Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Donate Bitcoin



Donate Paypal

Page added on September 2, 2016

Bookmark and Share

How The Synthetic Diamond Industry Is Revolutionizing The Geothermal Energy Market

How The Synthetic Diamond Industry Is Revolutionizing The Geothermal Energy Market thumbnail

According to a study published late last year by Transparency International, the synthetic diamond market is anticipated to reach $28.8 billion by 2023 – that’s a CAGR of nearly 7%. Unlike naturally occurring diamonds, synthetic diamonds are prepared by subjecting carbon to High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT) conditions or Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) processes that help simulate the natural conditions that contribute to the formation of diamonds.

Given the relative ease with which such diamonds can be manufactured in the laboratory, the cost of these man-made diamonds are simply a fraction of what a natural diamond costs. Today, such diamonds are primarily used in the manufacture of construction and mining equipment and to make devices for the electronics and healthcare market. Also, since the carat, color and cut of the diamonds can be customized, such synthetic diamonds are also a popular choice in the consumer market.

But perhaps one of the less discussed benefits of the growth in synthetic diamonds is its effect on the Geothermal energy market. According to Halliburton, the extreme high temperatures along with the hard and corrosive rocks in the earth’s interior are among the biggest challenges that geothermal energy producers face. These challenges have been typically accentuated by the high cost of diamond-tipped bores required to drill these hard rocks.

A few years back, the US Navy and Sandia National Labs began research on using the polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) technology to build drill-bits that could make the construction of geothermal wells far cheaper than they are at the moment. An MIT research paper predicts that advanced technology could help us grow from the current levels of 10.7 GW (2010) to as much as 100 GW by 2030.

There are two main hurdles along the way. First is the technological ability to drill deeper. The US Department of Energy notes in a vision statement that advanced geothermal development will require us to drill in as much as 30,000 feet deep (5.7 miles). At present, geothermal wells are rarely ever more than 1.9 miles deep. To make this affordable, we will first need to build affordable drilling machines that are harder and capable of penetration. Secondly, we will need to minimize the cost of failure – the cost of drilling bits breakage can be significant.

Cheap synthetic diamonds help fix these challenges. For one, the lower cost of manufacturing make it possible to build larger drill bits that are not prohibitively expensive to manufacture. Also, larger diamond drill bits reduce the chance of failure thus reducing the cost of drilling much further.

Today, most geothermal wells are built over abandoned oil wells that are typically less than 7000 feet in depth. While cost-effective, this is not sustainable and may not be sufficient to meet the MIT study target to reach 100 GW in the next fifteen years. But with cost of drilling likely to come down significantly thanks to the synethic diamond technology, it will not be long before the geothermal energy costs are affordable and make it a viable renewable energy alternative.

energy collective



26 Comments on "How The Synthetic Diamond Industry Is Revolutionizing The Geothermal Energy Market"

  1. Go Speed Racer on Fri, 2nd Sep 2016 7:13 pm 

    What if we cool down all the subterranean hot rocks?

  2. diemos on Fri, 2nd Sep 2016 9:10 pm 

    http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/01/warm-and-fuzzy-on-geothermal/

  3. Potterpaul on Fri, 2nd Sep 2016 9:24 pm 

    Hey, go speed racer,

    Pretty much all geothermal energy development are heat mining operations. See the history of the Geysers geothermal field in N California. Technically it is a renewable resource, about as much as petroleum is. Renewal happens, but very slowly, and WAY slower than humans are exploiting it.

    Too many people….

  4. Apneaman on Fri, 2nd Sep 2016 10:23 pm 

    diemos, thanks. I luvs me some Tom Murphy, but I never read that one before. Tom is wickad smaht and a straight shooter. His stuff should be required reading for techno utopians.

    This one is my fave

    You Call this Progress?

    “One of the prevailing narratives of our time is that we are innovating our way into the future at break-neck speed. It’s just dizzying how quickly the world around us is changing. Technology is this juggernaut that gets ever bigger, ever faster, and all we need to do is hold on for the wild ride into the infinitely cool. Problems get solved faster than we can blink.

    But I’m going to claim that this is an old, outdated narrative. I think we have a tendency to latch onto a story of humanity that we find appealing or flattering, and stick with it long past its expiration date. Many readers at this point, in fact, may think that it’s sheer lunacy for me to challenge such an obvious truth about the world we live in. Perhaps this will encourage said souls to read on—eager to witness a spectacular failure as I attempt to pull off this seemingly impossible stunt.”

