Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Any of you guys see this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any of you guys see this? [message #93342 is a reply to message #93323] |
Wed, 05 December 2007 12:48   |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Well, I dunno, Sarah. I don't buy the 'cheap oil' argument all that much.
It would have been a hell of a lot cheaper to just drop sanctions on Iran
and Iraq and buy oil from them, they were more than willing to sell. Additionally,
oil is not cheap, in fact, it's almost as expensive as it's ever been (inflation
adjusted oil was north of 100 of todays dollars back in the late 70's). Also,
expensive oil doesn't really benefit oil companies all that much. The price
of the commodity has skyrocketed while the price of the retail products it
is used to create has not gone up at nearly the same rate. What this means,
of course, is that we were getting seriously gouged back in the early 90's
when oil was $8/bbl and gas cost $1.89/gal. The expensive oil really benefits
whoever happens to have the stuff in the ground, as the cost of extraction
is a (relative) constant. So, in addition to greatly helping 'allies' like
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, high oil prices are the lifeblood of all kinds of
supposed 'enemies,' Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia, Iran, Libya, etc. In fact,
any believing Christian must think it a real godly thigh slapper that he
decided to stick so much of the really good natural resources under the pitter
patter feet of so many non-believers of various stripes. From Mohamedans
to animists, to the distant descendents of Zoroaster.
Anyway, why invade Iraq? At this point I'm leaning toward what this article
rather floridly describes--permanent US bases in the region. The Saudis impolitely
asked us to leave some years back and Kuwait and Qatar aren't really enough.
Look at the map, I don't suspect Yemen or Iran would be champing at the bit
to invite us in. The US has traditionally wanted large military bases near
maritime choke points and the strait of Hormuz is right up there with the
Strait of Malacca, and the Suez/Panama canals in the choke point department.
Either that or the Iranians pulled off the greatest intelligence coup in
the history of mankind. Or I'm missing something really obvious.
TCB
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
> I'm just shocked. Not! The only thing surprising about this is that
>anyone would be surprised by it. Come on, they didn't just "forget" to
have
>an exit strategy . . . it's always been about getting a foothold over there
>in Petroleum Heaven, especially with the looming threat of changing the
oil
>standard from the dollar to the euro. That's a whole lot of human sacrifice
>for the primary benefit of a bunch of greedy liars.
>
> OK, I'm not sayin' anymore about this. Trying to swear off political
>posts.
>
>S
>
>
>"DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote in message
>news:47564021@linux...
>> http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/us-signs-deal-for-lon g-term-occupation-of-iraq/1850/
>>
>> (sorry Kim....it's OT, but troubling)
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any of you guys see this? [message #93365 is a reply to message #93319] |
Thu, 06 December 2007 08:35 |
emarenot
Messages: 345
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yeah DJ, troubled is right. This whole damn thing just rips me up, thinking
about it, trying to understand my feelings about the "war." I've got no
good answers, but here are some of the questions that vex me:
-Doesn't the world really run on oil? It ain't just our cars, its that trucking
industry, the shipping industry, the industry that makes all the parts for
all the other industry, its in the damn keyboard I'm typing on now. So,
is switching, within our lifetimes, over to an alternative fuel source really
possible such that we have no dependence on OPO (other people's oil)?
-In the world of geopolitics, our relationships with Russia and China matter
(to them and to us) -but how much, and for how long?
-Is some quantity of oil or economic "stability," or "dominance," worth even
one life?
Funny creatures we are.
MR
"DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
> http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/us-signs-deal-for-lon g-term-occupation-of-iraq/1850/
>
>(sorry Kim....it's OT, but troubling)
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any of you guys see this? [message #93372 is a reply to message #93365] |
Thu, 06 December 2007 14:08 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Good points.
One thing I would add is that there is plenty of oil out there, and
we need to get that oil so we can move away from OPO ASAP.
Alternatives should be developed as well, but the emphasis
must be on our own oil supplies in the short term. The issues at
hand are too large and too important to not act now.
Every SINGLE adminstration the OPEC oil embargo has utterly
failed at this vital task and now we are paying for it...
