Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

All Techno-Messiah Waiters Please Stand Up

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Unread postby Jaymax » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 00:48:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', 'B')ut you did survive Jaymax right?


For the moment, definetly an increased feeling of 'why bother debating with people who have closed their minds' of late around here.

Though I'd rush to say that while that's a minority, you can almost see the 'closing of ranks' when ideas are challenged. Rather than entering into debate, there is this "we've already proven you wrong" statement when no such thing has been achieved.

Anyway...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is also an element of groupthink, but this is not confined to PO.com; it can be found everywhere i.e. for example in free markeeters ... etc


ALL human's are prone to groupthink in various forums - the relevant thing is the forum, not the community involved. Very little of value will come out of a specific discussion forum in whatever medium for whatever community once it decends into groupthink. I see the challenging of 'recieved facts' becoming less welcome here than previously.

I find peakoil.com very useful in challenging my opinions and predictions, changing some, firming up others - I want to be part of helping protect that for those who come later, but not if it becomes impossible.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'n')o, after oil is gone there will never be anything but local communities or fascism.


On this point, we disagree, but then you're one of those with whom disagreeing [passively, usually] can be thought provoking and educational.

--J
Doomerosity now at 2 (occasionaly 3, was 4)

Currently (mostly) taking a break from posting at po.com. Don't trust the false prophets of doom - keep reading, keep learning, keep challenging your assum
User avatar
Jaymax
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: England

Unread postby Ghog » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 01:30:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', 'B')ut you did survive Jaymax right?


For the moment, definetly an increased feeling of 'why bother debating with people who have closed their minds' of late around here.

Though I'd rush to say that while that's a minority, you can almost see the 'closing of ranks' when ideas are challenged. Rather than entering into debate, there is this "we've already proven you wrong" statement when no such thing has been achieved.

Anyway...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is also an element of groupthink, but this is not confined to PO.com; it can be found everywhere i.e. for example in free markeeters ... etc


ALL human's are prone to groupthink in various forums - the relevant thing is the forum, not the community involved. Very little of value will come out of a specific discussion forum in whatever medium for whatever community once it decends into groupthink. I see the challenging of 'recieved facts' becoming less welcome here than previously.

I find peakoil.com very useful in challenging my opinions and predictions, changing some, firming up others - I want to be part of helping protect that for those who come later, but not if it becomes impossible.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'n')o, after oil is gone there will never be anything but local communities or fascism.


On this point, we disagree, but then you're one of those with whom disagreeing [passively, usually] can be thought provoking and educational.

--J


I still like to think I am learning new things every day. BUT, having been researching PO for about a year now, there is alot less 'up for grabs'. Meaning I have formed my opinions based on information gathered, opinions shared and just general goings on in the world. Does that mean my thoughts on something won't change? No, but don't expect just because you have a new idea, you are going to change everyone's mind. There are alot of very intelligent people here, on both sides, with all sorts of ideas. I think if you have followed PO for any length of time, you are now running with your set plans. After all, not knowing 'when', we must start sometime. When a lone dissenting voice with just another opinion (no one really knows anything for sure) comes along, most aren't going to let it stray them from their course of action. Does that mean people shouldn't speak their mind? Of course not. That is especially what PO.com is for. Just expect some resistence, present your case and have some thick skin. It's not personal. It is just human nature to look out for their own well being.
User avatar
Ghog
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon 18 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Pennsylvania
Top

Unread postby EnergySpin » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 01:32:34

I said :-D $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'n')o, after oil is gone there will never be anything but local communities or fascism

I was being ironic JM! But the things I have seen so far, make me believe that I will either be recycled by hunter-gatherers/eco-fascists for taking care of transplant patients (hence depleting the resources) or be offered Dr Joseph Mengele's job in the concentration camps of the near future 8O
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Jaymax » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 01:39:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', 'I') said :-D $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'n')o, after oil is gone there will never be anything but local communities or fascism

I was being ironic JM! But the things I have seen so far, make me believe that I will either be recycled by hunter-gatherers/eco-fascists for taking care of transplant patients (hence depleting the resources) or be offered Dr Joseph Mengele's job in the concentration camps of the near future 8O


Thought it was odd - That makes one irony each missed tonight :oops: My excuse is that it's 5:30am and I should be in bed! Time to logoff methinks. Thanks for the words - will apply extra skin-thickner.