    “NOTE TO COMMENTERS

    I can predict that this post will be offensive to many and that the comments will be loaded with anecdotes and “what about X, you moron” sorts of posts—but hopefully more politely put. I will likely have little time to respond to each such thing. Just know I am not downplaying how transformative refinements (internet, computers, etc.) can be. But also know that the odd counterexample has a hard time dismantling the larger picture: just imagine that I could lob three pre-1950 inventions back for every post-1950 offered if I deemed it worth the time to play that game. Now, if you find yourself in this “offended” category, ask yourself: why is this so upsetting to you? How reliant are you on the narrative of progress for your sanity and understanding of our world and its future? I’m just sayin’—you might want to have that looked at.”

    http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2015/09/you-call-this-progress/

    “..offensive to many..”

    That’s why it’s my fave.

  5. rockman on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 1:06 am 

    “Cheap synthetic diamonds help fix these challenges. For one, the lower cost of manufacturing make it possible to build larger drill bits that are not prohibitively expensive to manufacture.”

    First, total bullshit: you don’t size the drill bit based on the cost of the drill bit. If you were given a bigger bit for free you wouldn’t use it: the hole size (and thus the size of the drill bit) is determined solely by the casing size of the project. This completely asinine statement tells me the writer doesn’t have even minimal knowledge of drilling.

    “…larger diamond drill bits reduce the chance of failure thus reducing the cost of drilling much further.” Complete ass backwards. First, the size of the drill bit has no impact on failure potential. More important: the bigger the diameter of the hole the more expensive to drill per foot. Again complete ignorance of drilling hydraulics.

    “Today, most geothermal wells are built over abandoned oil wells that are typically less than 7000 feet in depth.” Perhaps I missed it but I’m not aware of a single on stance existing. Please enlighten me if anyone knows. I think he might be confusing the shallow low temperature geothermal projects. And if he is those wells don’t require diamond bits…plain old and cheap cone bits would be used.

    “But with cost of drilling likely to come down significantly thanks to the synethic diamond technology, it will not be long before the geothermal energy costs are affordable and make it a viable renewable energy alternative.” And again zero concept of the costs of the different components of drilling a well…any well. I can’t give an estimate to drill a typical deep geothermal well because there is no such thing…cost can vary greatly from one area to another. But it could easily be in the $30 to $60 million range PER WELL…and a single field might require several dozens. And a diamond bit today: $20k to $35k. IOW the total bit cost for a well (might take several dozen) would be just a small % of the total well cost. And thus any savings from cheaper diamonds would be even smaller.

    But it’s all bullshit anyway: name one significant geothermal field in the USA other then The Geysers in CA. The Geysers Geothermal Complex is comprised of 18 power plants making it the biggest geothermal installation in the world. The complex has an installed capacity of 1,517MW and active production capacity of 900MW.

    Globally there are about a dozen geothermal fields of any significance but each produce only 20% to about 75% of The Geysers output. That’s it: on the erntyire planet less than 15 sites have been suitable for deep geothermal developments well diamond bits would be required. Too much to go over again…research on you own. But a geothermal field requires a hell of a lot more to work then just hot rocks. It is a far more complex dynamic the folks realize.

    So the smarties at MIT say we’ll add about 90 GW in the next 14 years. So the largest geothermal field is producing about 900 MW. Thus in 14 years the world will see ONE HUNDRED new geothermal fields derveloped that will matchinCheap synthetic diamonds help fix these challenges. For one, the lower cost of manufacturing make it possible to build larger drill bits that are not prohibitively expensive to manufacture.” First total bullshit: you don’t size the drill bit based on the cost of the drill bit. If you were given a bigger bit fgor free you wouldn’t use: the hole size (and thus the size of the drill bit) is determined solely by the casing size of the project. This completely asinine statement tells me the writer doesn’t have even minimal knowledge of drilling.

    “…larger diamond drill bits reduce the chance of failure thus reducing the cost of drilling much further.” Complete ass backwards. First, the size of the drill bit has no impact on failure potential. More important: the bigger the diameter of the hole the more expensive to drill per foot. Again complete ignorance of drilling hydraulics.

