Oil talk

[Secularbeliever]

I am not writing this to be argumentative or provocative but to bring clarity to an issue so we can come to rational decisions.

For several weeks Chaim has discussed oil, in one case in response to my question.  He cited Brazil as proof that a nation can "get off oil".  I did some studying of Brazil's oil situation.  Brazil's ethanol program is far superior to ours.  They use sugar cane which is an efficient source of ethanol.  We use corn which is not.  Brazil is a net exporter of oil as they have had several major oil discoveries.  Despite all this success Brazil still uses about 2 million barrels per day of oil.  Ethanol accounts for less than 20% of fuel for automotive purposes (when you count diesel).  This is despite the fact that Brazil has had an ethanol program for over 30 years. 

T. Boone Pickens recently gave up on his multi $billion wind power plans.  Is this cause for despair or a reason to not try?  No but it is evidence that "getting off oil" is easier said than done.  And Pickens never claimed his plan would get us "off oil".

I fully agree with Chaim that for Israel and western nations depriving Arab nations of their economic stranglehold over the world is absolutely necessary.  However, where we slightly diverge is on what is a realistic expectation.  My fear is that with a return to a strong economy (which Obama is stupidly intent on fighting) oil could be up to $200 per barrel shortly.  Given Saudi output of nine million barrels per day that translates into $657 billion per year.  That is just Saudi Arabia, there will also be fortunes into Iran, UAE, Kuwait, etc.

To the degree possible we should act to lower the price of oil and reduce Arab revenue.  However, I think we need to do it in increments.  Bringing more nuclear power in, more drilling for oil and natural gas, can help.  Every dollar we cut the price of oil costs the Saudis $3 billion per year.  And there is a Brazilian angle.  Right now we have quotas and tariffs that virtually eliminate our ability to import Brazilian ethanol to protect our own ridiculous ethanol program.  Eliminate the tariffs.

Maybe we should even tax gasoline (tough idea to sell economically) to discourage its usage.  We need to chip away at Arab oil revenues.  Hopefully at some point a huge technological breakthrough will allow us to largely replace oil but right now our strategy should be to chip away at our dependence on Arab oil.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

The oil solution that you never, ever see discussed is taking over the Muslim Nazi oil nations, seizing their oil, and treating them like the Holy Bible commands us to treat them if they resist.

I don't know what Chaim would say to this. Unfortunately I don't think the so-called "morality systems" of most Westerners could tolerate this, but it would be the ultimate answer to the oil problem.

[HiWarp]

Maybe we should even tax gasoline (tough idea to sell economically) to discourage its usage.  We need to chip away at Arab oil revenues.  Hopefully at some point a huge technological breakthrough will allow us to largely replace oil but right now our strategy should be to chip away at our dependence on Arab oil.

Discourage it's usage in lieu of what? Making gasoline more expensive without offering a viable alternative is not good economic policy. It may discourage some people from recreational driving but what about those whose livelihood depends on transportation?

[cjd]

Maybe we should even tax gasoline (tough idea to sell economically) to discourage its usage.  We need to chip away at Arab oil revenues.  Hopefully at some point a huge technological breakthrough will allow us to largely replace oil but right now our strategy should be to chip away at our dependence on Arab oil.

Discourage it's usage in lieu of what? Making gasoline more expensive without offering a viable alternative is not good economic policy. It may discourage some people from recreational driving but what about those whose livelihood depends on transportation?

Thank You!! I have said this countless times and have yet to get a response that has made any sense!! I would love to see half the people that talk about using less oil live for a day or two with no electricity or heat in their homes. I am sure they would soon be singing a different song. If anyone finds an alternative to oil that is comparably priced and as versatile and people will flock to it.

[RanterMaximus]

Just as America is addicted to McDonald's, KFC, Coca-Cola, hip hop, bad movies and television, on line porno, etc.,etc., the same goes for oil.  There is no real mainstream voice trying to lead the cause for this country to move away from it.  Hoping that the parasites in D.C. will wake up and pave the way on alternative energy is a pipe dream at best.

[HiWarp]

Maybe we should even tax gasoline (tough idea to sell economically) to discourage its usage.  We need to chip away at Arab oil revenues.  Hopefully at some point a huge technological breakthrough will allow us to largely replace oil but right now our strategy should be to chip away at our dependence on Arab oil.