--J
Doomerosity now at 2 (occasionaly 3, was 4)

Currently (mostly) taking a break from posting at po.com. Don't trust the false prophets of doom - keep reading, keep learning, keep challenging your assum
User avatar
Jaymax
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: England
Top

Unread postby Raxozanne » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 04:16:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', ' ')Rather than entering into debate, there is this "we've already proven you wrong" statement when no such thing has been achieved.


The figures were challenged in another thread I believe.
Another thread
It wasn't just the figures being challenged though it was the whole idea of JTs advocated future energy sources. Why this thread had to be hijacked I do not know other than maybe after Energyspin mentioning laser vaginal treatment over there maybe no one wanted to post after that :lol:
Raxozanne
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 16:26:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')If TDP is so great, if the companies are going to be investing in it so much, why did Changing World Technologies need a 10 million dollar grant from the DOE to keep it's head above water? If it's going to help solve or significantly delay the crash of civilization, I would think there would be plenty of profit seeking private parties willing to shell out hundreds of millions, billions, even trillions of dollars.

Why is there still only ONE plant, producing less than 200 barrels a day of number four heating oil if this is the technology that will help save the freaking world?!


Companies like money. If they can take money from the government, they will. I doubt $10 million was make or break for this plant: most of the money came from ConAgra and similar institutional investors and I'm sure they would prop it up for PR while they build more plants.

I've been over the reason this plant isn't breaking even: they have to pay for feedstock.

If it's a bad idea, why are 5 more plants (colorado, nevada, alabama, ireland, forgot the last location) planned? Why are corporations continuing to partner with them?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Take a look at the energy bill that just got passed. The war in Iraq. GM, Ford, Delta, United, the fuel riots breaking out in the third world, etc. . . investment banks saying we're going to see oil at possibly $200-$400/barrel inside of the next few years, the almost total lack of awareness on the part of the average person, steps being taken to institute martial law, blah, blah, blah, . . .


The patriot act, a bunch of bloated american corporations going under because they're uncompetitive, and a riot in indonesia over elimination of a fuel subsidy. This has what to do with whether oil replacement technologies will work now?

As for prices, one (1) french firm said $300 or so. The next doomiest was Morgan Stanley which said a *chance* of a *spike* at $100.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f what you say is going to happen, when is it going to start? Please tell us because most of us would love to stop worrying about this.


I've said this before too. It will really begin when a majority of the oil majors and the investors stop thinking we'll see $40 a barrel oil again (i.e. the point at which coal to oil will lose money), which is what their market valuations reflect.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Why is Chevron asking us to "join us" to help them? Surely they are as astute as you and have thought these things through? Yet I don't see them doing much outside of trademarking "Human Energy" (TM, property of Chevron Corporation) and basically saying, "Well, we don't know what to do. You guys got any ideas?"


P.R.? Driving prices higher by making people worried that oil is about to run out so they can make more money? Anticipating a lot of NIMBYism when they try to build coal to oil plants?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')our vision of the future is simply not connecting to what is and is not taking place in the real world.

Interesting, since my numbers look almost exactly like those in the Hirsch report everyone on this board loves to throw around. Do you agree or disagree with the Hirsch report?
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 16:31:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')f course it is a stupid idea, that's why it is so apropos to your scenario. And its not so much about cost, but scalability.


Space colonization is on a completely different scale. It would cost trillions and trillions just to do one colony.

My proposed scale is almost exactly in the middle of the scale of expected nonconventional expansion in the Hirsch report you just had me read as a "reality check." Hirsch seems quite enthusiastic about our scalability.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o, now you are saying that alternative energy conversions like coal to oil, tar sands to oil, oilshale to oil, etc, won't cost much more than conventional oil where, in the beggining all you have to do is stick a straw in the ground?


Oil shale, well who knows? I haven't been talking about oil shale.
Oil sands are being targeted for 5 mbd in 2030 in canada alone. They must be making money or they wouldn't keep expanding. I've seen about $30/barrel listed as a price.

Coal to oil costs $30-35/barrel, according to the Hirsch report. That's less than what we're paying now. It will be produced because it can be sold at a profit. If enough of it is being produced, profit margins will be moderate because there will be competition, and I can't imaging oil going above $80-100/barrel when everyone's making $50/barrel. More people are going to open plants to get in on the action.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 16:42:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is the debate he is avoiding. He wants someone to prove him wrong, yet there is no possible way to do so. Just like he cannot prove he is correct. Nothing has happened yet!! This is in PREPARATION for PO. It just ends up being your opinion against another.