    “Today, most geothermal wells are built over abandoned oil wells that are typically less than 7000 feet in depth.” Perhaps I missed it but I’m not aware of a single on stance existing. Please enlighten me if anyone knows. I think he might be confusing the shallow low temperature geothermal projects. And if he is those wells don’t require diamond bits…plain old and cheap cone bits would be used.

    “But with cost of drilling likely to come down significantly thanks to the synethic diamond technology, it will not be long before the geothermal energy costs are affordable and make it a viable renewable energy alternative.” And again zero concept of the costs of the different components of drilling a well…any well. I can’t give an estimate to drill a typical deep geothermal well because there is no such thing…cost can vary greatly from one area to another. But it could easily be in the $30 to $60 million range. And a diamond bit today: $20k to $35k. IOW the total bit cost for a well would be just a tiny % of the total well cost. And thus any savings from cheaper diamonds would be even smaller.

    But it’s all bullshit anyway: name one significant geothermal field in the USA, other then The Geysers in CA. The Geysers Geothermal Complex is comprised of 18 power plants making it the biggest geothermal installation in the world. The complex has an installed capacity of 1,517MW and active production capacity of 900MW.

    Globally there are about a dozen geothermal fields of any significance but each produce only 20% to about 75% of The Geysers output. That’s it: on the erntyire planet less than 15 sites have been suitable for deep geothermal developments well diamond bits would be required. Too much to go over again…research on you own. But a geothermal field requires a hell of a lot more to work then just hot rocks. It is a far more complex dynamic the folks realize.

    So the smarties at MIT predict about 100 new geothermal fields matching the largest one ever developed will be built in the next 14 years. Can anyone name just one such field under development anywhere in the world? Thanks in advance.

  6. Cloggie on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 3:37 am 

    While I am buying rockman’s assertion that diamond drilling material is only a fraction of the total drilling cost, the topic geothermal energy is too interesting to ignore. Nice opportunity to use my googleator to get an impression of the state of geothermal in 2016. I am speaking here from Dutch experience.

    90% of all geothermal projects here are related to greenhouses, because that sector has huge energy bills in order to be able to produce veggies 12 months/year. Thank God in Holland we don’t have geysers or other volcanic related sources, which means we don’t have earthquakes. Instead you have drill deep to arrive at useful temperatures. At 10 m depth you have constant 10 C. From then on temp increases with an average gradient of 30 C per 1000 m. There are several locations where you find 90-95 C at 2000 m deep. In the province of South-Holland were all the greenhouses are, typical well depth 2300 m. 70% of the heat is “renewable” because the result of ongoing nuclear reactions, 30% results from cooling from the time that the earth was formed.

    Map temp distribution 2000 m depth:
    http://tinyurl.com/jcpuspx

    The beauty of geothermal as compared to wind and solar is that supply is constant and reliable, a big advantage. Life expectancy well: 30-40 years. The Dutch government sees geothermal as a top investment opportunity. Typical payback time geothermal in agriculture: 8-15 years.

    A real problem is that it is difficult to predict how good a well is going to perform, but you can insure yourself against a “misboring”.

    Once a well is in production the energy delivered is too much for a single company, so cooperation is customary.

    In tiny Holland up to 5000 drills have been carried out for oil and gas to a depth of 3000 m or more so the geothermal potential is known pretty well for 30% of Dutch territory.

    Typical investment volume geothermal project for agriculture: 12-15 million euro which is too much for individual agricultural companies. Solution: energy companies invest and sell hot water to consumers. Financial heavyweights like Shell, not yet a renewable energy company, come to mind. Shell knows how to drill and has detailed geophysical knowledge.

    Currently 44 projects have been authorized and subsidies granted. 7 of those are realized and 4 under construction (2014). Expected growth rate 3-5 projects/year.

    Sources:

    Rabobank: http://tinyurl.com/goqa9e8

    https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aardwarmte

  7. Cloggie on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 4:15 am 

    Nice animation of geothermal drilling project (in Dutch):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-i7MvqFsHo
    You need TWO holes, supply and return that need to be far apart (1-2 km) to avoid mixing of warm and cold water. An extra interesting aspect is that geothermal water often contains gas and oil that is used for extra energy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVzH98hfn6s
    Typical 10 million geothermal drilling project in action for paprika company (Dutch language).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ed7iFnbByE
    Geothermal application in greenhouses. This video shows how it is possible that tiny Holland is still the world’s #2 agricultural exporter ($79B) after the US ($118), but before Germany, France and Brasil: high value (plants, veggies, flowers, 12 months/year) per m2 and high penetration of automation. Geothermal is a key factor to continue to do that in the future after the end of fossil fuel.

