so much and you can get it out only so fast. If you try to
get it faster, you'll end up getting less out. Remember the famous oil
gushers of the early 20th century? They were all tapped out within a
year. Had they limited production, more oil would have been recoverable.
So how come you're acting like the creationists? Are you just as crazy,
or just as stupid?
Timberwoof
wrote:
> Henry wrote:
> >
> > http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4019
> >
> > "Robert Hirsch, author of Peaking of World Oil Production:
> > Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (a.k.a. the
> > Hirsch Report), appeared on CNBC this morning. He said flat
> > out that new technologies and new drilling won't solve the
> > peak oil problem, and that we should expect $12-15/gallon
> > gasoline followed by rationing."
>
> Does that mean I should keep my Virago 250?
Yeah, keep it until it's uneconomical, and then scrap it.
> What about all the people
> who have bought the big SUV's? These monsters are still selling around
> here; I see lots of new ones.
Basically, they're fucked. They will eventually have to scrap their
fatmobiles.
Kenneth P. Turvey
On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:19:02 -0700, Timberwoof wrote:
> Nope. Not true, Brent. My father's a petroleum geologist and he confirms
> it. Keynesian economics only works where resources are plentiful; what
> you're proposing is just wishful thinking.
I disagree with him on the basic point. Oil supply isn't unlimited.
That doesn't mean that our currency isn't part of the problem. To buy a
1913 dollar will cost you $22.00 today. This is the fault of fiat money
to a large degree.
GortWeasel
> Peak oil is a fraud. High prices are due to fiat money. There are no
> shortages, there is no production supply problem of any significance.
> Oil companies continue to increase their reserves faster than sales.
Yup. The price of oil is rising because the price of oil is rising. There
is no other reason. The good news about price bubbles is that they
eventually break.
P. Roehling
"GortWeasel" <gortw...@hotmail.com> wrote
I gort news for ya Weasel: there are circa one billion new petroleum
customers coming on line right about now in India and China. That's around
one *seventh* of the World's total population.
Exponentially increasing demand and an ever-decreasing supply will equal
sky-high and rising prices for the foreseeable future.
The Older Gentleman
> In article <g12epn$f5p$2...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Henry <9-...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>
> > "Robert Hirsch, author of Peaking of World Oil Production:
> > Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (a.k.a. the
> > Hirsch Report), appeared on CNBC this morning. He said flat
> > out that new technologies and new drilling won't solve the
> > peak oil problem, and that we should expect $12-15/gallon
> > gasoline followed by rationing."
>
> How come the peak oil people act just like the tinfoil hat
> people did 10 years ago? Are they just as crazy? Or just
> as stupid?
>
How can you be so stupid and actually manage to breathe?
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F, SL125 & SH50
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
"What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time
and hassle for no tangible benefit."
P. Roehling
"The Older Gentleman" <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>> How come the peak oil people act just like the tinfoil hat
>> people did 10 years ago? Are they just as crazy? Or just
>> as stupid?
>>
> How can you be so stupid and actually manage to breathe?
He's yet to evolve past gills.
GortWeasel
>
> I gort news for ya Weasel: there are circa one billion new petroleum
> customers coming on line right about now in India and China. That's
> around one *seventh* of the World's total population.
> Exponentially increasing demand and an ever-decreasing supply will equal
> sky-high and rising prices for the foreseeable future.
Demand is increasing but it is not increasing exponentially. You
immediately lose all credibility for that statement.
As well, supply is not ever decreasing. As one example, consider the new
Brazilian fields...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aBUoYKhu7PWk
And we musn't forget our old friend Mr Coal. Mr Coal is abundant in many
countries and he can converted to gasoline economically at an oil price
of $70/barrel.
What is happening right now is that people are speculating on oil and
this is causing a pricing bubble.
Timberwoof
GortWeasel <gortw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is not a "bubble". The supply of oil is finite. When it runs out,
it won't be available at any price.
TOG@Toil
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 23:11:19 -0700, P. Roehling wrote:
>
> > I gort news for ya Weasel: there are circa one billion new petroleum
>
> Brazilian fields...
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aBUoYKhu7PWk
Supply *is* decreasing. It is a finite resource. The supply is finite.
As we use more, so there is less left. The fact that someone finds
some more in a new part of the world doesn't change that.
>
> And we musn't forget our old friend Mr Coal. Mr Coal is abundant in many
> countries and he can converted to gasoline economically at an oil price
> of $70/barrel.
>
Coal is a finite resource as well. And the fact that there may be
hundreds of years' worth of coal left doesn't change that. And if we
switched to liquid fuel produced from coal, the reserves would only be
used up faster.
You are not very bright, are you?
> What is happening right now is that people are speculating on oil and
> this is causing a pricing bubble.
To a certain extent this is true. But that doesn't change the fact
that this, like all fossil fuels, is a non-replaceable resource and
therefore the supply is declining.
GortWeasel
>
> Supply *is* decreasing. It is a finite resource. The supply is finite.
> As we use more, so there is less left. The fact that someone finds some
> more in a new part of the world doesn't change that.
Not currently. Supply is still increasing.
>> And we musn't forget our old friend Mr Coal. Mr Coal is abundant in
>> many countries and he can converted to gasoline economically at an oil
>> price of $70/barrel.
>>
> Coal is a finite resource as well. And the fact that there may be
> hundreds of years' worth of coal left doesn't change that. And if we
> switched to liquid fuel produced from coal, the reserves would only be
> used up faster.
>
> You are not very bright, are you?
That is a strange comment to make. Is it your habit to say that when you
disagee with someone?
There is sufficient coal for gasoline production to see us over a
transition to a different fuel source. My country for example has
_thousands_ of years of coal reserves and I would be very happy to see it
used for gasoline production.
> To a certain extent this is true. But that doesn't change the fact that
> this, like all fossil fuels, is a non-replaceable resource and therefore
> the supply is declining.
It is certainly true at the present time. It is a speculative bubble.
However there is no proof at all that oil is a fossil fuel. It is quite
possible oil is abiotic in origin. Did the hydrocarbon lakes on Titan
originate from primitive life forms?
oasysco
> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4019
>
> "Robert Hirsch, author of Peaking of World Oil Production:
> Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (a.k.a. the
> Hirsch Report), appeared on CNBC this morning. He said flat
> out that new technologies and new drilling won't solve the
> peak oil problem, and that we should expect $12-15/gallon
> gasoline followed by rationing."
>
The only problem with your post is that you have to believe in the
peak oil theory. If you buy into that then it makes sense. If you
don't then the guy is way off the mark. Sorta like "global warming" -
you either believe in it or not.
Greg
John A. Weeks III
<timberwoof.spam-AB...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
> In article <john-7329FF.2...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> "John A. Weeks III" <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <g12epn$f5p$2...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>,
> > Henry <9-...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
> >
> > > "Robert Hirsch, author of Peaking of World Oil Production:
> > > Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (a.k.a. the
> > > Hirsch Report), appeared on CNBC this morning. He said flat
> > > out that new technologies and new drilling won't solve the
> > > peak oil problem, and that we should expect $12-15/gallon
> > > gasoline followed by rationing."
> >
> > How come the peak oil people act just like the tinfoil hat
> > people did 10 years ago? Are they just as crazy? Or just
> > as stupid?
>
> What do you mean? The peak oil people I know have presented their
> research with plenty of past examples that prove their hypothesis and
> methods correct. It's sound science, if you'd just look into it.
It is bad science because they ignore a key fact, and that is
the amount of proven reserves of oil. According to industry
sources, the American Society of Petroleum Engineers, the
amount of proven oil reserves has been growing decade over
decade since the 1890s, and stands today at an all-time high.
The facts are that exploration is limited because there is so
much proven reserves. It makes little sense to search for more
oil when you are awash in the stuff and can pump it making
nearly unlimited profits.
If peak oil were true, we would see a lot more exploration,
and see the reserves start to fall year over year. We are
nowhere close to that.
We might get a peak for easy to recover oil in 50 or 75 years,
but that is generations into the future. Why scare people
today about something that is so far off into the future that
it might never happen? After all, fusion could come on-line
before that.
spamT...@yahoo.com
> In article
> <timberwoof.spam-AB4AAA.21231921052...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
>
>
>
> Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
> > In article <john-7329FF.20234321052...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> > "John A. Weeks III" <j...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <g12epn$f5...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
> ======================================================================
Peak oil refers to production rate, not 'how long' any given reserve
will last.
Dave
Brent P
So he's saying the oil companies are lying on their annual reports?
Commiting fraud? There's no shortage of oil. there are no lines, demand
is being met. Who can't get the oil or oil products they want? Who?
Nobody.
> Keynesian economics only works where resources are plentiful; what
> you're proposing is just wishful thinking.
Keynesian economics doesn't work period. Let me re-phrase that, it
doesn't work for us, the people who don't get the new money first.
With regard to basing the value of money on silver and gold, there has
been no increase in the price of oil or gasoline. I'll stick with the
Austrian school.
Brent P
The world has been 'running out' of oil since the 1920s. Sorry, at this
point it's chicken little, especially when the americas alone have a few
saudi arabias worth of more expensive to turn into gasoline oil that is
very profitable at todays prices.
Bert Hyman
news:u_qdnbmoepZq5qjV...@comcast.com:
These days in the US, the most expensive part of extracting oil is
buying the politicians.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com
TOG@Toil
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 02:32:27 -0700, TOG@Toil wrote:
>
> > Supply *is* decreasing. It is a finite resource. The supply is finite.
> > As we use more, so there is less left. The fact that someone finds some
> > more in a new part of the world doesn't change that.
>
> Not currently. Supply is still increasing.
>
>
> There is sufficient coal for gasoline production to see us over a
> transition to a different fuel source. My country for example has
> _thousands_ of years of coal reserves and I would be very happy to see it
> used for gasoline production.
