[mojo2]

Just more info for you to consider. Oil...why we went...why we stay.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062301896.html

washingtonpost.com
Outcome Grim at Oil War Game
Former Officials Fail to Prevent Recession in Mock Energy Crisis
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 24, 2005; A19


The United States would be all but powerless to protect the American economy in the face of a catastrophic disruption of oil markets, high-level participants in a war game concluded yesterday.

The exercise, called "Oil Shockwave" and played out in a Washington hotel ballroom, had real-life former top U.S. officials taking on the role of members of the president's Cabinet convening to respond to escalating energy crises, culminating in $5.32-a-gallon gasoline and a world wobbling into recession.

"The American people are going to pay a terrible price for not having had an energy strategy," said former CIA director Robert M. Gates, who took on the role of national security adviser. Stepping out of character, he added that "the scenarios portrayed were absolutely not alarmist; they're realistic."

The exercise began with ethnic unrest in Nigeria, leading to the collapse of the oil industry in that west African nation. Then al Qaeda launched crippling attacks on key energy facilities in Valdez, Alaska, and Saudi Arabia.

But the war game's participants -- including former CIA director R. James Woolsey, former Marine Corps commandant Gen. P.X. Kelley and former EPA administrator Carol Browner, soon realized the U.S. government had few options in the short term to prevent an economic crash in this country and worldwide.

When the exercise's planners first met last year, oil was in the $40-a-barrel range. As they fantasized where oil prices would be for the war game's start in an imagined late 2005, they said, they set them at $58 but worried they were being absurdly pessimistic. Yesterday, the closing price for a barrel of oil was $59.42.

The war game players also referred several times to other real-life events of today. A major feature of the exercise was how China's voracious appetite for oil is driving up world prices, and only yesterday it was announced the Beijing government, in a bold and unprecedented act, is bidding to buy the U.S. oil company Unocal.

The exercise was organized by two nonprofit groups that focus on the national security implications of U.S. dependence on foreign oil: the National Commission on Energy Policy and Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE). The scenarios were dreamed up by a team of former oil industry executives and government officials, including Rand Beers, a White House counterterrorism official who quit in 2003 to protest the Iraq war.

The underlying situation dramatized in the exercise -- and accepted by most energy analysts -- is that tolerances are so tight between supply and demand, that even small disruptions in the delivery of oil and natural gas can cause cascades of unpleasant developments.

The war game contemplated that when oil prices spiked and the Cabinet met to consider its options, it realized it had almost no clout to influence events.

The standard response, drawing on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, was symbolic at best. The president should not give in to Saudi offers that the kingdom would lower prices if he stopped pressing for Saudi democracy, the participants agreed. Within weeks conditions were worsening -- the Valdez oil terminal was on fire, as was a major Saudi oil port, and Western technicians were being killed there.

Foreign oil firms soon pulled tens of thousands of workers out of Saudi Arabia. Suddenly lacking technical expertise, Saudi facilities could no longer play their decades-long role of guaranteed "swing" provider of oil in response to disruptions elsewhere. As the global recession deepened, there was no "central banker" of oil to smooth out temporary dislocations.

The participants concluded almost unanimously that they must press the president to invest quickly in promising technologies to reduce dependence on overseas oil, such as hybrid cars powered by gasoline and plug-in electricity; and cars that run on fuels derived from prairie grasses, animal waste and other products. They all agreed these projects would take years to yield any benefit but should not wait for the kind of crisis they were dramatizing.

"If you want to put a frown on the face of [Saudi] Wahhabis, talk about 100-mile-per-gallon vehicles," Woolsey said. "We don't need a Manhattan Project to do it."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[mojo2]

http://www.communitysolution.org/fcf-8.html

Fuel Cell Folly

Sources of Hydrogen
The big question is "where does the so called 'non-polluting' hydrogen come from?" It comes from a polluting process called "reforming" (or "steam reforming"). In this process a hydrocarbon fuel that contains hydrogen (coal, oil, natural gas) is "reformed" creating hydrogen and carbon dioxide (CO2) as well as other pollutants. The CO2 and pollutants are released into the atmosphere. The fundamental difference between a fuel cell car and an internal combustion engine car is that the hydrogen fuel for the fuel cell car is manufactured in a factory and the CO2 is released into the atmosphere at the hydrogen factory. In a conventional car, the CO2 is released wherever the car is being driven.

Fuel cell proponents have invented the concept of "sequestration" which means that the CO2 will be buried in the ground at the factory site, although that has not been done as yet. Like the nuclear waste to be stored at Yucca flats, the CO2 will hopefully stay underground for several centuries.

Ninety-six percent of the hydrogen used today comes from this reforming process, with natural gas the primary "feedstock" (48 percent) for the "reformation," followed by oil (30 percent) and coal (18 percent). The small remainder (4 percent) comes from electrolysis, which is a process of separating water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity.

Hydrogen usage must be evaluated for its merits and weaknesses in many areas. It seems to be the ideal fuel for launching space ships. This does not mean it will be an effective replacement for internal combustion engines. It may do poorly in that area but be effective as a load leveling system for the daily and seasonal fluctuations of power production by solar or wind – no one yet knows. It is the description of it as a panacea that is questionable. The fact that it has some applicability does not make it a proven replacement for today's power networks.

An alternative approach to the fuel cell is to use the natural gas from which hydrogen is made as a fuel for natural gas powered cars and the oil from which hydrogen is made for ICE cars. Since there are already natural gas engines and Internal Combustion Engines, it is not clear why the fuel cell needs to be developed. Hydrogen is that component of "hydrocarbon fossil fuels" which is burned in conventional engines. Pollution will occur either at the factory or at the car. It is important to determine which is the most efficient way to use the resource.

[mojo2]

http://www.communitysolution.org/fcf-14.html

Fuel Cell Folly

Renewables and Hydrogen Production

In the preceding section, Dr. Ballard commented on wind turbines and solar cells, noting "But, environmentally desirable as these sources of energy are, they are unlikely to provide the vast amounts of primary energy that social progress will demand."

Wind turbines and solar photovoltatics are not consistent producers of electricity. The wind and sunshine is intermittent, changing on an hour to hour and a day to day basis. In addition, the quantities are seasonal – the sun shines much less in the winter and with less force, limiting the amount of electricity that can be produced. Winds change their patterns. Thus the electricity produced fluctuates constantly. This is one of the arguments for hydrogen – it serves as a form of battery to store electricity.

The two main questions about renewables are site availability and storage capacity.

Hydroelectric dams are an example. There are very few available sites remaining for building new dams. The sites are limited by the number of rivers and the limited topological sites available on each river. Similarly, sites for renewables are also limited. In California, a large percentage of wind turbines have been placed in only two locations – Tehachapi Pass in Southern California east of Los Angeles and Altamont Pass in Northern California east of San Francisco. One cannot simply place wind turbines on a grid laid out on the country, the spaces of the grid being based on the total need for energy. Capital costs of turbines are high, in the range of $1,000,000 each. Nor do they scale easily. A $1,000,000 turbine with blades 60 feet in the air is not the same as 100 turbines costing $10,000 each with blades 20 feet in the air. Wind turbine history shows that the larger, more expensive turbines are more efficient in electricity production relative to manufacturing costs than smaller turbines.

This suggests that, like dams, there are a limited number of sites available for wind power. Proponents argue that the average wind and sunlight blowing or shining on the land that forms our country is sufficient to provide power in amounts far greater than what we are using. A parallel argument would be that there is sufficient water falling on the land that flows through rivers, streams, and channels, which, if dammed, could provide the desired energy for all our needs. A quick comparison of water falling on the land to that part of the falling water flowing through dam turbines would make the point.

A popular place proposed for solar photovolatics is the Sahara desert in North Africa. The energy required to move the electricity across the Mediterranean sea to Europe has as yet not been reported.

The second question, energy storage, addresses the question about hydrogen and the fuel cell in their joint role as a battery. If the sun is shining during the day on photovoltaic cells, some of the energy generated would be used immediately and some would be stored either in batteries on in the form of hydrogen to power lights, water heaters and furnaces during the night. The amount stored would hopefully be balanced so that the battery or hydrogen would be exhausted just as the sun comes up and begins shining on the PV cells again.

The number of batteries (or tanks of hydrogen) needed (assuming a single size) is based on the number of cloudy days. If every other day is cloudy, then twice as many batteries or tanks are needed to provide additional storage. Expand this concept to seasons and one can imagine the huge size of the batteries and tanks needed to provide winter energy for a single home.

The renewable proponents have not to date provided a model of a system that would deal with the situation. No verifying data from the years of operation of the wind farms at Altamont Pass and Tehachapi Pass is available to illustrate the possibility of an easy transition to wind energy as the major provided of fuel for the country.

[von Wrangell]

Check out the forum rules mojo.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Check out the forum rules mojo.

In the interest of obeying what I think are generally sensible rules regarding posting I have added some personal context to the first post in this thread.

However, anyone who has posted or read any of the threads in the P/L for the past 24, 36, 48, 72 + hour span would probably be hard pressed NOT to understand my position on the matter of oil.

That said, I'll say it again.

I believe we went to war for a number of very good reasons. Perfectly valid reasons you will still see being challenged and defended by all sorts of individuals representing all sorts of points of view.

All of those reasons I see as being interesting but, in the final analysis, secondary to the one MOST important reason...

OIL. For, without oil, we die.

Period.

There are some posters here who complain that the oil rationale CAN'T be true because there have been so many other reasons that have been floated before this. They say Saddam was going to safeguard our supplies of oil and we should have continued to trust him to do so. They say I have given them too much information to absorb and so the rationale can't be true. The website i've oft cited has a black background and some people think it looks disreputable (even though the administrator has been cited as a source in Congressional testimonies and is recognized from several guest appearances on Coast To Coast AM. They say the scenarios I paint are too doom and gloom to be worth considering. They say I can't prove any of my hypothetical assertions, they say I am paranoid. They say that even though the rationale I outline MAY have credence the President himself doesn't confirm it and so it CAN'T be an acceptable rationale and then in the next breath they accuse the President of being a pinocchio.

There are some posters who may or may not believe the oil rationale but they are so emotionally drawn to the Cindy Sheehan war protest that despite the possibility that Sheehan's 'demand' that the US immediately withdraw from Iraq might effectively be throwing the defenseless baby Iraq to the al Qaeda wolves they don't care because all they know is that the killing would stop.

But they can't think beyond that point to imagine what the al Qaeda would do after they forced the US and Coalition troops out of Iraq. They would build their forces and consolidate their resources and begin planning their next big or small attack to bring down the great Satan (USA) such as they tried doing on 9/11 and the little Satan (Israeli) as they've been trying to do for generations and the bulldog Satan, while they are at it.

And the posters who can't imagine what al Qaeda will do then would say that there is no way to prove any of this delusionally paranoid stuff and all I can do is just attempt to figure out what they can't understand.

If you speak English to a person who understands English yet they can't understand you, what do you do? Where do you start? What do you try? It's very frustrating. If I knew exactly what to say to convince them, to provide them that ONE piece of information that would make the lightbulb turn on, I WOULD HAVE DONE IT LONG AGO.

Why is it that I understand the danger and a few others here do as well but not everyone does?

I don't NEED to be right. I just am. And I KNOW I am. And every day my heart and brain explodes that I can't seem to find the magic button to push for everyone.

So, I just bring more evidence to the boards that whoever wants to might read it and maybe they'll get it. Probably not. But I just can't worry about this one or that one. I just need to bring the information to the table and whatever happens, I don't care.

I DO care. But I can't tie any emotional value to whether someone GETS IT or not.

I know I'm representing the MOST logical and soundest reason for the war by saying it's the oil. There's enough supportive information as to the importance and the President's understanding and assertion that he WOULD find new sources.

I know that OBL wants to drive oil prices to $200/bbl to ruin the US economy and will do it any way he can and he is a patient, thorough man and when he SAYS he is going to do something we should pay attention. Too few here pay attention.

I know better than most that a relatively small disruption is all that's needed to bring the US down.

I know that the alternative energy solutions often slapped onto a thread like a bandaid whenever a serious discussion is about to take place about our oil situation aren't going to do much toward helping us survive in the long term.

We have a couple of icebergs in the water at the same time.

Peak oil. Disruptions in production and delivery due to market and weather conditions. Possible disruptions due to hostile actions. The war and what would happen if we pulled out or didn't win. Increase in pump prices that could hurt our economy and eventually cause us to perish as a nation. Failure of the American people to understand the true nature of the problem and take appropriate action.

So, that is MY take on this issue I look forward to saying the same things when I start another thread.

Thanks von Wrangell.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Peak oil. Disruptions in production and delivery due to market and weather conditions. Possible disruptions due to hostile actions. The war and what would happen if we pulled out or didn't win. Increase in pump prices that could hurt our economy and eventually cause us to perish as a nation. Failure of the American people to understand the true nature of the problem and take appropriate action.

So, that is MY take on this issue I look forward to saying the same things when I start another thread.

Thanks von Wrangell.

Of course it is about the oil. Most of us realise that. It's just the fact that you believe killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians (as long as they aren't US citizens) for that oil thirst of your nation is OK that upsets many of us.

And tell me one thing. Do you really think that the war has had a good effect on oil prices? And/Or will it have a good effect on oil prices in the future?

But really. Those questions are unimportant. What is important is to realise that you support killing innocent civilians to quench your nations thirst for oil. You'd rather kill innocent civilians than try to change your way of life to lessen your need for oil. That's the important aspect of your "argument".

[von Wrangell]

Oh, I almost forgot.

Here's some good stuff for you (and your argument). Just thought I'd help you out.

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

and then this:

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

From this site: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

You're welcome

[Doofy]

Is it not strange how this "peak oil" thing is happening at exactly the same time as this "global warming" thing?

Has nobody thought that the current populist theory of "peak oil" could be propaganda designed by "the left" to get everyone to use less because of their concerns about "global warming"?

My thoughts are that this "peak oil" thing may simply be a plot by those who hate America to undermine her economy. It certainly seems to be the America-haters who're banging on about "peak oil" the most. Conspiracy?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Conspiracy?

Conspiracy theory?

[AKcrab]

AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!

And you folks ran lerkfish out of here for being a crazy conspiracy theorist.

I'm thinking this auberdinewriter "revelation" fits right into the neocon agenda.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Of course it is about the oil. Most of us realise that. It's just the fact that you believe killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians (as long as they aren't US citizens) for that oil thirst of your nation is OK that upsets many of us.

And tell me one thing. Do you really think that the war has had a good effect on oil prices? And/Or will it have a good effect on oil prices in the future?

But really. Those questions are unimportant. What is important is to realise that you support killing innocent civilians to quench your nations thirst for oil. You'd rather kill innocent civilians than try to change your way of life to lessen your need for oil. That's the important aspect of your "argument".

The Twilight Era of oil, as I term it, is likely to be characterized by the growing politicization of oil policy and the recurring use of military force to gain control over valuable supplies. This is so because oil, alone among all major trading commodities, is viewed as a strategic material; something so vital to a nation's economic well-being, that is, as to justify the use of force in assuring its availability. That nations are prepared to go to war over petroleum is not exactly a new phenomenon. The pursuit of foreign oil was a significant factor in World War II and the 1991 Gulf War, to offer only two examples; but it is likely to become ever more a part of our everyday world in a period of increased competition and diminishing supplies.

It isn't only US and it isn't only now. This isn't the first time nor will it be the last time. Iceland will do it too. And being a businessman before he got into the terrorism business, Osama wants the oil, too. And he'll kill to get it, too. In fact, that's what he's doing right now. We are and he is.

The prices will continue to go up. They will never be as low as they were even earlier this year.

The days of petroleum are drawing nigh.

The war wasn't about PRICES. It's about availability and supplies.

A very small amount of dehydration will make a person very ill and just a bit more will kill him. OBL knows that a large enough disruption in oil supply will cause reverberations like the two planes caused repercussion which led to each of the WTC towers to collapse.

OBL wants oil prices to reach $200/bbl. With that America is a goner.

Civillians should know that oil is a priority to BOTH sides.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!

And you folks ran lerkfish out of here for being a crazy conspiracy theorist.

I'm thinking this auberdinewriter "revelation" fits right into the neocon agenda.

You bring up legends in MacNN history and compare MOI to THEM???

I'm honored!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Is it not strange how this "peak oil" thing is happening at exactly the same time as this "global warming" thing?

Has nobody thought that the current populist theory of "peak oil" could be propaganda designed by "the left" to get everyone to use less because of their concerns about "global warming"?

My thoughts are that this "peak oil" thing may simply be a plot by those who hate America to undermine her economy. It certainly seems to be the America-haters who're banging on about "peak oil" the most. Conspiracy?

It's been going on for years. You just weren't told. Or, if you were, you were busy dancing about on the moon.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Oh, I almost forgot.

Here's some good stuff for you (and your argument). Just thought I'd help you out.

and then this:

From this site: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

You're welcome

I do give credit where it is due and YES, (THANK YOU) I have thought about this letter in the past few days but I'm sure you understand why I'd allow you the pleasure.

I sense people starting to "get it" for the first time. Am I imagining things? Why now and not before, I wonder?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

It isn't only US and it isn't only now. This isn't the first time nor will it be the last time. Iceland will do it too. And being a businessman before he got into the terrorism business, Osama wants the oil, too. And he'll kill to get it, too. In fact, that's what he's doing right now. We are and he is.

The prices will continue to go up. They will never be as low as they were even earlier this year.

The days of petroleum are drawing nigh.

The war wasn't about PRICES. It's about availability and supplies.

A very small amount of dehydration will make a person very ill and just a bit more will kill him. OBL knows that a large enough disruption in oil supply will cause reverberations like the two planes caused repercussion which led to each of the WTC towers to collapse.

OBL wants oil prices to reach $200/bbl. With that America is a goner.

Civillians should know that oil is a priority to BOTH sides.

So we are back to the fact that you think you have the right to kill tens of thousands of civilians to ensure a steady supply of oil. You prefer to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians instead of switching from your V8, 4L car to a regular 4 cylinder 2L (or less). You prefer to kill tens of thousands of foreign civilians because you don't want your government to reduce your dependance on oil.

And then you expect me (and others) to show any sympathy for people like you when the terrorists strike? WTF is the difference between you two? OBL kills for oil (in your opinion) and the US kills for oil. But somehow the US is all good but OBL is evil. You both justify the slaughter of innocent civilians just to get your hands on another liter of oil. You two deserve each other at times.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by mojo2

You bring up legends in MacNN history and compare MOI to THEM???

I'm honored!

wtf? You couldn't confuse me more if you tried.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

You prefer to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians instead of switching from your V8, 4L car to a regular 4 cylinder 2L (or less).

Dude, considering where you live, I don't think you should be going on about Americans liking their big vehicles with big engines... ...just in case someone takes it upon themselves to post a picture of Icelandic family transport.



Ooops.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So we are back to the fact that you think you have the right to kill tens of thousands of civilians to ensure a steady supply of oil. You prefer to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians instead of switching from your V8, 4L car to a regular 4 cylinder 2L (or less). You prefer to kill tens of thousands of foreign civilians because you don't want your government to reduce your dependance on oil.

And then you expect me (and others) to show any sympathy for people like you when the terrorists strike? WTF is the difference between you two? OBL kills for oil (in your opinion) and the US kills for oil. But somehow the US is all good but OBL is evil. You both justify the slaughter of innocent civilians just to get your hands on another liter of oil. You two deserve each other at times.

Oh, c'mon VW! Climb down from your high horse. Read some of the text I've posted and see there's a lot more to it than gasoline. EVERYTHING you eat has been floated to you on a sea of oil. Everyone who isn't living a "native/Amish/Flintstone" lifestyle is like a two-legged SUV.
The more you find out about it the less self-righteous you'll feel.

http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/enviro..._oil_crash.htm

Of course, the US is not the only nation that needs affordable oil - not by a long shot. France, Germany, Russia, and China all need it also. While these countries may not be able or willing to directly confront the US on the battlefield, they are more than willing to attack the US financially. The US may have the world's most deadly cluster bombs, but the EU has the world's most valuable currency, and intends to wield it as a strategic economic weapon to offset US firepower.

But you never know!

[mojo2]

http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/enviro..._oil_crash.htm

Simulated Oil Meltdown Shows US Economy's Vulnerability

by Kevin G Hall

Washington - Former CIA Director Robert Gates sighs deeply as he pores over reports of growing unrest in Nigeria. Many Americans can't find the African nation on a map, but Gates knows that it's America's 5th-largest oil supplier and one that provides the light, sweet crude that US refiners prefer.

It's 11 days before Christmas 2005, and the turmoil is preventing about 600,000 barrels of oil per day from reaching the world oil market, which was already drum-tight. Gates, functioning as the top national security adviser to the president, convenes the Cabinet to discuss the implications of Nigeria's spreading religious and ethnic unrest for America's economy. Should US troops be sent to restore order? Should America draw down its strategic oil reserves to stabilize soaring gasoline prices? Cabinet officials agree that drawing down the reserves might signal weakness. They recommend that the president simply announce his willingness to do so if necessary.

The economic effects of unrest in faraway Nigeria are immediate. Crude oil prices soar above $80 a barrel. June's then-record $60 a barrel is a distant memory. A gallon of unleaded gas now costs $3.31. Americans shell out $75 to fill a mid-sized SUV.

If all this sounds like a Hollywood drama, it's not. These scenarios unfolded in a simulated oil shock wave held in Washington. Two former CIA directors and several other former top policy-makers participated to draw attention to America's need to reduce its dependence on oil, especially foreign oil.

Fast-forward to 19 January 2006. A blast rips through Saudi Arabia's Haradh natural-gas plant. Simultaneously, al Qaida terrorists seize a tanker at Alaska's Port of Valdez and crash it, igniting a massive fire that sweeps across oil terminals. Crude oil spikes to $120 a barrel, and the US economy reels. Gasoline prices hit $4.74 a gallon. Gates convenes the Cabinet again. Members still disagree on whether America should draw down its strategic oil reserves. Homeland Security chief James Woolsey, who ran the CIA from 1993 to 1995, argues that a special energy czar is needed with broad powers to bypass the bureaucracy and impose offshore oil drilling and construction of refineries. That won't help now, though, or resolve any short-term issues, counters Gene Sperling, who was President Clinton's national economic adviser. The energy secretary suggests that relaxing clean-air standards could help refiners squeeze out every last drop of gas. That makes the interior secretary, former Clinton Environmental Protection Agency chief Carol Browner, bristle. She blames Detroit for the mess because automakers failed to develop hybrids and other fuel-efficient cars. The Cabinet can't agree on even the simplest short-term solutions. There aren't many options beyond encouraging car pools and lowering thermostats. There's no infrastructure in place to deliver alternative fuels such as ethanol or diesel made from soybeans or waste products.

Fast-forward again, to 23 June 2006. Emboldened Saudi insurgents attack foreign oil workers, killing hundreds. A mass evacuation follows from the world's pivotal oil producer, the one country that could be counted on to boost production during shortages in global supplies. A take-charge guy with a Texas accent who led the CIA from 1991 to 1993, Gates calls yet another war-room meeting. Global recession looms. The world economy turns on cheap oil. Without foreign oil workers, how will Saudi Arabia meet its production targets and quench the oil thirst of America, China and India? Oil prices have reached an unthinkable $150 a barrel. In Philadelphia, Miami and Kansas City, Missouri, gas prices reach $5.74 a gallon. Now it takes $121 to fill that mid-sized SUV.

You get the picture. The scenario is intended to show how vulnerable the US and world economies are because of dependence on oil from places where political instability threatens orderly production and distribution. This year the world is consuming about 84 million barrels of oil a day. America alone guzzles about 20.8 million barrels a day. Experts think oil-producing nations have only 1.5 million barrels a day or less of unused production capacity right now. A disruption anywhere could cause market panic and spiking prices. That's largely why oil and gasoline prices are so high right now. Saudi Arabia and other countries are trying to increase production, but that won't help much before next year at the earliest. Meanwhile, any hiccup in production, delivery or refining could cause disaster. "A million or a million and a half barrels of oil a day off the market is a very realistic kind of scenario. You can think of a dozen different countries around the world ... where you can see that happening. Or even a natural disaster could do that," Gates said in an interview.

Former CIA chief Woolsey described as "relatively mild" the scenarios that the National Commission on Energy Policy and the advocacy group Securing America's Future Energy simulated. Both groups are pushing for reduced dependence on conventional oil. "It was striking that by taking such small amounts off the market, you could have such dramatic impact" on world oil prices, said Robbie Diamond, the president of Securing America's Future Energy. Richard Haass was a top adviser to former Secretary of State Colin Powell until 2003. The simulation taught him how little influence policy-makers would have in reversing an oil shock wave. "I think where most of the work has to happen now, both intellectually and politically, is on demand" reduction, Haass said.

Source: www.realcities.com Knight Ridder Newspapers 24 June 200

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Dude, considering where you live, I don't think you should be going on about Americans liking their big vehicles with big engines... ...just in case someone takes it upon themselves to post a picture of Icelandic family transport.

...snipped image....

Ooops.

hehe, but there's a slight difference. We actually need vehicles like that in the winter. And take a look at what type of car that is. While we need vehicles like that most Westerners don't. You especially don't need a V8, 4L (or more) car to drive between your home and work.

I can't wait to be able to afford one of those though.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Oh, c'mon VW! Climb down from your high horse. Read some of the text I've posted and see there's a lot more to it than gasoline. EVERYTHING you eat has been floated to you on a sea of oil. Everyone who isn't living a "native/Amish/Flintstone" lifestyle is like a two-legged SUV.
The more you find out about it the less self-righteous you'll feel.

And I have no problem with that. It's the wasteful lifestyles we have that I'm against. But you won't get it so I won't bother spending time explaining it to you. We will all in the end get what we deserve.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Oh, c'mon VW! Climb down from your high horse. Read some of the text I've posted and see there's a lot more to it than gasoline. EVERYTHING you eat has been floated to you on a sea of oil. Everyone who isn't living a "native/Amish/Flintstone" lifestyle is like a two-legged SUV.
The more you find out about it the less self-righteous you'll feel.

http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/enviro..._oil_crash.htm

The vast majority of oil imports go to transportation.


The fuel-efficiency of our vehicles would have a very large impact on how much oil we consume. If everyone who was going to buy an SUV instead bought a hybrid over the next several years, we could stop importing oil from the Middle East completely. We're talking about a big impact.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by BRussell

The vast majority of oil imports go to transportation.


The fuel-efficiency of our vehicles would have a very large impact on how much oil we consume. If everyone who was going to buy an SUV instead bought a hybrid over the next several years, we could stop importing oil from the Middle East completely. We're talking about a big impact.

I don't dispute that at all. I think fuel efficiency is an important thing. The question that occurs to me is this:

If we were all driving cars that got 35 mpg or any reasonable mpg figure would we be free to go along without having to war for oil? Or would we be STILL be in trouble but our country be under the mis-impression that we could go along FOREVER as a nation just driving our fuel efficient cars?

Let's say we used far less oil than we do now because all our transportation was more fuel efficient than it now is and business and economy was the most important factor in your mind when the subject of oil came up.

Would we be smart or not smart by assuring our future supply of it?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

And I have no problem with that. It's the wasteful lifestyles we have that I'm against. But you won't get it so I won't bother spending time explaining it to you. We will all in the end get what we deserve.

Oh, I get it, alright.

You seem to be of the impression that I'm unable to grasp anything more than routinely or moderately complex intellectual concepts. Thanks for being patient with someone so feeble minded as I. In a way that's quite endearing. It goes along with your concern for innocent lives. It's your raison d' etre. But it's also a VERY liberal attitude, as I've mentioned to you before.

I have a feeling that no matter what we do the American public won't begin to take notice AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT until gas reaches $4.00/gal.

I AM against the wasteful lifestyles. But when I try to get CERTAIN people to just READ INFORMATION THAT COULD SAVE THEIR OWN LIVES and they won't, then...well, I just assume people don't/won't always do what's in their best interests. So, I'll focus elsewhere, work around them and let mother nature and the law of supply and demand smack em into reality.

[BRussell]

I see your point. I think we have to start developing alternatives, and the sooner the better. If existing technology would give us more time, so much the better. But we need to have the political will. Looking at the recent energy bill, it's quite clear that we currently don't have it.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I have a feeling that no matter what we do the American public won't begin to take notice AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT until gas reaches $4.00/gal.

A quick conversion (not necessarily completely correct) tells me that we here on Iceland pay about $6.5/gal. I don't see what you are complaining about to be honest.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Is it not strange how this "peak oil" thing is happening at exactly the same time as this "global warming" thing?

Has nobody thought that the current populist theory of "peak oil" could be propaganda designed by "the left" to get everyone to use less because of their concerns about "global warming"?

My thoughts are that this "peak oil" thing may simply be a plot by those who hate America to undermine her economy. It certainly seems to be the America-haters who're banging on about "peak oil" the most. Conspiracy?

conspiracy? no. it's happening. please tell me where the logical flaw is with the depletion of finite resources that are being ever-increasingly used? where will all the oil come from that will fuel the US's and the world's economy for the next 100 years? 50 years?

and if foresight is 'hating', so be it.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I see your point. I think we have to start developing alternatives, and the sooner the better. If existing technology would give us more time, so much the better. But we need to have the political will. Looking at the recent energy bill, it's quite clear that we currently don't have it.

http://www.sound-effect.com/sounds/h...e/cheer_8k.wav

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

A quick conversion (not necessarily completely correct) tells me that we here on Iceland pay about $6.5/gal. I don't see what you are complaining about to be honest.

By that reasoning one should be surprised if Iceland's economy took a beating if gas prices reached, what, say $10/gal. all of a sudden. I mean there are people paying more than $6.5/gal. You'd have no reason to complain.

However, I get your point. We SHOULD feel ourselves lucky our prices are as low as they are.

Actually, I doubt you could find one post where I lament gas PRICES as such as opposed to what those prices mean in the overall scheme of things.

When our gas prices reach $4.00 analysts predict we'll get serious about conserving. A good thing!

When our gas prices reach $5.50/gal. crude oil will be about $150/bbl.

Osama said he wanted the barrel price to reach $200 and it's at that price the Western economy would be critically ill, maybe beyond recovery.

BTW, as a reminder you'll recall I have been saying for weeks now that we should feel lucky we have oil AT ALL!! No matter the price. And the fact that we DO have oil is thanks to GWB!

[maxelson]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Is it not strange how this "peak oil" thing is happening at exactly the same time as this "global warming" thing?

Has nobody thought that the current populist theory of "peak oil" could be propaganda designed by "the left" to get everyone to use less because of their concerns about "global warming"?

My thoughts are that this "peak oil" thing may simply be a plot by those who hate America to undermine her economy. It certainly seems to be the America-haters who're banging on about "peak oil" the most. Conspiracy?

BEST entertainment I've had all night!
I mean, WOW.
What is it that makes you nervous, Doofy? Is it all that science? Yeah. That gets a lot of folk nervous. And logic. Whew. Might as well be talking about... what... VOODOO or some such crap, huh. I bet you got trouble with that whole humans from monkeys thing too, huh. Well.
No need to get all frothy. We're all gonna see soon enough. Aren't we. Trouble is, you get the choice to not come along on my ride.
I got no choice but to ride your little train. And you seem to have no trouble making this gamble- for yourself, AND for me. And for what. Something as bloody stupid as politics.

Doofy. LEts explain this another way. You have a glass of water. SIp some of it. It goes down, right? Sip more. Go on, experiment with me. SIp more. Eventually, what happens? RIGHT! The level of water diminishes until the glass is... what... right! Empty. The glass is empty.

Oil= non renewable source. We've been sucking it out of the ground pell mell for a hundred years. All over the planet. 24/7.
Where do you think this story will end?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by maxelson

BEST entertainment I've had all night!
I mean, WOW.
What is it that makes you nervous, Doofy? Is it all that science? Yeah. That gets a lot of folk nervous. And logic. Whew. Might as well be talking about... what... VOODOO or some such crap, huh. I bet you got trouble with that whole humans from monkeys thing too, huh. Well.
No need to get all frothy. We're all gonna see soon enough. Aren't we. Trouble is, you get the choice to not come along on my ride.
I got no choice but to ride your little train. And you seem to have no trouble making this gamble- for yourself, AND for me. And for what. Something as bloody stupid as politics.

Doofy. LEts explain this another way. You have a glass of water. SIp some of it. It goes down, right? Sip more. Go on, experiment with me. SIp more. Eventually, what happens? RIGHT! The level of water diminishes until the glass is... what... right! Empty. The glass is empty.

Oil= non renewable source. We've been sucking it out of the ground pell mell for a hundred years. All over the planet. 24/7.
Where do you think this story will end?

Here's just one example of people finding a level of knowledge they like and they drop down on that little plot of understanding and refuse to move from it, come hell or high water.

NO AMOUNT OF INFORMATION OR LOGIC IS GOING TO EASILY DISABUSE THEM OF THIS NOTION...whatever that notion might be. "I found a story and I'm stickin to it!"

In this case it's that there's a NEVER ENDING SOURCE of oil. However, in a way, this notion that Doofy (and others, too!) clings to so tightly IS one he can ride the rest of his life. We will run out, but NOT in his lifetime.

The only problem is that nobody ever told him about what would happen when we reached Peak Oil. Well, he'll be forced, by reality, to wake up.

The scenes from the Gulf Coast? That's a wake up call for the rest of us.

Prepare for the worst.

[maxelson]

See, one thing I have always had an enormous amount of trouble with:
Why NOT conserve? Why NOT seek alternatives? Who does it hurt? Hell, it can only help the economy. Really promote it, and all of a sudden an entirely new industry opens up. Good for people economically AND environmentally.
Hell, if the Big Oil Cos were smart, they'd really throw in on this and then they could maintain their corporate dominance.
As for politics- again- who does it hurt? What is the problem? Hey. If the enviros are wrong, then there's no problem. Poke fun at them and continue filling the Hummer and purchasing waterfront property.
But if they are right, everyone is f**cked. Doesn't sound like a particularly smart gamble to me. I just want someone to logically explain WHY conservation and alternatives are such a problem for them.
Doofy?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by maxelson

See, one thing I have always had an enormous amount of trouble with:
Why NOT conserve? Why NOT seek alternatives? Who does it hurt? Hell, it can only help the economy. Really promote it, and all of a sudden an entirely new industry opens up. Good for people economically AND environmentally.
Hell, if the Big Oil Cos were smart, they'd really throw in on this and then they could maintain their corporate dominance.
As for politics- again- who does it hurt? What is the problem? Hey. If the enviros are wrong, then there's no problem. Poke fun at them and continue filling the Hummer and purchasing waterfront property.
But if they are right, everyone is f**cked. Doesn't sound like a particularly smart gamble to me. I just want someone to logically explain WHY conservation and alternatives are such a problem for them.
Doofy?

Makes sense to me. WHY, indeed?!