    http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0712/top-agricultural-producing-countries.aspx

  8. Cloggie on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 4:34 am 

    The Dutch example above is about low-grade heat for space heating purposes that can be applied anywhere on the planet. Here an example from California and other places where you have much higher temperatures that enable electricity generation:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nASpvGghrqA
    (English)

  9. rockman on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 11:19 am 

    Cloggie – “90% of all geothermal projects here are related to greenhouses,” I suspected there would be some confusion over high temp geothermal (the subject of this thread) and low temp geothermal.

    You might not have been here a few years ago when the Rockman began hyping LTG as having much greater aggregate potential the HTG. There are million of potential LTG projects compared to a handful of HTG projects.

    The Rockman’s epiphany came years ago when he saw a special on a LTG project in Atlanta. A very shallow (200′) and relatively inexpensive closed loop system was installed at a nursing home under construction. Though a small heat gain it was still an economical approach to supplement fossil fuel sourced heat.

    It is still a difficult infrastructure cost pill for individual homeowners to swallow but many small commercial operations should be able to make LTG work. But lower oil and continued low NG costs inhibit the approach. But that dynamic won’t last forever.

  10. Go Speed Racer on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 2:48 pm 

    Ah hah. So the hot rocks can be cooled down. Because of these posts, geo thermal not look so hot anymore.

  11. rockman on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 4:34 pm 

    Racer – Again I won’t go into all the details. But what you allude to is THE big problem with mining heat from those deep and very hot rocks. In reality those deep rocks are POOR heat conductors. If you had a well completed in a 1,000′ thick section of such a rock you could pump water down and circulate back up a huge volume of steam…for a month…maybe two. The water would suck the heat content out just fine. The problem: it would take years for the rock’s heat conductivity to raise the temp back to original levels.

    This why the field is the largest in the world: The Geysers cover 45 sq. miles and contains 56 water injection wells and 327 steam wells. And a huge surface mater requirement: more the 7 BILLION GALLONS of fresh water per year. One other reason The Geysers was developed: less that 9,000′. About half the depth it would take to reach similar hot rocks across most of the planet. Another huge advantage: the reservoir rocks at TG is fractured thanks to the crunched up CA geology. Such deep hot rocks around the world rarely have such permeability. IOW one can’t inject water into such rocks.

    The Gerysers are a unique set of conditions in the world. Not the least of which being in a country with the technology, capex and energy thirst to develop it.

  12. Elmer on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 4:42 pm 

    The Geysers geothermal field almost quit producing steam several years ago. It’s not a very renewable resource on its on. The utility company development nearly depleted the resource after 2 decades. The city of Santa Rosa saved The Geysers energy production by building a pipeline to transport treated sewage effluent many miles to the top of the Mayacmas Mountains to supply the water necessary to produce steam. Without recharging the natural water supply with the city’s wastewater, the Geysers would not be producing much, if any, electricity at his point. At the time, the pipeline was controversial and very expensive to build. Lucky that a large urban area was located so close. Still, the fields only produce half the steam they did at their peak. BTW, The Geysers is an area rich in beauty, history, geology and flora. Glad I had a chance to tour it.

  13. Elmer on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 4:49 pm 

    Anyone know of/remember the 1965 sci-fi movie Crack in the World? It relates to the topic of this article. I liked it as a young kid—made me question the idea that “technology will save us.”

    From IMBd: “Dr. Stephen Sorenson plans to tap the geothermal energy of the Earth’s interior by means of a thermonuclear device detonated deep within the earth. Despite dire warnings by fellow scientist Ted Rampion, Dr. Sorenson proceeds with the experiment after secretly learning that he is terminally ill. This experiment causes a crack to form and grow within the Earth’s crust, which threatens to split the Earth in two if it is not stopped in time.”

  14. peakyeast on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 6:06 pm 

    @elmer: Today we have solved those kinds of problems…

    Watch and learn:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haPvuhznuyI

    😀

  15. makati1 on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 6:15 pm 

    Elmer, I recently watched it for the first time on UTube. Good movie. I think they have taken it off though. Utube has deleted a lot of the old movies claiming some excuse or other.

