Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:YRAYl.65860$d36.45196@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>
>
> Tegger wrote:
>> dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in
>> news:ef0235hncpjl5jqqb7vq6jsj3kiedro9lk@ 4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I once read somewhere that people in the future will hate us for
>>>burning all the oil rather than saving some for other (many other)
>>>uses.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> People were using almost none of that oil until the internal
>> combustion engine came along. Farmers had for countless generations
>> regarded "rock oil" as a simple nuisance.
>
>
>
>
> Bingo!
>
> It's high time for us to resume a leadership role in alternative
> technology NOT because fossil fuels are getting scarcer but because
> it's the right thing to do in view of being held hostage by numerous
> third rate fiefdoms around the world.



Actually, a surprisingly small amount comes from
hostage-taker countries.
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html>

And even less would come from the hostiles if the US would
loosen environut and NIMBY rules to allow more drilling on
US lands. "Leadership" in this case would be more accurately
described as "backing off", or "getting out of the way";
a Thomas Jefferson, Grover Cleveland or Calvin Coolidge approach.

Canada and Mexico aren't particularly hostile to the US. Mexico is
hobbled by the sort of government currently lusted after by those
in power in the US for the last 9 years or so, and its output
is a small fraction of what it could be if individuals not beholden
to political interests were in charge.

It's interesting to note how far Venezuela's output has declined
in the last few years as Chavez has made open war upon the evil
capitalist foreigners, and chased them out. The /good/ technicians
have mostly vamoosed, leaving behind the sort of engineers that would
otherwise work for (ugh) Pemex.




>
> And I'm not talkin' about wind, solar etc. as they currently stand



They are permanent losers, for ever and a day; forever dependent upon
tax money to even begin to approach break-even for the producers.
Tax funding will ensure forevermore that they will remain permanently
unworkable, and forever a ball-and-chain for those forced by the
tax code to pay for them.

Petroleum is the only practical energy solution for transportation.



> but
> for revolutionary technology to equal that of fossil fuels played at
> the turn of the 20th century.



Ain't gonna happen. Not in your lifetime or in mine, anyway.

My personal belief (based on nothing but my own personal
prejudices) is that the future lies in electricity storage,
or voltage potential, perhaps in the form of batteries.

When and where, and how? I have no idea. And neither does anyone else,
the power brokers of Washington included. Unpredictable individuals,
often mavericks or pariahs, doing unpredictable things with
unpredictable resources and unpredictable sources of funds, are the
true founts of technological progress. Government cannot help them,
but can hinder them most impressively.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:YRAYl.65860$d36.45196@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>
>
> Tegger wrote:
>> dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in
>> news:ef0235hncpjl5jqqb7vq6jsj3kiedro9lk@ 4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I once read somewhere that people in the future will hate us for
>>>burning all the oil rather than saving some for other (many other)
>>>uses.

Hey,foreign countries don't HAVE to sell to us.
They can keep their oil in the ground.
But they PROFIT from it greatly.

>>
>> People were using almost none of that oil until the internal
>> combustion engine came along. Farmers had for countless generations
>> regarded "rock oil" as a simple nuisance.
>
>
>
>
> Bingo!
>
> It's high time for us to resume a leadership role in alternative
> technology NOT because fossil fuels are getting scarcer but because
> it's the right thing to do in view of being held hostage by numerous
> third rate fiefdoms around the world.

We should utilize our domestic petro sources,while we work on alternatives.
Not tax,freeze or halt domestic petro production,at the cost to our economy
and safety.
Buying foreign oil sends money to people who wish to destroy us.
It also increases the risk to our coastlines from oil spills,which mainly
occur in shipping oil in tankers.

>
> And I'm not talkin' about wind, solar etc. as they currently stand but
> for revolutionary technology to equal that of fossil fuels played at
> the turn of the 20th century.

Such as?
>
> But all this requires leadership and there ain't none of that showin'
> up...
>
> JT
>

all the leadership in the world is not going to bring about a
"revolutionary technology".(It seems to be HINDERING the process.)
That's a matter of scientific discovery.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

Waiving the right to remain silent, Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> said:

> My personal belief (based on nothing but my own personal
> prejudices) is that the future lies in electricity storage,
> or voltage potential, perhaps in the form of batteries.
>
> When and where, and how? I have no idea. And neither does anyone else,
> the power brokers of Washington included. Unpredictable individuals,
> often mavericks or pariahs, doing unpredictable things with
> unpredictable resources and unpredictable sources of funds, are the
> true founts of technological progress. Government cannot help them,
> but can hinder them most impressively.

Well stated..!

http://tinyurl.com/cow45


--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

"A lack of common sense is now considered a disability,
with all the privileges that this entails."

 

Tegger wrote:
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
> news:YRAYl.65860$d36.45196@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>
>>
>>Tegger wrote:
>>
>>>dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in
>>>news:ef0235hncpjl5jqqb7vq6jsj3kiedro9lk@ 4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I once read somewhere that people in the future will hate us for
>>>>burning all the oil rather than saving some for other (many other)
>>>>uses.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>People were using almost none of that oil until the internal
>>>combustion engine came along. Farmers had for countless generations
>>>regarded "rock oil" as a simple nuisance.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Bingo!
>>
>>It's high time for us to resume a leadership role in alternative
>>technology NOT because fossil fuels are getting scarcer but because
>>it's the right thing to do in view of being held hostage by numerous
>>third rate fiefdoms around the world.
>
>
>
>
> Actually, a surprisingly small amount comes from
> hostage-taker countries.
> <http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html>
>
> And even less would come from the hostiles if the US would
> loosen environut and NIMBY rules to allow more drilling on
> US lands. "Leadership" in this case would be more accurately
> described as "backing off", or "getting out of the way";
> a Thomas Jefferson, Grover Cleveland or Calvin Coolidge approach.
>
> Canada and Mexico aren't particularly hostile to the US. Mexico is
> hobbled by the sort of government currently lusted after by those
> in power in the US for the last 9 years or so, and its output
> is a small fraction of what it could be if individuals not beholden
> to political interests were in charge.
>
> It's interesting to note how far Venezuela's output has declined
> in the last few years as Chavez has made open war upon the evil
> capitalist foreigners, and chased them out. The /good/ technicians
> have mostly vamoosed, leaving behind the sort of engineers that would
> otherwise work for (ugh) Pemex.
>

I should have included as hostile influence that of the speculators who
are largely unregulated.


>
>>And I'm not talkin' about wind, solar etc. as they currently stand
>
>
>
>
> They are permanent losers, for ever and a day; forever dependent upon
> tax money to even begin to approach break-even for the producers.
> Tax funding will ensure forevermore that they will remain permanently
> unworkable, and forever a ball-and-chain for those forced by the
> tax code to pay for them.
>
> Petroleum is the only practical energy solution for transportation.

Not necessarily. Rail transport could be largely electric and the
construction of a hundred nukes as an intermediate measure would go a
long way in this effort.

We have to abandon the inefficient such as trucking in favor of rail
long distance freight.


>>but
>>for revolutionary technology to equal that of fossil fuels played at
>>the turn of the 20th century.
>
>
>
>
> Ain't gonna happen. Not in your lifetime or in mine, anyway.
>
> My personal belief (based on nothing but my own personal
> prejudices) is that the future lies in electricity storage,
> or voltage potential, perhaps in the form of batteries.

Battery technology is coming of age faster than most realize. Two
hundred mile range is now reality and this covers the needs of better
than fifty percent of the populace.


> When and where, and how? I have no idea. And neither does anyone else,
> the power brokers of Washington included. Unpredictable individuals,
> often mavericks or pariahs, doing unpredictable things with
> unpredictable resources and unpredictable sources of funds, are the
> true founts of technological progress. Government cannot help them,
> but can hinder them most impressively.

Guv'ment still is and has always been the bottleneck of progress.

As an aside... Maybe if Yellowstone blows its top, thinking will change.
After all, it's 30,000 years or so overdue... <G>

JT

 

Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:JMZYl.68068$d36.29513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:


<snipped>

>
>
> I should have included as hostile influence that of the speculators
> who are largely unregulated.



Can you name one of those speculators?



>>
>> Petroleum is the only practical energy solution for transportation.
>
> Not necessarily. Rail transport could be largely electric and the
> construction of a hundred nukes as an intermediate measure would go a
> long way in this effort.
>
> We have to abandon the inefficient such as trucking in favor of rail
> long distance freight.



Trucking is the most efficient thing going.

One problem with rail is severe restrictions on location, and even more
severe restrictions on timing. It takes days to ship something by rail.
Our business, just for one, would be dead if we didn't have instant LTL
trucking available anywhere in Canada and the US. I can have a load at a
particular dock in Chicago (or from there to our place) in half a day. Try
that with rail.

Electric long-distance rail in North America makes no economic sense,
unless it's diesel-electric, which it already is.



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
news:JMZYl.68068$d36.29513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Tegger wrote:
>> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
>> news:YRAYl.65860$d36.45196@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>>
>>>Tegger wrote:
>>>
>>>>dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in
>>>>news:ef0235hncpjl5jqqb7vq6jsj3kiedro9lk@ 4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I once read somewhere that people in the future will hate us for
>>>>>burning all the oil rather than saving some for other (many other)
>>>>>uses.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>People were using almost none of that oil until the internal
>>>>combustion engine came along. Farmers had for countless generations
>>>>regarded "rock oil" as a simple nuisance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Bingo!
>>>
>>>It's high time for us to resume a leadership role in alternative
>>>technology NOT because fossil fuels are getting scarcer but because
>>>it's the right thing to do in view of being held hostage by numerous
>>>third rate fiefdoms around the world.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, a surprisingly small amount comes from
>> hostage-taker countries.
>> <http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html>
>>
>> And even less would come from the hostiles if the US would
>> loosen environut and NIMBY rules to allow more drilling on
>> US lands. "Leadership" in this case would be more accurately
>> described as "backing off", or "getting out of the way";
>> a Thomas Jefferson, Grover Cleveland or Calvin Coolidge approach.
>>
>> Canada and Mexico aren't particularly hostile to the US. Mexico is
>> hobbled by the sort of government currently lusted after by those
>> in power in the US for the last 9 years or so, and its output
>> is a small fraction of what it could be if individuals not beholden
>> to political interests were in charge.
>>
>> It's interesting to note how far Venezuela's output has declined
>> in the last few years as Chavez has made open war upon the evil
>> capitalist foreigners, and chased them out. The /good/ technicians
>> have mostly vamoosed, leaving behind the sort of engineers that would
>> otherwise work for (ugh) Pemex.
>>
>
> I should have included as hostile influence that of the speculators who
> are largely unregulated.
>
>
>>
>>>And I'm not talkin' about wind, solar etc. as they currently stand
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> They are permanent losers, for ever and a day; forever dependent upon
>> tax money to even begin to approach break-even for the producers.
>> Tax funding will ensure forevermore that they will remain permanently
>> unworkable, and forever a ball-and-chain for those forced by the
>> tax code to pay for them.
>>
>> Petroleum is the only practical energy solution for transportation.
>
> Not necessarily. Rail transport could be largely electric and the
> construction of a hundred nukes as an intermediate measure would go a long
> way in this effort.
>
> We have to abandon the inefficient such as trucking in favor of rail long
> distance freight.
>
>
>>>but
>>>for revolutionary technology to equal that of fossil fuels played at
>>>the turn of the 20th century.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ain't gonna happen. Not in your lifetime or in mine, anyway.
>>
>> My personal belief (based on nothing but my own personal
>> prejudices) is that the future lies in electricity storage,
>> or voltage potential, perhaps in the form of batteries.
>
> Battery technology is coming of age faster than most realize. Two hundred
> mile range is now reality and this covers the needs of better than fifty
> percent of the populace.
>
>
>> When and where, and how? I have no idea. And neither does anyone else,
>> the power brokers of Washington included. Unpredictable individuals,
>> often mavericks or pariahs, doing unpredictable things with
>> unpredictable resources and unpredictable sources of funds, are the
>> true founts of technological progress. Government cannot help them,
>> but can hinder them most impressively.
>
> Guv'ment still is and has always been the bottleneck of progress.
>
> As an aside... Maybe if Yellowstone blows its top, thinking will change.
> After all, it's 30,000 years or so overdue... <G>
>
> JT

Welfare recipients should be required to go to a station and pedal bikes to
turn generators....to make the electricity...

john

 

Tegger wrote:
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
> news:JMZYl.68068$d36.29513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>
> <snipped>
>
>>
>>I should have included as hostile influence that of the speculators
>>who are largely unregulated.
>
>
>
>
> Can you name one of those speculators?

Any of the Wall street commodity investors. I was reading a good piece
this afternoon, (too freakin' hot to be outside), and wish I had kept
track of it (link). In a nutshell, the same crowd that got it to $145+
per BBL last July are back in business. Yet, OPEC just adjusted downward
their expectations for volume for the next year.


>>>Petroleum is the only practical energy solution for transportation.
>>
>>Not necessarily. Rail transport could be largely electric and the
>>construction of a hundred nukes as an intermediate measure would go a
>>long way in this effort.
>>
>>We have to abandon the inefficient such as trucking in favor of rail
>>long distance freight.
>
>
>
>
> Trucking is the most efficient thing going.

Au contraire... I takes 1 gal of diesel to move a ton over 450 miles by
rail. Trucks should be relegated to local deliveries or coverage in
areas not covered by long distance rail.


> One problem with rail is severe restrictions on location, and even more
> severe restrictions on timing. It takes days to ship something by rail.
> Our business, just for one, would be dead if we didn't have instant LTL
> trucking available anywhere in Canada and the US. I can have a load at a
> particular dock in Chicago (or from there to our place) in half a day. Try
> that with rail.

Circumstances change and such can be overcome by modifying methodology
and planning.


> Electric long-distance rail in North America makes no economic sense,
> unless it's diesel-electric, which it already is.

The northeast corridor is electrified and many other urban rail systems
are as well. Diesel/Electric is fine for long haul.

JT

 

Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:qJiZl.359732$4m1.41550@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>
>
> Tegger wrote:
>> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
>> news:JMZYl.68068$d36.29513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>>>
>>>I should have included as hostile influence that of the speculators
>>>who are largely unregulated.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you name one of those speculators?
>
> Any of the Wall street commodity investors.



You, for instance?

If you have money in the bank, are drawing a pension (even a government
pension), or have any investments of any kind (even CDs), you are one of
those "speculators".

The "speculators" were governemnts, banks, insurance companies, investment
firms, airlines, grocery store holding companies, you name it.

These things only ever become clear once the dust settles. It turns out
that a lot of money was in the mortgage market on account of the constantly
rising prices. When that fell apart, money rushed out quickly into the next
available thing: commodities. Such a phenomenon can only be finite, and so
this one was; once the frenzy ended, prices fell back to earth.





> I was reading a good
> piece this afternoon, (too freakin' hot to be outside), and wish I had
> kept track of it (link). In a nutshell, the same crowd that got it to
> $145+ per BBL last July are back in business. Yet, OPEC just adjusted
> downward their expectations for volume for the next year.




You need to get offline and read something with actual information in it,
such as Forbes magazine, Reason magazine, or the Wall Street Journal. Even
Canada's National Post/Finaincial Post is excellent for actual information.



>
>
>>>>Petroleum is the only practical energy solution for transportation.
>>>
>>>Not necessarily. Rail transport could be largely electric and the
>>>construction of a hundred nukes as an intermediate measure would go a
>>>long way in this effort.
>>>
>>>We have to abandon the inefficient such as trucking in favor of rail
>>>long distance freight.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Trucking is the most efficient thing going.
>
> Au contraire... I takes 1 gal of diesel to move a ton over 450 miles
> by rail. Trucks should be relegated to local deliveries or coverage in
> areas not covered by long distance rail.



You're old enough to remember the truck/train de-regulation of the early
'80s. Remember how all the spur lines were ripped up a few years later?
Guess why? Trucking ended up being cheaper, that's why. Nobody wanted rail
any more unless they were shipping all the way to the sea ports, or were
shipping enormous quantities of cheap commodities similarly long distances.

It's not just the fuel that counts, but the infrastructure. It would be
hideously expensive to build out and maintain a rail network even more
sprawling than the hideously expensive one we used to have (which was
heavily subsidized by the taxpayer and was a major money-loser).



>
>
>> One problem with rail is severe restrictions on location, and even
>> more severe restrictions on timing. It takes days to ship something
>> by rail. Our business, just for one, would be dead if we didn't have
>> instant LTL trucking available anywhere in Canada and the US. I can
>> have a load at a particular dock in Chicago (or from there to our
>> place) in half a day. Try that with rail.
>
> Circumstances change and such can be overcome by modifying methodology
> and planning.



That sounds good in here, but try putting that in practice. Could I ever
have an engine deliver and pick up ONE rail car in a few hours, then take
it immediately to Montreal? Not a chance.

Trains have necessarily very restrictive schedules, since you need a lot of
cars hooked up to your engine to make a trip economically viable. It's that
inherent restrictiveness that made trains highly unpopular the moment
just anybody could start a trucking company.

Trains are still popular, but in their niche. Now that railroads are not
required to be all things to all people, they can actually make money
(instead of losing it like they used to) doing what they do best: Deliver
large amounts of goods huge distances.


>
>
>> Electric long-distance rail in North America makes no economic sense,
>> unless it's diesel-electric, which it already is.
>
> The northeast corridor is electrified and many other urban rail
> systems are as well.



Very true. Rail and electrification are ideal for densely populated areas,
but scheduling and timing are still railroads' Achilles heels.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

Tegger wrote:
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
> news:qJiZl.359732$4m1.41550@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>
>>
>>Tegger wrote:
>>
>>>Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
>>>news:JMZYl.68068$d36.29513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>>
>>>
>>><snipped>
>>>
>>>>I should have included as hostile influence that of the speculators
>>>>who are largely unregulated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Can you name one of those speculators?
>>
>>Any of the Wall street commodity investors.
>
>
>
>
> You, for instance?
>
> If you have money in the bank, are drawing a pension (even a government
> pension), or have any investments of any kind (even CDs), you are one of
> those "speculators".
>
> The "speculators" were governemnts, banks, insurance companies, investment
> firms, airlines, grocery store holding companies, you name it.
>
> These things only ever become clear once the dust settles. It turns out
> that a lot of money was in the mortgage market on account of the constantly
> rising prices. When that fell apart, money rushed out quickly into the next
> available thing: commodities. Such a phenomenon can only be finite, and so
> this one was; once the frenzy ended, prices fell back to earth.
>

And yet they are now being driven once again not based on supply and
demand...


>> I was reading a good
>>piece this afternoon, (too freakin' hot to be outside), and wish I had
>>kept track of it (link). In a nutshell, the same crowd that got it to
>>$145+ per BBL last July are back in business. Yet, OPEC just adjusted
>>downward their expectations for volume for the next year.
>
>
>
>
>
> You need to get offline and read something with actual information in it,
> such as Forbes magazine, Reason magazine, or the Wall Street Journal. Even
> Canada's National Post/Finaincial Post is excellent for actual information.

Uh, the article I did read was credible. Additionally, there are people
in the local area who are well aware of what is going on and agree that
the current spike is baseless in fact.


>>
>>>>>Petroleum is the only practical energy solution for transportation.
>>>>
>>>>Not necessarily. Rail transport could be largely electric and the
>>>>construction of a hundred nukes as an intermediate measure would go a
>>>>long way in this effort.
>>>>
>>>>We have to abandon the inefficient such as trucking in favor of rail
>>>>long distance freight.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Trucking is the most efficient thing going.
>>
>>Au contraire... I takes 1 gal of diesel to move a ton over 450 miles
>>by rail. Trucks should be relegated to local deliveries or coverage in
>>areas not covered by long distance rail.
>
>
>
>
> You're old enough to remember the truck/train de-regulation of the early
> '80s. Remember how all the spur lines were ripped up a few years later?
> Guess why? Trucking ended up being cheaper, that's why. Nobody wanted rail
> any more unless they were shipping all the way to the sea ports, or were
> shipping enormous quantities of cheap commodities similarly long distances.

"Trucking was cheaper,..." is key here. Long distance trucking is no
longer cheaper and by quite a margin at that. That's what this is all
about.


> It's not just the fuel that counts, but the infrastructure. It would be
> hideously expensive to build out and maintain a rail network even more
> sprawling than the hideously expensive one we used to have (which was
> heavily subsidized by the taxpayer and was a major money-loser).

Except for the northeast corridor, US rail is in private hands. No
subsidies and the main rail infrastructure is adequate.


>>>One problem with rail is severe restrictions on location, and even
>>>more severe restrictions on timing. It takes days to ship something
>>>by rail. Our business, just for one, would be dead if we didn't have
>>>instant LTL trucking available anywhere in Canada and the US. I can
>>>have a load at a particular dock in Chicago (or from there to our
>>>place) in half a day. Try that with rail.
>>
>>Circumstances change and such can be overcome by modifying methodology
>>and planning.
>
>
>
>
> That sounds good in here, but try putting that in practice. Could I ever
> have an engine deliver and pick up ONE rail car in a few hours, then take
> it immediately to Montreal? Not a chance.

Probably not but that's not the issue. Bulk long distance carriage is.


> Trains have necessarily very restrictive schedules, since you need a lot of
> cars hooked up to your engine to make a trip economically viable. It's that
> inherent restrictiveness that made trains highly unpopular the moment
> just anybody could start a trucking company.

You'd be surprised how accommodating the railroads are. I spent an
afternoon as a guest at a rail management center in Ft Worth. Just think
NASA amplified several times.


> Trains are still popular, but in their niche. Now that railroads are not
> required to be all things to all people, they can actually make money
> (instead of losing it like they used to) doing what they do best: Deliver
> large amounts of goods huge distances.

That's my whole point.

JT

 

"rjdriver" <rjdriversNOSPAM@***.net> wrote in message
news:ej_Xl.21827$IP7.21805@newsfe23.iad...
>> You can find much more on: http://www.peakoil.net/
>
>
> Don't believe a word of it.
>
> There is more oil underground that they know what to do with.
>
> Tens of thousands of years worth of oil.
>
> There's more oil in the shale in Colorado and Montana than all the oil
> that has been pumped since the beginning of the oil age. And it can be
> economically extracted even if oil were selling for only $30.00/barrel.

I agree with you here. I have read many papers on this subject with
basically the same finding. The ecoterrorist are the ones putting no to this
project.

> They are hiding oil fields in Prudho Bay.
Not so. They are developing fields along the Arctic coast in all areas where
these same ecoterrorists haven't stopped development.

> They are pumping natural gas back underground just to keep the price where
> they want it.
This most definitely is not true. Yes, natural gas is being stored
underground in the Prudhoe Bay field, in the Kuparik field, in the Seal
Island field (to name just a few) but the reason is not to control the
price. Rather, there is no way, at present, to move the gas from the North
Slope to markets in Alaska, Canada, and the "smaller states". However, Gov.
Palin has negotiated contracts with companies to move said gas to the
markets. There is some lead time involved, say ten years or so. We here in
Alaska are impatiently waiting for that day to come.

DaveD

 

"Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote in message
news:Xns9C2DBC2551F8Dtegger@208.90.168.18...
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
> news:qJiZl.359732$4m1.41550@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>>
>>
>> Tegger wrote:
>>> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
>>> news:JMZYl.68068$d36.29513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>>
>>>
>>> <snipped>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I should have included as hostile influence that of the speculators
>>>>who are largely unregulated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you name one of those speculators?
>>
>> Any of the Wall street commodity investors.
>
>
>
> You, for instance?


He's referring to speculators in commodity futures. The commmodity being
oil. Until the year 2000 its was not possible for speculators to dabble in
oil futures (except for a a few "exceptions". It was considerd to be too
risky in terms of causing price spikes unrelated to to actual supply and
demand. When that restriction was eliminated by Congress (at the request of
Enron, no less)), guess what happened - price spikes unrelated to supply and
demand!

That restriction needs to be put back into place. And quickly. The Arab
feifdoms lost control of world oil prices that year, but I'm not sure who is
worse having that control - OPEC or the likes of Goldman Sacks.

Bob

 

On Jun 10, 1:47 pm, peakoil <peakoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> does everybody know that according to some Oil Geologists (e.g. Colin
> Campbell) in 2013 the world oil output is going to peak ?

If global climate trends continue - large tracts of land previously
covered by ice will be accessible for oil and natural gas exploration
and extraction. This may delay the year that world oil output peaks.

 

"rjdriver" <rjdriversNOSPAM@***.net> wrote in
news:7FN8m.33948$ZU1.12931@newsfe16.iad:

>
> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C2DBC2551F8Dtegger@208.90.168.18...
>> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
>> news:qJiZl.359732$4m1.41550@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
>>>> news:JMZYl.68068$d36.29513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snipped>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I should have included as hostile influence that of the speculators
>>>>>who are largely unregulated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you name one of those speculators?
>>>
>>> Any of the Wall street commodity investors.
>>
>>
>>
>> You, for instance?
>
>
> He's referring to speculators in commodity futures. The commmodity
> being oil. Until the year 2000 its was not possible for speculators
> to dabble in oil futures (except for a a few "exceptions". It was
> considerd to be too risky in terms of causing price spikes unrelated
> to to actual supply and demand. When that restriction was eliminated
> by Congress (at the request of Enron, no less)), guess what happened -
> price spikes unrelated to supply and demand!



99% of oil futures are traded between institutions: airlines,
transportation companies, insurance compaines, banks, investment firms,
retirement funds, that sort of thing.

The primary reason oil and other commodities spiked last year was a
wholesale switchover away from housing markets, as the subprime crisis hit.
As the above invertors ("speculators") realized the mounting losses in
housing, they hurriedly pulled their money out and put it into the next
best thing: commodities. That's why foodstuff commodities spiked at the
same time.




--
Tegger

 

On Jul 20, 7:06 am, Tegger <inva...@invalid.inv> wrote:
> "rjdriver" <rjdriversNOS...@***.net> wrote innews:7FN8m.33948$ZU1.12931@newsfe16.iad:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Tegger" <inva...@invalid.inv> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9C2DBC2551F8Dtegger@208.90.168.18...
> >> Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
> >>news:qJiZl.359732$4m1.41550@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
> >>> Tegger wrote:
> >>>> Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
> >>>>news:JMZYl.68068$d36.29513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
> >>>> <snipped>
>
> >>>>>I should have included as hostile influence that of the speculators
> >>>>>who are largely unregulated.
>
> >>>> Can you name one of those speculators?
>
> >>> Any of the Wall street commodity investors.
>
> >> You, for instance?
>
> > He's referring to speculators in commodity futures. The commmodity
> > being oil. Until the year 2000 its was not possible for speculators
> > to dabble in oil futures (except for a a few "exceptions". It was
> > considerd to be too risky in terms of causing price spikes unrelated
> > to to actual supply and demand. When that restriction was eliminated
> > by Congress (at the request of Enron, no less)), guess what happened -
> > price spikes unrelated to supply and demand!
>
> 99% of oil futures are traded between institutions: airlines,
> transportation companies, insurance compaines, banks, investment firms,
> retirement funds, that sort of thing.
>
> The primary reason oil and other commodities spiked last year was a
> wholesale switchover away from housing markets, as the subprime crisis hit.
> As the above invertors ("speculators") realized the mounting losses in
> housing, they hurriedly pulled their money out and put it into the next
> best thing: commodities. That's why foodstuff commodities spiked at the
> same time.
>
> --
> Tegger


When the subprime crisis hit - speculator who were using
credit via equity-swaps evaporated and became more
susceptible to losses in the derivatives and commodities
market. Food stuff commodies were increasing before the
subprime crash and have stablized during the following
recession. Increase energy cost and increase production
of bio fuels - ethnanol in particular - has been blame for
the rise in food stuff. Enron has been charged with
manipulating electric utility prices higher. Increase
use of oil by the world (especially the USA and China),
the lack of Iraqi oil production due to the Iraqi War,
and low production levels of "sweet crude" high grade oil
has also been said to put pressure on the cost
oil base fuels.