BS: Its Americas' oil?

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 01:21 AM

Regarding the expected longevity of oil and gas discoveries in the North Sea in the early/mid 70's. Most regarded development of North Sea fields as a short term solution. Hamilton Brothers Argyll Field (first to come on stream in the UK Sector) was predicted as being viable for about 15 years, BP Forties about 30 years, in the Norwegian sector Ekofisk was expected to last 50 years. Advances in technology have resulted in all those fields still being in production today. Currently if Norway does not look for any further discoveries, her existing fields will produce for the next 75 years.

The best example in the UK is BP's Wytch Farm field, an on-shore development in Dorset, dating back to the 1920's. In 1992 plans were being made to decommission the production facilities at Wytch Farm. BP used the site for the development and trials of horizontal directional drilling techniques. This meant that initially they had to drill down deeper than the target depth for the original wells. What they then discovered was that the original Wytch Farm reservoir was in fact a seep hole from a much larger reservoir located directly underneath the original field. Decommissioning plans were scrapped and the field became one of BP's best earners in the mid-1990's.

So I think that in making his statement (quoted by Wolfgang) in 1971, Holdren was not referring to babes in arms when he mentioned the present day population.

Halliburton, by the way Frank, does not produce oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 08:32 PM

Mcgrath..I think if you were world president it would be really,quite nice...

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 08:24 PM

But the stuff about the practicalities of alternatve sources of energy wasn't drift.

The original post raised the question whether the need for oil of the USA (and implicitly other countries which are heavily depemndant on it)might in certain circumstances justify aggression in order to steal that oil from other countries.

The point of the stuff about alternative energy and limited oil supplies was that such a course of action would neither be necessary, nor, except in the short term, practical. As the saying goes, it would be worse than a crime, it would be a mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 08:23 PM

Mc grath...Your sense of humour is not usually in evidence,but on this occasion ...    :>)

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 08:04 PM

Population density in the USA is pretty low; there's no reason you shouldn't be able to make out if you pulled together and cut down to basics.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 07:43 PM

Thats right Burke..So basically all this civilisation stuff is bullshit, All the human rights,democracy freedom ect ect,all a charade to keep the politicians in a job!!

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: GUEST,burke
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 07:29 PM

on the question of morality - why dont we take it one step further
and forget the oil embargo - and just assume that last summers blackout wasnt just on the eastern seabord, but all over - and the power didnt come back on..
what would anyone do?

likely people would pour out of the cities and into the country side - the farms..(and hope that maybe the locals hadnt barricaded themselves in and are willing to share)

but ultimately there isnt enough to support everyone so you either have to make the decision to lay down and die or make some other poor sucker do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Gareth
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 07:22 PM

Ake' - But then that the Mudcat - with rare exceptions embarrasing questions are met with diversion, and I should know I contributed to this thread drift.

But back to the facts.

A small bet !

Within 10 years the UK will be screaming to reopen the deep mines closed and flooded by M Thatcher - And I suppose they'll be asking for the Welsh to risk life, limb, and health reopening them.

Gareth.

(BTW I'am all for more hydro and barrage schemes, after all these days Water is the major Welsh export !)

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 07:13 PM

This thread drifted away from the question of morality initially posted,and has turned into a discussion about alternative forms of energy.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 04:51 PM

"...a sufficient oil supply for decades"I>

That's long term thinking? A child born today is likely to be around for the best part of a century. "Decades" aren't really good enough, even for that single generation.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 04:21 PM

ok, egypt and syria attacked in order to get their territories back,
I doubt they would have stopped at the Sinai though.
Which (Egypt)ultimately got back through the Camp David peace agreement along with 5$ billion/year US aid.

and by the way, Im all for cleaner/ renewable energy creation -
I just dont believe it will happen overnight - and what will happen to the economies of the oil producing nations when it does?
(they will need to change with the rest of us.)

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 04:18 PM

I'm not sure that I buy the argument that the world is running out of oil. If anything, this may be the excuse the giant oil cartels are using to control the price and flow. I think there could be ample supplies if it weren't for Detroit making fuel inefficient cars and the rise of SUVs on American highways.

This fear of depleting oil has been used as a pretext for drilling in the Artic and other natural habitats which would yield comparitively little product. I think that combining the fuel usage with alternative energy sources would result in a sufficient oil supply for decades. I believe that there is a spate of propaganda by the oil producers to jack up the price including Haliburton.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 03:27 PM

petr, some of your account is factually incorrect. These links are for you:

http://www.cactus48.com/1967war.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2001/israel_and_palestinians/timeline/1973.stm

The key thing to notice in the BBC article, is the fact that the Yom Kippur war was for the purpose of regaining territory that Israel took from Egypt and Syria when it pre-emptively attacked them in 1967.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 02:21 PM

True enough, Wolfgang - talking about oil running out soon is a kind of shorthand. It's a way of saying that, before very long, it will get too expensive to use in the way we use it, so we either have to stop doing the things we use it for, or find alternative ways of supplying the energy we need.

"...within the lifetime of many of the present population", writing in 1971 that means by the middle of this century. That still seems a reasonable estimate for a time by which we will have used up the bulk of the economically available oil and natural gas.

I'd imagine that in saying "The energy problem is not primarily a matter of depletion of resources in any global sense" Holdren might have been taking ointo accountb the fact that there are potentially excellent alternatve sources of energy, even witjhout oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 02:02 PM

The short oil shortage in the 70s has done our economy an awful lot of good in the long run. More efficient energy use, research on new energies etc. I only wish the OPEC would reduce its output more often.

Some here seem to think that the amount of oil reserves is a fixed number which can be depleted completely. In a very crude verbatim sense that is true, but completely irrelevant. If you think about it from the point of view of economy the oil reserves are infinite. The known oil reserves vary largely depending upon which amount of money you want to spend to extract them. What will happen if the cheap reserves are exploited? Then oil gets more expensive, alternative sources of energy become efficient alternatives to oil and expensive oil will only be used for other things than cheap transport. Whenever a resource gets scarce, the price explodes and that, on the one hand, will make alternatives to this resource competitive and, on the other hand, other quarries for that resource exploitable.

The very reasons that make our economy tick will dictate that a resource of the type of oil can never be completely depleted. It only becomes prohibitively expensive for most uses. With animals, the situation is completely different, for several reasons. A species can be "depleted" forever (at least with toda's standards). That worries me much more than oil becoming scarce.

The depletion stand of some here is a bit outdated. Way back in the seventies in all those books (limits of growth etc.) about depletion of resources that type of thinking can be read. I remember a couple of natural resources which only were to last for a shorter time than has passed since the publication of these books.

Take for instance Holdren who was then a know figure among environmentalists and still is.
In 1971 (Energy: A crisis in power), he was writing it is fair to conclude that under almost any assumptions, the supplies of crude petroleum and natural gas are severely limited. The bulk of energy likely to flow from these sources may have been tapped within the lifetime of many of the present population.
Recently, he has written The energy problem is not primarily a matter of depletion of resources in any global sense but rather of environmental impacts and sociopolitical risks.

I share the environmental worries of many here, but I find your approach to the problem a bit simple.

I'm all for expensive oil for many reasons. Even for economical. It would do us good. By the way, even the oil companies could profit from expensive oil. I'd rather sell an expensive and scarce product to high prices than a cheap one to low prices.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 04:40 AM

Apologies Akenaton, I did not make my point clear enough. The £1 billion I mentioned was direct revenue from oil, one of the major companies who had to pay for it's extraction and take on all the risks involved made £350 million.

The Government then continued to gather in revenue in addition to that £1 billion from the sources mentioned in my earlier post.

Yo Bobert,

To fund all those things you mention how many revenue streams are available to Government? The oil company only makes money out of what it extracts and what it invests in, those companies then pay a heafty chunk of that to the Governments they had to buy their licences from in the first place.

Guest petr,
You make some very good points in your post that, as you so rightly say, others tend to forget completely.

MGOH,
Guest petr above mentioned, "vast reserves", to which you responded, "that's just a few more years putting off the inevitable". Petr also mentioned the Alberta Tarsands. Looking at the USA alone, there is an estimated 400 year supply of oil bearing shale in the Rocky Mountains. As Petr rightly points out it is the cost of recovery, that precludes its extraction, plus the environmental impact such extraction would cause.

