Re: The real reason for higher gas prices.
foolsrushin.
> On 11 Jul, 21:46, Hans-Georg Michna <hans-
> georgNoEmailPle...@michna.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 22:06:55 -0700 (PDT), foolsrushin. wrote:
> > >http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147
> > The guy has no clue what he's talking about. Or, maybe, rather
> > he does have, but he prefers to tell people what they want to
> > hear.
> > Not worth listening to.
> > Hans-Georg
> > --
> That, Hans-Geog, is an a priori synthetic statement - unless, of
> course, you know better! If you do, spill the beanz! Stats?
> --
> 'foolsrushin.'
Listen to the allegations here: you believe in big companies and the
ethical language they (ab)use? If in doubt, get your James Burnham
out, start quoting him now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ1wV9mOwBk&feature=related
What is truth? I used to think that the super-rich and ultra-powerful
were just oblivious of the activities of their minions.
I used to think that by giving up a little bit of greed, they could at
least make safe their immediate servitors.
I knew that they could get all they needed through diplomacy - foreign
policy, labour relations, etc - for maybe 20% of the grief they cost
the world - in the present case, engineers who fear for their lives,
the future of their families.
I was wrong: superior persons don't see things the same way! If the
Mickey Mouse economy collapsed tomorrow, I'd be the first to buy them
a cup of coffee and something to eat, assuming I had anything that
worked as exchangeable for a cup of coffee and something to eat, and
they would say:
'Jeez, boy, that's decent of you: I guess we got it wrong!' Now, they
are getting it badly wrong!
And who believes the sub-prime package was made up on the spot!
They knew they were lending to unsecured borrowers; they deliberately
mixed rubbish with value; they knew they could sell it to unsuspecting
banks across the world, and they were right.
Effectively, they shut down credit; raised oil prices in an ultimately
arbitrary way; and now are asking Americans to go out and shop! You
don't need to be a Harvard economist to know what a succession of such
policies - not market - forces can do to America and the rest of the
World.
--
'foolsrushin.'
PS - Who *is* going to pay the American debt. It is at a point now
where half a dozen creditors could bring the dollar down, though few
Americans know it!
Sanforized
> PS - Who *is* going to pay the American debt. It is at a point now
> where half a dozen creditors could bring the dollar down, though few
> Americans know it!
And what, precisely, do you think establishes the trade value
of currencies?
foolsrushin.
In a perfect market, it would be 1:1, but no market is perfect - and
all knowledge is statistical. But when it's trillions to one, then you
are in the position of a cartoon cat: skids off a precipice and
doesn't fall until he looks down! When America looks down?
I don't like to think about it! Good question, though!
The 'emerging economies' got it all from us - but there you go! You
may be surprised to know that I am an American! Well, my mother was an
American!
--
'foolsrushin.'
foolsrushin.
We say, 'Let the market find its own level', as if it were a regulated
power supply, protecting us against spikes or sudden dips: too late
for that! Nobody wants to stop the growth of, say, India or China or
Russia - but they may turn out to be our Nemesis unless we get our
skates on. American foreign policy is almost always seen as
threatening and to do with hard power only. John F. Kennedy knew what
to do: make friends: the Pioneer/Peace Corps, for example. Also, it
would be better to see the Marines in a supportive, not adversarial
role - as well as US companies competing for, say, telecoms contracts
against one another and the Europeans. I want to see the day when
Americans are not only welcome but sought after all around the world.
This *is* doable - if we accentuate the positive. It requires only
small shifts in policy to kick it off.
--
'foolsrushin.'
Sanforized
> On 12 Jul, 06:58, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
>
>>foolsrushin. wrote:
>>
>>>PS - Who *is* going to pay the American debt. It is at a point now
>>>where half a dozen creditors could bring the dollar down, though few
>>>Americans know it!
>>
>>And what, precisely, do you think establishes the trade value
>>of currencies?
>
>
> In a perfect market, it would be 1:1, but no market is perfect - and
> all knowledge is statistical.
Then you'd better take a look at what happened at the Vatican Bank
some years back.
> But when it's trillions to one, then you
> are in the position of a cartoon cat: skids off a precipice and
> doesn't fall until he looks down! When America looks down?
> I don't like to think about it! Good question, though!
> The 'emerging economies' got it all from us - but there you go! You
> may be surprised to know that I am an American! Well, my mother was an
> American!
> --
> 'foolsrushin.'
No surprise, we like to export our foolish.
Sanforized
> We say, 'Let the market find its own level', as if it were a regulated
> power supply, protecting us against spikes or sudden dips: too late
> for that! Nobody wants to stop the growth of, say, India or China or
> Russia - but they may turn out to be our Nemesis unless we get our
> skates on. American foreign policy is almost always seen as
> threatening and to do with hard power only. John F. Kennedy knew what
> to do: make friends: the Pioneer/Peace Corps, for example. Also, it
> would be better to see the Marines in a supportive, not adversarial
> role - as well as US companies competing for, say, telecoms contracts
> against one another and the Europeans. I want to see the day when
> Americans are not only welcome but sought after all around the world.
> This *is* doable - if we accentuate the positive. It requires only
> small shifts in policy to kick it off.
> --
> 'foolsrushin.'
Childlike naive worldview, that's for sure!
jmfbahciv
Especially since Kennedy almost began a WWIII with Russia. We
were this || close to a big war.
/BAH
Uncle Al
>
> On 12 Jul, 05:01, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11 Jul, 21:46, Hans-Georg Michna <hans-
> > georgNoEmailPle...@michna.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 22:06:55 -0700 (PDT), foolsrushin. wrote:
> > > >http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147
> Listen to the allegations here: you believe in big companies and the
> ethical language they (ab)use? If in doubt, get your James Burnham
> out, start quoting him now!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ1wV9mOwBk&feature=related
>
> What is truth? I used to think that the super-rich and ultra-powerful
> were just oblivious of the activities of their minions.
[snip]
1) The planet is awash in US dollars - at least $50 trillion in
greenbacks and debts. $100 trillion has been quoted with nary a
snigger.
2) The US dollar is no longer a stable currency. Weimer Republic
inflation is being intensely modeled inside the Beltway. US
corporations have fled offshore and into euros. Nothing remains at
home.
3) US debt holders are therefore dumping greenbacks by purchasing
chattels - petroleum, still mostly denominated in US dollars.
4) At some near term point there will be breakthrough - Arabia
Officially abandoning the petro-dollar for the petro-euro - and 1929
will look like an expense account weekend in Vegas.
Just as the real world international currency conversion standard is
the cost of a Big Mac, so the real world value of a dollar is a bbl of
oil. Your 2008 dollar is worth less than $0.20 in 1990 dollars, soon
to lose another decimal place all at once.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
hanson
and did not stick his head into the sand but instead he decided
to perform one of his yiddishe street corner acts again and
show the world "sunshine" and where he finds his rect-Al wisdom
which he splendidly pictorialized here on his own website :
*** http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg ***
>
rect-Al's opinion which he posted in message
news:4878CED1...@hate.spam.net...
>
1) The planet is awash in US dollars - at least $50 trillion in
greenbacks and debts. $100 trillion has been quoted with nary a
snigger.
2) The US dollar is no longer a stable currency. Weimer Republic
inflation is being intensely modeled inside the Beltway. US
corporations have fled offshore and into euros. Nothing remains at
home.
3) US debt holders are therefore dumping greenbacks by purchasing
chattels - petroleum, still mostly denominated in US dollars.
4) At some near term point there will be breakthrough - Arabia
Officially abandoning the petro-dollar for the petro-euro - and 1929
will look like an expense account weekend in Vegas.
Just as the real world international currency conversion standard is
the cost of a Big Mac, so the real world value of a dollar is a bbl of
oil. Your 2008 dollar is worth less than $0.20 in 1990 dollars, soon
to lose another decimal place all at once.
-- Uncle rect-Al
>
>
hanson wrote:
Thanks for the laughs, schwartzer dreidel.... ahahaha... ahahanson
G=EMC^2 Glazier
again Bert
BradGuth
What about using the thorium dollar?
We currently mine out a tonne of minerals (mostly metals) per American
per month (that's 300+ million tonnes per month), of which this
ongoing process of raping mother Earth can consume as much as another
tonne of fossil fuel for each and every one of those mined and
processed mineral tonnes.
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
hanson
"Uncle rect-Al" Schwartz <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> worried
and did not stick his head into the sand but instead he decided
to perform one of his yiddishe street corner acts again and
which he splendidly pictorialized here on his own website:
*** http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg ***
>
rect-Al's opinion which he posted in message
news:4878CED1...@hate.spam.net...
>
1) The planet is awash in US dollars - at least $50 trillion in
greenbacks and debts. $100 trillion has been quoted with nary a
snigger.
2) The US dollar is no longer a stable currency. Weimer Republic
inflation is being intensely modeled inside the Beltway. US
corporations have fled offshore and into euros. Nothing remains at
home.
3) US debt holders are therefore dumping greenbacks by purchasing
chattels - petroleum, still mostly denominated in US dollars.
4) At some near term point there will be breakthrough - Arabia
Officially abandoning the petro-dollar for the petro-euro - and 1929
will look like an expense account weekend in Vegas.
>
Just as the real world international currency conversion standard is
the cost of a Big Mac, so the real world value of a dollar is a bbl of
oil. Your 2008 dollar is worth less than $0.20 in 1990 dollars, soon
to lose another decimal place all at once.
-- Uncle rect-Al
>
hanson wrote:
Thanks for the laughs, schwartzer dreidel.... ahahaha... ahahanson
>
What's the China dollar or hourly unit of earned credits based upon?
What about using the thorium dollar?
We currently mine out a tonne of minerals (mostly metals) per
American per month (that's 300+ million tonnes per month), of which
this ongoing process of raping mother Earth can consume as much
as another tonne of fossil fuel for each and every one of those mined
and processed mineral tonnes.
>
hahaha... you must have been searching for wisdom just like
rect-Al does: http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
... ... Since when and why should any mineral care where it is
located?... The anthropic mineral transfer is nothing compared
to the ones caused by biogenic or inorganic mechanisms like
volcanism, weather/ice/floods/erosion, plate-tectonics, tides,
ants and termites, photosynthesis, etc.
>
Only in the misanthropic mind of a little green idiot like yourself
does such a problem exist. ... ahahahaha... Brad, when you rail
against the Jews, then at least you are funny. So, stick with that.
>
Also consider that you, Brad & rect-Al, ought to apply at McCain's
and Obama's campaigns for the posts of EPA chief and for Secy
of the Treasury. It is easy to see that you two would be far more
successful fuck-ups then the ones who are there now... ahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, you mineralized schmuck!... ahahahnson
mike3
> "Uncle rect-Al" Schwartz <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> worried
> and did not stick his head into the sand but instead he decided
> to perform one of his yiddishe street corner acts again and
> show the world "sunshine" and where he finds his rect-Al wisdom
> which he splendidly pictorialized here on his own website :
>
> rect-Al's opinion which he posted in messagenews:4878CED1...@hate.spam.net...
>
> 1) The planet is awash in US dollars - at least $50 trillion in
> greenbacks and debts. $100 trillion has been quoted with nary a
> snigger.
>
> 2) The US dollar is no longer a stable currency. Weimer Republic
> inflation is being intensely modeled inside the Beltway. US
> corporations have fled offshore and into euros. Nothing remains at
> home.
>
> 3) US debt holders are therefore dumping greenbacks by purchasing
> chattels - petroleum, still mostly denominated in US dollars.
>
> 4) At some near term point there will be breakthrough - Arabia
> Officially abandoning the petro-dollar for the petro-euro - and 1929
> will look like an expense account weekend in Vegas.
>
> Just as the real world international currency conversion standard is
> the cost of a Big Mac, so the real world value of a dollar is a bbl of
> oil. Your 2008 dollar is worth less than $0.20 in 1990 dollars, soon
> to lose another decimal place all at once.
And the oil is running down, so what does that do the value of the
dollar...?
hmm...
mike3
> What's the China dollar or hourly unit of earned credits based upon?
>
> What about using the thorium dollar?
>
> We currently mine out a tonne of minerals (mostly metals) per American
> per month (that's 300+ million tonnes per month), of which this
> ongoing process of raping mother Earth can consume as much as another
> tonne of fossil fuel for each and every one of those mined and
> processed mineral tonnes.
>
Pretty soon there won't be any fuel left to rape from the planet any
more, and, well...
No more dino carcasses to burn...
(yes I know dinosaurs are not the major organism that went into its
formation, but...)
mike3
> and did not stick his head into the sand but instead he decided
> to perform one of his yiddishe street corner acts again and
> show the world "sunshine" and where he finds his rect-Al wisdom
> which he splendidly pictorialized here on his own website :
>
> rect-Al's opinion which he posted in messagenews:4878CED1...@hate.spam.net...
>
> 1) The planet is awash in US dollars - at least $50 trillion in
> greenbacks and debts. $100 trillion has been quoted with nary a
> snigger.
>
> 2) The US dollar is no longer a stable currency. Weimer Republic
> inflation is being intensely modeled inside the Beltway. US
> corporations have fled offshore and into euros. Nothing remains at
> home.
>
> 3) US debt holders are therefore dumping greenbacks by purchasing
> chattels - petroleum, still mostly denominated in US dollars.
>
> 4) At some near term point there will be breakthrough - Arabia
> Officially abandoning the petro-dollar for the petro-euro - and 1929
> will look like an expense account weekend in Vegas.
>
> Just as the real world international currency conversion standard is
> the cost of a Big Mac, so the real world value of a dollar is a bbl of
> oil. Your 2008 dollar is worth less than $0.20 in 1990 dollars, soon
> to lose another decimal place all at once.
And also don't forget... peak oil... geologic oil depletion...
mike3
5) Peak oil means that oil production is going to start falling soon
if it
hasn't already, and falling will become the norm, so the demand/supply
gap will continue to grow.
Sanforized
> 1) The planet is awash in US dollars - at least $50 trillion in
> greenbacks and debts. $100 trillion has been quoted with nary a
> snigger.
>
> 2) The US dollar is no longer a stable currency. Weimer Republic
> inflation is being intensely modeled inside the Beltway. US
> corporations have fled offshore and into euros. Nothing remains at
> home.
>
> 3) US debt holders are therefore dumping greenbacks by purchasing
> chattels - petroleum, still mostly denominated in US dollars.
>
> 4) At some near term point there will be breakthrough - Arabia
> Officially abandoning the petro-dollar for the petro-euro - and 1929
> will look like an expense account weekend in Vegas.
>
> Just as the real world international currency conversion standard is
> the cost of a Big Mac, so the real world value of a dollar is a bbl of
> oil. Your 2008 dollar is worth less than $0.20 in 1990 dollars, soon
> to lose another decimal place all at once.
One of the few times I find myself in 100% agreement with Uncle Al.
Sanforized
Peak oil production won't matter. With economic collapse energy
demand will fall. You won't be able to afford that new high
efficiency automobile so you'll be stuck much as the Cubans
have been with aging inefficient vehicle and machinery which
also means you'll only have the money for very limited driving.
If you have to drive to get to work you might have to quite
your current job and hope you can find one within walking
or bicycle riding distance.
With a reduction in auto usage comes a combination of increased
liability insurance rates (economics of scale kicks in here) as
well as massive layoffs in that economic sector. My 2004 low
mileage pickup truck lost well over 50% of its resale value
in the past 4 or 5 months. In a year, even if I don't use it
at all, its resale value will probably drop to zero.
I live 9 miles from the nearest town and the nearest supermarket.
In the near future I'll probably have to quintuple the size of
my vegetable garden (currently ~40*50 feet.) The biggest question
is will I be able to afford the fuel it takes to prepare the
garden, plant, harvest, prep for long term storage, and pay
for refrigeration for the year that my home grown produce will
have to last.
I had a lot of spam as a kid. I'll probably have to eat even
more of the stuff in years to come.
Sid
The folks who live in exurbia and heat with fuel oil will be hit hard.
I commuted 500 miles a week in a diesel VW and my home fuel oil bill
was more than twice what I spent at the fuel pumps.
hanson
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
"Uncle rect-Al" Schwartz <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> worried
to perform one of his yiddishe street corner acts again and
which he splendidly pictorialized here on his own website :
>
rect-Al's opinion which he posted in message
news:4878CED1...@hate.spam.net...
2) Weimer Republic inflation is being intensely modeled
inside the Beltway.
>
hanson wrote:
rect-Al, you are cor-rect on this one, although In don't know
about the inflation but when it comes to infestation of the
Beltway by JerUSAlem cockroaches (Jews/Neocons whose
1st loyalty belongs to Israel instead of the USA, such as
Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Wurmers) the Beltway studding is the
same, from Lieberman, Ackerman, Feingold and Chertoff etc.
on down, just like it was then, when back then in the1920's,
where the then Zios infested Germany's Weimar Republic.
>
Now what was it that happened over there then 15 years later?
... After it was all over and they were gone Germany had its
Wirtschafts-Wunder and prospered like it never before...
It is interesting that you, a Jew,should compare the Weimar
Republic to the condition of the USA today... ahahahaha....
>
>
"mike3" <mike...@yahoo.com> got rect-Al-ly paranoid & wrote:
"And the oil is running down, so what does that do the value of the
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahaha... and the sky is falling too, Mikey.... hmm... ahaha..
You guys have apparently no idea what is going on in the upper
echelons. --- What we are seeing is the first shake-out of/from
globalization and of course like in/during any non-stable period,
its the little guys that are getting fucked over. Sad but true.
>
Incidentally, it was the Green shits who hastened the advent of
the current turmoil greatly (ind.Over-regulation & Outsourcing);
and here is how the oil boys react, have played, are playing &
will be playing for a long time... because "peak oil" is NOT
gonna be here before the next 1500 years have come and gone:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/1f25c61fc45ad11b?hl=en
I trust that you remember High school chem... if not it will be over
your cabzahahahahaha... and make you continue to shed green
crocodile tears... ahahaha...
>
So react and behave accordingly. Start buying some oil futures
or oil-industry stock with your savings. A few hundred bucks is all it
takes. Take a chance like the big boys do instead of whining like
a little green idiot. Have some balls and roll in the right circles.
.... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
hanson
"mike3" <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfc2cd92-aca7-4637...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
And also don't forget... peak oil... geologic oil depletion...
>
No such thing!
\I read your post, the same that you posted 4 minutes earlier:
Here's what I posted for your benefit:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/36061b40eb63e643?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/196c4162fa1a6549?hl=en
The Natural Philosopher
way to heat in exurbia.
DB
> "mike3" <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dfc2cd92-aca7-4637...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> And also don't forget... peak oil... geologic oil depletion...
> hanson wrote:
> No such thing!
Hanson thinks resources are limitless. Hanson is special....
Sanforized
Now tell me about the carbon costs for building the infrastructure.
They have to be built and operating en masse before any savings
is achieved.
hhc...@yahoo.com
Actually, the actual reason for high oil prices would be easy to
determine with a reasonable certainty by anyone brave or foolish
enough to do so. A detective would tell you that often a crime is
solved by following the money trail.
In this case, the first step would be to determine the current selling
price for a barrel of oil at the wellhead. (If you note, this is a
deeply held secret, the the wholesale cost of a casket.) You cannot do
this by looking at the cost of discovering the oil, buiding the
drilling rig, and pumping the essencialy cost free oil out of the
earth...becasue this would be essencially the same cost as it was 5
years ago, around $17/barrel.) Today its likely to be higher, maybe
even $24/barrel, but this is a very difficult figure to aquire
(intentionally). If a drilling firm were to reveal how much they are
paid for a barrel of oil, they would be immediately blacklisted and
unable to sell anything.
Given that starting point, you then follow the distribution path and
selling price until that barrel of oil reaches the refinery and now
has an openly published price of say $160. Now it is clear that if
the oil cost $24 at the wellhead, and at the refinery it is $160,
somebody has just pocketed a tiday profit of $136/barrel without
adding a dime of value added to the product except possibly its
transportation. The question is exactly who?
Realize that todays situation is quite different from that back in
1972 (?) when the price was manipulated by creating an artificial
shortage, and tankers sitting low in the water remained anchored off
the east coast of the US while gas stations rationed the amount of
gasoline that a car owner could purchase. That is, until the price of
oil was artificially driven up to the point acceptable to the oil
owners, at which point the tankers dumped their liquid cargos and
returned to their home ports. (Please don't try to argue this is
fantasy, because on my weekly airline trips to and from Washington DC,
from I plane I could see those tankers anchored by the hundreds, or
possibly thousands, then a week or two later they were gone, and the
fuel shortage suddently vanished.)
Today, today something very similar is going on, and some people and
firms are becoming increasingly wealthy. The method is very obvious,
although the mechanism is a bit complex. What was requied to convert
a competitive market place was the natural product of supply and
demand, to a monopolistic market, where the supply is controlled by a
few individuals and firms. Today there is no oil shortage, only the
supply is being hoarded by the very greedy, and is being dizzled out
only at the outrageous prices that they demand. When a product goes
into a ship or pipeline at $24 and emerges at $160, a reasonable
person whould want to know why, and who is pocketing the difference?
Blaming the Chinese, the Japanes, increased African demand, or the Bad
Fairy for the problem is much easer than tracking through the
operations of a price fixing conspiracy operating on a global scale
than actually isolating the source of the problem. Also, far less
dangerous to one's health. Thinks about this.
Here's something else to think about. Back during the first Gulf War,
a large percentage of oil wells throughout the middle east were set on
fire by the retreating Iraq army. The made a huge dent in the
availability of middle eastern oil, yet gasoline and diesel prices at
the pump barely noticed. That was definitely a major singularity in
the global supply of oil. During the past 6 months, here in the US
we've watched gasoline and diesel prices at the pump more that
double. What is the global singularity that created this?
On final thought. Why are many productive do so many productive oil
fields here in the US sit capped and dormant, and their owner unable
to turn a profit from them because the current wellhead prices remain
so low that it is unprofitable to pump from them. Surely if their oil
able to be pumped and sold at a profitable wellhead price, the would
be uncapping the wells and pumping like crazy!
Just something to think about.
Harry C.
Yevgen Barsukov
> "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dfc2cd92-aca7-4637...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> And also don't forget... peak oil... geologic oil depletion...
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> No such thing!
You will not let the data change your mind, will you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
I specially like this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hubbert_world_2004.png
Regards,
Yevgen
Antares 531
>On Jul 12, 1:32 am, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12 Jul, 05:01, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
(snip)
>
>Actually, the actual reason for high oil prices would be easy to
>determine with a reasonable certainty by anyone brave or foolish
>enough to do so. A detective would tell you that often a crime is
>solved by following the money trail.
>
>In this case, the first step would be to determine the current selling
>price for a barrel of oil at the wellhead. (If you note, this is a
>deeply held secret, the the wholesale cost of a casket.) You cannot do
>this by looking at the cost of discovering the oil, buiding the
>drilling rig, and pumping the essencialy cost free oil out of the
>earth...becasue this would be essencially the same cost as it was 5
>years ago, around $17/barrel.) Today its likely to be higher, maybe
>even $24/barrel, but this is a very difficult figure to aquire
>(intentionally). If a drilling firm were to reveal how much they are
>paid for a barrel of oil, they would be immediately blacklisted and
>unable to sell anything.
>
My Revenue Summary Statement shows that one of my wells produced oil
that was sold by the drilling company for $123.95 per barrel, during
the month of March, 2008. The earlier months show per barrel prices
ranging from 90.46 to $119.88. I don't have the current quarterly
statement, but I expect the price to be on up from these a bit.
>
>Given that starting point, you then follow the distribution path and
>selling price until that barrel of oil reaches the refinery and now
>has an openly published price of say $160. Now it is clear that if
>the oil cost $24 at the wellhead, and at the refinery it is $160,
>somebody has just pocketed a tiday profit of $136/barrel without
>adding a dime of value added to the product except possibly its
>transportation. The question is exactly who?
>
>Realize that todays situation is quite different from that back in
>1972 (?) when the price was manipulated by creating an artificial
>shortage, and tankers sitting low in the water remained anchored off
>the east coast of the US while gas stations rationed the amount of
>gasoline that a car owner could purchase. That is, until the price of
>oil was artificially driven up to the point acceptable to the oil
>owners, at which point the tankers dumped their liquid cargos and
>returned to their home ports. (Please don't try to argue this is
>fantasy, because on my weekly airline trips to and from Washington DC,
>from I plane I could see those tankers anchored by the hundreds, or
>possibly thousands, then a week or two later they were gone, and the
>fuel shortage suddently vanished.)
>
That 1970s price manipulation was even more complex than you've
indicated. The oil companies imported enormous amounts of very low
priced light sweet crude and pumped it into those depleted salt dome
heavy crude oil wells in south Texas. The light sweet crude dissolved
a lot of the heavy crude from these abandoned wells, making it
possible to pump out about 30% more oil than they pumped in a few
months earlier. And, the oil they pumped out was then sold at about 3
times the price of the oil that had been pumped into these abandoned
wells.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
[snip]
>
> Actually, the actual reason for high oil prices would be easy to
> determine with a reasonable certainty by anyone brave or foolish
> enough to do so. A detective would tell you that often a crime is
> solved by following the money trail.
>
> In this case, the first step would be to determine the current selling
> price for a barrel of oil at the wellhead. (If you note, this is a
> deeply held secret, the the wholesale cost of a casket.) You cannot do
> this by looking at the cost of discovering the oil, buiding the
> drilling rig, and pumping the essencialy cost free oil out of the
> earth...becasue this would be essencially the same cost as it was 5
> years ago, around $17/barrel.) Today its likely to be higher, maybe
> even $24/barrel, but this is a very difficult figure to aquire
> (intentionally). If a drilling firm were to reveal how much they are
> paid for a barrel of oil, they would be immediately blacklisted and
> unable to sell anything.
>
> Given that starting point, you then follow the distribution path and
> selling price until that barrel of oil reaches the refinery and now
> has an openly published price of say $160. Now it is clear that if
> the oil cost $24 at the wellhead, and at the refinery it is $160,
> somebody has just pocketed a tiday profit of $136/barrel without
> adding a dime of value added to the product except possibly its
> transportation. The question is exactly who?
Speculators. People who buy oil futures on thin margins. Close the Enron
loophole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_loophole), enforce margin
requirements in line with other regulated securities and it will make
speculation much less profitable. Also, prohibit the practice of tying
futures to the price of "West Texas Crude". That is a very small slice
of the world oil supply and quite easily manipulated by producers.
Keep in mind that companies with vertical monopolies in the oil market
(those who explore, pump crude, ship, refine and sell at retail) aren't
charging themselves $140/bbl for oil that they process. But they quote
the value of their reserves at the spot market prices. Given tax
loopholes like the oil depletion allowance, they can claim a credit for
$140/bbl market value rather than $24/bbl actual cost.
As the move to re-regulate the oil futures market gains momentum, those
with vested interests are starting to make statements to the effect that
you and I, through our pension funds and other investment pools are
heavily invested in commodity futures. Any collapse in market value will
adversely affect you and me (they claim) and necessitate some sort of
bailout. It appears that the insiders are already looking for an exit
strategy.
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
hanson
news:8jiek.101033$c5.5...@fe101.usenetserver.com...
>
hanson wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/1f25c61fc45ad11b?hl=en
>
"mike3" <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfc2cd92-aca7-4637...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
And also don't forget... peak oil... geologic oil depletion...
>
hanson wrote:
No such thing!
>
Hanson thinks resources are limitless. Hanson is special....
>
You speak like a typical class 3 enviro, a little green idiot
who parrots the green party line because you don't have
sufficient education to think for yourself, and you have
have no clue how badly the green shits are fucking you.
>
Here read again and try to grasp why 150'000 years of
buried carbon, in any desirable form, at the present
consumption rate, is *limitless* for normal people, who
are not damaged goods like you are...
Here it is again for your benefit and healing. Read the
Para that starts with: Initially, "they" say the earth had...:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/1f25c61fc45ad11b?hl=en
If you understand enough elementary chemistry, a light may
turn on in your head. If not then resign yourself to the fact
that you have fallen victim to the grand con that turned you
into damaged goods... ahahahaha... ahaha...ahahahanson
ahahahaha.... ahahahaha...ahahahanson
hanson
news:aa3133c4-e7c6-43e6...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/12d4af652a68d8e1?hl=en
>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> No such thing!
>
Evgeny:
> You will not let the data change your mind, will you?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
> I specially like this graph:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hubbert_world_2004.png
> Regards, Yevgen
>
Evgeny, unless you understand the stoichiochemistry of
carbon you will not be able to grasp how the oil-boys AND
the Green Shits are fucking you with misleading info like
in the 2 wiki links above that you scared yourself with.
Read the Para in this link that starts with: Initially, "they"
DB
I don't think you will get hanson to engage in an intelligent
conversation about peak oil.
alexy
>On Jul 12, 11:15 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:dfc2cd92-aca7-4637...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> And also don't forget... peak oil... geologic oil depletion...
>>
>> hanson wrote:
>>
>> No such thing!
>
>You will not let the data change your mind, will you?
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
I happen to agree with you, but don't you recognize the difference
between data and a theory?
>
>I specially like this graph:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hubbert_world_2004.png
>
>Regards,
>Yevgen
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
DB
> "DB" <a...@some.net> wrote in message
> news:8jiek.101033$c5.5...@fe101.usenetserver.com...
> hanson wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/1f25c61fc45ad11b?hl=en
> "mike3" <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dfc2cd92-aca7-4637...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> And also don't forget... peak oil... geologic oil depletion...
> hanson wrote:
> No such thing!
> "DB", the Dumb Bastard <a...@some.net> wrote:
> Hanson thinks resources are limitless. Hanson is special....
> hanson wrote:
Nope, and that you changed the subject says it all.....
Yevgen Barsukov
This article contains both theory and plenty of data supporting it,
including
the second link I included with just pure data graphs showing that
production has picked in all non-OPEC countries already (and peaks are
reached in the same order as the country started developing its
resources)
Regards,
Yevgen
hanson
"DB", the Dumb Bastard <a...@some.net> wrote in message
news:KVrek.118888$lb3....@fe097.usenetserver.com...
that he is a class 3 enviro, a little green idiot ....
>
who parrots the green party line because he doesn't have
sufficient education to think for himself, and that he has
no clue how badly the green shits are fucking him.
hanson
DB
>>
> hanson wrote:
> Evgeny, unless you understand the stoichiochemistry of
> carbon you will not be able to grasp how the oil-boys AND
> the Green Shits are fucking you with misleading info like
> in the 2 wiki links above that you scared yourself with.
> Read the Para in this link that starts with: Initially, "they"
> say the earth had..."
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/1f25c61fc45ad11b?hl=en
hanson wrote:
Initially, "they" say the earth had an anaerobic envelope ~0 % O2.
At hand back then was only (relevant) CO2 and Carbonates.
So, Photosynth. etc. has liberated by now ~21% free O2 into the
air: That translates into ~1E+21 gr or ~1E+15 tons of available
O2. So, each 32 gr of O2 buried somewhere 12-14 gr = 1 C (max
CH4). Hence, there is 1E+21 * 12/32 = 5E+20 gr or ~ 5.E+14
tons of fossil C in store. So, at a current use/consumption/burning
of 3E+15 gr/yr of oil, the fossil stuff (coal, oil & CH4) will be
reoxydised in 5E+20 gr / 3E+15 gr/yr =~ 1.5E+05 years!
....
Gee, you had better run out and tell all those oil geologists that they
should be finding oil because that is what you calculated! You are not
one of those free energy nut jobs are you?
Yevgen Barsukov
> "Yevgen Barsukov" <evgen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:aa3133c4-e7c6-43e6...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/12d4af652a68d8e1?hl=en
>
> >> "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> And also don't forget... peak oil... geologic oil depletion...
>
> >> hanson wrote:
> >> No such thing!
>
>
> Evgeny:
> > You will not let the data change your mind, will you?
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
> > I specially like this graph:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hubbert_world_2004.png
> > Regards, Yevgen
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Evgeny, unless you understand the stoichiochemistry of
> carbon you will not be able to grasp how the oil-boys AND
> the Green Shits are fucking you with misleading info like
> in the 2 wiki links above that you scared yourself with.
> Read the Para in this link that starts with: Initially, "they"
I like the clever speculation about relation between O2 and available
C.
But it is an example how thermodynamics is considered but kinetics is
not.
What matters for existence of any Life form (including humanity) is
the
rate of entropy increase they can provide with whatever process they
are catalyzing (in this case C+O2).
Different sources of C considered on earth-scale have different
degrees of kinetic barriers associated with it. If you prefer electric
analogy, you can think about
it as resistance. Say you have a battery with plenty of energy, but it
is
isolated by 1MOhm resistor. Energy is there, but you cant power your
radio
with it.
Yes, C is there, but only negligible amount of it is stored in form
with "low resistance" e.g. in accessible depositories (not distributed
over billions miles of
sea-floor, not berried too deep etc). After 100 years of active
exploration
using high-tech geophysical methods we already know 70-80% of all
such
compact "low resistance" depositories.
Hubbert curve describes how this easy access resources are affecting
the prices.
Difficult access resources have "resistance" so much higher that they
do not have any effect on the curve (except corrections on the "clsee
to zero" outlier side of the curve). It is just like connecting
thousand of batteries with 1MOhm resistor will have no effect on run-
time of your radio on one battery with
normal resistance.
We are very far from "almost empty" side, so at this point it does not
even make sense to discuss the "low access" resources, although they
will certainly play a role once we get there.
Regards,
Yevgen
DB
> "DB", the Dumb Bastard <a...@some.net> wrote in message
> news:iUrek.118886$lb3.1...@fe097.usenetserver.com...
> that he is a class 3 enviro, a little green idiot ....
Accually, you wrote that and changed the subject from peak oil to the
enviroment.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/1f25c61fc45ad11b?hl=en
> If you understand enough elementary chemistry, a light may
> turn on in your head. If not then resign yourself to the fact
> that you have fallen victim...
So hanson, where is the next 500 billion barrels of light sweet located?
You should not sit on such valuable information...
hanson
We are very far from "almost empty" side, so at this point it does not
even make sense to discuss the "low access" resources, although they
will certainly play a role once we get there.
Regards, Yevgen
>
Evgeny, you are, like "DB", arguing for the wrong side.
The Green Turds and the Oil Boys have successfully
brainwashed you guys and made you cry about the
"higher gas prices"... which is exactly that these fuckers
want you to do... ahahaha... Your crying fills their wallets...
ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
.... ahahaha... Now since you too, like poster "DB" are
somewhat slow on the uptake read here where it says in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/bb4dbe2a7fac0a34?hl=en
------- The C&CH politics ------- ....ahahaha... ahahanson
hanson
> hanson wrote:
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> Evgeny, unless you understand the stoichiochemistry of
>> carbon you will not be able to grasp how the oil-boys AND
>> the Green Shits are fucking you with misleading info like
>> in the 2 wiki links above that you scared yourself with.
>> Read the Para in this link that starts with: Initially, "they"
>> say the earth had..."
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/1f25c61fc45ad11b?hl=en
>
> hanson wrote:
> Initially, "they" say the earth had an anaerobic envelope ~0 % O2.
> At hand back then was only (relevant) CO2 and Carbonates.
> So, Photosynth. etc. has liberated by now ~21% free O2 into the
> air: That translates into ~1E+21 gr or ~1E+15 tons of available
> O2. So, each 32 gr of O2 buried somewhere 12-14 gr = 1 C (max
> CH4). Hence, there is 1E+21 * 12/32 = 5E+20 gr or ~ 5.E+14
> tons of fossil C in store. So, at a current use/consumption/burning
> of 3E+15 gr/yr of oil, the fossil stuff (coal, oil & CH4) will be
> reoxydised in 5E+20 gr / 3E+15 gr/yr =~ 1.5E+05 years!
> ....
> should be finding oil because that is what you calculated!
> You are not one of those free energy nut jobs are you?
>
.... ahahaha... IOW, you have no idea what's going on.
It is quite clear now that you are not only a self labeled
"DB", Dumb Bastard, but badly damaged goods, a
victim of the machinations perpetrated upon you by the
green turds and the oil boys... Now since you are very
DB
>Now since you are very
> slow on the uptake read here where it says in:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/bb4dbe2a7fac0a34?hl=en
I see nothing but an idealistic rant. No real numbers that have anything
to do with the production of liquids.
Tit for tat, here is my rant, *with* numbers......
mike3
> "DB" <a...@some.net> wrote in message
>
> news:8jiek.101033$c5.5...@fe101.usenetserver.com...
>
> hanson wrote:
>
>
> "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dfc2cd92-aca7-4637...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> And also don't forget... peak oil... geologic oil depletion...
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> No such thing!
>
> "DB", the Dumb Bastard <a...@some.net> wrote:
> Hanson thinks resources are limitless. Hanson is special....
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> You speak like a typical class 3 enviro, a little green idiot
> who parrots the green party line because you don't have
> sufficient education to think for yourself, and you have
> have no clue how badly the green shits are fucking you.
>
> Here read again and try to grasp why 150'000 years of
> buried carbon, in any desirable form, at the present
> consumption rate, is *limitless* for normal people, who
> are not damaged goods like you are...
> Here it is again for your benefit and healing. Read the
> If you understand enough elementary chemistry, a light may
> turn on in your head. If not then resign yourself to the fact
> that you have fallen victim to the grand con that turned you
> into damaged goods... ahahahaha... ahaha...ahahahanson
>
> ahahahaha.... ahahahaha...ahahahanson
I'm curious: If there's all this oil, where is it? Why haven't
I seen it on any tally of Earth's oil reserves?
mike3
>
> news:aa3133c4-e7c6-43e6...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/12d4af652a68d8e1?hl=en
>
> >> "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> And also don't forget... peak oil... geologic oil depletion...
>
> >> hanson wrote:
> >> No such thing!
>
>
> Evgeny:
> > You will not let the data change your mind, will you?
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
> > I specially like this graph:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hubbert_world_2004.png
> > Regards, Yevgen
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Evgeny, unless you understand the stoichiochemistry of
> carbon you will not be able to grasp how the oil-boys AND
> the Green Shits are fucking you with misleading info like
> in the 2 wiki links above that you scared yourself with.
> Read the Para in this link that starts with: Initially, "they"
> If you understand enough elementary chemistry, a light may
> turn on in your head. If not then resign yourself to the fact
> that you have fallen victim to the grand con that turned you
> into damaged goods... ahahahaha... ahaha...ahahahanson
Can you DISPROVE the graphs?
The Natural Philosopher
Pretty low compared with any viable alternatives. Probanly the lowest of all
> They have to be built and operating en masse before any savings
> is achieved.
Not at all.
Heatpumps are already carbon positive compared to any other form of
heating;` with typical pump ratios of 4:1, any power station burning
fossil fuel at more than about 20% efficiency (assuming 80% domestic
boiler efficiency) is already a plus. With probably 40% efficiency
average on a least base load power stations, heatpump on off peak
represent about half the carbon even if they are not run off renewables.
chuck in nuclear gennies, and they are effectively zero carbon. Theers a
lot less concrete in a nuclear power station than the 1000 windmills you
need to reliably generate the same.
Nuclear represents about 1/3rd of our off peak already I think. Not
sure what the peak to mean ratio is.
The Natural Philosopher
All this dies is add a lead/ovesrhoot component to the oil price. It
doesn't really change the fundamentals.
And the most fundamental of fundamentals is that Saudi cant pump any
more than it is, iraq is barely operating, Iran is under sanction, and
nigeria is subject to 'terrorism' and meanwhile those that can pump are
making profits BUT the dollar is sliding so they aren't as good as they
should be.
GW Bush and the russkies are happy, cos they a are making money. The
sauidis are reasonably happy, but it aint gonna last. The canadians are
waiting to see if the prices hold so they an start to exploit the crap
they have in the tar sands..
The speculators simply are riding Bushes coat tails..at best its
reckoned (barclays capital) that the forward markets account for an
extra 18% on top of the basic fundamentals.
This isn't speculators, or a conspiracy of oil companies so much as a
political conspiracy to drive any production not under US control, or
friendly to the US, off the planet.
Close the Enron
> loophole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_loophole), enforce margin
> requirements in line with other regulated securities and it will make
> speculation much less profitable. Also, prohibit the practice of tying
> futures to the price of "West Texas Crude". That is a very small slice
> of the world oil supply and quite easily manipulated by producers.
>
Uttrely irrelevant.
> Keep in mind that companies with vertical monopolies in the oil market
> (those who explore, pump crude, ship, refine and sell at retail) aren't
> charging themselves $140/bbl for oil that they process. But they quote
> the value of their reserves at the spot market prices. Given tax
> loopholes like the oil depletion allowance, they can claim a credit for
> $140/bbl market value rather than $24/bbl actual cost.
>
> As the move to re-regulate the oil futures market gains momentum, those
> with vested interests are starting to make statements to the effect that
> you and I, through our pension funds and other investment pools are
> heavily invested in commodity futures. Any collapse in market value will
> adversely affect you and me (they claim) and necessitate some sort of
> bailout. It appears that the insiders are already looking for an exit
> strategy.
The futures market is irrelevant. This is the last gasp of the
neocon/oil policy of world domination unwinding: Ir was bound to fail,
and it will fail, because all it does is force the world to use the
cheaper alternatives that exist.
>
Sanforized
Nonsense.
> Heatpumps are already carbon positive compared to any other form of
> heating;` with typical pump ratios of 4:1, any power station burning
> fossil fuel at more than about 20% efficiency (assuming 80% domestic
> boiler efficiency) is already a plus. With probably 40% efficiency
> average on a least base load power stations, heatpump on off peak
> represent about half the carbon even if they are not run off renewables.
What part of "higher gas prices" don't you understand? A heat
pump will not make plastic products. A heat pump will not
drive me to town and back again, and so on.
> chuck in nuclear gennies, and they are effectively zero carbon. Theers a
> lot less concrete in a nuclear power station than the 1000 windmills you
> need to reliably generate the same.
How much energy is it going to take to build them? Start with
excavation and building the infrastructure. Then go on to
all the equipment inside. And the lead time is horrendous.
You can't decide to build a nuclear station today and have
it up and running in a year, or even two, but perhaps 5?
Sanforized
> The futures market is irrelevant.
Bullshit.
> This is the last gasp of the
> neocon/oil policy of world domination unwinding:
How paranoid can one person be?
> Ir was bound to fail,
> and it will fail, because all it does is force the world to use the
> cheaper alternatives that exist.
You really do lack any grounding in reality after all.
hanson
>
hanson wrote:
Now since you are very
slow on the uptake read here where it says in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/bb4dbe2a7fac0a34?hl=en
>
have anything to do with the production of liquids.
Tit for tat, here is my rant, *with* numbers......
http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/
>
... ahahahaha... but, Dan, the numbers in your rant are the
products of what the producers want you to hear, believe
and accept, so that they can keep on fucking you... and
drive the gas prices ever higher... ahahaha...
My numbers come from unassailable first principles.
My take in my link goes back to the early 1970 after the
last "Peak oil" scare, conniving & lying by the producers.
>
But from then on I began to invest like I mentioned
in the 2 links here, starting with a few hundred dollars....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/8b67fce923b56a19?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/196c4162fa1a6549?hl=en
You can either do that or keep on whining that things
are bad and that they should change... ahahahaha...
>
So keep doing that, Dan. I am grateful for each one
of you who helps me (and my now investment firm) to
produce money for us... ahahahaha.... ahahahaha...
So, thanks for the laughs and the money... ahahahanson
>
>
PS:
Why do I let anybody in on the sweet deal? Here's why.
Why should I let all the money go to only a few super rich
bastards who, like ass-venter Sheik Yamani did, went on
TV and laughed when he told us how they are going to
fuck us. --- Details are in the above links... ahahahaha....
>
PS2:
The ONLY way to break-up that vicious game is to develop
and mass produce, NOT dual, but multi/flex fuels (car) engines
that run on Kerosene, Gasoline, Oxos/Alcohols, LNG, CH4,
H2, Diesel, Veggie-oils, water-oil emulsions AND on
coal/hydro/nuclear/wind/solar-derived electricity.
Any piece mealing on the "alternative energy" **production**
side will fall victim to the whims of oil gamers... ahahahaha...
>
I noticed that academia is finally taking interest in a
govt-mandated multi flex/fuel **consumption** approach.
But that will tale 10-20 years to be effective... by which
time the oil-boys have lowered the price again and killed
off all the "alternatives"... unless there is a govt.-MANDATE
to let only multi fex fuel cars onto the road & to be sold.
DB
> ... ahahahaha... but, Dan, the numbers in your rant are the
> products of what the producers want you to hear, believe
> and accept, so that they can keep on fucking you... and
> drive the gas prices ever higher... ahahaha...
Really! So, you are into conspiracy theories. Do you have citations?
> My numbers come from unassailable first principles.
> My take in my link goes back to the early 1970 after the
> last "Peak oil" scare, conniving & lying by the producers.
Huh? There was no shortage of oil production in real terms back then. If
you heard of a 'peak oil' scare you must have been very gullible.
> But from then on I began to invest like I mentioned
> in the 2 links here, starting with a few hundred dollars....
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/8b67fce923b56a19?hl=en
Just a lot of gibberish.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/196c4162fa1a6549?hl=en
More gibberish.
> You can either do that or keep on whining that things
> are bad and that they should change... ahahahaha...
You seem to be the one whining here.
> So keep doing that, Dan. I am grateful for each one
> of you who helps me (and my now investment firm) to
> produce money for us... ahahahaha.... ahahahaha...
> So, thanks for the laughs and the money... ahahahanson
??? Are you a loon too?
> The ONLY way to break-up that vicious game is to develop
> and mass produce, NOT dual, but multi/flex fuels (car) engines
> that run on Kerosene, Gasoline, Oxos/Alcohols, LNG, CH4,
> H2, Diesel, Veggie-oils, water-oil emulsions AND on
> coal/hydro/nuclear/wind/solar-derived electricity.
You really have no grasp of the numbers. Your shopping list is just
that. That you include biofuels in the list shows your complete ignorance.
> Any piece mealing on the "alternative energy" **production**
> side will fall victim to the whims of oil gamers... ahahahaha...
Get back to me when you have some hard data on this conspiracy of yours...
> I noticed that academia is finally taking interest in a
> govt-mandated multi flex/fuel **consumption** approach.
> But that will tale 10-20 years to be effective... by which
> time the oil-boys have lowered the price again and killed
> off all the "alternatives"... unless there is a govt.-MANDATE
> to let only multi fex fuel cars onto the road & to be sold.
Gee hanson, where will the new 30-40 mb/d of new production come from?
Will you ever back your rhetoric with data? I doubt it.....
hanson
news:Wrwek.418$2N2...@fe091.usenetserver.com...
only arguments for argument's sake... hahahaha...
>
hanson wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7dec22d709f02903?hl=en
wherein it says:
"....thanks for the laughs and the money... ahahaha.."
>
and now again, Dan
... thanks for the MONEY... ahahahahanson
Eeyore
DB wrote:
> I don't think you will get hanson to engage in an intelligent
> conversation about peak oil.
The last 3 words were superfluous.
Graham
hanson
"Eeyore" the Eyesore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:487AA031...@hotmail.com...
>
DB wrote:
I don't think you will get hanson to engage in an intelligent
conversation about peak oil.
>
The last 3 words were superfluous.
Graham
>
1. Right, because "about peak oil" are useless
lamentations since there is no "peak oil" for
at least the next 150 years... You are mooches.
2. Intelligent discussions are one thing, but little
green idiots like you guys, just parrot and keep
advocating, unwittingly, FOR the nefarious agenda
of big oil, but you are too fanatical to see that.
3. Thanks for the money, suckers.... ahahahaha...
Here is why:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7dec22d709f02903?hl=en
... ahahaha..... ahahahaha... ahahahanson"
DB
I'd say all of'm.
Back by popular demand, hanson on peak oil:
hhc...@yahoo.com
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:10:12 -0700 (PDT), "hhc...@yahoo.com"
> My Revenue Summary Statement shows that one of my wells produced oil
> that was sold by the drilling company for $123.95 per barrel, during
> the month of March, 2008. The earlier months show per barrel prices
> ranging from 90.46 to $119.88. I don't have the current quarterly
> statement, but I expect the price to be on up from these a bit.
Hot damn, and good for you. I spoke earlier today to a friend who
owns a well field in Texas, and what he told be was that util the at
the wellhead price exceeded $29/barrel, he would leave his most
productive wells capped. This in my mind is sort of a large
disconnect with you figures, and as that Texan told me, you are
talking like a "man with a paper asshole". If the price of sweet
texas crude at the wellhead ever exceeds $30/barrel, he would be
willing to uncap 75 wells and start the pumps. He asked me your name
and I told him that you were simply just another Internet pretender
posting under an assumed name. He agreed, and in the Texas style asked
me to tell that little fart that posted this ignorance nonsense to
travel to Houston to have him, in true Texan words "Set him straight
on the subject."
So then, we are still struck with the mystery $24 on entering the
distributon pipline and $160 out of the other end, Who pockets the
profits. Hell, didn't the De Beers diamond people create this model?
OK, I.m now going to bed with guys with the names of Jed and Bubba
asking themselves "what the Hell do De Beers diamonds have to do with
gasoline prices.
Well, if you don't understand the connection, simpy ask your lawyer to
expain it to you.
Harry C.
hhc...@yahoo.com
> loophole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_loophole), enforce margin
> requirements in line with other regulated securities and it will make
> speculation much less profitable. Also, prohibit the practice of tying
> futures to the price of "West Texas Crude". That is a very small slice
> of the world oil supply and quite easily manipulated by producers.
>
> (those who explore, pump crude, ship, refine and sell at retail) aren't
> charging themselves $140/bbl for oil that they process. But they quote
> the value of their reserves at the spot market prices. Given tax
> loopholes like the oil depletion allowance, they can claim a credit for
> $140/bbl market value rather than $24/bbl actual cost.
>
> As the move to re-regulate the oil futures market gains momentum, those
> with vested interests are starting to make statements to the effect that
> you and I, through our pension funds and other investment pools are
> heavily invested in commodity futures. Any collapse in market value will
> adversely affect you and me (they claim) and necessitate some sort of
> bailout. It appears that the insiders are already looking for an exit
> strategy.
>
> Paul Hovnanian p...@hovnanian.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Have gnu, will travel.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Paul, I have to admit that you are the very first person that even
senses the fuel price manipulation that is now ongoing. I suspect
that we both realize that we both compehend that the recent step
increase in fuel costs is only related to the manipulated cost of the
crude, that enters the distribution pipline at $24/barrel and by some
sort of magic emerges at $160/barrel.
Trust me, there are some interest that do no desire promotion of this
line of inquiry. I believe that you are intelligent to know what this
means.
Harry C.
The Natural Philosopher
Plastic is less than 1% of global petroleum output. Plastic does not
have to be made from petroleum. It is a non issue.
Electric cars will get you to twon and back, if there is any reason to
make the trip.
>
>> chuck in nuclear gennies, and they are effectively zero carbon. Theers
>> a lot less concrete in a nuclear power station than the 1000 windmills
>> you need to reliably generate the same.
>
> How much energy is it going to take to build them? Start with
> excavation and building the infrastructure. Then go on to
> all the equipment inside. And the lead time is horrendous.
> You can't decide to build a nuclear station today and have
> it up and running in a year, or even two, but perhaps 5?
>
7-10. And the overall energy content in building them is less than 1% of
the overall energy they produce.
Sanforized
Those people can't afford a lawyer on their McDonald's paycheck.
Sanforized
[....]
So blinded by an impossible worldview that it is
not worth continuing this discussion.
Sanforized
[....]
> It appears that the insiders are already looking for an exit
> strategy.
About like the Hunt brothers did.
Sanforized
Well, Harry, here's what the Louisiana DNR has to say on the
subject of wellhead prices:
http://dnr.louisiana.gov/sec/execdiv/techasmt/facts_figures/table18.htm
Domestic wellhead price in February was $89.41 which at the
refinery gate was $92.25. Nebraska reports $84.47 for February.
http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/40.html
Conspiracy theorists generally stick to issues not quite so
easily resolved.
The Natural Philosopher
financial muscle of the third largest global business in the world, and
a regime staffed by members who owe their positions to that industry?
I'll leave others to decide which worldview is more impossible.
I guess in YOUR world the fact that the UK fought a war all across N
Africa, and up into Iraq, and the US air force spent a year demolishing
the supply lines of petroleum to Hitlers regime, was on account of a few
Jewish Futures traders in NY?
And not to gain strategic control over the middle east oil reserves and
deny it to Germany?
All the oil companies need to do to ruin the futures market, is simply
pump and refine more oil.
They are not doing it, and the reasons are that just about every oil
producing region is running at peak capacity, or is subject to violent
military or paramilitary action.
You only need to look at the world demand versus production. They are
running damn near equal. That's why the price is rising. Futures traders
merely note that fact and see an opportunity.
As to why production is only just meeting demand..well that is in teh
hands of the oil companies, the oil producing countries, and the
military policies of those who seek to destabilise the regions that are
producing.
Certainly the oil companies aren't losing from high prices if they are
involved in oil PRODUCTION. they ARE hurting where they are involved in
distribution and refining though.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
Antares 531
Take what ever assessment you want, but my money from the oil drilling
company is in the bank, and the Revenue Summary Statement shows the
figures I quoted. My only question is, do they meter the oil
accurately, or to they skim off a lot of the well's production.
Gordon
hanson
news:2Tzek.101097$c5.8...@fe101.usenetserver.com...hanson wrote:
Thanks for the plug, Dan.... ahahahaha... ahahaha...
That must be one of my clients who is making money
because, unlike you and other greenies, he understood
the oil game that is really played, which I have told
you about in this thread:
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7dec22d709f02903?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/bb4dbe2a7fac0a34?hl=en
wherein YOU even quotes me, hanson, who showed
you the first principle base of the oil game, demonstrating
that "peak-oil" is a periodically reoccurring con and scam
by the procuducers & "The real reason for higher gas prices":
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/1f25c61fc45ad11b?hl=en
wherein hanson wrote:
Initially, "they" say the earth had an anaerobic envelope ~0 % O2.
At hand back then was only (relevant) CO2 and Carbonates.
So, Photosynth. etc. has liberated by now ~21% free O2 into the
air: That translates into ~1E+21 gr or ~1E+15 tons of available
O2. So, each 32 gr of O2 buried somewhere 12-14 gr = 1 C (max
CH4). Hence, there is 1E+21 * 12/32 = 5E+20 gr or ~ 5.E+14
tons of fossil C in store. So, at a current use/consumption/burning
of 3E+15 gr/yr of oil, the fossil stuff (coal, oil & CH4) will be
reoxydised in 5E+20 gr / 3E+15 gr/yr =~ 1.5E+05 years!
>
that "we are running out of oil", "End of the oil age", or "Peak oil",
scasm may have some gravitas only in 1500 years from now!
... ahahahahaha..
>
So Dan, you and all you whiners, enviro and otherwise, get
with the program and don't shed green crocodile tears
but knead yourself some dough, so that you can laugh all
the way to the bank instead of cursing your empty tank.
ahahaha.... ahahahahanson
Yevgen Barsukov
> "Yevgen Barsukov" <evgen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> We are very far from "almost empty" side, so at this point it does not
> even make sense to discuss the "low access" resources, although they
> will certainly play a role once we get there.
> Regards, Yevgen
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Evgeny, you are, like "DB", arguing for the wrong side.
> The Green Turds and the Oil Boys have successfully
> brainwashed you guys and made you cry about the
> "higher gas prices"... which is exactly that these fuckers
> want you to do... ahahaha... Your crying fills their wallets...
> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
> .... ahahaha... Now since you too, like poster "DB" are
> somewhat slow on the uptake read here where it says in:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/bb4dbe2a7fac0a34?hl=en
> ------- The C&CH politics ------- ....ahahaha... ahahanson
In your previous replay you brought up some interesting point (about C
vs O2 relation).
I explained the kinetics aspect of C availability, which made it clear
that while point is interesting, it has little relevance because most
of
"thermodynamically" available C has too much kinetic limitations (e.g.
resistance)
to be energetically relevant. Simply speaking, you will lose all the
energy
across in form of I^2*R drop across high access barriers if you try to
use it.
How about trying to disprove my point again. I am kind of missing the
intellectual challenge that the first post provided.
Regards,
Yevgen
hanson
news:4c7cdb91-c838-454f...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
How about trying to disprove my point again. I am kind of
missing the intellectual challenge that the first post provided.
Regards, Yevgen
>
Evgeny, my friend, hanson is not here to disprove any
point that any poster may make. hanson does not debate.
hanson has shown you and others how to make money
off the scam that you all are crying about. Here are some
details..Take it of leave it:
Sanforized
> Sanforized wrote:
>
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> [....]
>>
>> So blinded by an impossible worldview that it is
>> not worth continuing this discussion.
>>
> So you really think that a handful of futures traders
There are futures markets around the world with more
opening this year. Where, other than in your personal
uninformed opinion, did you come up with a "handful
of futures traders?" Your knowledge of what the world
markets comprise is exceeded by a well educated high
school student of today.
> can match the
> financial muscle of the third largest global business in the world, and
> a regime staffed by members who owe their positions to that industry?
"The buyer of an option can profit greatly if his view
is correct and the market continues to rise or fall in
the direction he expected. If he is wrong, he cannot
lose any more money than the premium he paid up front
to the option writer."
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/tafm/tafm11.html
snip
hanson
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbert...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1119-487...@storefull-3331.bay.webtv.net...
Muslin Arab Greed Bert
>
hanson wrote:
Right, and here is what caused it: **Jewish Greed**:
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O9W3UsdRyM >
or in < http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1842edc4f >
Thanks for the laughs, Hebie-Herbie... ahahahanson
Yevgen Barsukov
> So, even at a ***1% *** availability of this recourse estimate,
> that "we are running out of oil", "End of the oil age", or "Peak oil",
> scasm may have some gravitas only in 1500 years from now!
> ... ahahahahaha..
1% of "accessible C" is huge number and totally sucked up from the
finger
without slightest justification.
How about 0.001% is accessible (that is more close to presently known
reserves).
In this case we will run out of accessible reserves completely in only
150 years
and be at the half of present production by 2050. Pretty much like
Hubbert curve predicts.
Btw I have nothing against high oil price. In fact I think it is not
high enough
because
1) speculators are thinking too short term
2) speculators did not quite grasp Hubbert curve consequences and
because
3) they don't consider the true value of C resouced due to the fact
that
release of CO2 will be needed not only to power economy
but also to keep the earth warm enough by artificial heat-shield for
another 10000 years
until present ice-age will finish (we are presently in an ice age
according to
Milenkovich solar cycles, but staying comfortably warm due to CO2 and
methane).
Regards,
Yevgen
hanson
nothing of interest to me. -- I said what I had to say in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/2bf3c3f7a9d8a214?hl=en
Thanks for the laughs and the money though, Evgeny.
ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
There may actually be very few people with the intent to manipulate
prices involved. The problem is that current regulations encourage
investors to participate in an overheated market. Think about all the
people who pulled cash out of mortgage backed securities and need a
place to park it. Its just a case of supply vs demand. Lots of cash
chasing limited commodities around.
The sad part is that many of these 'innocents' will get burned on the
down side of the speculation bubble while the people who initially
arranged for the loopholes have already made their exit. That's the
whole problem with the dark markets. The insiders can hide their
positions from other participants, so the price/volume signals that one
would expect in a transparent market don't exist.
Many people will point fingers and say 'Serves you right!' But it will
be difficult to separate the gullible from those who know better. My
broker warned me to get out of energy stocks some time ago. While I may
have given up some potential profits, I would have never known when we
hit the top, just before the collapse. I'd encourage anyone with a
pension or a managed investment fund to question the management as to
their plans in the event the bubble pops. Better yet, get your
congressional representative to ask. They can lie to you, but lying to
the feds gets them Martha Stewart's old cell.
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
hhc...@yahoo.com
> Sanforized wrote:
> > The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> > [....]
>
> > So blinded by an impossible worldview that it is
> > not worth continuing this discussion.
>
> So you really think that a handful of futures traders can match the
> financial muscle of the third largest global business in the world, and
> a regime staffed by members who owe their positions to that industry?
Yes, For an example, study the history of American railroads, and why
the government evententually had to step in and take control of
freight rates. Every businees man on earth wishes secretly to control
a monopoly.
Harry C.
zookumar yelubandi
to. Free energy is already here and around us. Electrostatic energy.
Tesla knew this a hundred years before.
The oil cartels are merely one part of a larger empire. Other
parts of this evil empire include the illicit drug cartels, the pharma
drug cartels, the banking cartels, the insurance cartels, the mainstream
media "infotainment" cartels, the corporate whorehouse, etc. These
cartels are staffed by money-launderers and Machiavellian princes, and
served by high-stepping intellectual paupers.
Open your eyes
... uncup the ears
... smell the coffee.
-zookumar-
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Googletype "ethericity, Lindemann" and change the world. Capture
lightning in a bottle and say "seeya" to fossil fuels, nuclear fuels,
wind fuels, water fuels, and leave solar energy alone so it can do its
work on Chlorophyll P680 and put some green back on this good earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
G=EMC^2 Glazier
family.
hanson
Hebie Herbie "G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbert...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3578-487...@storefull-3337.bay.webtv.net...
Arabs creating a financial condition to bankrupt the average
working family.
>
hanson wrote:
Precisely, Hebie Herbie; exactly like your ilk has done
for the past 60+ years now. See here how they do it:
Stop bad-mouthing Herbie. Learn to live in peace with
your neighbors or the Sheriff will come looking for you
again.... ahahahaha....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b19435c22aac91c1?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5a0a075d94e9752e?hl=en