  16. ghung on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 6:30 pm 

    Crack in the World (1965) popped right up on my youtube –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSv5ar5Q9vw

    May be blocked in the PI for copyright issues. Love these old scifi movies.

  17. Apneaman on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 7:26 pm 

    ghung, you like to watch movies on your computer?

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Fullmoviesonvimeo/

  18. ghung on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 7:44 pm 

    Yeah, Ap, more than I like to admit, especially this time of year. Lots of time spent prepping stuff we grow for the canner or freezer. May as well multi-task, eh? Watch a movie while sorting beans. Thanks!

  19. Apneaman on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 8:14 pm 

    ghung, I do something similar. Big movie buff/story loving human. Tonight I’m watching “Jason Bourne”. It got shitty reviews, but I don’t care. I luvs me some Matt Damon. I watched “The Martian” shortly after you recommended it. As soon as I could find for free on line. Whoops. Good movie even though I doubt the humans will ever get there. Some were whining that it wasn’t scientifically accurate. So? It’s a movie and you are supposed to suspend your disbelief for 90 minutes. You know, like religious and political people do their whole lives.

  20. ghung on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 8:30 pm 

    Gosh, Ap, I like to pay my fair share for my escapism; generally honor copyright laws, although I may backslide a bit when quoting stuff online. At least I try.

  21. Apneaman on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 10:24 pm 

    ghung, I could care less about American copyright laws for overpaid asshole actors and corporate studios. Talk about you’re hypocritical propaganda making, useless eaters – the lot of them. Don’t talk about honor and corporations in the same sentence. These people are a bunch of corporate criminals and are part of the corporate state – our overlords and they don’t give a shit about anyone except themselves. Honor and duty are a two way street and we were abandoned a long time ago, so fuck all of them! I give the old homeless alcoholic guy a toonie ($2 coin) and a cigarette outside the grocery store every time I shop. I can manage it because of the wonders of free internet entertainment. Consider it a wealth transfer from hollywood to some poor soul in need, via me. Oh and it’s not breaking any laws watching a movie on a streaming site. The host is breaking the law – not the viewer. File sharing is the one that is illegal on both ends, but only enforced in some countries – not mine.

    “FILM STAR

    How bad is the decline in actor salaries over the past decade? Despite the huge sums still being raked in by such superstars as Robert Downey Jr. (his $75 million comes from his 7 percent, first-dollar slice of Iron Man 3, as well as his $12 million HTC endorsement deal) and Sandra Bullock (a 15 percent, first-dollar deal on Gravity and about $10 million more for her summer hit The Heat), most actors are feeling a definite squeeze, especially those in the middle.

    “If you’re [a big star], you’re getting well paid,” says one top agent, “but the middle level has been cut out.” Sometimes with a hacksaw. Leonardo DiCaprio made $25 million (including bonuses) for The Wolf of Wall Street, while co-star Jonah Hill got paid $60,000. Granted, that’s an extreme example — Hill offered to do the part for scale (and got an Oscar nomination for his trouble).”

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hollywood-salaries-revealed-movie-stars-737321

    Oh poor Jonah Hill only made 60 grand for a couple of weeks of pretending to be someone else – all expenses paid. Leonardo made 25 million then goes online and TV and tries to tell us all to reduce our carbon while he jets all over the planet making eco destroying movies to amuse entitled high carbon westerners. Think Leo saves all his money? The more you spend the bigger your eco footprint – there is no getting around that no matter how much eco friendly green consuming one does.

    Here is a great takedown of some of the most prominent of these environmentally conscious (yeah right) hollywood liberals.

    The Endocene

    “Getting back to Conservation International’s vanity campaign, it’s worth watching at least the first in their series of very short films with fabulously scenic backdrops and celebrity narrators, titled collectively “Nature is Speaking” (the others are linked at the youtube page and also here.)”

    Julia Roberts

    Kevin Spacey

    Edward Norton

    Penélope Cruz

    Robert Redford

    Harrison Ford

    “Speaking as the Ocean in another of the series, Harrison Ford recites: “It’s not their planet, anyway. Never was. Never will be. But humans, they take more than their share. They poison me and then expect me to feed them. Well, it doesn’t work that way.”

    “I’m only going to say this once, ‘If nature isn’t kept healthy, humans won’t survive. Simple as that. I mean, I could give a damn. With or without humans, I’m The Ocean. I covered this entire planet once and I can always cover it again.'”