No one's explained why oil replacements won't work in the correct scale to avert the immediate economic effects of peak oil on this thread. Monte and especially JohnDenver are vigorously debating me on this point, in the thread "Why Oil Alternative Fuels Will Fail."

I'm not avoiding the fact that the environmental damage could be catastrophic if we keep doing business-as-usual. I'm only saying that we will keep doing business-as-usual in the near term, because the corporations decide what we'll do for now and I doubt they'll suddenly decide to powerdown. That makes environmental degradation the problem that causes civilization to collapse in 20 or 50 or 100 years, not peak oil.

I'm not debating those points on this thread because this thread is about oil supply and what is going to happen to it. I agree they are problems.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')leaner? You propose relying on oil further, along with nuclear and coal. You wipe your hands of any responsibility because you don't use A/C and you drive your bike to work, yet you promote ideas that don't help the situation. (see above). And get off the high and mighty 'I'm not Jesus and can't fix it all kick'. YOU were the one that wants everyone else deal with global warming instead of PO, yet you have done NOTHING for that cause yourself. Hippocritical if you ask me. Try dealing with the above quoted post if you really want to debate. Points 1-7, A-C are waiting for you.


If you paid any frickin' attention, you'd realize I'm not "promoting" these ideas as what we *should* be doing. I simply think they are going to happen. Sorry, I'm getting frustrated, but you keep ignoring me and putting words in my mouth. Over and over and over.

I think you're being unfair with your criticism of my actions. I was focused on the drug war and the iraq war before I heard about peak oil, active in groups like norml, bluelight, erowid, and the democratic party. Then I focused on peak oil. Now I'll focus on global warming and other environmental problems, but I might as well write up my conclusions from my weeks of research so they're fresh and I can refer back to them. I might as well share them with other people who have been thinking about peak oil so we can bounce ideas off of each other.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') see someone who is scared of PO and wishes to convince as many other people as possible to dismiss the notion. The more you convince, the more secure you feel about PO not becoming a reality. Makes it easier to go with life doesn't it? Here let me try it. There is no corruption, no crime, no drug problem, no racism, no political agenda and no environmental issues. WOW, I feel better already.


You need to get your vision corrected.

There are plenty of problems in society, but the peak of conventional oil is not going to collapse civilization in and of itself.

Since you did me the same favor, I'll tell you what I see in you: A person who's got a lot of negative emotion in his or her own life and channels it into doomerism instead of dealing with it constructively, and viciously attacks anyone who suggests an alternative perspective, even if it requires deliberately ignoring what the person is saying. That's what I see.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 16:57:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')nd see why this extravaganza CANNOT be sustained ad infinitum at a large scale without irreversibly killing all terestrial life.


Not ad infinitum, until 2025 or so.

Again, I'm saying: we will do business-as-usual in the short run because we can and the people in control want us to. If we do business as usual until 2050 or 2100 it will finish us a species. There is a modest chance that we can gradually move away from business-as-usual and avert this outcome, probably less than I would like to think.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 17:02:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') can't think of any other logical reason why somebody who claims they believe peak oil "will not happen" would spend so much time attempting to prove "peak oil will not happen."


I have nothing else to do because my back is injured.

I tend to pick up a topic, spend a tremendous amount of energy on it until I'm convinced I understand it completely, then move on. I'm currently testing my understanding of this topic. Yes, I'm weird like that.

I like debating and logical thought, particularly when I have the time to write my opinions down and work them over.

I'm getting the same thrill out of challenging conventional wisdom about the future that I'm sure you got from putting together your website. (People seem to be mistaking this for advocation of business as usual)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')T's mentality is similiar to those who believe in the rapture. The idea that something is going to come from on high, be it God or Corporate America, to save us from a very complex problem(s).


They say Jebus is going to save us from on high or whatever based on blind faith. The scenario I have laid out is based on the most realistic estimates available, and I have recently discovered it corresponds extremely tightly to the US government's Hirsch Report on peak oil.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 17:07:37

I cut your argument down to what I consider to be the key points - let me know if I missed anything - jt

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')imple: All of the schemes to "prevent" Peak Oil are going to be ignored, not because of some psychological condition known as "De Nile" (spelling intentional) but because the corrupt ones in charge are having such a great time right now, and cannot see why they should bring this system to an end. This is because of the training they got at "Bizznuss" College - Get Rid Of Ethics, thus thereby getting rid of thinking about the future, especially one that might require the average Corporate Executive to do some "self sacrifice " (gasp!).


