More "pie in the sky" alternate fuel nonsense

The forerunner to the computerized system we know today was done by
land lines and machines which spewed out a tickertape to transmit
information between divisions of projects. A very crude and
rudimentary "computer" system. Of course, so is the abacus.

As for Al, he has become his own worst enemy, and that's fine with me.


On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:11:30 GMT, rw >
wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>
>> That is correct, however, there was a system which went before that.
>> To ignore what went before is to ignore history, or even to alter it,
>> as is in vogue today.
>
>Oh for God's sake, Spike. There weren't even any computers in WWII. It's
>totally absurd to suggest that the Internet started in WWII.
>
>> Gore would take credit for parting the red Sea for Moses if he thought
>> it would advance his political career.
>
>In that respect he's no better or worse than any other politician, but
>this difference in this case is that Gore really WAS an important figure
>in the creation of the civilian Internet and he deserves a great deal of
>credit for his foresight and energy.

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

rw wrote:
> WindsorFox[SS] wrote:
>
>> rw wrote:
>>
>>> RichA wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do we really want this kind of thing on
>>>> the road?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We need something because, in case you haven't been paying attention
>>> to oil prices, gasoline is getting scarce,
>>>
>>
>>
>> HAHAHA!!! Who told you that, Algore??
>
>
> No, the market tells me that. The price of oil recently hit a record of
> $60/barrel. Some knowledgeable observers are predicting a near-term
> price of over $100/barrel.
>
> Have you ever heard of supply and demand?
>

Two things to learn he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands

1. The remaining portion of the world's proved oil reserves is around
1.75 trillion barrels. Global demand is currently 75M barrels a day.
That gives us 64 years of oil supply, if we only count conventional oil,
and conservatively ignore new discoveries. Of course, once we consider
growing demand, it'll probably be more like 40 years or less, but,

2. conventional oil reserves are dwarfed by non conventional reserves,
most importantly oil sand reserves, which are becoming more and more
viable every day due to the higher price per barrel, but more
importantly, new investment and improved technology for extracting oil
from tar sands.

The point? We won't be running out of oil in anyone's lifetime
currently able to read this post.

pawn wrote:
>
> Two things to learn he
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands
>
> 1. The remaining portion of the world's proved oil reserves is around
> 1.75 trillion barrels. Global demand is currently 75M barrels a day.
> That gives us 64 years of oil supply, if we only count conventional oil,
> and conservatively ignore new discoveries. Of course, once we consider
> growing demand, it'll probably be more like 40 years or less, but,
>
> 2. conventional oil reserves are dwarfed by non conventional reserves,
> most importantly oil sand reserves, which are becoming more and more
> viable every day due to the higher price per barrel, but more
> importantly, new investment and improved technology for extracting oil
> from tar sands.
>
> The point? We won't be running out of oil in anyone's lifetime
> currently able to read this post.

Your point is not well taken.

"Running out" of oil in the ground and gasoline getting scarce (and
therefore expensive) are two different things. The price of gasoline is
pretty much determined by the price of oil. The price of oil is
determined by the demand (which is growing VERY fast), the cost of
production (which, as you point out, is getting higher on average), and
the supply, which is controlled by how much the producers are willing to
pump and sell, and which in the short term is roughly constant. Anyone
who thinks that, under those circumstances, the price of gasoline will
not continue to rise is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Sometimes I get the feeling that people think, "If only Saudi Arabia and
those other OPEC countries would pump oil as fast as they can and put it
on the market we'd have 25-cents-gallon gasoline again! Yee Hah!"
They're probably right, but it's not going to happen.

Suppose you're the King of Saudi Arabia and you have to decide on a
marketing strategy for your oil. To put it in stark terms, you have two
possibilities:

1. Determine what time period and what production rate will maximize
your return. It might be, for example, 40 years. The last barrel you
sell will go for a very high price indeed, and after 40 years you'll
have a great deal of money.

2. Pump it and sell it as fast as possible at whatever price you can
get. Then you can go back to herding camels.

The choice is clear. OPEC is acting rationally. We (i.e., the US) are
not. They're thinking long-term while we're thinking short-term. We
should be heavily investing in alternative energy sources, and I think
we should be paying for it with a much higher gasoline tax.

I wonder what whatever Easter Islander it was who cut down the last tree
on his island thought when he did it. In our global economy the world is
an island, and if we act without foresight we'll deserve our nasty fate.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:37:18 GMT, rw >
wrote:

>pawn wrote:
>>

>Your point is not well taken.
>
>"Running out" of oil in the ground and gasoline getting scarce (and
>therefore expensive) are two different things. The price of gasoline is
>pretty much determined by the price of oil. The price of oil is
>determined by the demand (which is growing VERY fast), the cost of
>production (which, as you point out, is getting higher on average), and
>the supply, which is controlled by how much the producers are willing to
>pump and sell, and which in the short term is roughly constant. Anyone
>who thinks that, under those circumstances, the price of gasoline will
>not continue to rise is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Pretty much all commodities rise.
>
>Sometimes I get the feeling that people think, "If only Saudi Arabia and
>those other OPEC countries would pump oil as fast as they can and put it
>on the market we'd have 25-cents-gallon gasoline again! Yee Hah!"
>They're probably right, but it's not going to happen.