DC
"Mike R" <emarenot@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Yeah DJ, troubled is right. This whole damn thing just rips me up, thinking
>about it, trying to understand my feelings about the "war." I've got no
>good answers, but here are some of the questions that vex me:
>-Doesn't the world really run on oil? It ain't just our cars, its that
trucking
>industry, the shipping industry, the industry that makes all the parts for
>all the other industry, its in the damn keyboard I'm typing on now. So,
>is switching, within our lifetimes, over to an alternative fuel source really
>possible such that we have no dependence on OPO (other people's oil)?
>-In the world of geopolitics, our relationships with Russia and China matter
>(to them and to us) -but how much, and for how long?
>-Is some quantity of oil or economic "stability," or "dominance," worth
even
>one life?
>Funny creatures we are.
>MR
>
>
>"DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>> http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/us-signs-deal-for-lon g-term-occupation-of-iraq/1850/
>>
>>(sorry Kim....it's OT, but troubling)
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any of you guys see this? [message #93374 is a reply to message #93372] |
Thu, 06 December 2007 13:46 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Plenty of oil" is relative to demand, difficulty of extraction, and
ramifications of atmospheric effects.
"Plenty of oil" is also relative to the price we are willing to pay in
terms of dollars, armed conflict and political intervention.
All of that taken into account, betting the farm on oil is a short term
gamble at best.
For longer term viability we need to invest heavily in developing other
sources of energy, using energy more efficiently, and developing
strategies for polluting less in the process.
Oil is not sustainable in the long run, nor will it last forever. But we
have the opportunity to use it to help transition to a sustainable
future now, if we're smart. Or squander it and wonder what happened
later, if we're not.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
DC wrote:
> Good points.
>
> One thing I would add is that there is plenty of oil out there, and
> we need to get that oil so we can move away from OPO ASAP.
>
> Alternatives should be developed as well, but the emphasis
> must be on our own oil supplies in the short term. The issues at
> hand are too large and too important to not act now.
>
> Every SINGLE adminstration the OPEC oil embargo has utterly
> failed at this vital task and now we are paying for it...
>
> DC
>
> "Mike R" <emarenot@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Yeah DJ, troubled is right. This whole damn thing just rips me up, thinking
>> about it, trying to understand my feelings about the "war." I've got no
>> good answers, but here are some of the questions that vex me:
>> -Doesn't the world really run on oil? It ain't just our cars, its that
> trucking
>> industry, the shipping industry, the industry that makes all the parts for
>> all the other industry, its in the damn keyboard I'm typing on now. So,
>> is switching, within our lifetimes, over to an alternative fuel source really
>> possible such that we have no dependence on OPO (other people's oil)?
>> -In the world of geopolitics, our relationships with Russia and China matter
>> (to them and to us) -but how much, and for how long?
>> -Is some quantity of oil or economic "stability," or "dominance," worth
> even
>> one life?
>> Funny creatures we are.
>> MR
>>
>>
>> "DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>>> http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/us-signs-deal-for-lon g-term-occupation-of-iraq/1850/
>>>
>>> (sorry Kim....it's OT, but troubling)
>>>
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any of you guys see this? [message #93376 is a reply to message #93374] |
Thu, 06 December 2007 15:46 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I think methane is the answer. It's always been here and it's always gonna
be here as long as we are all full of shit, and since that will be the case
as long as we eat and breathe, don't you think it's time to get our shit
together?
;o)
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47586ebf@linux...
>
> "Plenty of oil" is relative to demand, difficulty of extraction, and
> ramifications of atmospheric effects.
>
> "Plenty of oil" is also relative to the price we are willing to pay in
> terms of dollars, armed conflict and political intervention.
>
> All of that taken into account, betting the farm on oil is a short term
> gamble at best.
>
> For longer term viability we need to invest heavily in developing other
> sources of energy, using energy more efficiently, and developing
> strategies for polluting less in the process.
>
> Oil is not sustainable in the long run, nor will it last forever. But we
> have the opportunity to use it to help transition to a sustainable future
> now, if we're smart. Or squander it and wonder what happened later, if
> we're not.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> DC wrote:
>> Good points. One thing I would add is that there is plenty of oil out
>> there, and
>> we need to get that oil so we can move away from OPO ASAP.