Right now they are surely thrilled that oil is at $60/barrel and they're making record profits. But you're telling me that either a) they're not going to try to make even more profits, when they know how or b) they will allow economic apocalypse to occur because they can't even look 5 years ahead (at their bottom line, not something more nebulous like the environment)?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he "die off" is also something they would want - think about the way that most rich Americans want all Unemployed people (and BOY is there gonna be a heap of unemployed shortly) to be forced off all forms of "welfare" so that the rich can have the Socialist Welfare of lotsa roads - d'you think that this is likely to change, somehow?


a) You think they want to take the risk, the social instability this would cause?
b) You think they're that evil? I think they're myopic, self-interested, and greedy. But I don't think they're going to twirl their mustaches and laugh an evil laugh while half the population dies in front of them.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 17:17:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a') sizeable majority (?minority) of the people here do not believe that solutions are not out there; they believe that the current cultural inertia will not allow them to be implemented OR that it will be easier for the system to murder people (read the proposal of your co-patrior Mr W Stanton)


As far as oil goes, I'm pretty sure that when the solution amounts to building 150 coal to oil plants for profit (as Hirsch proposes), cultural inertia isn't the problem.

The idea that that many people are going to be systematically murdered... well I guess I take a more optimistic view of human nature than that, because I hope cultural change is possible, because it's our only chance in the long run.

I think its good that people are as upset with current events and culture as they are now. By any measure of history, things are relatively peaceful. How soon we forget all the hideous dictators that were propped up in the 1980's, that the cold war itself had 80% of people expecting the end of the world in nuclear war. How soon we forget WWII. The cultural problems we're upset about now pale by comparison, which hopefully means we will force things farther along towards peace.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Ghog » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 17:27:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m only saying that we will keep doing business-as-usual in the near term, because the corporations decide what we'll do for now and I doubt they'll suddenly decide to powerdown. That makes environmental degradation the problem that causes civilization to collapse in 20 or 50 or 100 years, not peak oil.


Ok, I agree with the 'doubt they will decide to powerdown part'. I think the reason(s) for the collapse are up for debate as we don't know how things will pan out. It may very well be environmental, but it could still also be PO related. Realistically it will probably end up being a combination of many things.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ince you did me the same favor, I'll tell you what I see in you: A person who's got a lot of negative emotion in his or her own life and channels it into doomerism instead of dealing with it constructively, and viciously attacks anyone who suggests an alternative perspective, even if it requires deliberately ignoring what the person is saying. That's what I see.


Meaningless to me coming from a quiet voice across the faceless Internet. Now I am being analyzed based on text, across the Web, discussing an emotional subject concerning the end of civilization? As I did the same, you have my sincerest apologies. I am more doomer than 'life is perfect', because society hasn't proven it can deal with the issues it has faced to date. In fact, things only get worse. Now I am supposed to believe your 'positive' views will lead the masses into a bright, new future. Sorry I have my doubts. For me it is better to be surprised then disappointed. As far as "vicious attacks", I don't see how you survive in society if you are that sensitive. It is a cruel world out there and the weak get trampled.

Though I may have trouble convincing you, I really am happier than I have ever been in my life. (Here is where you say I must have been really miserable.. :-D ). I am less focused on the problems in the world, believe it or not. I am using PO to lead my way into the future. Even if it doesn't happen, I am still happier because of the path I have chosen.

Anyway, we got off on the wrong foot and in the interest of trying to get these boards back to friendly discussion, you again have my sincerest apologies. I will try and 'hear' what you are saying in the future. We may not always agree though and don't always expect me or others to come back with scientific evidence as to why we don't. Sometimes we just don't. Seriously, have a great day! :)
User avatar
Ghog
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon 18 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Pennsylvania
Top

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 19:17:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nyway, we got off on the wrong foot and in the interest of trying to get these boards back to friendly discussion, you again have my sincerest apologies. I will try and 'hear' what you are saying in the future. We may not always agree though and don't always expect me or others to come back with scientific evidence as to why we don't. Sometimes we just don't. Seriously, have a great day!


As soon as I saw you had responded to the thread again, I felt guilty. I know I went over the line in my response and got a little pissed. Sorry about that. I think it was mostly that I felt like I was repeating myself. Also, I had just woken up.