Thousands of years at the present rate of consumption. But how many if
we switched off the oil tap and opened the coal bunker? Not the same
thinbg at all.
>
> > To a certain extent this is true. But that doesn't change the fact that
> > this, like all fossil fuels, is a non-replaceable resource and therefore
> > the supply is declining.
>
> It is certainly true at the present time. It is a speculative bubble.
So how do you reconcile that with your assertion "Supply is still
increasing?" Make your mind up. *Processing*, or *refining8 of oil may
be increasing, but if you are withdrawing stocks from a non-renewable
source, then the supply is not increasing.
>
> However there is no proof at all that oil is a fossil fuel.
There is no "proof" that smoking causes cancer, either.
Like I said, you aren't very bright.
Brent P
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 20:30:18 -0500, Brent P
>
>>On 2008-05-22, Henry <9-...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4019
>>>
>>> "Robert Hirsch, author of Peaking of World Oil Production:
>>> Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (a.k.a. the
>>> Hirsch Report), appeared on CNBC this morning. He said flat
>>> out that new technologies and new drilling won't solve the
>>> peak oil problem, and that we should expect $12-15/gallon
>>> gasoline followed by rationing."
>>
>>There is no shortage of oil. None. Zero zip. Put in an order with the
>>saudi's they will sell you as much as you can buy.
>
> Warned" and please give your point-by-point rebuttal. If you can't
> catch the show, send me your address and I'll burn you a copy on DVD-R
> for you to watch.
>
> I'm seriously interested in how you would respond to the data
> presented in that show.
Sorry missed it. I am not into mass-media propoganda. I've outlined why
we are not out of gas or out of oil many times over. You should know it
by now.
Maybe the production of saudi jed-shotgun-crude peaks. But
there is so much more oil that is profitable at $130/bbl right now, that
it's just insane. Saudi oil is profitable at over $5/bbl. There are huge
oil deposits that in total make saudi arabia look small in north and
south america that are profitable at $40/bbl. They don't get touched
because opening the pipes in saudi arabia could put them under and the
US taxpayer pays the political and military costs in the middle east.
Seriously... The recent find in brazil alone is just the 'tip of the ice
berg' and already exceeds the biggest saudi fields.
It's called artifical scarcity scott. It's what happens when free
markets close down and cartels control a resource. Like diamonds.
You know as well as I do why nobody is opening refineries to make money
on the high gasoline prices. they can't. It's impossible to do it in a
timely manner given the regulation. That makes it a bad business
decision, so big oil has a lock on it. $4/gal gasoline scott... you know
if the free market was working there would be upstart companies trying
to undercut. Where are they?
The last time I delt with this topic a few days ago I was presented with
the article on a field that Exxon has been dicking around with for 30
years with excuses of why they don't drill. Alaska's government now
wants to reassign the leases to other companies that will drill.
The world is awash in known oil. It's just all been blocked off with
regulation and big oil's inside track. Gasoline production was
intentionally bottlenecked by big oil for higher margins.
Big oil is making RECORD PROFITs. if there was a real shortage of oil
they wouldn't be making those profits, because they wouldn't hae the oil
to sell and they would be paying a lot more for what they could get.
They do and they aren't.
Brent P
> This is not a "bubble". The supply of oil is finite. When it runs out,
> it won't be available at any price.
Yes it is a bubble. The housing bubble money has found a new home, oil.
Oil will not run out so long as the sun still shines. In a few hundred
or a thousand years if it's rate of use doesn't taper off and nobody
bothers to explore for more, then maybe it will get scarce. actually
scarce. But man already knows how to make a light sweet crude from
agricutural waste products:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
TOG@Toil
> On 2008-05-22, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
>
> > This is not a "bubble". The supply of oil is finite. When it runs out,
> > it won't be available at any price.
>
> Yes it is a bubble. The housing bubble money has found a new home, oil.
>
> Oil will not run out so long as the sun still shines. In a few hundred
> or a thousand years if it's rate of use doesn't taper off and nobody
> bothers to explore for more, then maybe it will get scarce. actually
> scarce.
We're not necessarily talking about scarce. Yes, there's a helluva lot
out there. Equally, there are a helluva lot of people about to start
using more of it. Like the Chinese and Indians. They want cars too.
> But man already knows how to make a light sweet crude from
> agricutural waste products:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
Oh, well, we're saved, then.
I do find that the assertions that there's no need to worry about oil
seem to emanate mostly from the Yanks, who more than anyone are used
to what they consider to be a limitless source of cheap energy. But
the US ceased to be a net exporter of oil decades ago. In Europe, one
of the most important oil producers used to be Romania. And now?
As for the $12 gallon, we have it already in the UK. Nearly. $12 per
Imperial gallon, anyway: $10 per US. As I've said before, the massive
taxation on motor fuel that we have in (most of) Europe has served to
promote the development of fuel-efficient engines the like of which
the US has failed to develop on a decent scale. It has served to
instil a 'no-waste' culture, which is no bad thing. And interestingly,
it has insulated European motorists from most of the oil price shock.
When the oil price doubles, the price at the pumps doesn't. Our
personal and national economies are geared to run on expensive fuel.
Yours isn't.
The US was long ago overtaken as the world's largest exporter by
Europeans. Sooner or later, the US is going to have to change the way
it behaves about energy use. Preferably sooner.
PS: I still want a Yank musclecar like a modern 'Vette or Mustang.....
Brent P
> On 22 May, 15:26, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2008-05-22, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This is not a "bubble". The supply of oil is finite. When it runs out,
>> > it won't be available at any price.
>>
>> Yes it is a bubble. The housing bubble money has found a new home, oil.
>>
>> Oil will not run out so long as the sun still shines. In a few hundred
>> or a thousand years if it's rate of use doesn't taper off and nobody
>> bothers to explore for more, then maybe it will get scarce. actually
>> scarce.
>
> We're not necessarily talking about scarce. Yes, there's a helluva lot
> out there. Equally, there are a helluva lot of people about to start
> using more of it. Like the Chinese and Indians. They want cars too.
The world is awash in oil. China and india probably haven't even been
well explored for oil either. I don't think you grasp how much oil there
is in the world that is profitable at today's prices to make gasoline
out of. It's one of those numbers that might as well be infinity. Tata's
and Cherry's increasing car sales won't be a bother *if* oil returns to
being a free market instead of a cartel industry.
>> But man already knows how to make a light sweet crude from
>> agricutural waste products:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
>
> Oh, well, we're saved, then.
That wasn't the point. The point was to prove oil can't ever 'run out'.
> I do find that the assertions that there's no need to worry about oil
> seem to emanate mostly from the Yanks, who more than anyone are used
> to what they consider to be a limitless source of cheap energy. But
> the US ceased to be a net exporter of oil decades ago. In Europe, one
> of the most important oil producers used to be Romania. And now?
So what? The world is still awash in oil. The US has lots of off limits
oil and oil that oil companies don't drill because they prefer cheaper
to extract sources or they just don't want to for other reasons. But
there's no need to worry about import vs. export. The worry is that the
US doesn't make much of anything anymore. That is a dollar/federal
reserve problem. That's really what this oil price problem is, it's a
dollar problem. It's a government spending problem. There's enough oil
production capacity to meet demand. My guess is that with the higher
prices demand will fall and production will be scaled back, etc... if we
had a free market in oil, people would be jumping into the business, but
what we have is a cartel system, the cartel system will scale back
production.
> As for the $12 gallon, we have it already in the UK. Nearly. $12 per
> Imperial gallon, anyway: $10 per US. As I've said before, the massive
> taxation on motor fuel that we have in (most of) Europe has served to
> promote the development of fuel-efficient engines the like of which
> the US has failed to develop on a decent scale. It has served to
> instil a 'no-waste' culture, which is no bad thing. And interestingly,
> it has insulated European motorists from most of the oil price shock.
> When the oil price doubles, the price at the pumps doesn't. Our
> personal and national economies are geared to run on expensive fuel.
> Yours isn't.
All the arrogance and ignorance in one paragraph. Europeans are not a
'no-waste' culture and all tax scheme accomplished is for people in
europe to be needlessly impoverished for decades. If I want a small car,
I go down to the dealership and write a check. They are available here,
and they don't cost anywhere near what they do in the UK, again because
of oppressive taxation. Being taxed to death on something is not a
virtue. Seriously if people decide they want light weight cars the auto
market here will react in a matter of weeks. Sure, the big three might
get smacked hard, but that's because the companies are run by idiots.
If they really wanted to live all they would need is an emergency
wavier from the government to bring in the models they sell in europe.
You forgot that didn't you? That much of the european cars you're
talking about are manufactured by Ford and GM or companies they own.
How long to you think with the appropiate political pressure it would
take for Ford to be selling Fiestas, Kugas, and other models in the
US? My guess is if things get bad enough 4 weeks plus shipping time. The
UAW will scream but if things get bad enough they won't have a choice,
it will be allow it or be out of work forever.
> The US was long ago overtaken as the world's largest exporter by
> Europeans. Sooner or later, the US is going to have to change the way
> it behaves about energy use. Preferably sooner.
The chinese are the world's largest exporters because practically every
US and european company moved their manufacturing there.
Matthew T. Russotto
John A. Weeks III <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>In article <g12epn$f5p$2...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Henry <9-...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>
>> Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (a.k.a. the
>> Hirsch Report), appeared on CNBC this morning. He said flat
>> out that new technologies and new drilling won't solve the
>> peak oil problem, and that we should expect $12-15/gallon
>> gasoline followed by rationing."
>
>people did 10 years ago? Are they just as crazy? Or just
>as stupid?
Just because they're crazy doesn't mean they're wrong. Though while I
don't believe in "peak oil", $12-15 gasoline with rationing is
certainly possible. It just takes an administration willing to make
some really stupid moves. Like banning OPEC oil imports, for
instance.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
P. Roehling
"GortWeasel" <gortw...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Exponentially increasing demand and an ever-decreasing supply will equal
>> sky-high and rising prices for the foreseeable future.
>
> Demand is increasing but it is not increasing exponentially. You
> immediately lose all credibility for that statement.
You're an idiot.
P. Roehling
"Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Oil will not run out so long as the sun still shines.
And the supply of optimistic nutjobs is even more endless than the supply of
crude.
Brent P
Put down the mainstream media crack pipe and do some research. You're
being lied to. The world is awash in oil. I've detailed the large
reserves of oil the americas many times on usenet and now the new find
in brazil on top of all of that. Sure Brazil's new find is hard to
develop, but it's icing on the cake of oil that is already profitable
with EXISTING technology at US$40/bbl.
Guess what... 4 hours old on google news... MORE OIL!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jjfzogTbuKqVbYSPLPvAodaTOUyAD90QO2KG1
Brazil finds more oil near huge offshore field
4 hours ago
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) . Brazil's state-run oil company Petroleo
Brasileiro SA says it has struck more oil in ultra-deep waters near the
huge offshore Tupi field.
<...>
Turby
<tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>...The world is still awash in oil. The US has lots of off limits oil
Do you think that just because prices go up that people will decide
it's OK to drill in National Parks or on the beaches of resort towns?
>... Seriously if people decide they want light weight cars the auto
>market here will react in a matter of weeks. Sure, the big three might
>get smacked hard, but that's because the companies are run by idiots.
Weeks? You are funny. What world do you live in that entire design,
manufacturing, and delivery industries can change overnight? European
markets produce enough cars for their market alone. There aren't
enough cars produced by those makers to supply the American market
next month- hell, they couldn't do it in two years.
You think the companies are run by idiots, but they'll be able to
solve the problem? It takes an idiot to think that.
--
Turby the Turbosurfer
kirb
> Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (a.k.a. the
> Hirsch Report), appeared on CNBC this morning. He said flat
> out that new technologies and new drilling won't solve the
> peak oil problem, and that we should expect $12-15/gallon
> gasoline followed by rationing."
>
How much of that, used in jetliners, when burned would cause a large
building to fall down?
Wait, we already know the answer to that....it's almost as predictable
as Henry's kook rants.
Kirb
.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com
wrote:
>On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:20:41 -0500, Brent P
><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>...The world is still awash in oil. The US has lots of off limits oil
>
>Do you think that just because prices go up that people will decide
>it's OK to drill in National Parks or on the beaches of resort towns?
Yep.
--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/
Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm
Brent P
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:20:41 -0500, Brent P
><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>...The world is still awash in oil. The US has lots of off limits oil
>
> Do you think that just because prices go up that people will decide
> it's OK to drill in National Parks or on the beaches of resort towns?
That isn't where most of the off-limits oil is.
>>... Seriously if people decide they want light weight cars the auto
>>market here will react in a matter of weeks. Sure, the big three might
>>get smacked hard, but that's because the companies are run by idiots.
> Weeks? You are funny. What world do you live in that entire design,
> manufacturing, and delivery industries can change overnight?
The cars already exist, they are in production.
> European markets produce enough cars for their market alone.
I want a cite that they are full-tilt capacity, otherwise you're full of
shit. Actually you are already full of shit since I can buy a european
made car today if I want to.
> There aren't
> enough cars produced by those makers to supply the American market
> next month- hell, they couldn't do it in two years.
Clue time:
No need to fill the full US market from europe, only the amount of
small cars that Ford and GM have buyers for.
> You think the companies are run by idiots, but they'll be able to
> solve the problem? It takes an idiot to think that.
The 'problem' is Ford and GM's US product line up. Japanese makes are
fine. European makes are more or less fine. GM and Ford make small cars
for other markets around the world. All they need do is get the product
to market in the US. The main blockage is regulatory and union, that is
POLITICAL. Proper political pressure from a crisis will clear that up
quickly. If they don't Ford and GM and Chrysler will go out of business.
po-tee-tweet. Americans will still be able to buy small cars.
Fuel price is not an oil problem anyway, it's a central banking &
managed trade problem.
Matthew T. Russotto
Turby <turbo...@beach.comber> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:20:41 -0500, Brent P
><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>...The world is still awash in oil. The US has lots of off limits oil
>
>Do you think that just because prices go up that people will decide
>it's OK to drill in National Parks or on the beaches of resort towns?
Oh, yes, eventually.
Marc Gerges
>
> All the arrogance and ignorance in one paragraph. Europeans are not a
> 'no-waste' culture and all tax scheme accomplished is for people in
> europe to be needlessly impoverished for decades.
I've been driving around on both sides of the atlantic for a couple
years now and regularly notice how the cost of driving is similar on
both sides. Driving an average car, filling up has a similar cost, and
you get similar distances for the money. Of course, fuel tanks and
consumption are bigger/higher in the US than in Europe. But driving
around costs roughly the same money. We're talking +-20%, depending on
exchange rates, local taxes etc. Not factors of 2, 5 or 10.
Most of the money paid at the pump in the US goes to oil company profits
and middle east countries. Most of the money paid in Europe goes to
local governments.
Now if you have shares in oil companies or middle eastern countries, you
prefer the US approach. If you have a share in your government, you
might prefer the european way.
cu
.\\arc
Brent P
>
> Most of the money paid at the pump in the US goes to oil company profits
> and middle east countries. Most of the money paid in Europe goes to
> local governments.
Wrong. Pump price in the US has a significant amount of tax on it and of
the remainder most of that goes to the cost of getting the product to
market. What's left is divided between the oil company and the local
station owner if it isn't a corporate store. Of what the oil company
gets, a hunk goes to the US, Canadian, or Mexican government most of the
time... in the remaining instances a middle east or african nation.
> Now if you have shares in oil companies or middle eastern countries, you
> prefer the US approach. If you have a share in your government, you
> might prefer the european way.
hahaha that tired old crap again.... government isn't your friend. It
isn't your buddy, it doesn't care about your best interests. It's in it
for itself. It, like a corporation only cares about its own growth.
Many people within government, like a corporation only care about
what they can personally extract for themselves using their position
within the organization.
Government is often influenced and in partnership with corporations. ( I
think there was this Italian fellow who came up with a definition of a
form of government that fit that back in the 1930s... ) That is the case
with big oil in the US. There is fundamentally no difference between
paying taxes on fuel and paying more for it to go to the record profits
of effective cartel of big oil. If it goes to taxes then government will
funnel it to big oil by waging war in the middle east, propping up
governments there for the best interests of big oil, and other such
activities. What's the effective difference?
Marc Gerges
> On 2008-05-22, Marc Gerges <marc....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Most of the money paid at the pump in the US goes to oil company profits
>> and middle east countries. Most of the money paid in Europe goes to
>> local governments.
>
> Wrong. Pump price in the US has a significant amount of tax on it
Oh, has it? Wasn't aware of that, I thought it was around 10-15% plus a
bit of sales tax. Less than 20, anyway. European countries seem to be
around 75, 80%.
> and of the remainder most of that goes to the cost of getting the
> product to market. What's left is divided between the oil company and
> the local station owner if it isn't a corporate store. Of what the oil
> company gets, a hunk goes to the US, Canadian, or Mexican government
> most of the time... in the remaining instances a middle east or
> african nation.
I wouldn't expect this to be very much different, independently of where
the fuel is sold.
>> Now if you have shares in oil companies or middle eastern countries,
>> you prefer the US approach. If you have a share in your government,
>> you might prefer the european way.
>
> hahaha that tired old crap again.... government isn't your friend. It
> isn't your buddy, it doesn't care about your best interests. It's in
> it for itself. It, like a corporation only cares about its own growth.
> Many people within government, like a corporation only care about
> what they can personally extract for themselves using their position
> within the organization.
You've got a valid point, there. And just as well as you can influence
the oil company by voting with your share, so you can with the
government. You may even end up getting dividends from it, although they
usually call it subsidies ;-)
> Government is often influenced and in partnership with corporations. (
> I think there was this Italian fellow who came up with a definition of
> a form of government that fit that back in the 1930s... ) That is the
> case with big oil in the US. There is fundamentally no difference
> between paying taxes on fuel and paying more for it to go to the
> record profits of effective cartel of big oil. If it goes to taxes
> then government will funnel it to big oil by waging war in the middle
> east, propping up governments there for the best interests of big oil,
> and other such activities. What's the effective difference?
Most european governments apparently spend considerably less in middle
eastern wars than american oil companies.
cu
.\\arc
tomo...@erols.com
Well everyone knows that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have
manipulated the worldwide oil markets to enrich their oil bidness
friends while raping the American people. The only surprising thing
is that they found the time to do that while training the "terrorists"
on their 9/11 mission, and then afterwards personally killing every
single person who knew about the plot.
Not their fault if they overlooked Henry and the Acorn.
They were BUSY, man!
P. Roehling
"Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Put down the mainstream media crack pipe and do some research. You're
> being lied to. The world is awash in oil.
And Dick Cheney was responsible for knocking down the WTC on 9/11, Hitler
still lives on in his Antarctic hideaway, we never landed on the moon, and
little green men in flying saucers are coming to save the chosen from
planetary disaster; but only if they castrate themselves first and then
commit mass suicide.
Thank you for your contribution.
The Older Gentleman
> The chinese are the world's largest exporters because practically every
> US and european company moved their manufacturing there.
Have a look at Germany. It exports more than the US. In fact, according
to some figures, it is the world's largest exporter, bar none. Other
figures place China just above Germany.
Either way, it's splitting hairs. But a nation of some 85 million people
manages to export more finished goods even than Japan.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F, SL125 & SH50
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
"What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time
and hassle for no tangible benefit."
The Older Gentleman
> You forgot that didn't you? That much of the european cars you're
> talking about are manufactured by Ford and GM or companies they own.
No, I didn't forget at all.
The Older Gentleman
> Actually you are already full of shit since I can buy a european
> made car today if I want to.
Sure. BMW, Merc, Jaguar.....
Mini.
Try a European supermini. Oh, you can't.
Brent P
> Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2008-05-22, Marc Gerges <marc....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Most of the money paid at the pump in the US goes to oil company profits
>>> and middle east countries. Most of the money paid in Europe goes to
>>> local governments.
>>
>> Wrong. Pump price in the US has a significant amount of tax on it
>
> Oh, has it? Wasn't aware of that, I thought it was around 10-15% plus a
> bit of sales tax. Less than 20, anyway. European countries seem to be
> around 75, 80%.
May 2004:
http://www.illinois.gov/gasprices/docs/Primer-gas.pdf
Taxes were 59 cents on $2.12 gasoline. Now the mix is:
Federal 18.4 cents/gal
State 19.0 cents/gal
Sales tax is now 9% and it taxes the tax as I recall, it will be 10-11%
later this year.
look at another 7cents/gal for local taxes.
So we are looking at about 20% of the final per gallon cost as tax. And
that's only because the taxing bodies have per gallon taxes... they
grumble about getting a bigger share since prices are up....
>> and of the remainder most of that goes to the cost of getting the
>> product to market. What's left is divided between the oil company and
>> the local station owner if it isn't a corporate store. Of what the oil
>> company gets, a hunk goes to the US, Canadian, or Mexican government
>> most of the time... in the remaining instances a middle east or
>> african nation.
> I wouldn't expect this to be very much different, independently of where
> the fuel is sold.
Most US imported oil comes from Canada and Mexico last I heard. Did you
know that the US exports oil too? Much of the oil from alaska goes to
places like Japan. Transportation costs drive what oil goes where much
of the time.
>>> Now if you have shares in oil companies or middle eastern countries,
>>> you prefer the US approach. If you have a share in your government,
>>> you might prefer the european way.
>> hahaha that tired old crap again.... government isn't your friend. It
>> isn't your buddy, it doesn't care about your best interests. It's in
>> it for itself. It, like a corporation only cares about its own growth.
>> Many people within government, like a corporation only care about
>> what they can personally extract for themselves using their position
>> within the organization.
> You've got a valid point, there. And just as well as you can influence
> the oil company by voting with your share, so you can with the
> government. You may even end up getting dividends from it, although they
> usually call it subsidies ;-)
If voting could actually change anything it wouldn't be legal.... from a
quote I read somewhere. The choices we get in the voting booth are
usually non-choices. The same interests win no matter who gets in the
office. Those who don't play ball with those interests are labeled
kooks.
>> Government is often influenced and in partnership with corporations. (
>> I think there was this Italian fellow who came up with a definition of
>> a form of government that fit that back in the 1930s... ) That is the
>> case with big oil in the US. There is fundamentally no difference
>> between paying taxes on fuel and paying more for it to go to the
>> record profits of effective cartel of big oil. If it goes to taxes
>> then government will funnel it to big oil by waging war in the middle
>> east, propping up governments there for the best interests of big oil,
>> and other such activities. What's the effective difference?
> Most european governments apparently spend considerably less in middle
> eastern wars than american oil companies.
The US got involved in the 1950s with the UK to overthrow Iran's
government for the benefit of oil companies, namely BP. Where is there
an american oil company any more? Exxon? Aamaco is owned by BP, Dutch
Royal Shell is well, dutch, Citgo is from chavezland ;) Anyway these
companies are pretty much global and stateless. They don't spend the
money on the wars themselves, they spend the US taxpayer's money using
those elected office holders.
Brent P
Laugh it up fuzzball. Sit down and read Exxon's annual report... nahh
you're too lazy to do that... you'll just believe what the mainstream
media tells you to believe.
Unless you can prove exxon mobil and others are committing fraud in
their annual reports... and that can be jail time for their CEOs and
other big wigs as I recall... you're wrong. Oil reserves are increasing.
Now if you can prove the oil is running out, well have at it, you can
throw these greedy executives in to prison!
Brent P
> Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually you are already full of shit since I can buy a european
>> made car today if I want to.
>
> Sure. BMW, Merc, Jaguar.....
>
> Mini.
>
> Try a European supermini. Oh, you can't.
Those crash regulations will get out of the way in hurry.
John A. Weeks III
<9928d3c9-3282-4ab1...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
spamT...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Peak oil refers to production rate, not 'how long' any given reserve
> will last.
It only makes sense that if our proven reserves are growing,
we can pump more year over year.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
TroytheTroll
> people did 10 years ago? Are they just as crazy? Or just
> as stupid?
Not all peak oil people are stupid. I'm assuming that people other
than Henry are involved of course.
TroytheTroll
>> people did 10 years ago? Are they just as crazy? Or just
>> as stupid?
>
> research with plenty of past examples that prove their hypothesis
> and
> methods correct. It's sound science, if you'd just look into it.
peak oil, as in, growth in a finite environment of use of an item must
at some point reach a maximum value. That is reasonable, and no one
disputes it.
The part people dispute is that this will cause us to cannabalize each
other, choose to starve to death instead of bicycling to work, nuke
Iran so we can steal their oil, etc etc.
The scenario's these nutjobs throw out there put them firmly in the
"crackpot" category.
>
> Look the first peak-oil nutcase presented his bad news in the 1950s
> ...
> and was proven right earlier than he predicted. And all the
> principles
> of peak oil get proven over and over at oil fields all over the
> world.
Peak oil as a technical issue is irrelevant. If only because, when
there are MULTIPLE peaks, you can spend all your time simply
arguing.."which peak is the REAL peak".. which is a conversation the
peaker types despise.
> There's only so much and you can get it out only so fast. If you try
> to
> get it faster, you'll end up getting less out. Remember the famous
> oil
> gushers of the early 20th century? They were all tapped out within a
> year. Had they limited production, more oil would have been
> recoverable.
Please.....
TroytheTroll
"Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u_qdnbmoepZq5qjV...@comcast.com...
> On 2008-05-22, Timberwoof <timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
>> Look the first peak-oil nutcase presented his bad news in the 1950s
>> ...
>
Sorry...the first people I am aware of proclaiming we were running out
was the state geologist for Pennsylvania I believe, late 1800's. I
believe the official count is 5, for times people have proclaimed
"we're running out of oil!".
I believe the most current round qualifies as 6, but I could be
mistaken.
TroytheTroll
>>How come the peak oil people act just like the tinfoil hat
>>people did 10 years ago? Are they just as crazy? Or just
>>as stupid?
>
> Just because they're crazy doesn't mean they're wrong.
Right...it just means they are crazy.
TroytheTroll
> There is no shortage of oil. None. Zero zip. Put in an order with
> the
> saudi's they will sell you as much as you can buy.
Not true. They, as everyone else, are limited by their existing
infrastructure. Ask for more than that infrastructure can handle, and
it ain't gonna happen.
>
> Peak oil is a fraud.
Peak oil is irrelevant and just an excuse for some zealots to preach
about their favorite end of the world scenario.
>High prices are due to fiat money. There are no
> shortages, there is no production supply problem of any
> significance.
> Oil companies continue to increase their reserves faster than sales.
>
Not always.
TroytheTroll
> equal sky-high and rising prices for the foreseeable future.
Demand hasn't increased at all over the past 3 years, it most
certainly isn't "exponentially" increasing when increasing = 0.
And supply isn't ever decreasing either, and when it did last time, it
took the invention of the SUV to soak up all the extra to cause THIS
particular round of problems.
Henry
> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>> Henry <9-...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>>> "Robert Hirsch, author of Peaking of World Oil Production:
>>> Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (a.k.a. the
>>> Hirsch Report), appeared on CNBC this morning. He said flat
>>> out that new technologies and new drilling won't solve the
>>> peak oil problem, and that we should expect $12-15/gallon
>>> gasoline followed by rationing."
>> How come the peak oil people act just like the tinfoil hat
>> people did 10 years ago?
> Because oil has doubled in the last month? Tripled since fuckwad $bush
> took over?
Actually, when Bush was appointed President by family
friends on the Supreme Court, oil was about $25 per
barrel. Now it's $135 per barrel, and it's still climbing.
The Bush regime consists of members of the oil and weapons
cartel. Like any good capitalist, they take measures to keep
their business lucrative...
http://www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.911truth.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
TroytheTroll
> quite
> possible oil is abiotic in origin.
Maybe...except when they find the actual carbon material from itsy
bitsy dead plant matter mixed in with it I suppose.
Henry
> On May 21, 8:29 pm, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4019
>> "Robert Hirsch, author of Peaking of World Oil Production:
>> Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (a.k.a. the
>> Hirsch Report), appeared on CNBC this morning. He said flat
>> out that new technologies and new drilling won't solve the
>> peak oil problem, and that we should expect $12-15/gallon
>> gasoline followed by rationing."
> The only problem with your post is that you have to believe in the
> peak oil theory.
Which basically states that oil is a limited resource
and eventually its production will peak, then decline.
It looks like it will do that while demand is skyrocketing.
Do you disagree with any part of that theory? If so, what?
TroytheTroll
> it won't be available at any price.
It won't be "running out" in your lifetime, so why sweat it?
Henry
> On 2008-05-22, Henry <9-...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4019
>>
>> "Robert Hirsch, author of Peaking of World Oil Production:
>> Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (a.k.a. the
>> Hirsch Report), appeared on CNBC this morning. He said flat
>> out that new technologies and new drilling won't solve the
>> peak oil problem, and that we should expect $12-15/gallon
>> gasoline followed by rationing."
> There is no shortage of oil. None. Zero zip.
I agree that greed driven capitalist speculation is part of the
rapid price increase, and maybe oil is replacing real estate as the
next commodity to be exploited by the ruling elite at the expense of
working class taxpayers, but it's kinda silly to imply that oil is
a renewable and/or unlimited energy source. Production will reach
a peak and begin to decline while demand is increasing. What's
open for debate is how soon, and how bad it will be.
Kenneth P. Turvey
On Thu, 22 May 2008 16:59:18 -0500, Brent P wrote:
> They don't spend the
> money on the wars themselves, they spend the US taxpayer's money using
> those elected office holders.
And we all go along with it. I wish I could say we had learned something
from Iraq, but from what the three most likely future presidents say, we
haven't learned anything.
I guess this is a topic for a different thread in a different forum.
--
Kenneth P. Turvey <kt-u...@squeakydolphin.com>
tomo...@erols.com
wrote:
> On 2008-05-22, Marc Gerges <marc.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 2008-05-22, Marc Gerges <marc.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Most of the money paid at the pump in the US goes to oil company profits
> >>> and middle east countries. Most of the money paid in Europe goes to
> >>> local governments.
>
> >> Wrong. Pump price in the US has a significant amount of tax on it
>
> > Oh, has it? Wasn't aware of that, I thought it was around 10-15% plus a
> > bit of sales tax. Less than 20, anyway. European countries seem to be
> > around 75, 80%.
>
> May 2004:http://www.illinois.gov/gasprices/docs/Primer-gas.pdf
> Taxes were 59 cents on $2.12 gasoline. Now the mix is:
> Federal 18.4 cents/gal
> State 19.0 cents/gal
> Sales tax is now 9% and it taxes the tax as I recall, it will be 10-11%
> later this year.
> look at another 7cents/gal for local taxes.
>
> So we are looking at about 20% of the final per gallon cost as tax. And
> that's only because the taxing bodies have per gallon taxes... they
> grumble about getting a bigger share since prices are up....
Federal taxes are cents per gallon, so the higher prices go, the lower
the effective tax rate. Currently total taxes at the pump range from
a low of 26 cents per gallon in Alaska to a high of 63 cents per
gallon in California, with a national average of all taxes and fees
and surcharges of 62 cents per gallon. So, given a national average
of about $4 per gallon as of now, federal taxes are 4.6% and all
taxes combined average 15.5%, and are, of course, trending downward.
Brent P
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-05-22, Henry <9-...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>>> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4019
>>>
>>> "Robert Hirsch, author of Peaking of World Oil Production:
>>> Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (a.k.a. the
>>> Hirsch Report), appeared on CNBC this morning. He said flat
>>> out that new technologies and new drilling won't solve the
>>> peak oil problem, and that we should expect $12-15/gallon
>>> gasoline followed by rationing."
>
>> There is no shortage of oil. None. Zero zip.
>
> I agree that greed driven capitalist speculation is part of the
> rapid price increase, and maybe oil is replacing real estate as the
> next commodity to be exploited by the ruling elite at the expense of
> working class taxpayers, but it's kinda silly to imply that oil is
> a renewable and/or unlimited energy source. Production will reach
> a peak and begin to decline while demand is increasing. What's
> open for debate is how soon, and how bad it will be.
There is a shortage of oil like there is shortage of iron ore.
I didn't say it was renewable, I said there was no shortage. There isn't
one any more than the iron ore is running out.
Henry
> On May 21, 8:29 pm, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4019
>> "Robert Hirsch, author of Peaking of World Oil Production:
>> Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (a.k.a. the
>> Hirsch Report), appeared on CNBC this morning. He said flat
>> out that new technologies and new drilling won't solve the
>> peak oil problem, and that we should expect $12-15/gallon
>> gasoline followed by rationing."
> How much of that, used in jetliners, when burned would
> cause a large building to fall down?
Depends on the material used in the building's support structure,
the duration and severity of the fire, and in what manner the
building falls. But of course, the gradual, asymmetric heating of
random sections of a tall narrow steel framed building could not
cause the entire structure to suddenly explode and drop straight
down at virtual free fall speed and perfect symmetry. That's beyond
impossible - it's comically absurd.
But thanks for bringing the 9-11-01 false flag terror attacks into
yet another thread. The more the evidence is discussed, the more absurd
and comical your magic fire/super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory
becomes...
Here's what the experts say about WTC7. Let us know if you
dispute any of it, and why.
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
The Destruction of WTC 7
World Trade Center 7 was the third skyscraper destroyed on September 11
2001. It was not hit by a plane. The picture on the left shows WTC 7
after the collapse of the Twin Towers.
The final investigation report on its collapse has been postponed many
times. As of this writing (almost 6 years after the destruction), it
still has not been published.
This steel-framed skyscraper, completed in 1987, was located 110 meters
(350 feet) away from the closest of the Twin Towers ("WTC 1" on the map
below). The building's tenants included the CIA, the Internal Revenue
Service, several banks, the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, and
the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission. A large number of records of
ongoing investigations of Enron and other companies were destroyed with
WTC 7.
No airplane hit WTC 7, but its south facade was damaged by debris
ejected from the North Tower, which collapsed at 10.30 am. There is
conflicting information about the amount of damage. For example, in the
pictures shown in a preliminary official report the southwest corner is
badly damaged, whereas in the photograph taken by Aman Zafar in the
afternoon the same corner is intact Ã?Â? see my photo comparison. The
building was reported on fire at 4.10 pm by CNN, although the fires seem
to have started several hours earlier. The fires, whose origin is
unknown, appeared on a number of floors, and the building collapsed at
5.20 pm.
A high-resolution video of the collapse is available here. The
slow-motion video animation below shows the totality and symmetry of the
destruction.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, speculated that office
fires caused the collapse of the building. It, however, acknowledged in
its report in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how
they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. [...]
the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." Later in
2002, Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC 7, gave in the America
Rebuilds TV program a famous "pull it" statement that has commonly been
interpreted as meaning that the building was professionally demolished.
Did WTC 7 collapse as a result of office fires, or was it demolished
with explosives? The answer can be sought by examining the way in which
the building collapsed.
Collapse Speed
As one can observe from the videos of WTC 7's collapse, shortly
following the destruction of its penthouse structures, the building fell
to the ground in 6.5 seconds. This is a phenomenally short time: a stone
dropped from the top of the building would have reached the ground
(covering a distance of 174 meters) in 5.95 seconds Ã?Â? if there were
no air resistance! However, in principle the distance analyzed should be
that from the top of the building to the top of the debris pile, not to
the ground. As the exact height of the debris pile is not documented, it
is more useful to examine the early stages of the collapse, during which
the debris pile does not need to be taken into account.
According to the video analysis presented in the 9-11 Eyewitness
documentary, starting from the state of rest, WTC 7 fell 100 meters in
4.5 seconds. This results in an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2, corresponding
to a free fall.
To verify this, I examined the fall of a corner of the building in one
collapse video using Blaze Media Pro video editing software. The corner
fell 56 meters (=the distance between the Start and End lines in the
animation below) in 3.47 seconds. This results in an acceleration of 9.3
m/s2, which corresponds to a very low resistance factor of the
structural supports: only 5 percent of the force of gravity of the
building's falling upper section.
I also measured an acceleration of 8.5 m/s2 for the middle part of the
wide facade in the picture, which means that the force of resistance of
the structural supports was 13 percent of the force of gravity of the
falling upper section (see the calculation in more detail here).
My measurements therefore support the conclusion presented in 9-11
Eyewitness that the skyscraper fell virtually unimpeded. The lack of
structural resistance seems to be explainable only by the destruction of
the structural supports through the use of explosives. WTC 7 dropped
rather than collapsed. It came down as if only air had separated the
roof of the building from the street below.
WTC 7 fell on average 7 floors per second (47 / 6.5). One second after
the onset of the collapse, the speed of descent was almost 10
meters/second; after two seconds, almost 20 meters/second; and at the
end, about 60 meters/second (over 200 kilometers/hour). According to the
analysis of Frank Legge (Ph.D.), the rate of descent of WTC 7 closely
matches the rate of gravitational free fall, which Ã?Â? combined with
the uniformity of the descent throughout the breadth and length of the
building Ã?Â? is irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition.
Heikki Kurttila, a Finnish Doctor of Engineering and accident
researcher, has made detailed calculations about the collapse speed of
WTC 7. He concludes that the short collapse time and low structural
resistance "strongly suggest controlled demolition". Kurttila notes that
an apple dropped from the height of WTC 7's roof would have taken about
0.5 seconds longer to reach the ground than it took the skyscraper to be
completely destroyed.
Structural Features of the Collapse
A striking feature in the collapse of WTC 7 is symmetry. The collapse
progressed evenly throughout the building, and the debris piled up
almost entirely within the foundations of the building (see the picture
below).
The symmetry of WTC 7's descent means that all of its steel supports
Ã?Â? 25 central and 58 peripheral columns Ã?Â? were destroyed almost
simultaneously. Any asymmetry in the damage to structures would have led
to asymmetrical collapse. By contrast, a fully symmetrical collapse
without controlled use of explosives would not have followed the
principle of least resistance. Local fires and structural damage here
and there could not have weakened all the central and peripheral support
structures in a way that would have caused all of them to give in at the
same moment. The simultaneity of the destruction of support structures
throughout the building can, however, be explained by controlled demolition.
A controlled demolition is also suggested by the drop of the center of
the skyscraper moments before the surrounding structures started to
fall, as well as by the fact that the outer walls were pulled inwards.
In a controlled demolition the collapse is caused by first destroying
the weight-carrying core of a building, which "pulls" the exterior walls
inwards ("implosion"). Although the lowest floor with fires was
reportedly the sixth floor, the building seems to have undergone a
traditional demolition, beginning from the bottom floor. An emergency
worker who witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 was interviewed on 9/11. He
described hearing what sounded like a "clap of thunder", followed by
what looked like "a shockwave ripping through the building", with
windows busting out, and "about a second later the bottom floor caved
out and the [rest of] the building followed after that". The videos
showing the collapse support his description.
At least one high-resolution video of the collapse of WTC 7 clearly
shows one more characteristic of controlled demolition: streamers of
dust emerging out of the building.
A Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko (right), who owns a demolition
company and has been in the business for almost 30 years, concluded in
September 2006 that WTC 7 "is controlled demolition. [...] A team of
experts did this. This is professional work, without any doubt."
Hugo Bachmann, a Swiss professor emeritus for structural design and
construction, said in Tages-Anzeiger : "In my opinion WTC 7 was with
great probability brought down by controlled demolition done by
experts". In addition, J�¶rg Schneider, another Swiss Professor
emeritus for structural design and construction, interprets the existing
videos as indices that "WTC 7 was with great probability brought down by
explosives".
Fire Endurance of Steel
Steel is very fire-resistant material. In tests conducted by Chorus
Construction in several countries, the fire endurance of steel-framed
parking garages was examined by feeding fires with hydrocarbon fuel.
Steel beams and pillars heated to a maximum of 360 degrees Celsius, and
the breaking of steel was not even close. In Cardington fire endurance
tests, modelled on conditions in real buildings, unprotected steel was
subjected to temperatures of up to 1100 degrees Celsius (2012 F), but
there was no collapse. In the Windsor Building in Madrid, an almost
24-hour intensive fire did not collapse the building. Moreover, the
fires in WTC 7 were insignificant compared to fires in Windsor Building
and all other skyscraper fires. The latest case is the all-engulfing
fire in Al Nasr Tower in 2006. Fires have never collapsed a single
steel-framed highrise to the ground.
In the picture of WTC 7 to the right, the fires are limited to small
areas, almost all windows are intact, and no red heat indicative of
temperatures capable of softening steel is visible. The situation is the
same in other photographs taken of the building in late afternoon. In
this video a fair amount of smoke, but no flames, can be seen. By
contrast, WTC 5, which was badly damaged by the collapse of the North
Tower next to it, burned very powerfully: its floors were covered by a
sea of flames and all windows were broken. However, this building,
despite the fact that it had weaker support structures than WTC 7, did
not collapse into a debris pile, but remained standing.
Characteristics of the Debris
The debris of WTC 7 was extremely hot weeks after the collapse of the
building. Thermal imaging by NASA showed that the top of the debris pile
had a temperature of 730 degrees Celsius five days after the collapse.
Deeper, and immediately after the destruction, temperatures were
probably considerably higher. Residual temperatures like this cannot be
explained by office fires or by an ordinary, gravity-driven collapse.
When the potential energy of a building experiencing an ordinary
gravitational collapse turns into thermal energy, the result is only a
few degrees' average increase in temperature.
According to several reports, molten metal (also suggested by this video
footage) was found under the debris pile of WTC buildings. To melt
structural steel, temperatures exceeding 1500 degrees Celsius are
required. Such temperatures are never achieved in office fires. In
addition to molten metal, partly evaporated steel beams were found in
the debris of WTC 7. As professor Jonathan Barnett pointed out in a New
York Times interview, the fires in the building could not have produced
temperatures capable of evaporating steel. However, the use of
explosives like thermite can produce temperatures (even 3000 degrees
Celsius) that can melt and even evaporate steel.
FEMA's investigators were not allowed to work in the collapse zone
itself. They were allowed to examine the debris of WTC skyscrapers only
in landfill areas used as temporary storage for the steel debris before
its recycling. By May 2005, when FEMA finished its preliminary report
calling for further investigation, all the steel debris had been sold
and shipped into the Far East. Only 156 pieces of steel were chosen for
futher analysis, of which a ridiculous total of 4 were from WTC 7. Even
these no longer seem to exist.
As WTC 7 was evacuated over six hours before its destruction, there were
no grounds for the rapid removal and recycling of the steel debris.
Quite the contrary: as WTC 7 was one of the three greatest building
collapses in recorded history (the other two being the North and South
Towers), the debris of the building should have been meticulously
examined. Many individuals and publications, such as the Fire
Engineering Magazine, protested strongly against the rapid destruction
of the evidence.
Witness statements
Craig Bartmer, a NYPD officer, states that he saw WTC 7 come down and
heard a number of explosions in rapid succession. He is convinced that
the skyscraper was brought down with explosives. Several rescue
personnel have also come forward saying they were told that the building
would be brought down by means of explosives. The above-cited testimony
about the shockwave and the lowest floors collapsing first supports
controlled demolition. Interestingly, a news report on a Finnish TV
channel on September 12, 2001, stated that the authorities brought
Building 7 down with explosives due to the apparent danger of collapse.
Final Words
Was WTC 7 destroyed as a result of controlled demolition? Everyone can
draw their own conclusions from the way in which the building was
destroyed and the temperatures produced in the destruction.
If and when the building was demolished, it must have been wired with
explosives before September 11th. An operation of that magnitude could
not have been accomplished during a couple of chaotic hours. This is why
the official hypotheses have not touched on the most obvious explanation
for the collapse of the skyscraper. It is revealing that the 9/11
Commission, which published its report in 2004, does not mention in a
single sentence the destruction of the third skyscraper resulting from
the terrorist attack in New York.
FEMA's work has been continued by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, which has again postponed its report on WTC 7, this time
until 2007. NIST is now saying that it is also investigating the
hypothesis that explosions initiated the collapse. Interviewed in the
March 2006 issue of New York Magazine, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST lead
investigator, summed up the present state of the investigation:
NIST did have "some preliminary hypotheses" on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said.
"We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the
structure, on the fifth to seventh floors." Then Dr. Sunder paused. "But
truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on
Building No. 7."
Here are some photos of WTC4, which was much closer to the towers
than WTC7, and was completely gutted by severe fires and partially
crushed by heavy impacts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc4des1.html
This photo of WTC4 really demonstrates the incredible strength of
steel framed buildings.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/bjh/14.jpg
Here are some photos of WTC5 & 6 after the tower demolitions.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzpo1.html
WTC7 was a tall narrow 47 story steel framed skyscraper.
It was not hit by a plane.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg
This illustration shows the location of the various WTC buildings
as well as the range of debris impact.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html
Here are photos of WTC7's "inferno".
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7fire1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html
Here is a video of WTC7's picture perfect controlled demolition.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
Here are more videos of WTC7's demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
We're still waiting for followers of the "official" conspiracy
theory to provide us with a logical explanation other than
controlled demolition for the fact that the buildings closest to
the towers remained standing, while WTC7's massive hurricane
resistant steel frame suddenly disintegrated and dropped at virtual
free fall speed and perfect symmetry. Limited, isolated fires can
not possibly cause such a failure. In fact, no steel framed building
has ever collapsed due to fire. Not one. Ever. Controlled demolition
is the only possible cause of WTC7's free fall speed and symmetric
drop. Even Bush's FEMA was forced to admit the following:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building
to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel
on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis
has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research,
investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
Brent P
I just posted that.
> Currently total taxes at the pump range from
> a low of 26 cents per gallon in Alaska to a high of 63 cents per
> gallon in California, with a national average of all taxes and fees
> and surcharges of 62 cents per gallon. So, given a national average
> of about $4 per gallon as of now, federal taxes are 4.6% and all
> taxes combined average 15.5%, and are, of course, trending downward.
I just detailed the IL example... here in c(r)ook county the sales tax
will soon exceed 10% by itself.
BryanUT
"TroytheTroll" <f4_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8r2dnVZDPtahYKjV...@giganews.com...
It's about time you showed up for this "discussion".
I'll just assume you don't think I'm stupid for understanding the concept of
peak anything.
Regardless, I think we can all agree that the concept of unlimited growth is
the philosophy cell. And we are the only species that can understand.
And who really cares? If we develope ourselves into the stone age, it
doesn't really matter, someday the sun will go super nova and the earth will
cease to exist.
Party like it is 1999!
TroytheTroll
"BryanUT" <nest...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:U8ydnaCdF7_4hKvV...@comcast.com...
>
> "TroytheTroll" <f4_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8r2dnVZDPtahYKjV...@giganews.com...
>>> How come the peak oil people act just like the tinfoil hat
>>> people did 10 years ago? Are they just as crazy? Or just
>>> as stupid?
>>
>> Not all peak oil people are stupid. I'm assuming that people other
>> than Henry are involved of course.
>
> It's about time you showed up for this "discussion".
Peak oil isn't really a discussion. Professionally, I run into these
nutjobs more than I'd like, so I'm forced to keep up with whatever
their newest whackjob ideas are in case someone in a foreign
government reads some piece of it, and asks me if its as silly as it
sounds, and I need to know what particular piece of nut jobbery they
saw.
>
> I'll just assume you don't think I'm stupid for understanding the
> concept of peak anything.
>
There are legitimate conversations about resource depletion which take
place every day. They don't tend to include the amateurs who don't
know an oil field from an oil well, or reserves from resources. And if
anyone has a "9/11 Truther" pin on they don't allow them into the
room.
> And who really cares? If we develope ourselves into the stone age,
> it doesn't really matter, someday the sun will go super nova and the
> earth will cease to exist.
>
> Party like it is 1999!
Hey, I'm an oil and gas guy, as soon as someone sells an honest EV
here in Colorado, I'm in.
GortWeasel
Is it? You might like to read this ...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;319/5863/604?
maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Proskurowski&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
tomo...@erols.com
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 17:14:48 -0600, TroytheTroll said:
>
> >nuke
> >Iran so we can steal their oil
>
> oil. That would be like setting a house on fire expecting to steal the
> tv afterwards. Instead, you invade with the pretext of "liberation",
> screw that up and stay around forever. Like what the US is doing in
> Iraq.
Oh, darn, Zeb, we done been found out!
Who Me?
"TroytheTroll" <f4_...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> The supply of oil is finite. When it runs out,
>> it won't be available at any price.
>
> It won't be "running out" in your lifetime, so why sweat it?
Brilliant.
The cost of ignorant bliss: Priceless!
TroytheTroll
<whatshisaddress@x.z> wrote in message
news:0281728b$0$25000$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 17:14:48 -0600, TroytheTroll said:
>
>>Iran so we can steal their oil
>
> Actually, you wouldn't nuke a country if you wanted to steal their
> oil. That would be like setting a house on fire expecting to steal
> the
> tv afterwards. Instead, you invade with the pretext of "liberation",
> screw that up and stay around forever. Like what the US is doing in
> Iraq.
You notice anywhere in any particular budget document where the US,
after finding, drilling for, producing, refining and selling at a
profit Iraqi oil, is depositing that money into the Treasury?
Yeah...I didn't think so.
P. Roehling
"TroytheTroll" <f4_...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Exponentially increasing demand and an ever-decreasing supply will equal
>> sky-high and rising prices for the foreseeable future.
>
> Demand hasn't increased at all over the past 3 years, it most certainly
> isn't "exponentially" increasing when increasing = 0.
Go back and read the "coming on line right about now" part.
"Exponentially" was used for emphasis, and you're supposed to be bright
enough to know that, seeing as how it would be impossible for it to actually
happen in the real world.
P. Roehling
"Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Laugh it up fuzzball. Sit down and read Exxon's annual report... nahh
> you're too lazy to do that... you'll just believe what the mainstream
> media tells you to believe.
Yeah, nutjobs invariably love that "mainstream media" line. It's all a
*plot*!
Seek therapy.
TroytheTroll
"GortWeasel" <gortw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:j%oZj.3632$IK1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
No one said you can't make long chain hydrocarbons out
of...well...nearly anything.
The question is, I can think of only 1 suspicious oilfield on the
entire planet which might qualify as such. MIGHT. The only reason it
MIGHT qualify is because of the type of rock it produces from, and it
is by no means a given.
So, while making long chain hydrocarbons is a cool idea, and
completely doable, the problem is, it just doesn't do it often enough
to notice. Or refill oilfields. Or create new seeps. Or refine and
use. Or pay attention to.
TroytheTroll
"Who Me?" <hitch...@dont.panic> wrote in message
news:txpZj.74$uE5...@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
Having produced 100 year old wells myself, unless you are 5 years old
and plan to live to 105, I stand by my particular statement as nothing
more than obvious fact.
gaby de wilde
wrote:
We are running out of oxygen...
Kenneth P. Turvey
> Now if you have shares in oil companies or middle eastern countries, you
> prefer the US approach. If you have a share in your government, you
> might prefer the european way.
I thought about this a bit and decided that this really wasn't the end to
the story. I checked the CIA World Fact book and the average income in
the US is $46,000, but the average income in the European Union was only
$32,900 in PPP terms. On top of this the Europeans have higher gas
taxes. So the Europeans must spend a significantly higher portion of
their incomes on fuel, or pretty much any other necessity than in the
US.
There might be reasons to like the US system more other than owning
shares in an Oil Company.
The Older Gentleman
> On 2008-05-22, The Older Gentleman <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Actually you are already full of shit since I can buy a european
> >> made car today if I want to.
> >
> > Sure. BMW, Merc, Jaguar.....
> >
> > Mini.
> >
> > Try a European supermini. Oh, you can't.
>
> Those crash regulations will get out of the way in hurry.
I've no idea how US regs stack up against NCAP which we use in Europe
(www.euroncap.com). But NCAP is considered The Word. I'd be very
surprised if its markedly less stringent than US crash tests.
But of course, you knew all about that, didn't you?[1]
Most cars manage four stars. Some even manage five. I've just played
with the search/test facility on superminis. I see the new Vauxhall
Corsa managed five (the old 1997 model was a lamentable two).
Your point?
[1] Answer, I suspect, is No.[2]
[2] So once again, you're pontificating from perceived wisdom rather
than actual facts.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F, SL125 & SH50
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
"What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time
and hassle for no tangible benefit."
The Older Gentleman
> On top of this the Europeans have higher gas
> taxes. So the Europeans must spend a significantly higher portion of
> their incomes on fuel, or pretty much any other necessity than in the
> US.
This is true. One huge difference - we, by and large, don't have to pay
for private health insurance (though many do). Also, US CYA liability
does tend to load some items' price (ISTR ski lift tickets being one!).
Oh, and we don't pay a great deal for water - well, not in the UK,
anyway. I assume that outside TX, NM and CA it isn't expensive in the
US, either.
Marc Gerges
>
>> I wouldn't expect this to be very much different, independently of where
>> the fuel is sold.
>
> Most US imported oil comes from Canada and Mexico last I heard. Did you
> know that the US exports oil too? Much of the oil from alaska goes to
> places like Japan. Transportation costs drive what oil goes where much
> of the time.
Yes, I can see that. Just as many tankers fueling up in Rotterdam cross
the atlantic.
> If voting could actually change anything it wouldn't be legal.... from a
> quote I read somewhere. The choices we get in the voting booth are
> usually non-choices. The same interests win no matter who gets in the
> office. Those who don't play ball with those interests are labeled
> kooks.
I've got an interesting case study, Norway. A country with huge
nationalised ressources, but still fuel (and the rest of life) is taxed
very steeply. On the other hand, norwegians don't have to bother about
health and retirement care - ever.
>> Most european governments apparently spend considerably less in middle
>> eastern wars than american oil companies.
>
> The US got involved in the 1950s with the UK to overthrow Iran's
> government for the benefit of oil companies, namely BP. Where is there
> an american oil company any more? Exxon? Aamaco is owned by BP, Dutch
> Royal Shell is well, dutch, Citgo is from chavezland ;) Anyway these
> companies are pretty much global and stateless. They don't spend the
> money on the wars themselves, they spend the US taxpayer's money using
> those elected office holders.
You've precisely got it. Nowhere in my statement does it say oil
companies spend their own money in the wars. Call it a leveraged effort
;-)
cu
.\\arc
Marc Gerges
>
>> Now if you have shares in oil companies or middle eastern countries, you
>> prefer the US approach. If you have a share in your government, you
>> might prefer the european way.
>
> I thought about this a bit and decided that this really wasn't the end to
> the story. I checked the CIA World Fact book and the average income in
> the US is $46,000, but the average income in the European Union was only
> $32,900 in PPP terms.
Those are difficult comparisons. I've seem quite similar gross income
figures on both sides that translated into vastly different net figures.
On top of that, once services one 'needs' to have (like health care) are
added and indirect taxes (much of Europe has 18+ % sales tax), this may
look different again.
> On top of this the Europeans have higher gas taxes.
That was my point in the beginning: Mobility comes at somewhat the same
price. Higher taxes in Europe are offset by higher consumption in the
US.
> So the Europeans must spend a significantly higher portion of their
> incomes on fuel, or pretty much any other necessity than in the US.
And that's what I don't buy.
> There might be reasons to like the US system more other than owning
> shares in an Oil Company.
Yes. But owning shares makes it better, even ;-)
cu
.\\arc
Timberwoof
totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
> Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2008-05-22, The Older Gentleman <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Actually you are already full of shit since I can buy a european
> > >> made car today if I want to.
> > >
> > > Sure. BMW, Merc, Jaguar.....
> > >
> > > Mini.
> > >
> > > Try a European supermini. Oh, you can't.
> >
> > Those crash regulations will get out of the way in hurry.
>
> I've no idea how US regs stack up against NCAP which we use in Europe
> (www.euroncap.com). But NCAP is considered The Word. I'd be very
> surprised if its markedly less stringent than US crash tests.
Check out crashtest.com, which aggregates the crash test results from
many different agencies by make, model, and year.
> But of course, you knew all about that, didn't you?[1]
>
> Most cars manage four stars. Some even manage five. I've just played
> with the search/test facility on superminis. I see the new Vauxhall
> Corsa managed five (the old 1997 model was a lamentable two).
>
> Your point?
>
> [1] Answer, I suspect, is No.[2]
> [2] So once again, you're pontificating from perceived wisdom rather
> than actual facts.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
Ten Steps to Fascism: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html
Kenneth P. Turvey
> This is true. One huge difference - we, by and large, don't have to pay
> for private health insurance (though many do). Also, US CYA liability
> does tend to load some items' price (ISTR ski lift tickets being one!).
I can't find a reference that says definitavely in the little time I have
now, but I believe that purchasing power parity includes terms for
government provided services such as health care. Liability in the US is
a problem, but would be included in these costs, for the most part, as
well.
> Oh, and we don't pay a great deal for water - well, not in the UK,
> anyway. I assume that outside TX, NM and CA it isn't expensive in the
> US, either.
Water is inconsequential in the vast majority of places in the US.
Actually, that's part of the problem in the South West, but I'll save
that discussion for another thread.
Damn, here I am going to bed again and not having completed everything I
intended to tonight. Tomorrow, I'm going to complete this project if it
kills me.
Kenneth P. Turvey
> This is true. One huge difference - we, by and large, don't have to pay
> for private health insurance (though many do). Also, US CYA liability
> does tend to load some items' price (ISTR ski lift tickets being one!).
I can't find a reference that says definitively in the little time I have
now, but I believe that purchasing power parity includes terms for
government provided services such as health care. Liability in the US is
a problem, but would be included in these costs, for the most part, as
well.
> Oh, and we don't pay a great deal for water - well, not in the UK,
> anyway. I assume that outside TX, NM and CA it isn't expensive in the
> US, either.
Water is inconsequential in the vast majority of places in the US.
Actually, that's part of the problem in the South West, but I'll save that
discussion for another thread.
Damn, here I am going to bed again and not having completed everything I
intended to tonight. Tomorrow, I'm going to complete this project if it
kills me.
--
Kenneth P. Turvey <kt-u...@squeakydolphin.com>
Kenneth P. Turvey
>> So the Europeans must spend a significantly higher portion of their
>> incomes on fuel, or pretty much any other necessity than in the US.
>
> And that's what I don't buy.
It is pretty easy to quantify. These numbers aren't just made up.
Economists spend a long time trying to get numbers that are meaningful.
They may not be perfect, but they are much better than just a feeling you
might have about the situation. They are much better than anecdotal
evidence.
Marc Gerges
I was googling a bit, but couldn't find a 'short overview' kind of
document explaining those numbers. I don't believe the 'pretty easy to
quantify' bit, either, especially when looking at such large and diverse
environments as 'Europe' or 'the US'.
One more thing I've got, anecdotal as well, though: apart from kids and
disabled people, I don't know anybody who wouldn't drive in the US. In
Europe I found many people that actually don't have drivers licenses. Or
cars. My former boss keeps a car that is being driven less than a
thousand miles a year, just because he prefers taking the train to
driving himself. Whenever he needs it, the battery's flat, of course :)
cu
.\\arc
Kenneth P. Turvey
> I was googling a bit, but couldn't find a 'short overview' kind of
> document explaining those numbers. I don't believe the 'pretty easy to
> quantify' bit, either, especially when looking at such large and diverse
> environments as 'Europe' or 'the US'.
Pretty easy in that we could very quickly get a number for the difference
between the US and the European Union that is within 50% of that the
economists spend entire careers working on, using publicly available
information. It is, of course, the next 40% that is really expensive.
> One more thing I've got, anecdotal as well, though: apart from kids and
> disabled people, I don't know anybody who wouldn't drive in the US. In
> Europe I found many people that actually don't have drivers licenses. Or
> cars. My former boss keeps a car that is being driven less than a
> thousand miles a year, just because he prefers taking the train to
> driving himself. Whenever he needs it, the battery's flat, of course :)
It is true that public transportation is more widely available in Europe,
but I suspect that the PPP used by the CIA also contains terms for this,
but it may not.
There are a number of cities in the US where public transportation is
widely available. Off the top of my head, New York, Washington DC,
Chicago would all qualify. However, for the most part, it is correct to
assume that if you are in the US a car is pretty likely to be a
necessity.
Ted Mittelstaedt
"John A. Weeks III" <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:john-C58F4D.1...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article
> <9928d3c9-3282-4ab1...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> spamT...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Peak oil refers to production rate, not 'how long' any given reserve
> > will last.
>
> It only makes sense that if our proven reserves are growing,
> we can pump more year over year.
>
He says, the day before Reuters announced that the world International
Energy Association has stated that they don't feel global production will
reach beyond 100 billion barrels a year, putting a severe crimp in global
oil supplies within the decade.
Ted
Turby
<tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2008-05-22, Turby <turbo...@beach.comber> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:20:41 -0500, Brent P
>><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>... Seriously if people decide they want light weight cars the auto
>>>market here will react in a matter of weeks. Sure, the big three might
>>>get smacked hard, but that's because the companies are run by idiots.
>
>> Weeks? You are funny. What world do you live in that entire design,
>> manufacturing, and delivery industries can change overnight?
>
>The cars already exist, they are in production.
>
>> European markets produce enough cars for their market alone.
>
>I want a cite that they are full-tilt capacity, otherwise you're full of
>shit. Actually you are already full of shit since I can buy a european
>made car today if I want to.
>
>> There aren't
>> enough cars produced by those makers to supply the American market
>> next month- hell, they couldn't do it in two years.
>
>Clue time:
>No need to fill the full US market from europe, only the amount of
>small cars that Ford and GM have buyers for.
Ah, so you're not talking about changing the market, you're just
talking about a mere handful of people buying the vehicles they want.
Fine, I can accept that. It's totally meaningless, but what the hell,
your fantasy lives on.
I was under the impression you thought a sizeable percentage of
drivers would want more efficient cars. I mean, if prices go high
enough to affect the market at all, it ought to be more than just a
handful of people, right? If the problem is serious enough and the
demand is large enough to change laws, what volume does that mean? In
2006, there were 16 million vehicles sold in the US. You tell me, do
you think European manufacturers can increase their output by a
million vehicles in just a few weeks? Do you think vendors can get raw
materials and increase their production of all the parts needed for
those cars in a month? Do you think they can find empty ships to get
them all to the US?
--
Turby the Turbosurfer
tomo...@erols.com
> I've got an interesting case study, Norway. A country with huge
> nationalised ressources, but still fuel (and the rest of life) is taxed
> very steeply. On the other hand, norwegians don't have to bother about
> health and retirement care - ever.
Why? Do they just turn their sick and elderly out into the
wildnerness to die?
TOG@Toil
>
> One more thing I've got, anecdotal as well, though: apart from kids and
> disabled people, I don't know anybody who wouldn't drive in the US. In
> Europe I found many people that actually don't have drivers licenses. Or
> cars. My former boss keeps a car that is being driven less than a
> thousand miles a year, just because he prefers taking the train to
> driving himself. Whenever he needs it, the battery's flat, of course :)
>
A lot of people will use public transport in preference to driving,
but that does depend on where they live. For example, I just never
take a car into Central London. There's no point. It's expensive and
time-consuming, and the London public transport system is superb.
Actually (getting back on topic) I tend to use a bike in town.
As regards the average income figures, there is a wide disparity in
Europe, especially since a number of former Soviet Bloc countries
joined the EU. The average income in the UK (according to the BBC,
which as good a source as you'll get) is around £24,000 (call it
$47,000). Obviously, in countries like Romania, where they were paying
each other in cabbages until quite recently, it's a lot lower.
I appreciate that there's an equally wide variation in the US, too. It
would be interesting to know what the average annual earnings are,
say, in California and Alabama.
I still reckon that very high energy costs in Europe have served to
make our transport systems very, very efficient, and almost certainly
way more efficient than in the US.
Marc Gerges
I'd give you a second guess, but you might as well read up on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Petroleum_Fund_of_Norway
cu
.\\arc
TOG@Toil
> tomor...@erols.com <tomor...@erols.com> wrote:
> > On May 23, 2:20 am, marc.ger...@gmail.com (Marc Gerges) wrote:
>
> >> I've got an interesting case study, Norway. A country with huge
> >> nationalised ressources, but still fuel (and the rest of life) is taxed
> >> very steeply. On the other hand, norwegians don't have to bother about
> >> health and retirement care - ever.
>
> > Why? Do they just turn their sick and elderly out into the
> > wildnerness to die?
>
> I'd give you a second guess, but you might as well read up on it:
>
John A. Weeks III
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <te...@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
But that limit is a political limit, not a technological or oil
limit. Saudi Arabia would dramatically increase production, they
just choose not to. The US could increase gasoline supplies, but
no company is willing or able to risk the $2.5-billion it would
cost because the last company that tried was stuck in the muck
for years trying to get a permit that was blocked by NIMBYs.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
spamT...@yahoo.com
> In article
> <9928d3c9-3282-4ab1-8184-470c98163...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> spamTHIS...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Peak oil refers to production rate, not 'how long' any given reserve
> > will last.
>
> It only makes sense that if our proven reserves are growing,
> we can pump more year over year.
>
>
> --
> ======================================================================
> John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 j...@johnweeks.com
> Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
> ======================================================================
Incorrect.
Yes, we put more reserves on line and we produce more, but the rate of
production, there's the rub.
The newer reserves, and untapped existing reserves, are harder to get
to and produce slower. The oil can't be pulled out of the ground as
fast as in other areas.
This isn't rocket science, this is very simple stuff.
The brazilian reserves, for example. Very deep underwater, very deep
under the ocean floor, very difficult to get to.
We have an incredible reserve of energy available, can never drain it,
it will never run out in any meaningful time period.
It just happens to be 98,000,000 miles away. Can't just run out and
grab a scoopful of sun energy.
That, too, is a production-rate problem (solar energy).
Reserves mean dick.
Dave
Who Me?
"TroytheTroll" <f4_...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> It won't be "running out" in your lifetime, so why sweat it?
>>
>> Brilliant.
>>
>> The cost of ignorant bliss: Priceless!
>
> Having produced 100 year old wells myself, unless you are 5 years old and
> plan to live to 105, I stand by my particular statement as nothing more
> than obvious fact.
Not fact. It is obvious short-sighted stupidity.
Dumping a few PCBs into the landfills won't affect anything in my lifetime,
so why sweat it?
If you don't see what's wrong with that attitude, no amount of real obvious
facts are likely to penetrate your thick skull.
TroytheTroll
> get
> to and produce slower. The oil can't be pulled out of the ground as
> fast as in other areas.
>
> This isn't rocket science, this is very simple stuff.
Actually, if it were simple, people wouldn't screw it up so often. For
example, newer reserves aren't necessarily harder to get out of the
ground, because new reserves are being found where the OLD reserves
tend to be.
> Reserves mean dick.
>
> Dave
Don't tell the people making a decent living out of measuring them
then...wouldn't want my standard of living to go down if everyone
discovers this.