>>
>> Alternatives should be developed as well, but the emphasis
>> must be on our own oil supplies in the short term. The issues at
>> hand are too large and too important to not act now.
>>
>> Every SINGLE adminstration the OPEC oil embargo has utterly
>> failed at this vital task and now we are paying for it...
>>
>> DC
>>
>> "Mike R" <emarenot@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Yeah DJ, troubled is right. This whole damn thing just rips me up,
>>> thinking
>>> about it, trying to understand my feelings about the "war." I've got no
>>> good answers, but here are some of the questions that vex me:
>>> -Doesn't the world really run on oil? It ain't just our cars, its that
>> trucking
>>> industry, the shipping industry, the industry that makes all the parts
>>> for
>>> all the other industry, its in the damn keyboard I'm typing on now. So,
>>> is switching, within our lifetimes, over to an alternative fuel source
>>> really
>>> possible such that we have no dependence on OPO (other people's
>>> il)? -In the world of geopolitics, our relationships with Russia and
>>> China matter
>>> (to them and to us) -but how much, and for how long? -Is some quantity
>>> of oil or economic "stability," or "dominance," worth
>> even
>>> one life? Funny creatures we are.
>>> MR
>>>
>>>
>>> "DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>>>> http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/us-signs-deal-for-lon g-term-occupation-of-iraq/1850/
>>>>
>>>> (sorry Kim....it's OT, but troubling)
>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any of you guys see this? [message #93377 is a reply to message #93376] |
Thu, 06 December 2007 17:10 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Deej,
My wife and I have this discussion regularly. You should know the
answer to this, but it seems to me that between the new
discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico and the oil shale, and other
opportunites, we should be able to put enough pressure on
the oil producers to remove the political blackmail from oil use.
Now, I realize that the greens will want to use any chance
they can, but really, as important as alternatives are, they cannot
do a thing for us in the short term.
Why don't we do this:
Get enough of our own oil to take the power away from oil
as a weapon, and develop alternatives at the same time.
Seems reasonable to me, but every time we talk about it,
someone starts saying geothermal, hydrogen, solar, wind,
etcetc like those things mean a damn in the near future, when
everyone knows they don't. So develop them, yes, but first,
oil independence. Seems to me that anything else is foolish
and dangerous.
What do you think?
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any of you guys see this? [message #93379 is a reply to message #93377] |
Thu, 06 December 2007 16:32 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The Barnett shale formation is being expolored in a very serious way in
Texas. there are huge deposits of shale in western Colorado. they will be
developed, but not before the price of developing it gets so ridiculous due
to bureaucratic red tape that only the majors will have th4e money to play
the game and then the prices will be fixed by them. No way around it. the
nvironmental lobby in western Colorado is going to add 20% to the production
costs of f recovery and that will be passed along. Good or bad??? Doesn't
matter. It will happen. there are 128,000 gas wells oprojected to be drilled
along the western slope of the rocky mountains in the next 10 years. I'm so
usy here I can hardly find time to get in the studio these days. 16 hour
days are getting old.........16 hour per day billing averaging 6.5 days a
week is not. My studio could never bring in that kind of revenue. There
aren't that many people these days that know how to do what I do. The young
people who were getting into this field in the late 70's bailed out when it
went belly up in '82 and then everyone went into the computer field. I'm
among the last of a dying breed.
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:47588f84$1@linux...
>
> Hey Deej,
>
> My wife and I have this discussion regularly. You should know the
> answer to this, but it seems to me that between the new
> discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico and the oil shale, and other
> opportunites, we should be able to put enough pressure on
> the oil producers to remove the political blackmail from oil use.
>
> Now, I realize that the greens will want to use any chance
> they can, but really, as important as alternatives are, they cannot
> do a thing for us in the short term.
>
> Why don't we do this:
>
> Get enough of our own oil to take the power away from oil
> as a weapon, and develop alternatives at the same time.
>
> Seems reasonable to me, but every time we talk about it,
> someone starts saying geothermal, hydrogen, solar, wind,
> etcetc like those things mean a damn in the near future, when
> everyone knows they don't. So develop them, yes, but first,
> oil independence. Seems to me that anything else is foolish
> and dangerous.
>
> What do you think?
>
> DC
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any of you guys see this? [message #93381 is a reply to message #93376] |
Thu, 06 December 2007 16:58 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Heh. We need to get our shit together, that's for sure.
Not news to you, but here's another look at peak oil:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=10 3243&d=6&m=11&y=2007
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> I think methane is the answer. It's always been here and it's always gonna
> be here as long as we are all full of shit, and since that will be the case
> as long as we eat and breathe, don't you think it's time to get our shit
> together?
>
> ;o)
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47586ebf@linux...
>> "Plenty of oil" is relative to demand, difficulty of extraction, and
>> ramifications of atmospheric effects.
>>
>> "Plenty of oil" is also relative to the price we are willing to pay in
>> terms of dollars, armed conflict and political intervention.
>>
>> All of that taken into account, betting the farm on oil is a short term
>> gamble at best.
>>
>> For longer term viability we need to invest heavily in developing other
>> sources of energy, using energy more efficiently, and developing
>> strategies for polluting less in the process.
>>
>> Oil is not sustainable in the long run, nor will it last forever. But we
>> have the opportunity to use it to help transition to a sustainable future
>> now, if we're smart. Or squander it and wonder what happened later, if
>> we're not.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DC wrote:
>>> Good points. One thing I would add is that there is plenty of oil out
>>> there, and
>>> we need to get that oil so we can move away from OPO ASAP.
>>>
>>> Alternatives should be developed as well, but the emphasis
>>> must be on our own oil supplies in the short term. The issues at
>>> hand are too large and too important to not act now.
>>>
>>> Every SINGLE adminstration the OPEC oil embargo has utterly
>>> failed at this vital task and now we are paying for it...
>>>
>>> DC
>>>
>>> "Mike R" <emarenot@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Yeah DJ, troubled is right. This whole damn thing just rips me up,
>>>> thinking
>>>> about it, trying to understand my feelings about the "war." I've got no
>>>> good answers, but here are some of the questions that vex me:
>>>> -Doesn't the world really run on oil? It ain't just our cars, its that
>>> trucking
>>>> industry, the shipping industry, the industry that makes all the parts
>>>> for
>>>> all the other industry, its in the damn keyboard I'm typing on now. So,
>>>> is switching, within our lifetimes, over to an alternative fuel source
>>>> really
>>>> possible such that we have no dependence on OPO (other people's
>>>> il)? -In the world of geopolitics, our relationships with Russia and
>>>> China matter
>>>> (to them and to us) -but how much, and for how long? -Is some quantity
>>>> of oil or economic "stability," or "dominance," worth
>>> even
>>>> one life? Funny creatures we are.
>>>> MR
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>>>>> http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/us-signs-deal-for-lon g-term-occupation-of-iraq/1850/
>>>>>
>>>>> (sorry Kim....it's OT, but troubling)
>>>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any of you guys see this? [message #93390 is a reply to message #93379] |
Thu, 06 December 2007 22:11 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks
You know, I believe that we need alternatives, and that a lot should
be spent finding them, but we are in a real fix because it is so hard
to find and refine our own oil. Our own oil IS the geopolitical issue
of our age. Now show me a candidate who gets it...
DC
"DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>The Barnett shale formation is being expolored in a very serious way in
>Texas. there are huge deposits of shale in western Colorado. they will be
>developed, but not before the price of developing it gets so ridiculous
due
>to bureaucratic red tape that only the majors will have th4e money to play
>the game and then the prices will be fixed by them. No way around it. the
>nvironmental lobby in western Colorado is going to add 20% to the production
>costs of f recovery and that will be passed along. Good or bad??? Doesn't
>matter. It will happen. there are 128,000 gas wells oprojected to be drilled
>along the western slope of the rocky mountains in the next 10 years. I'm
so
>usy here I can hardly find time to get in the studio these days. 16 hour
>days are getting old.........16 hour per day billing averaging 6.5 days
a
>week is not. My studio could never bring in that kind of revenue. There
>aren't that many people these days that know how to do what I do. The young
>people who were getting into this field in the late 70's bailed out when
it
>went belly up in '82 and then everyone went into the computer field. I'm
>among the last of a dying breed.
>
>
>
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:47588f84$1@linux...
>>
>> Hey Deej,
>>
>> My wife and I have this discussion regularly. You should know the
>> answer to this, but it seems to me that between the new
>> discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico and the oil shale, and other
>> opportunites, we should be able to put enough pressure on
>> the oil producers to remove the political blackmail from oil use.
>>
>> Now, I realize that the greens will want to use any chance
>> they can, but really, as important as alternatives are, they cannot
>> do a thing for us in the short term.
>>
>> Why don't we do this:
>>
>> Get enough of our own oil to take the power away from oil
>> as a weapon, and develop alternatives at the same time.
>>
>> Seems reasonable to me, but every time we talk about it,
>> someone starts saying geothermal, hydrogen, solar, wind,
>> etcetc like those things mean a damn in the near future, when
>> everyone knows they don't. So develop them, yes, but first,
>> oil independence. Seems to me that anything else is foolish
>> and dangerous.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> DC
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any of you guys see this? [message #93402 is a reply to message #93379] |
Fri, 07 December 2007 02:09 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
need anyone to carry your briefcase...or water in the summer?
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:32:26 -0700, "DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _
net> wrote:
>The Barnett shale formation is being expolored in a very serious way in
>Texas. there are huge deposits of shale in western Colorado. they will be
>developed, but not before the price of developing it gets so ridiculous due
>to bureaucratic red tape that only the majors will have th4e money to play
>the game and then the prices will be fixed by them. No way around it. the
>nvironmental lobby in western Colorado is going to add 20% to the production
>costs of f recovery and that will be passed along. Good or bad??? Doesn't
>matter. It will happen. there are 128,000 gas wells oprojected to be drilled
>along the western slope of the rocky mountains in the next 10 years. I'm so
>usy here I can hardly find time to get in the studio these days. 16 hour
>days are getting old.........16 hour per day billing averaging 6.5 days a
>week is not. My studio could never bring in that kind of revenue. There
>aren't that many people these days that know how to do what I do. The young
>people who were getting into this field in the late 70's bailed out when it
>went belly up in '82 and then everyone went into the computer field. I'm
>among the last of a dying breed.
>
>
>
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:47588f84$1@linux...
>>
>> Hey Deej,
>>
>> My wife and I have this discussion regularly. You should know the
>> answer to this, but it seems to me that between the new
>> discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico and the oil shale, and other
>> opportunites, we should be able to put enough pressure on
>> the oil producers to remove the political blackmail from oil use.
>>
>> Now, I realize that the greens will want to use any chance
>> they can, but really, as important as alternatives are, they cannot
>> do a thing for us in the short term.
>>
>> Why don't we do this:
>>
>> Get enough of our own oil to take the power away from oil
>> as a weapon, and develop alternatives at the same time.
>>
>> Seems reasonable to me, but every time we talk about it,
>> someone starts saying geothermal, hydrogen, solar, wind,
>> etcetc like those things mean a damn in the near future, when
>> everyone knows they don't. So develop them, yes, but first,
>> oil independence. Seems to me that anything else is foolish
>> and dangerous.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> DC
>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any of you guys see this? [message #93410 is a reply to message #93407] |
Fri, 07 December 2007 13:18 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Commodities are called volatile for a reason. Good you're getting lots of
work, Deej. I wish there were a way I could get into the $/BTU spread of
oil v. NG getting back in line. Retail investors like us can't though.
TCB
"DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>
>"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ht6il3ddmo55pukivr0hgl3libav028oc8@4ax.com...
>> need anyone to carry your briefcase...or water in the summer?
>>
>>
>
>It's nice being able to pay off some major bills but it won't last forever.
>You make hay while the sun shines in this business. It (literally) could
>change tomorrow. I remember times when they would pull the plug on funding
>projects in November and there would be no work again until late February.
>Nothing is taken for granted around here.
>;o)
>
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Nov 21 14:07:09 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01733 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