I guess people get a little emotional when they're discussing the fate of the whole entire world and all. :)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ow I am supposed to believe your 'positive' views will lead the masses into a bright, new future. Sorry I have my doubts. For me it is better to be surprised then disappointed.


I've got my doubts too.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Petro » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 20:00:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Petro', 'H')owdy Matt!

I don't get the point of this topic at all.

In the cont. US there are over 100k miles of gasoline pipelines alone. Not sure of the aggregate for petro-chems total. But, say something was invented; produced, etc., isnt it a little reassuring that at least there is some form of distribution for liquid alternatives?


how you gonna put hydrogen/biodiesel/pazoozoo and gasoline/natural gas/oil through the same pipeline?


Come on you know full well that these energy resources already have their own, appropiate, piplines. I don't think I suggested we try to run some ethanol through natural gas pipes. There isn't a cookie-cutter pipe that will carry everything. However, already traversing the gas/oil pipelines are rather dissimilar liquid fuels traveling the same pipeline. The different payloads are separated by an unglamorous device known as a 'hog'; basically a plug that travels with the payload but separating what heads and what trails. So...If one wanted to, say, use existing pipelines that once carried gasoline/diesel an instead use them to carry ethanol/methanol/biodiesel is that much of a leap?
User avatar
Petro
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu 14 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Concerned » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 23:02:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jtmorgan61', '
')In any market economy, someone is going to hit bottom. If oil increases in price another $20, maybe a few more of these dinosaurs will go down than would have otherwise. The remaining companies will continue to innovate and pass on the very modest increases in price due to oil to the consumer (e.g. jet fuel costs are 15% of airline costs. If oil prices hit $120/barrel tomorrow, then we'd see a $300 ticket jump to $345).


The problem of you Airline example is you look at it in isolation of many other factors.

You have factored in a ticket rise only on the passing on of jet fuel costs. How much will tyres, hydraulics, ticket ink, carpet, airline food now cost as these inputs increase in price, how much will airframes cost as energy costs continue to rise. Will workers want higher wages as NOT ONLY their personal fuel costs begin to rise but things like food, housing, clothing and other consumables begin to rise in price also.

"NETT ENERGY" as Ruppert says in End Of Suburbia, it's one of the things many people overlook.

When energy becomes more expensive there will be increases in efficiency standard economics, unfortunately this does NOT automatically lead to over all reduced energy consumption as per Jevons Paradox.

For Example.

http://www.geohive.com/charts/charts.ph ... xsl=en_res

US 1980 Oil use 794.1 Mil T Pop 227 Mil = 3.498 B Oil per person
US 2005 Oil use 937.6 Mil T Pop 298 Mil = 3.146 B Oil per person (projected)

Thats an 11% increase in efficiency on a per capita basis in the US and total energy used in the economy has increased 18%. (Jevons Paradox)

Then we have global financial markets, which a largely faith based. Current prices don't reflect current earnings but "predicted" future earnings. What if these predictions prove to be a mirage? What happens if the global economy gets pulled into a depression without the prospects of cheap energy to power us out of the depression?
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
-Italian Proverb
User avatar
Concerned
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu 23 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby MattSavinar » Mon 01 Aug 2005, 03:58:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')ight now they are surely thrilled that oil is at $60/barrel and they're making record profits. But you're telling me that either a) they're not going to try to make even more profits, when they know how or b) they will allow economic apocalypse to occur because they can't even look 5 years ahead (at their bottom line, not something more nebulous like the environment)?


Pretty much. See GM and Ford as two prominent examples of an inability to look even 5 years ahead.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')) You think they want to take the risk, the social instability this would cause?


Yes, see the social instability caused by:

1. the War on Drugs
2. the War on Terror
3. the War in Iraq

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'b')) You think they're that evil? I think they're myopic, self-interested, and greedy. But I don't think they're going to twirl their mustaches and laugh an evil laugh while half the population dies in front of them.
[/QUOTE]

Then you don't know your history. They may not laugh an evil laugh, but they will smile because their bank accounts will be increasing. See the following for examples from history:

1. Killing off of the Native Americans and the profits that flowed from that.

2. The Atlantic Slave Trade

3. Ford selling vehicles to the Nazis.

4. IBM developing the punch card system that allowwed the Nazis to conduct the Hololcaust

5. George H. Bush, member of the Carlyle Group, a major weapons investor.

6. Tom Ridge who is invested in Raytheon, which makes the Tomahawk missile and in General Electric, which makes nuclear bombs.