Discourage it's usage in lieu of what? Making gasoline more expensive without offering a viable alternative is not good economic policy. It may discourage some people from recreational driving but what about those whose livelihood depends on transportation?

Thank You!! I have said this countless times and have yet to get a response that has made any sense!! I would love to see half the people that talk about using less oil live for a day or two with no electricity or heat in their homes. I am sure they would soon be singing a different song. If anyone finds an alternative to oil that is comparably priced and as versatile and people will flock to it.

Thank you too. Someone please tell all the individuals in California that are rushing to get their plug in electric cars that electricity is not generated from thin air. They don't want to drill for oil in this country, they don't want to burn coal, they don't want to build nuclear plants, they may not realize that most natural gas reserves are...drum roll please...you guessed it...in the Persian Gulf, they just want to drive electric cars so they can feel good about being green.

[Confederate Kahanist]

It will be fun watching those Muslim regimes crash and fall if oil is rendered useless.  I think Obongo will try to put a stop to it under his watch. 

[Secularbeliever]

Hiwarp and CJD your response shows how hard it would be to tax gasoline to reduce its usage.  However, you are making the mistake (in my opinion) of engaging in the all or nothing style of thinkiing.  If gasoline were more expensive we would all still use it but hopefully use less of it.  Maybe you would carpool to work, avoid unnecessary trips, use alternatives such as public transit where available.  Maybe the next car you buy would get higher gas mileage.  Last year when gas hit $4 per gallon I was taking Amtrak and riding my bike to work.

Just for the record, I am a big free market guy, I admire Milton Friedman as much as anyone I could think of, however, the government should interfere with the free market in this case because it is a matter of national security.  Otherwise I would say let everyone use as much gas as they can pay for and drive whatever they want whenever they want.

[Zelhar]

The American corn based ethanol has never been a success and it will never be. The future biofuels (which will be mainly diesel) must be produced from cellulose, and from sea weeds. Another alternative is hydrogen and fuel cells motors but it seems more distant.

The reason why Pickens' failed (or stumbled) with his project is that energy prices plummeted and at more importantly he can't borrow the required capital because of the financial crisis.  We need higher energy prices to support the efforts for alternatives to oil and gas.

[GoIsraelGo!]

The oil solution that you never, ever see discussed is taking over the Muslim Nazi oil nations, seizing their oil, and treating them like the Holy Bible commands us to treat them if they resist.

I don't know what Chaim would say to this. Unfortunately I don't think the so-called "morality systems" of most Westerners could tolerate this, but it would be the ultimate answer to the oil problem.

I like your new forum name...... excellent choice. Bones is one of my favorite shows too!


                                             Shalom - Dox     

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

The problem is that the prospective petroleum replacements that could be put into place very quickly (i.e. discarded vegetable shortening and other crude biodiesels) would never be backed by the environazi establishment because they don't "burn clean" and contribute to climate change. They aren't even on the table.

The next shortest-term sources of mass energy (coal [which China is using like water] and nuclear) are similarly not on the table. At this point you'd have a hard time finding even Republicans who would get on board to expand the use of those two with the global-warming issue completely dominating the energy debate.

The replacement energies that have been approved of by the environazi colossus (wind, solar, etc.) are simply not far enough along in their infrastructure to be a viable source of mass power for many, many years.

[cjd]

Hiwarp and CJD your response shows how hard it would be to tax gasoline to reduce its usage.  However, you are making the mistake (in my opinion) of engaging in the all or nothing style of thinkiing.  If gasoline were more expensive we would all still use it but hopefully use less of it.  Maybe you would carpool to work, avoid unnecessary trips, use alternatives such as public transit where available.  Maybe the next car you buy would get higher gas mileage.  Last year when gas hit $4 per gallon I was taking Amtrak and riding my bike to work.

Just for the record, I am a big free market guy, I admire Milton Friedman as much as anyone I could think of, however, the government should interfere with the free market in this case because it is a matter of national security.  Otherwise I would say let everyone use as much gas as they can pay for and drive whatever they want whenever they want.