    Let’s just check how Harrison is doing in terms of responsible stewardship, by reading his own words in an interview.

    1. There’s nothing better than seeing a herd of elk right outside the window of my house in Wyoming. My land gives me an opportunity to be close to nature, and I find spiritual solace in nature, contemplating our species in the context of the natural world.

    2. All of my planes are great to fly, and that’s why I’ve got so many of them. I have a Citation Sovereign, a long-range jet; a Grand Caravan, a turboprop aircraft capable of operating on unimproved strips; and a De Havilland, a bush plane. I have a 1929 Waco Taperwing open-top biplane; a 1942 PT-22 open-top monoplane trainer; an Aviat Husky, a two-seat fabric-covered bush plane; and a Bell 407 helicopter. I also have more than my fair share of motorbikes – eight or nine. I have four or five BMWs, a couple of Harleys, a couple of Hondas and a Triumph; plus I have sports touring bikes.

    3. I’m a big fan of Prince Charles. I met him because I worked on a little film project for The Prince’s Trust last year, and he’s a charming man, very nice and a very smart guy. We may be working together on an environmental project this year for Conservation International. I’m on the board, and we’re very happy because Prince Charles asked to join us. A few weeks ago we voted to place him on our board of directors. We’ll probably do something together soon connected with the protection of the environment.”

    http://witsendnj.blogspot.ca/2014/10/the-endocene.html

    You go right ahead and unquestionably continue to honor every single law your masters come up with all you like.

  22. ghung on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 10:46 pm 

    Jeez, Ap!…. I figured that would light your fuse, but I’m a pacifist when it comes to such things. Want to comment on nasty grid consequences? Don’t support the grid. Want to object to your government’s policies? Minimise your tax liability so you don’t pay for them. Want to comment on those who steal from society? Don’t steal….. It all comes down to living with one’s-self and not being willfully guilty, as best one can. We’re all guilty in the end; some more than others.

    Anti-hypocritical behaviour is easy once you get used to it. Avoid the traps, and don’t rationalise your behaviour……

  23. makati1 on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 11:25 pm 

    Ap, I watch ALL of the new movies on YouTube for free and many are not streaming. They are usually pulled when they are discovered, but if you look often enough they reappear under another name. I can also go down the street and buy them on DVD for about $1.25 a few weeks after they premier. I have no idea what movie tickets cost in the US but here they cost about $5.

    As for Hollywood and the over-paid propaganda mill it represents, I agree. I screw them whenever I can. Never pay for what you can get for free, or cheap. lol

  24. makati1 on Sat, 3rd Sep 2016 11:29 pm 

    BTW: The US has some 600,000+laws on the books so we all break at least one every day. No cop or lawyer could possibly know all of them or enforce them. A super computer might even have a problem deciding if a law has been broken. Besides, they only apply to the serfs, not the masters. Slippery Hilary is a prime example.

  25. Cloggie on Sun, 4th Sep 2016 5:30 am 

    “I could care less about American copyright laws for overpaid asshole actors and corporate studios. Talk about you’re hypocritical propaganda making, useless eaters – the lot of them. Don’t talk about honor and corporations in the same sentence. These people are a bunch of corporate criminals and are part of the corporate state – our overlords and they don’t give a shit about anyone except themselves. Honor and duty are a two way street and we were abandoned a long time ago, so fuck all of them!”

    But you watch their products anyway?

    Stopped watching Hollywood movies a long time ago. Watch German or Swedish crime series every now and then in the weekend, but the usual pattern is that when I do I grab a tablet as a “2nd screen” and begin to read twitter with one eye and before you know it I lose interest in who killed who.

    As a political buff I recently watched all the seasons of the US remake of the cynical British series “House of Cards” from the Thatcher years, 25 years ago. And that’s about it.

    Internet has replaced MSM & TV & movies nearly completely. Youtube is far more interesting than leftist Hollywood NWO propaganda. Haven’t bought a newspaper or magazine in years, where I spent a fortune on those when I was younger.

  26. peakyeast on Sun, 4th Sep 2016 5:47 am 

    Concerning Copyright.. We had a really fun court case here in Denmark.

    The leading law-firm that has illegally threatened and prosecuted many poor students for copying a few movies – he himself got prosecuted. It seemed that his company committed fraud for many many millions – stealing the “copyright” money.

    Talking about Karma !!

    Now “Johan Schlüter” company has been bankrupted and closed down.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *