Stop This 'Addicted to Oil' Nonsense, Mr. President
Captain Compassion
by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Apr 26, 2006
Ronald Reagan once said, “It is no program to say use less energy.”
It is also no energy policy to say use bio-fuel or to insist that we
drive hydrogen cars.
Scientists continue to argue that the production of bio-fuels such as
ethanol consumes more hydrocarbon fuel than is saved. Hydrogen cars
will not be practical until scientists master the technology of
compressing hydrogen.
What ever happened to drilling? What about the ANWR? America’s only
solution to becoming energy independent is not to use more “wood
chips” and “switch grass,” as President Bush suggested in his last
State of the Union address. Take away the federal subsidies and the
ethanol industry would probably collapse.
The real problem is that Bush has bought into the “peak oil” hoax.
Believing that oil and natural gas are fossil fuels, the President
believes we inevitably have to run out. After all, there only were so
many dinosaurs, so there has to be only so much fossil fuel. When the
dinosaur fuel is gone, we’re out. Why? Because there aren’t any more
dinosaurs to make more fuel. That’s the inherent logic of the fossil
fuel theory.
Economist Julian Simon documented more than a decade ago that “peak
production” hoaxes of energy theories. In the 1800s, at the height of
the industrial revolution, the British were worried that the nation
was going to run out of coal. Today, coal is no longer the industrial
fuel of preferences, yet we still have abundant coal throughout the
world, more than we will ever need or use. One hundred years from
now, when we may well have nuclear batteries that run our cars, we
will still have abundant oil worldwide. Probably, 100 years from now
we won’t know what to do with all the oil, just like today we don’t
know what to do with all the coal.
There are abundant ways to make gasoline or gasoline-substitutes other
than using dinosaurs, or any other biological material. We can make
fuel out of garbage, corn, even turkey parts. The Nazis used the
Fisher-Tropsch process to use chemical catalysts to make fuel for
their tanks out of coal. A more cost-efficient alternative to ethanol
lies in the abundant oil shale in the Rocky Mountains. The streak of
oil deposits that formed the oil shale in the Rockies runs all the way
up to the oil mud in Alberta, Canada. Mining that oil mud resource
and converting it into petroleum products, Canada has moved to one of
our top three suppliers of gasoline. Why don’t we do the same with
the oil shale in the Rocky Mountains?
Mexico has just found a second major oil field in the Gulf of Mexico.
Even Cuba has announced plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, some 45
miles off the shores of Florida. Why don’t we drill more in the Gulf,
or in the continental shelf off both shores? Developing hydrogen cars
will take too long. Getting more oil drilled and into the pump is what
is needed to solve the problem.
The Energy Information Administration says there are 1.28 trillion
barrels of oil in worldwide reserves, more than ever in recorded
history, despite worldwide consumption of oil doubling since 1970.
Oil company annual reports document that the oil companies are sitting
on historically large oil reserves. We are not running out of oil,
it’s a hoax. But the executives of the oil company oligopolies are
planning on making $150 billion this year in profits, instead of last
year’s record $100 billion. Mr. President, why don’t we take away the
oil company tax benefits unless they build more refineries and get
more oil into the supply system? We do not need some science-fiction
technology to fuel our cars, we need more gasoline at affordable
prices.
No Democratic President has given us so much rhetoric about “oil
addiction” as has Bush. America’s economic strength depended upon a
ready supply of affordable energy. Oil is still abundant and there is
no reason it should be this costly. Oil companies are actually
partnering with radical environmentalists these days. Why? Because
both share an agenda to restrict the supply of gasoline, the oil
companies because they want to exploit their huge reserves at the
highest possible price, the environmentalists because they have an
anti-capitalist agenda and they hate our use of hydrocarbon fuels in
general as much as they hate the wealth that results from the use of
that fuel.
If Bush is nothing more than a RINO (“Republican in Name Only”), then
we might as well have a Democrat in office. What’s the difference?
Has Bush seen Al Gore’s new movie yet? Probably not, otherwise he
would be lecturing us for having caused global warming.
--
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilizaton is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@NOSPAMverizon.net
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<dar...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:
>Stop This 'Addicted to Oil' Nonsense, Mr. President
>by Jerome R. Corsi
>Posted Apr 26, 2006
>
>Ronald Reagan once said, “It is no program to say use less energy.”
He also had Alzheimer's disease while President, so I'm not sure it's
wise to accept his comments as true.
>It is also no energy policy to say use bio-fuel or to insist that we
>drive hydrogen cars.
>
>Scientists continue to argue that the production of bio-fuels such as
>ethanol consumes more hydrocarbon fuel than is saved. Hydrogen cars
>will not be practical until scientists master the technology of
>compressing hydrogen.
Correct. Bio-fuel has marginal value, in improving air quality in some
polluted places, under some circumstances.
But farmers make it so we naturally subsidize it.
>
>What ever happened to drilling? What about the ANWR? America’s only
>solution to becoming energy independent is not to use more “wood
>chips” and “switch grass,” as President Bush suggested in his last
>State of the Union address. Take away the federal subsidies and the
>ethanol industry would probably collapse.
>
False. It CERTAINLY would collapse.
>The real problem is that Bush has bought into the “peak oil” hoax.
>Believing that oil and natural gas are fossil fuels, the President
>believes we inevitably have to run out. After all, there only were so
>many dinosaurs, so there has to be only so much fossil fuel. When the
>dinosaur fuel is gone, we’re out. Why? Because there aren’t any more
>dinosaurs to make more fuel. That’s the inherent logic of the fossil
>fuel theory.
>
>Economist Julian Simon documented more than a decade ago that “peak
>production” hoaxes of energy theories. In the 1800s, at the height of
>the industrial revolution, the British were worried that the nation
>was going to run out of coal. Today, coal is no longer the industrial
>fuel of preferences, yet we still have abundant coal throughout the
>world, more than we will ever need or use. One hundred years from
>now, when we may well have nuclear batteries that run our cars, we
>will still have abundant oil worldwide. Probably, 100 years from now
>we won’t know what to do with all the oil, just like today we don’t
>know what to do with all the coal.
So what?
Our CURRENT dependence on oil costs us dearly, in terms of deaths from
pollution, global warming, blowback from our interference in middle
eastern affairs. On that last one your reliance on technological
progress may cut the other way - a smart biology student may engineer
a bug which kills everyone who eats American Cheese, or a bug which
kills all who don't eat hummus.
I think we should go nuclear, and let the future deal with our mess.
Captain Compassion
Ethanol can be imported from Brazil for half of what it costs from
ADM.
--
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<dar...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:
Because it is heavily subsidized there.
Captain Compassion
<tyre...@mooresciencehigh.edu> wrote:
Maybe but that still doesn't negate my statement.
--
Kevin
to begin withdrawal from our oil addiction over 20 years ago. I guess
we should have been listening, eh?
Captain Compassion
>I'm not one of them, but I do recall that liberals began calling for us
>to begin withdrawal from our oil addiction over 20 years ago. I guess
>we should have been listening, eh?
>
We are not addicted to oil. We are addicted to progress.
--
The Trucker
news:4f90525r1nfvodiqc...@4ax.com...
> Stop This 'Addicted to Oil' Nonsense, Mr. President
> by Jerome R. Corsi
> Posted Apr 26, 2006
>
> Ronald Reagan once said, "It is no program to say use less energy."
> It is also no energy policy to say use bio-fuel or to insist that we
> drive hydrogen cars.
>
> Scientists continue to argue that the production of bio-fuels such as
> ethanol consumes more hydrocarbon fuel than is saved. Hydrogen cars
> will not be practical until scientists master the technology of
> compressing hydrogen.
>
> What ever happened to drilling? What about the ANWR?
Why not drill more offshore instead of screwing up the ANWR?