It could very well happen, Of course if it did, the value of the
dollar would be ..... anyway......
>
>Suppose you're the King of Saudi Arabia and you have to decide on a
>marketing strategy for your oil. To put it in stark terms, you have two
>possibilities:
>
>1. Determine what time period and what production rate will maximize
>your return. It might be, for example, 40 years. The last barrel you
>sell will go for a very high price indeed, and after 40 years you'll
>have a great deal of money.

But, when that last barrel is pumped, and the world is out of it...
how much will that money be worth?
>
>2. Pump it and sell it as fast as possible at whatever price you can
>get. Then you can go back to herding camels.

in which case, the king would be living on the Riviera while his
former subjects herd camels. Makes no difference to him.
>
>The choice is clear. OPEC is acting rationally. We (i.e., the US) are
>not. They're thinking long-term while we're thinking short-term. We
>should be heavily investing in alternative energy sources, and I think
>we should be paying for it with a much higher gasoline tax.

And the people you are going to hurt the most with those higher prices
are the very people who can least afford to pay it. Why is it that
minimum wage people commute 50 miles and several hours to get to work
in the city? Because there is no place closer that they can afford to
live. So, before you do that, you should probably invest in an
infrastructure of rapid transit nation wide for those commuters. Which
will cost the taxpayers how much? And again, who gets hurt the worst
by it? I just think your answer is to simplistic because it fails to
consider the impacts on all levels of society unequally.
>
>I wonder what whatever Easter Islander it was who cut down the last tree
>on his island thought when he did it. In our global economy the world is
>an island, and if we act without foresight we'll deserve our nasty fate.

Gee, the last time I looked, there were still small groves of trees
growing there. And if there was such an islander, it's doubtful he
gave it a thought for he surely had a reason behind his madness....

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:06:26 -0400, pawn > wrote:

>rw wrote:
>> WindsorFox[SS] wrote:
>>
>>> rw wrote:
>>>
>>>> RichA wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do we really want this kind of thing on
>>>>> the road?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We need something because, in case you haven't been paying attention
>>>> to oil prices, gasoline is getting scarce,
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> HAHAHA!!! Who told you that, Algore??
>>
>>
>> No, the market tells me that. The price of oil recently hit a record of
>> $60/barrel. Some knowledgeable observers are predicting a near-term
>> price of over $100/barrel.
>>
>> Have you ever heard of supply and demand?
>>
>
>Two things to learn he
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands
>
>1. The remaining portion of the world's proved oil reserves is around
>1.75 trillion barrels. Global demand is currently 75M barrels a day.
>That gives us 64 years of oil supply, if we only count conventional oil,
>and conservatively ignore new discoveries. Of course, once we consider
>growing demand, it'll probably be more like 40 years or less, but,
>
>2. conventional oil reserves are dwarfed by non conventional reserves,
>most importantly oil sand reserves, which are becoming more and more
>viable every day due to the higher price per barrel, but more
>importantly, new investment and improved technology for extracting oil
>from tar sands.
>
>The point? We won't be running out of oil in anyone's lifetime
>currently able to read this post.
>
>

No, we won't. But if the greedy industry refuses to up refining
capacity, we could see steadily increasing prices for years.

rw wrote:
>
> Your point is not well taken.
>
> "Running out" of oil in the ground and gasoline getting scarce (and
> therefore expensive) are two different things. The price of gasoline is
> pretty much determined by the price of oil. The price of oil is
> determined by the demand (which is growing VERY fast), the cost of
> production (which, as you point out, is getting higher on average), and
> the supply, which is controlled by how much the producers are willing to
> pump and sell, and which in the short term is roughly constant. Anyone
> who thinks that, under those circumstances, the price of gasoline will
> not continue to rise is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
>

My point about the tar sands changes this, however. When the price of
oil gets to a certain level, the tar sands will be completely cost
viable, almost guaranteeing the price will eventually level out as the
tar sands become the most dominant petroleum source, and reliance on
OPEC oil will be eliminated.

> Sometimes I get the feeling that people think, "If only Saudi Arabia and
> those other OPEC countries would pump oil as fast as they can and put it
> on the market we'd have 25-cents-gallon gasoline again! Yee Hah!"
> They're probably right, but it's not going to happen.
>
> Suppose you're the King of Saudi Arabia and you have to decide on a
> marketing strategy for your oil. To put it in stark terms, you have two
> possibilities:
>
> 1. Determine what time period and what production rate will maximize
> your return. It might be, for example, 40 years. The last barrel you
> sell will go for a very high price indeed, and after 40 years you'll
> have a great deal of money.
>
> 2. Pump it and sell it as fast as possible at whatever price you can
> get. Then you can go back to herding camels.
>
> The choice is clear. OPEC is acting rationally. We (i.e., the US) are
> not. They're thinking long-term while we're thinking short-term. We
> should be heavily investing in alternative energy sources, and I think
> we should be paying for it with a much higher gasoline tax.

I couldn't agree more.


> I wonder what whatever Easter Islander it was who cut down the last tree
> on his island thought when he did it. In our global economy the world is
> an island, and if we act without foresight we'll deserve our nasty fate.

I guess we agree again. I personally think we're out of control on
energy waste. I see the price of fuel as a blessing: hopefully it goes
high enough so that people become more prudent. Besides, I've always
scratched my head over why people are so caught up in complaining about
a refined product that sells for a paltry 80 or 90 per litre when a
litre of milk is two or three times as much.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:15:31 -0400, pawn > wrote:

>rw wrote:
>>

>
>My point about the tar sands changes this, however. When the price of
>oil gets to a certain level, the tar sands will be completely cost
>viable, almost guaranteeing the price will eventually level out as the
>tar sands become the most dominant petroleum source, and reliance on
>OPEC oil will be eliminated.

Much as precious metal prices can rise high enough for "played out"
mines to become profitable again.
>
>> Sometimes I get the feeling that people think, "If only Saudi Arabia and
>> those other OPEC countries would pump oil as fast as they can and put it
>> on the market we'd have 25-cents-gallon gasoline again! Yee Hah!"
>> They're probably right, but it's not going to happen.
>>
>> Suppose you're the King of Saudi Arabia and you have to decide on a
>> marketing strategy for your oil. To put it in stark terms, you have two
>> possibilities:
>>
>> 1. Determine what time period and what production rate will maximize
>> your return. It might be, for example, 40 years. The last barrel you
>> sell will go for a very high price indeed, and after 40 years you'll
>> have a great deal of money.
>>
>> 2. Pump it and sell it as fast as possible at whatever price you can
>> get. Then you can go back to herding camels.
>>
>> The choice is clear. OPEC is acting rationally. We (i.e., the US) are
>> not. They're thinking long-term while we're thinking short-term. We
>> should be heavily investing in alternative energy sources, and I think
>> we should be paying for it with a much higher gasoline tax.
>
>I couldn't agree more.
>
>
>> I wonder what whatever Easter Islander it was who cut down the last tree
>> on his island thought when he did it. In our global economy the world is
>> an island, and if we act without foresight we'll deserve our nasty fate.
>
>I guess we agree again. I personally think we're out of control on
>energy waste. I see the price of fuel as a blessing: hopefully it goes
>high enough so that people become more prudent. Besides, I've always
>scratched my head over why people are so caught up in complaining about
>a refined product that sells for a paltry 80 or 90 per litre when a
>litre of milk is two or three times as much.

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Spike wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:15:31 -0400, pawn > wrote:
>
>>My point about the tar sands changes this, however. When the price of
>>oil gets to a certain level, the tar sands will be completely cost
>>viable, almost guaranteeing the price will eventually level out as the
>>tar sands become the most dominant petroleum source, and reliance on
>>OPEC oil will be eliminated.
>
>
> Much as precious metal prices can rise high enough for "played out"
> mines to become profitable again.

I appreciate pawn's point, and I hope he's right, and I hope that an
oil-supply respite from tar sands wakes us up to the long term resource
problem we face. If the production cost of tar-sand oil is comparable to
that of alternative energy sources, we just might have a chance of
avoiding disaster. If it's lower I'm afraid we'll just keep doing what
we've been doing -- drinking from the trough with no thought for the future.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Considering the traditional animosity between Russia and China, and
with China's growing power and Russia's weakened power, Russia may be
less disposed to supplying the Asian market. While their primary
production is natural gas supplied to Europe, a lot of advancement
with US Corporate assistance should open up additional oil reserves
not previously available due to frigid conditions and a lack of
technology necessary to get it out of the ground. May not amount to
much, but it may be of some help. What concessions may be required to
broker the deals is in question.


On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 01:08:53 GMT, rw >
wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:15:31 -0400, pawn > wrote:
>>
>>>My point about the tar sands changes this, however. When the price of
>>>oil gets to a certain level, the tar sands will be completely cost
>>>viable, almost guaranteeing the price will eventually level out as the
>>>tar sands become the most dominant petroleum source, and reliance on
>>>OPEC oil will be eliminated.
>>
>>
>> Much as precious metal prices can rise high enough for "played out"
>> mines to become profitable again.
>
>I appreciate pawn's point, and I hope he's right, and I hope that an
>oil-supply respite from tar sands wakes us up to the long term resource
>problem we face. If the production cost of tar-sand oil is comparable to
>that of alternative energy sources, we just might have a chance of
>avoiding disaster. If it's lower I'm afraid we'll just keep doing what
>we've been doing -- drinking from the trough with no thought for the future.

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16