Higher taxes would be acceptable if the money went to funding a crash course to develop alternate power sources. The sad fact of the matter is that the money would go to funding the never ending social programs liberals seem to come up with. I pay enough in taxes already and doing without is not an option since I am not wasteful when it comes to power consumption. I use my car mostly for work and would not be able to get there unless I drove there. My round trip runs about 150 miles more or less and it would be a hell of a bike ride each day. I don't use the car much on my days off. Even if America cut its usage by half what makes people believe that the excess fuel America no longer buys would not be gobbled up by China and India. Even at reduced levels the money Arabs would still get from oil sales would still keep them nicely in the chips. I still say if there was the ability for a private corporation to come up with a viable alternative to oil as we speak it would be on the market since the profits from something like that would be massive. Sadly oil is really the only game in town right now and unless we get all the big world users to work together America would be cutting off its nose to spite its face.

[cjd]

The problem is that the prospective petroleum replacements that could be put into place very quickly (i.e. discarded vegetable shortening and other crude biodiesels) would never be backed by the environazi establishment because they don't "burn clean" and contribute to climate change. They aren't even on the table.

The next shortest-term sources of mass energy (coal [which China is using like water] and nuclear) are similarly not on the table. At this point you'd have a hard time finding even Republicans who would get on board to expand the use of those two with the global-warming issue completely dominating the energy debate.

The replacement energies that have been approved of by the environazi colossus (wind, solar, etc.) are simply not far enough along in their infrastructure to be a viable source of mass power for many, many years.

Yes!! All very true!

[RanterMaximus]

When oil prices dropped at the end of last year and gas prices dropped dramatically, the masses piped down and thus there was no outcry.  Gas prices are still too high, but not at the insane levels they where over the past two years.  Most folks think because Bush is out of office, the days of four dollar a gallon gas are over.  They have no clue.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

That's why I said that the best solution would be to seize the oil of the Muslim Nazi nations. That way they wouldn't be earning trillions of dollars off of our lifeblood.

Unfortunately, like I said not only is this not on the table (and never will be), but such a solution would fly in the face of what every man, woman, and child in the United States has been taught morally since birth. It literally would only be JTFers supporting this proposal. Even the most hardcore right-wing non-Kahanists would be horrified by this.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

When oil prices dropped at the end of last year and gas prices dropped dramatically, the masses piped down and thus there was no outcry.  Gas prices are still too high, but not at the insane levels they where over the past two years.  Most folks think because Bush is out of office, the days of four dollar a gallon gas are over.  They have no clue.

You are right. Even though they cost less now than they have in the past few years, gas and housing are still way too expensive. That's what happens whenever an oligopoly controls a market that people need in order to live from day to day. Robber-baron investors (many of whom are oil and real estate tycoons) keep the markets flooded with their dollars to keep prices artificially high. In terms of real supply, demand, and production costs, oil would be around $10/barrel right now and a decent three-bedroom house that is NOT a "fixer-upper" would be around 45 grand as a nationwide average. Gimme a break. Nobody is buying it that the Ghawar oil field is running out or that modern houses are so very expensive to build (hell, they are all built by wetbacks these days, at least labor is a lot cheaper than it was).

[Secularbeliever]

Zelhar, hydrogen and fuel cells have the same problem as our ethanol program.  It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than you get from it.  If we had a massive nuclear power program that gave us a huge surplus of electricity then we could use hydrogen even if it was not really efficient.

The other problem Pickens had was his plan required building of an electric grid that would take this wind power from its point of production in rural areas to major cities.  Nobody is stepping forward to build such a grid.

[Zelhar]

Zelhar, hydrogen and fuel cells have the same problem as our ethanol program.  It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than you get from it.  If we had a massive nuclear power program that gave us a huge surplus of electricity then we could use hydrogen even if it was not really efficient.

The other problem Pickens had was his plan required building of an electric grid that would take this wind power from its point of production in rural areas to major cities.  Nobody is stepping forward to build such a grid.

Hydrogen could be produced from fusion/nuclear/solar/wind energy. It's only good as fuel for transportation, not as a primary energy source.

[Secularbeliever]

The next shortest-term sources of mass energy (coal [which China is using like water] and nuclear) are similarly not on the table. At this point you'd have a hard time finding even Republicans who would get on board to expand the use of those two with the global-warming issue completely dominating the energy debate.<<

Just to clarify coal and nuclear are totally different.  Coal is a very dirty fuel.  While "clean coal" takes the sulfur out of coal even clean coal is a very high carbon producer.  Nuclear on the other hand produces no carbon.  It is totally clean although presents the issue of radioactive waste.  The safety record of nuclear is remarkably good.  I don't think a single American has died as a result of nuclear power.  That includes people who work in the plants (even Silkwood died in a car accident).Contrast that with coal where miners die regularly in the mines and oil fields which have less perfect safety records.  I am a big advocate of nuclear for these reasons.  Most new power plants (especially in the west) are based on natural gas which in the case of home heating and possibly automotive fuel could resplace oil.  Natural gas is cleaner than other fossil fuels and more domestically produced.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

I know they are totally different, Secularbeliever. Nuclear is obviously much more advanced, but coal could be put online in no time flat. We need to be using both. Unfortunately, the envirofascists hate both. I couldn't care less about the so-called environmental issues, but the fascists control this debate so very much that it would be almost political suicide for a big, influential politician to throw his or her weight behind an energy source as "dirty" as coal or as un-PC as nuclear.

[Zelhar]

Actually nuclear power is making a comeback. Many countries including USA are going to build new reactors. But there is a bottleneck in the pace of development. It takes years to complete a single project, which is also capital intensive.

[HiWarp]

The next shortest-term sources of mass energy (coal [which China is using like water] and nuclear) are similarly not on the table. At this point you'd have a hard time finding even Republicans who would get on board to expand the use of those two with the global-warming issue completely dominating the energy debate.<<

Just to clarify coal and nuclear are totally different.  Coal is a very dirty fuel.  While "clean coal" takes the sulfur out of coal even clean coal is a very high carbon producer.  Nuclear on the other hand produces no carbon.  It is totally clean although presents the issue of radioactive waste.  The safety record of nuclear is remarkably good.  I don't think a single American has died as a result of nuclear power.  That includes people who work in the plants (even Silkwood died in a car accident).Contrast that with coal where miners die regularly in the mines and oil fields which have less perfect safety records.  I am a big advocate of nuclear for these reasons.  Most new power plants (especially in the west) are based on natural gas which in the case of home heating and possibly automotive fuel could resplace oil.  Natural gas is cleaner than other fossil fuels and more domestically produced.

True but, as I stated earlier, the greatest deposits of natural gas are in the Persian Gulf followed by Russia.

Rank - Country - Proved reserves (trillion cu ft)
1.   Russia - 1,680
2.   Iran - 971
3.   Qatar    - 911
4.   Saudi Arabia - 241
5.   United Arab Emirates - 214
6.   United States - 193

Replacing oil with natural gas may make us more self sufficient in the short-term but eventually would not resolve the issue of being dependent on the Middle East for energy.

[Secularbeliever]

HiWarp 2 points

1) I don't know whether your statistics are for proved reserves or how they are measured.  For instance do they include the gas that could be found in Alaska and drilling off the continental coast?  Do they include what might come out of the Jack oil fields which are supposed to be as large as the Prudhoe Bay reserves.

2) The large gas reserves in the mid east are not primary to the discussion because gas is not typically transported from the Mid East.  While there have been some advances with liquified natural gas I don't think the progress there has been as impressive as hoped.

[HiWarp]

HiWarp 2 points

1) I don't know whether your statistics are for proved reserves or how they are measured.  For instance do they include the gas that could be found in Alaska and drilling off the continental coast?  Do they include what might come out of the Jack oil fields which are supposed to be as large as the Prudhoe Bay reserves.

2) The large gas reserves in the mid east are not primary to the discussion because gas is not typically transported from the Mid East.  While there have been some advances with liquified natural gas I don't think the progress there has been as impressive as hoped.

They are proved reserves. And you are correct regarding the transportation issue. I have no problem with natural gas in the short term, especially since the U.S. does have a good amount of proved reserves. In fact I'd like to see it used more in automobiles. I just don't think it's a viable long term alternative.

[Sentinel For Truth]

I have not yet read it, but Edwin Black, a Jewish author, wrote a book called "The Plan:  How to Rescue Society the Day the Oil Stops--or the Day Before" that considers the issue of what if the oil stopped flowing tomorrow.  Here is the book and his website:

http://www.amazon.com/Plan-Rescue-Society-Stops-Before/dp/0914153072

http://www.planforoilcrisis.com/

His other books, such as "IBM and the Holocaust" and "Nazi Nexus" are astounding, especially for JTFers.  His research is impeccable and incredibly thorough and irrefutable, and these are great reads for anyone who wants to discover the true history of American corporate involvement in the systematic murder of six million Jews.