> America's only
> solution to becoming energy independent is not to use more "wood
> chips" and "switch grass," as President Bush suggested in his last
> State of the Union address. Take away the federal subsidies and the
> ethanol industry would probably collapse.
Ethanol is probably a loser. But BioDiesel may not be. And instead
of blabbering about corn for ethanol why are we not discussing allowing
more sugar cane imports from Cuba and using sugar cane for this?
The sugar cane supposedly provides more output for energy used.
Then there is hemp (marijuana). That stuff is supposed to be the
best stuff of all when you are counting energy input for energy out.
Any energy "gain" from all of these plants is SUN energy. What
if you just throw out some hemp seeds and no fertilizer? You could
use the new Vicente Fox/Pinocchio Bush robots to do all the harvesting.
These machines are really cool! They run on beans and tortillas, have
no need of medical care or education or any of those cumbersome
"rights" that the American white people seem to think are their
natural inheritance. The new models will be perfectly legal.
> The real problem is that Bush has bought into the "peak oil" hoax.
> Believing that oil and natural gas are fossil fuels, the President
> believes we inevitably have to run out.
And what, pray tell, do you think makes oil? The Good Fairy?
> After all, there only were so
> many dinosaurs, so there has to be only so much fossil fuel. When the
> dinosaur fuel is gone, we're out. Why? Because there aren't any more
> dinosaurs to make more fuel. That's the inherent logic of the fossil
> fuel theory.
And it seems to be a well accepted theory by most reasonably
intelligent people.
> Economist Julian Simon documented more than a decade ago that "peak
> production" hoaxes of energy theories.
That sentence makes no sense at all.
> In the 1800s, at the height of
> the industrial revolution, the British were worried that the nation
> was going to run out of coal. Today, coal is no longer the industrial
> fuel of preferences, yet we still have abundant coal throughout the
> world, more than we will ever need or use. One hundred years from
> now, when we may well have nuclear batteries that run our cars, we
> will still have abundant oil worldwide. Probably, 100 years from now
> we won't know what to do with all the oil, just like today we don't
> know what to do with all the coal.
Some of us know what to do with it.
> There are abundant ways to make gasoline or gasoline-substitutes other
> than using dinosaurs, or any other biological material. We can make
> fuel out of garbage, corn, even turkey parts. The Nazis used the
> Fisher-Tropsch process to use chemical catalysts to make fuel for
> their tanks out of coal.
And the energy consumed was probably huge.
> A more cost-efficient alternative to ethanol
> lies in the abundant oil shale in the Rocky Mountains. The streak of
> oil deposits that formed the oil shale in the Rockies runs all the way
> up to the oil mud in Alberta, Canada. Mining that oil mud resource
> and converting it into petroleum products, Canada has moved to one of
> our top three suppliers of gasoline. Why don't we do the same with
> the oil shale in the Rocky Mountains?
A good question. Perhaps, someone or some group is standing
in the way of this development, or perhaps the energy needed to
do all this digging and transporting and processing is too expensive.
> Mexico has just found a second major oil field in the Gulf of Mexico.
> Even Cuba has announced plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, some 45
> miles off the shores of Florida. Why don't we drill more in the Gulf,
> or in the continental shelf off both shores?
Yet another good question but perhaps the risk of total destruction
of the gulf of Mexico from oil disasters is giving us caution.
> Developing hydrogen cars
> will take too long. Getting more oil drilled and into the pump is what
> is needed to solve the problem.
I hate to say it, but better infrastructure is probably a much better
and more easily deployed solution. But, I forgot.... That would
mean that government would need to take the lead. We know that
current religion will not tolerate this.
> The Energy Information Administration says there are 1.28 trillion
> barrels of oil in worldwide reserves, more than ever in recorded
> history, despite worldwide consumption of oil doubling since 1970.
> Oil company annual reports document that the oil companies are sitting
> on historically large oil reserves. We are not running out of oil,
Not this week, anyway.
> it's a hoax.
We should distinguish between a "hoax" and a "gouge" by a
government subsidized monopoly.
> But the executives of the oil company oligopolies are
> planning on making $150 billion this year in profits, instead of last
> year's record $100 billion. Mr. President, why don't we take away the
> oil company tax benefits unless they build more refineries and get
> more oil into the supply system?
GEE! That's exactly what a windfall profits tax does.
> We do not need some science-fiction
> technology to fuel our cars, we need more gasoline at affordable
> prices.
We need both ad we need more and better infrastructure. You will
NOT see this infrastructure coming from a Republican.
> No Democratic President has given us so much rhetoric about "oil
> addiction" as has Bush. America's economic strength depended upon a
> ready supply of affordable energy. Oil is still abundant and there is
> no reason it should be this costly. Oil companies are actually
> partnering with radical environmentalists these days. Why? Because
> both share an agenda to restrict the supply of gasoline, the oil
> companies because they want to exploit their huge reserves at the
> highest possible price,
This part is true.
> the environmentalists because they have an
> anti-capitalist agenda and they hate our use of hydrocarbon fuels in
> general as much as they hate the wealth that results from the use of
> that fuel.
And this part is rightard stooooooopidity.
> If Bush is nothing more than a RINO ("Republican in Name Only"), then
> we might as well have a Democrat in office.
It would appear that all the Republicans hate each other but know
they must stick together or they will get kicked out of office by the
Democrats. It seems that the word "Republican" is sorta like
"family values" in that each Republican believes that "the party"
shares his/her vision of "values". "The Party" is, of course, smart
enough to leave all of this sort of thing very, very nebulous so that
the members can continue to THINK they agree with each other..
"All the Republicans that disagree with me are RINO", he said.
> What's the difference?
The difference is that the Democrats KNOW they have differences
and do not try to hide them. Democracy is not a lockstep
monolith.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org
Erik A. Mattila
> On 27 Apr 2006 09:16:57 -0700, "Kevin" <kevp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not one of them, but I do recall that liberals began calling for us
>>to begin withdrawal from our oil addiction over 20 years ago. I guess
>>we should have been listening, eh?
>>
>
> We are not addicted to oil. We are addicted to progress.
You mean like progressing from point A to point B in your motorhome?
Captain Compassion
That would be one.
Captain Compassion
wrote:
Why import sugar from Cuba? Lower the tariffs and import ethanol from
Brazil. Switchgrass is much better than Cane and can be grown nearly
anywhere.
"Switchgrass has the potential to produce the biomass required for
production of up to 100 gallons of ethanol per metric ton. A high
yield like this makes it a very attractive crop to grow as the value
by far exceeds any other crop."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchgrass
>> The real problem is that Bush has bought into the "peak oil" hoax.
>> Believing that oil and natural gas are fossil fuels, the President
>> believes we inevitably have to run out.
>
>And what, pray tell, do you think makes oil? The Good Fairy?
>
>> After all, there only were so
>> many dinosaurs, so there has to be only so much fossil fuel. When the
>> dinosaur fuel is gone, we're out. Why? Because there aren't any more
>> dinosaurs to make more fuel. That's the inherent logic of the fossil
>> fuel theory.
>
>And it seems to be a well accepted theory by most reasonably
>intelligent people.
>
Most of the biomass for the development of petroleum was vegitable
matter not dinosaurs. Then there is the Abiogenic theory where oil
bubbles up from deep natural occuring carbon deposits in the earth.
>> Economist Julian Simon documented more than a decade ago that "peak
>> production" hoaxes of energy theories.
>
>That sentence makes no sense at all.
>
>> In the 1800s, at the height of
>> the industrial revolution, the British were worried that the nation
>> was going to run out of coal. Today, coal is no longer the industrial
>> fuel of preferences, yet we still have abundant coal throughout the
>> world, more than we will ever need or use. One hundred years from
>> now, when we may well have nuclear batteries that run our cars, we
>> will still have abundant oil worldwide. Probably, 100 years from now
>> we won't know what to do with all the oil, just like today we don't
>> know what to do with all the coal.
>
>Some of us know what to do with it.
>
>> There are abundant ways to make gasoline or gasoline-substitutes other
>> than using dinosaurs, or any other biological material. We can make
>> fuel out of garbage, corn, even turkey parts. The Nazis used the
>> Fisher-Tropsch process to use chemical catalysts to make fuel for
>> their tanks out of coal.
>
>And the energy consumed was probably huge.
>
If you have nuclear power that is not a problem.
>> A more cost-efficient alternative to ethanol
>> lies in the abundant oil shale in the Rocky Mountains. The streak of
>> oil deposits that formed the oil shale in the Rockies runs all the way
>> up to the oil mud in Alberta, Canada. Mining that oil mud resource
>> and converting it into petroleum products, Canada has moved to one of
>> our top three suppliers of gasoline. Why don't we do the same with
>> the oil shale in the Rocky Mountains?
>
>A good question. Perhaps, someone or some group is standing
>in the way of this development, or perhaps the energy needed to
>do all this digging and transporting and processing is too expensive.
>
Shale becomes economically viable with a constant oil price above $35.
--
johnsm...@gmail.com
> Most of the biomass for the development of petroleum was vegitable
> matter not dinosaurs. Then there is the Abiogenic theory where oil
> bubbles up from deep natural occuring carbon deposits in the earth.
Yep, that's why oil is over 70/barrel and steadily rising.
> If you have nuclear power that is not a problem.
Might work. However, there's only so much uranium in the ground. Peak
oil, peak uranium, whatever.
> Shale becomes economically viable with a constant oil price above $35.
Yep, that's why oil is at $70/barrel and steadily rising and the
cuckold neo-communist RINO Bush-bot congress is suggesting another
welfare program to provide 100 clams to the people. Gotta love
bolshevist Republicans.
Yours In Christ,
John
Captain Compassion
>
>> Most of the biomass for the development of petroleum was vegitable
>> matter not dinosaurs. Then there is the Abiogenic theory where oil
>> bubbles up from deep natural occuring carbon deposits in the earth.
>
>Yep, that's why oil is over 70/barrel and steadily rising.
>
Oil is over $70 because that's what people are willing to pay for it.
>> If you have nuclear power that is not a problem.
>
>Might work. However, there's only so much uranium in the ground. Peak
>oil, peak uranium, whatever.
>
Let me introduce to breeder reactors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
>> Shale becomes economically viable with a constant oil price above $35.
>
>Yep, that's why oil is at $70/barrel and steadily rising and the
>cuckold neo-communist RINO Bush-bot congress is suggesting another
>welfare program to provide 100 clams to the people. Gotta love
>bolshevist Republicans.
>
>Yours In Christ,
>John
--
johnsm...@gmail.com
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
>
You use Wiki for "information"? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Other than
researching something like eigenvectors...worthless.
Breeder reactors are unreliable and extremely volatile in terms of
safety. I'd rather have 5 "standard" reactors around me than one of
these guys.
http://www.ieer.org/reports/transm/annie.html
Yours In Christ,
John
Captain Compassion
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
>>
>
>You use Wiki for "information"? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Other than
>researching something like eigenvectors...worthless.
>
So the information contained in the article is wrong? Tell me where.
>Breeder reactors are unreliable and extremely volatile in terms of
>safety. I'd rather have 5 "standard" reactors around me than one of
>these guys.
>
>http://www.ieer.org/reports/transm/annie.html
>
http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear%20Waste%20and%20Breeder%20Reactors.htm
johnsm...@gmail.com
> So the information contained in the article is wrong? Tell me where.
Because you're using the wikipedia.org domain to locate your
information makes it immediately suspicious. They are an extremely
experimental and volatile form of energy producer. I'm sure you'd be
the first to have one in your backyard.
If the study isn't from funded research, in the garbage can it goes.
Wikipedia is a toy, nothing more.
Yours In Christ,
John