Originally by using oil production and supply as an economic "weapon", OPEC caused it's own circumvention by the West. It now exists solely to maintain the price and ensure supply to their customers according to their needs. They could never use oil as a weapon again, it was a "one-off" event that was responded to without the use of force. It hurt OPEC more than those OPEC was targeting.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 05:48 PM

"vast reserves" - that's just a few more years putting off the inevitable. Far better to face up to it, and adjust to the real world.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 05:35 PM

the war that triggered the oil embargo against the west was the
1973 Yom Kippur war- when Egypt and Syria attacked Israel and came close to defeating it. The Israeli forces were overrun but held on and then cut off the Egyptian army. It was unlikely that the US would have invaded the region - because the Soviets made it clear that if the US became involved so would they. In fact it was one of the few times since Kennedy's assasination that US forces around the world were put on increased alert.

Of course if the USSR had been involved it would have been WW3.

the Arab oil states who controlled OPEC began the embargo because they were angry at the West's support of Israel and also because of another humiliating defeat of Arab armies (which could have been much worse had not the US and UN stepped in to broker a ceasefire)

the tendency of these discussions is to look at what the US did, but most people here seem to ignore that there was a cold war going on,
and both superpowers played each other off all around the world.

America and the threat of retaliation is the only thing that kept the
Soviets from overrunning the rest of Europe. My father who was in the Czech army had orders to take over German printing plants to print propaganda in the event of an invasion.

I doubt if would have been necessary to invade the Mideast to get a hold of oil as there were other options - namely Nigeria, and Venezuela. (which is precisely why they havent been able to organize another embargo - plus the fact that they need the money)

(aside from alternative energy sources - there are still vast reserves
in the Alberta Tarsands (more than Saudi Arabia) they are just more expensive to extract)

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 05:26 PM

Yo, T...

Who spends more building and maintaining the the hundreds of thousands of miles of roads upon which we drive? Big oil or government? Who spends more building and staffing schools? Big oil or governemnt? Who spends more on defense (if you can call it that anymore)? Big oil or governemnt? Hospitals for veterans? Foriegn aid? etc, etc...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 01:18 PM

Not a red herring, Carol. Vegetable oil and so forth could and should be used instead of fossil oil where possible, and would have a lot of advantages; however, the problem is, there won't be any fossil oil within a couple of generations, and in burning it we'll have done enormous damge to our environment. Other non-polluting energy sources will be needed as well. Fortunately there is no shortage of these, potentially.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 11:52 AM

Come Come Teribus..The £1 Billion?, that went to central government,was not the total of all revenue.
This spinning of the figures, is not your normal way of argument...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 11:50 AM

If you want to find who has the vested interest in keeping things the way they are, look no further than those you elect.

I think that's one of the major points some of us have been trying to make. In the US, you'd be hard pressed to find a member of the current administration who is not heavily entrenched in the oil bidness in one way or another. Only it's their own pockets they're lining, not the government coffers. In fact, their little adventures are creating the largest budget deficit in the history of the US. It's the taxpayers who are paying for all of this. Hidden costs.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 11:33 AM

In the UK when the SNP were banging on about oil revenues BP's profits were something in the region of £350 million pounds, Government revenue from "Scottish oil" was £1 billion pounds. This was the wealth that was going to finance their independent Scotland - what they studiously ignored was that while £1 billion went South to Westminster, £9 billion was sent North from Westminster.

Governments make money from the oil and gas industry, and every service aspect of that industry, and all the way down the line to those who use its products. It is revenue that they would be hard put to replace if alternative sources were used - but no doubt they would find a way. If you want to find who has the vested interest in keeping things the way they are, look no further than those you elect.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 09:53 AM

Who makes the most money out of the oil and gas industry - Governments or the Oil Companies?

I think it could be argued that in the US, at least, the two are, in reality, one and the same.

On the subject of how much land it would take to grow enough oil producing crops, I think that's probably another red herring. If the US (Archer Daniels Midland) would use the corn it grows to produce oil, instead of putting it into every single food source manufactured in the US (thereby making it almost impossible for people with corn allergies like me to find food I can eat), the US could probably reduce its dependence on Middle East oil by a significant percent. Of course, then they would have to lift the tarrif on sugar from non-corn sources, which makes it too expensive for most food manufacturers in the US to use in their products.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 09:14 AM

Diesel oil isn't in any meaningful snese an "alternative fuel".

Vegetable oil is likely to be an increasingly important fuel, and it doesn't mess with the environment the way fossil fuels do - but it takes a lot of land to grow biomass fuels like this - I think it's been estimated that it'd be lkkely to take an area equivalent to the United Kingdom to produce enough oil to power all the vehicles we use.

Eectrical-powered, or hydrogen-burning vehicles are likely to be the maoin ones in the future, wiht the elcetricity to drive them and to produce the hydrogen coming from tidal, wind or sun-power.

Arguing whether the blame for the present mess is primarily big business or government rather assumes it is possible to draw a clear line between the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: GUEST,Davetnova
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 07:47 AM

It always amazes me that we continue to use deisel at all. According to the US dept of energy - alternate fuels all existing deisel powered vehicles can run on a mixture of deisel and biodeisel (made from virtually any vegatable oil source) and those built in the last ten years can be run on pure biodeisel. They put the cost at about $1.50 per gallon for fuel made from new vegetable oil and much less for that made from recycled. Who or what is preventing us using these currently available (renewable) fuels, made with current technology, which can be used by most current deisel engines without modification?

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 05:47 AM

Oh yes, its all the fault of those big bad International multi-national oil corporations and their vested interest.

A question for those who subscribe to the above:

Who makes the most money out of the oil and gas industry - Governments or the Oil Companies?

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 05:41 AM

In "Who framed Roger Rabbit?" the Los Angeles streetcar scandal business featured prominently. Unfortunately in real life Roger Rabbit didn't come along.

We had trolley-buses in London, as well as trams. All gone. That's the kind of thing I have in mind when I get suspicious of people who asay things like "embrace change" as if some changes weren't in fact changes for the worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 09:53 PM

Yo Don,

Yer' both ahead... and behind the times...

Me, too.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Peace
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 09:41 PM

I'm old enough to have ridden a streetcar and taken the bus to get around Montreal. Nothing beats the subway system in New York. Faster to get darn near anywhere in New York without a car. Good post, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 09:10 PM

This may come as a surprise to many, but one did not need an automobile to get around the greater Los Angeles area during the Thirties and Forties and for some time after. I remember when I was a wee sprat living in Pasadena during the Thirties. Within five blocks of just about anyplace (easy walking distance for most people) was a "street car" line. Street cars were electric trolleys that ran on rails. Between Pasadena and Los Angeles and other suburbs in the area, the "interurban" ran. The interurban was also electrically powered and ran on rails. It was fast, it was clean, it was convenient, and it was inexpensive. My father worked in Los Angeles, and he took the interurban to and from work. Often one of my aunts, who lived in Los Angeles, hopped the interurban on Friday evening, stayed with us over the weekend, then returned on the interurban Sunday night. Getting around in the area easily and cheaply was taken for granted. Lots of people had automobiles, but nowhere near as many per capita as now. Many people regarded an automobile as expensive to buy, expensive to maintain, and something of a luxury. Besides, you didn't really need one to get around.

When we returned to Seattle in 1940, we found the city had a public transportation system made up of what was then the very latest. "Trackless" trolleys. Rubber tired "trolley buses" that were powered by electricity from overhead wires, but could pull into bus stops at the curb, thus eliminating the waiting platforms out in the street that the rail trolleys required. I never had a problem getting around the city. Here, too, clean, convenient, and inexpensive.

But things began to change both here and in Los Angeles and just about everywhere else in the United States. It wasn't long before the overhead wires were removed and the whole fleet of trolley buses was replaced with gasoline and diesel powered buses. More flexible, they said. Not limited to wires. But I notice that not all that many bus routes have changed since then. It was not long after this that they dug a huge ditch right through the middle of downtown Seattle, paved Interstate 5 into the ditch, and grafted a series of snake's nests composed of on-ramps and off-ramps along its mighty length. And it wasn't long before the city had a distinct aroma of a blend of gasoline and diesel fumes, especially noticeable when you returned after spending a day in the mountains.

An excerpt from a web site I found:—

"A consortium of oil, rubber, and General Motors bought up rail lines worldwide then replaced interurbans and streetcars with GM buses which used oil and rubber tires. By 1961 the last remaining interurban rail line in Los Angeles went out of service and in 1963 the last streetcar line shut down."

Surprise, surprise!!!

Here's the web site. The pictures on the web site show a lot of eye-pollution with all the overhead wires, but back then, very few of those wires actually had anything to do with the trolley or interurban rail system. But it looks like they, like Seattle, have decided to go back to a light-rail system.

Seattle is way behind in light rail. They keep fighting over whether to spend billions of dollars tunneling under the Lake Washington ship canal and then under Capitol Hill or put the bloody thing someplace else. In the meantime, there are a bunch of people who are advocating a far less expensive and much more flexible monorail system. Fixed light-rail promoters who are into tunnels have been fighting the idea of a monorail, and it's bicker, bicker, bicker, bitch, bitch, bitch every inch of the way, and it's been going on for years now. In the meantime, Seattle, washed by soft rains and blow-dried by gentle breezes off the North Pacific, used to be one of the cleanest cities in the world. Now we have frequent "temperature inversions" where a layer of warm air gets trapped under a stratum of cold air, holding the air pollution produced by thousands of automobiles inching their way along the freeways, near the ground where our lungs can get the full benefit of it. There are frequent air pollution alerts, and after a temperature inversion has hung around for a couple of days, the whole city sounds like a tubercular ward and we all start to pray for a walloping good North Pacific storm to clear the crap out of the air (Wheeze! Gasp!).

In the meantime, on the tube, I watch Rick Steves' travel programs, "Europe Through the Back Door," and hear him talk about how easy it is to get around cities in Europe, and Europe in general, without an automobile because public transportation is so good. Lotsa people get around with a bicycle as their only mode of personal transportation.

Would've been a helluva lot better if Los Angeles, Seattle, et al had told the "consortium of oil, rubber, and General Motors" to go take a flying doo-dah and just left things as they were. If we had, maybe the Middle East wouldn't be in the news as much as it is. . . .

Just a few rambling thoughts on a quiet Sunday evening.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Peace
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 07:07 PM

OK, burst my bubble. Since when isn't the moon made from green cheese? (Next it'll be Santa and the Easter Bunny. BE NICE!)

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 06:42 PM

Some people think the moon is made of green cheese; that doesn't make it true. And it wouldn't, even if they were a majority.

On the other hand, when arguing with someone who thought the moon was made of green cheese, pointing out that this is very much a minority point of view would be relevant, though not conclusive.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Gareth
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 06:31 PM

Errr Kevin - Double standards time again ?

(And I have no brief for those facists who want no tax at all on Petrol, even if they are asking for near parity with the cost of UK farmers Derv')

"Some people want a stoppage on the fuel price escalator - That must be wrong !"

"Some people want no part in the removal of Saddam Hussains murderous regime - That must be right !"

"Some people want the restoration of Hanging for murder of a child or policeman - That must be wrong !"

Hmmm !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 06:25 PM

It's just slight of hand, McGrath of Harlow. We're paying as high a price, or possibly even higher. It's just that we're paying it in taxes for our military budget and corporate welfare, and we're also paying with our health and with the lives and futures of our children. But those are hidden costs and nobody talks about them. So the people in the US think the price at the pump is the actual cost of the gas we use. And even then, we are so spoiled, we think our gas prices are too high. If the average resident of the US knew what the true costs are of the gas they use, I think they would behave differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 05:16 PM

Round here price is roughly 75p a litre, works out as $6.56 a gallon. That's what I meant by my post about how it would help things along if people in the States had to pay that sort of price.

It was supposed to keep on going up on a regular basis, as part of an effort to push us towards wasting less petrol, but the givernment chickened out on the commitment, because it wasn't too popular with some people.

As see it, it'd be nice to have it cheaper and all - but it's just not fair to our children, and that matters more than present convenience.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Peace
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 05:11 PM

With regard to our treatment of this planet and its resources, I'm reminded of Forrest Gump's words, "Stupid is as stupid does." I don't care who thinks what to do with world economics and geopolitics, because what really matters is the world we leave our children and their children. This place we live was meant for all creatures, great and small, and not for an elite group of people connected with politics or multi-nationals. Spin it any which way, and the lower right had corner shows that we are making BIG mistakes with our home: Earth. Just a general broadside--wasn't aimed at anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: pdq
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 04:35 PM

This may be a bit off-topic, but the Iraqui people, under the reign of Saddam, became used to getting gas for 25 gallons per dollar. Yup, gallons per dollar, NOT dollars per gallon. I understand that many Europeans pay $5 to 8 dollars per gallon.
Repeat : 4 cents for some people, 8 dollars for others.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 04:13 PM

It's not the masses who are resistant, DougR, it's the people who want to wring every last dollar out of the oil industry before they let the new technologies, which are already here and being used by many people, become the standard here in the US. As I said before, though, in the long run, it'll be their financial loss, and someone else's gain.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: DougR
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 04:01 PM

Carol C: I don't think it is so much that people won't accept alternate fuels, it's just that those fuels (like hydrogen for example)is not readily available. I don't think people are in love with gasoline. They just want something that will cause their vehicles to run. Also, there have to be vehicles produced that will run on the alternate fuels.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Metchosin
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 02:37 PM

I think the wonderful thing about Hammerfest Strøm's tidal power generation project is that, unlike wind and solar power, tidal currents are constant and predictable, also with little negative environmental impact. Not much help to those countries without a seacoast, but for those of us in northern foggy climes, where solar energy is of little benefit, hurricane and gale force winds are a constant occurence in stormy winter months and hydroelectrical dams on rivers cause major natural and human disruption, this is an incredible alternative. Besides moonpower is romantic. *BG*

From what I have read so far, the cost per KWH for power from this source was calculated at .05 cents US and this cost was given prior to the benefits of mass production of the units.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 02:04 PM

I'm reading the book Seabiscuit by Laura Hillenbrand right now, and it's really astounding for me to read about how difficult it was to get people to accept the automobile in the early years of the 20th century. It reminds me a lot of the current situation of getting people to accept the idea of alternate energy technologies. But as we know, the automobile did prevail. It was an idea whose time had come. So, too, with the new, sustainable, energy technologies. They are ideas that won't be stopped. Only slowed down a bit, perhaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 01:54 PM

How about combining tidal energy and windblade energy? Install slim wind turbines in the offshore shallow waters?

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 01:35 PM

Tidal energy, solar power, biomass and improved technical and social efficiency are the main ways I'd see of getting out of the mess.

Nuclear fission just winds up very rapidly with a problem of dealing with waste that will be radioactive for thousands of years and has to be put somewhere which we can guarantee will be safe for thousands of years. It's really a non starter. The sun gives us all the nuclear power we need or can possibly envisage using.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Metchosin
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 01:17 PM

I'm rather enamored of Moonpower myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: pict
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 03:53 AM

When do you think the US will leave Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 03:16 AM

Here's a hopeful bit of news going in the right direction:

January 3, 2004
By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer

BIRDS LANDING, Calif. - Environmentalists say the dozens of turbines that rise more than 300 feet over wheat fields and herds of sheep here represent the future of wind energy — and a model for overcoming the shortcomings that have kept wind from threatening the dominance of fossil fuels.

The High Winds Energy Center, completed in December in the rolling hills between San Francisco and Sacramento, features turbines that can swivel with the direction of the wind, produce energy even if the wind is blowing less than 8 mph and generate 20 times more energy than earlier machines.

This new wind system, along with similar ones being built around the country, promises to produce electricity at competitive prices — all without disturbing surrounding farms and wildlife, two of the obstacles for wind power today.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040103/ap_on_sc/wind_farm

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Wotcha
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 02:10 AM

President Jimmy Carter (remember him?) established the modern US doctrine in the Middle East stating that attacks or threats (remember too at that time there was a Soviet Threat) to oil supplies would be an attack on US national security interests ... it's been a cornerstone of US policy ever since. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

In Germany (Europe in general) diesel fuel is used more extensively: while diesel engine technology has cleaned up considerably over the years and gives great mileage and torque, it is still emits particulates that do not meet US standards (so don't bash America too much my Euro pals) especially that new Austrian State West of Arizona ... California.


Alhamdillolah

Brian

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 06:08 PM

Problem is they love their SUV's MORE than they love their kids & grandchildren.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 05:55 PM

If only there was the same rate of tax on petrol - gasoline - in the USA that we have in the UK, half the world problems would be solved.

The non-fossil fuel alternatives would move into the mainstream overnight, and so would the fuel-economy technology; and much of the pressure to expand and preserve oil production would fall away, with the risks to world peace and stability that can involve; and it could save us from a situation where, while overall global warming devastates the world, here in the British Isles we'll have a climate more like Labrador, because the Gildf Stream will have shut down.

But I imagine there'll never be a government in Washington with the nerve to do that, or a voting public with enough love for their children and grandchildren to allow it.