7. Enron

8. Savings and Loan meltdown

9. The way we treat our vets, with particular attention to Gulf War Syndrome . . .

and so on and so on and so on. . .

Best,

Matt
User avatar
MattSavinar
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Pipelines

Unread postby DoctorDoom » Mon 01 Aug 2005, 19:50:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Petro', 'C')ome on you know full well that these energy resources already have their own, appropiate, piplines. I don't think I suggested we try to run some ethanol through natural gas pipes. There isn't a cookie-cutter pipe that will carry everything. However, already traversing the gas/oil pipelines are rather dissimilar liquid fuels traveling the same pipeline. The different payloads are separated by an unglamorous device known as a 'hog'; basically a plug that travels with the payload but separating what heads and what trails. So...If one wanted to, say, use existing pipelines that once carried gasoline/diesel an instead use them to carry ethanol/methanol/biodiesel is that much of a leap?


There was a very interesting piece on the History channel's "Modern Marvels" series, on gasoline. Although there are some pipelines dedicated to a single fuel, in most cases they actually put a mixture of liquid products through the same pipeline. They used to use hogs to keep them separated, but now they don't bother, they just shove quantities of different fuels through at different times. The contents between two fuels (e.g. between a run of diesel and a run of gasoline, or between gasoline and kerosene) do get mixed a little bit, but not as much as you'd think because they maintain pipeline pressure. The mix is drawn off and sold (it's called "transmix") to customers that aren't fussy about what they burn (apparently, there are many industrial activities that have machines capable of burning transmix). So, like, yeah, any liquid biofuel within reason can likely be pushed through the existing distribution infrastructure. Aging/deterioration is another matter.
DoctorDoom
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun 20 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: California
Top

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Mon 01 Aug 2005, 20:10:45

I understand the your response and perspective, although I continue to think that at least *some* oil majors are going to look 5 years ahead. I mean, several of them are already in a state of declining reserves. I think most of 'em would rather spend their money on a McMansion in a peaceful society than a fortress in a postapocalyptic wasteland, although again I understand how you disagree. That said, to quarrel with your examples a bit...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '1'). Killing off of the Native Americans and the profits that flowed from that.

2. The Atlantic Slave Trade


Quite long ago. Amazing how far we've come isn't it?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '4'). IBM developing the punch card system that allowwed the Nazis to conduct the Hololcaust


That's not quite fair - IBM didn't develop the punch card *just so* the nazis could commit the holocaust.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '5'). George H. Bush, member of the Carlyle Group, a major weapons investor.
6. Tom Ridge who is invested in Raytheon, which makes the Tomahawk missile and in General Electric, which makes nuclear bombs.
7. Enron
8. Savings and Loan meltdown
9. The way we treat our vets, with particular attention to Gulf War Syndrome . . .


Dirty money and graft all around, but I'm still unconvinced they'd rejoice at 4 billion people dying when (in the case of oil, not weapons contractors) they would make more money by keeping them alive and selling them oil, and be assured they don't go down in flames taboot.

You've got your read on the modern corporate culture, I've got mine... :)
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby holmes » Mon 01 Aug 2005, 20:57:46

one caveat: your modern corporate culture is leaving little room for anything else. You see they NEED everything to survive and GROW. I mean everything. AND GROW AND GROW AND GROWand grow and grow. POP! So do we just stand there like a stupid bloated TV media junky pus gut puffy bellied women/humanoid brain dead on corporate logo ass rape sodomification and let the vacuum nozzel suck us up. The american indian was foolish and should have exterminated our wasp asses when they had the chance. They did have their chance but were mostly tribal and ecologically and spiritually pure. Niave. Im not naive nor pure. Ill fight and understand fork toungue. No amount of corporate media propaganda can sway my ass over to the greedy seedy pit of infernal hell. Im enslaved enough thank u. I want less slavery. Ah the facade is fraying. keep er going as the parts fly off. awesome way to go. I think savinars goal was to show u that Money talks all else walks. Values. My ass. Values. Morals. PPPPPPFFFTTTTT! The mainstream has lost all credibility with independent high IQ's. The whole gig is a sham. a lie. Manifest destiny has never died. Its still chugging away. Today isnt a long time ago. 150 years is nothing in my book. now 250 million now your getting into the past. Capitalism cares nothing about our vets. Can they make profits for the machine? no. They dont exist.
holmes
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2382
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests