Forum FAQ

Preferences

Watched Topics

Watched Forums

Oil

Goto page 1, 2 Next

Shanghai Expat Forum Index » Community Discussion Forums » Shanghai Open Chat

Author

Message

kasei

Reacher

Joined: May 28, 2005
Posts: 334
Location: Hongkou, Shanghai, China
Status: Offline

Posted: Oct 22, 2005 - 07:58 PM
Post subject: Oil

I wrote this in response to several posts in a thread about China's 1 baby policy which had turned into an argument about oil and the USA's foreign policy. Once I finished it, I noticed that the thread was 10 pages long and the topic had shifted to education. So, I decided to just start a new topic with it.

Most of my numbers came from the US's DOE website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------

The original thread is at: http://www.shanghaiexpat.com/index.php?name=MDForum&file=viewtopic&t=3 1529

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------

The Greens won't let them drill in Alaska? If gas becomes expensive enough, they would lose all of their political backing if they tried. What power does a party have if their constituents leave?

America invaded Iraq for profit? Possibly. I don't know who is profiting and who is losing. I know that the lumber industry is making bank! Maybe they bribed Bush?
I am not going to argue whether the war is good or bad. I wish we hadn't needed to go, but I am glad that we did. For me it isn't about oil or money, it's about ethics. If I saw a woman being beaten and raped in the street, I would try to help. I am proud that my country did the same thing. The only thing that I, personally, am unhappy about is how the recovery seems to be stagnating. Also, how everyone expects us to set up a new country within a year! How long were we in control of Japan before we handed the country over to the diet? It was about 6 years, right? And that time we didn't have to deal with suicide bombers.

Invade Iraq for oil? Invade the Middle East for oil? In 2004 America imported about 11.8 mb/d (million barrels per day) of crude oil, which is equal to 58% of its total consumption; 20.4 mb/d.
Top sources of crude oil imports were:
-Canada 1.6 mb/d ( 14% )
-Mexico 1.6 mb/d ( 14% )
-Saudi Arabia 1.5 mb/d ( 13% )
-Venezuela 1.3 mb/d ( 11% )
-Nigeria 1.1 mb/d ( 9% )
-Iraq (2002) 0.78 mb/d (7%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The first thing to strike me is that, combined, we only get 19% of our imports from Saudi Arabia & Iraq (the USDOE put our total import from the Persian Gulf at 20% of the grand total). That is only 11.7% of our total consumption! Even if we DOUBLED our imports from the Persian Gulf, that would only increase the oil available to the American consumer by 9.3%!
The second thing that I notice is that we actually import more oil from South & Central America (25% comes from Mexico & Venezuela). In fact, America's biggest sources are it's two neighbors. Seems strange to go all the way to Iraq to fight for oil, when there is more available right next door...

Selling oil to Japan? USA's reserve is 658 millions barrels (data: http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/oil.html), Japan's is 321. I am sure that the USA consumes oil at more than twice the rate of Japan. We will probably be buying from them in the future.

A alternative fuel sources?

Solar power? Not efficient enough for cars. Might be possible in Arizona and Nevada, but most of the country does not get enough sunlight to power a car without using a huge collector grid. Besides, I think the power conversion rate for solar cells peaks at around 11%. Better to use heat-powered steam turbines to turn generators which would charge electric cars. However, that would be a lot of trouble to power a car and would involve a lot of maintenance, extra costs, and noise during operation (and you still have to deal with cloudy or cold days)

Steam powered? Feasible In fact, the first cars were steam powered. They can run on anything that burns (oil, coal, wood, paper, garbage, methanol, etc). As long as you don't mind a low speed and a 15 minute warm-up period before you can drive.

Vegetable oil for diesels? This it true: The VegiVan was driving around America almost a decade ago. How much oil does the USA use? According to the US Dept. of Energy the US used 20.4 million barrels of oil per day. I would like to see anyone try to supply that much vegetable oil. Also, have you checked the price on vegetable oil? Go to the store and see. Price it per gallon. Compare that to the average price of diesel fuel.

Hydrogen? Hydrogen is not found naturally. There are several ways to make it though. I believe that the two most common are by separating it from propane and by electrolysis of water. Making hydrogen from propane defeats the purpose of avoiding using hydrocarbons. Besides, why not just burn the propane? Separating it from water uses a huge amount of energy for the amount that you get out by burning it. Solar powered electric cars would be more efficient. Also, hydrogen is inefficient. Hydrogen (two hydrogen molecules) produces energy when they separate and combine with an oxygen to form water. The chemical in gas (octane) does the same thing, except each octane molecule has 8 bonds that are broken when it burns. Thus, each octane molecule produces 8 times as much power than hydrogen during combustion. On top of that, hydrogen is a gas and must be stored under pressure. Because it expands when it warms it must be allowed to slowly leak out or the tank will explode. I know a lot of really stupid people that I wouldn't want to trust with filling a tank with hydrogen.

Fuel Cells? To complicated. Most fuel cells are not feasible for car power. The only two that come close is one that runs on hydrogen (see above) and one that runs on propane. To run one on propane you need a converter made from platinum. Yes! Let's put an engine in our car that is made from a metal more expensive and rare than gold!

Methanol? Hard to supply in large quantities, is naturally in a gas form so it has storage problems (see hydrogen), and it stinks. However, it is renewable and cleaner than gas.

As far as I know ethanol made from corn is the most feasible fuel for personal vehicles. It comes from a readably available source (America produces a huge amount of corn, which has been increasing since the introduction of the genetically modified variants), it's easy and safe to make, it doesn't require a fancy storage system (unlike propane, methanol, or hydrogen), it can be burnt in a combustion engine, and it is clean (produces water and carbon dioxide). The problem is, naturally, that it costs more than gas. I expect that, as oil prices rise in the future, ethanol will make up a larger and larger percentage of the gas used in cars, until it is pure.

mama-san

Lurker

Joined: Oct 19, 2005
Posts: 35

Status: Offline

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 01:35 AM

KASEI have no life. get life kasei man. call me, xiao jie come over you have much fun

LifeMage
FooSlinger

Joined: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 3956
Location: In the world...... but not of it.

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 07:54 AM

kasei~

interesting post!

"America invaded Iraq for profit? Possibly. I don't know who is profiting and who is losing. I know that the lumber industry is making bank! Maybe they bribed Bush?
I am not going to argue whether the war is good or bad. I wish we hadn't needed to go, but I am glad that we did. For me it isn't about oil or money, it's about ethics. If I saw a woman being beaten and raped in the street, I would try to help. I am proud that my country did the same thing. The only thing that I, personally, am unhappy about is how the recovery seems to be stagnating. Also, how everyone expects us to set up a new country within a year! How long were we in control of Japan before we handed the country over to the diet? It was about 6 years, right? And that time we didn't have to deal with suicide bombers."

Interesting yet predictable american view. We are told the invasion of Iraq was/is about bringing freedom and democracy to the people from an evil dictator, haha! No doubt Sadam was corrupt but guess what!?!, He was placed in power and supported by the U.S. The crimes he is now being tried for, were committed with U.S weapons. To see through the propaganda of "liberating" the Iraqi's, all we have to do is look back a little in history.

Why lie about WMD's?

And with the same reasoning (of liberating the people) the U.S should be 'liberated'. More homicides, people in prison ...etc etc etc there.

If the invasion is about democracy, why not lead by example?
The United Nations is supposed to be an instrument of 'world democracy', yet the U.S ignored it.

It's a complex issue, and anyone saying it is simply about freedom OR oil, is not seeing the bigger picture.

As far as alternatives to the, (greed based-eco suicide), use of fossil fuels. One thing you did not mention is HEMP as fuel. Ford originally designed the Model T to run on a methanol petrol, produced from hemp seeds. Until 1937 hemp was used in too many ways to list here, everything from clothing to medicine, food to paper and as an energy source. It was actually a mandatory crop for farmers during war.

"Prior to the 1800s, CANNABIS/HEMPSEED oil was the NUMBER ONE source for lighting oil throughout the world. Until 1937-38, even paints and varnishes were 80 percent CANNABIS/HEMPSEED oil. CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA is non-toxic and has been used to make high-grade diesel fuel, oil, aircraft and precision oil and even the NUMBER ONE vegetable oil. The U.S. Army/Navy standards purchasing specifications list HEMP OIL as the NUMBER ONE preferred lubricant for their machinery. CANNABIS/HEMP is the best sustainable source of plant pulp for biomass fuel to make charcoal, gas, methanol, gasoline and electricity in a natural way.

It has been illegal to grow this NUMBER ONE plant in the United States since 1937.What disgusts me the most is how the U.S. government, as well as the people, knew about CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA and praised its value and then look what happened! In literally 90 seconds, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 passed in Congress. By using the unknown name "MARIJUANA" instead of the familiar name "CANNABIS HEMP", Congress was able to accomplish this because no one knew what plant they were talking about. CANNABIS/HEMP became illegal and was replaced by petrochemical products, coal and natural gas. They made it such a banned and forbidden plant that the words "HEMP" and "CANNABIS/HEMP" were not even taught in schools from the 1940s, 50s and thereafter.

The role of CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA was erased from America's history (as well as most of the rest of the world's) after 1945. To prove it, think... what did you learn about CANNABIS/HEMP in grade school? High school? College? From your parents and grandparents? Nothing! (Unless it was from the underground press within the last 15 to 20 years.) The continuing suppression of this information by the U.S. government places us all in mortal jeopardy. I believe that, in order to save our planet, we must use non-fossil fuel energy. CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA, in conjunction with wind, solar, tidal and hydroelectric power, could save the planet by providing all of our energy, fuel, paper, fiber, and 10 to 20 percent of our medical needs, naturally. It would also reduce acid rain and chemical pollution, rebuild the soil, and reverse the greenhouse effect (no other plant can do this!). CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA was used to make over 25,000 products before it was outlawed in 1937."

http://www.jackherer.com/

kasei

Reacher

Joined: May 28, 2005
Posts: 334
Location: Hongkou, Shanghai, China
Status: Offline

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 08:46 AM

mama-san wrote:

KASEI have no life. get life kasei man. call me, xiao jie come over you have much fun

kasei have sore throat. got sick, did kasei man. call you, come over we have much coughing.

kasei

Reacher

Joined: May 28, 2005
Posts: 334
Location: Hongkou, Shanghai, China
Status: Offline

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 09:21 AM

LifeMage wrote:

kasei~

interesting post!

Interesting yet predictable american view. We are told the invasion of Iraq was/is about bringing freedom and democracy to the people from an evil dictator, haha! No doubt Sadam was corrupt but guess what!?!, He was placed in power and supported by the U.S. The crimes he is now being tried for, were committed with U.S weapons. To see through the propaganda of "liberating" the Iraqi's, all we have to do is look back a little in history.

As I understand it, Sadam came to power when is predecessor died under mysterious circumstances. I have heard many people say that America was responsible for placing Sadam in power. Please tell me how we did this?

Like I said, for me it isn't about politics or money. The justification for me was, after we entered Baghdad, the people of Iraq running through the streets cheering.

LifeMage wrote:

Why lie about WMD's?

It was a lie? True, they were not there, but did the administration know this? Substantiate your opinion please. I did for mine.

LifeMage wrote:

And with the same reasoning (of liberating the people) the U.S should be 'liberated'. More homicides, people in prison ...etc etc etc there.

I am sorry, are you saying that we should liberate people who were imprisoned unjustly, or liberate the people by imprisoning more people?

I think that our current legal system is flawed in several ways. I think it is actually a determent to business and daily life in America.

LifeMage wrote:

If the invasion is about democracy, why not lead by example?
The United Nations is supposed to be an instrument of 'world democracy', yet the U.S ignored it.

The problem with the UN is that it is supposed to govern but its mandates are not law. Did America break international law when we ignored the UN? If we had, I have seen no repercussions. A governing body without authority is useless.

LifeMage wrote:

It's a complex issue, and anyone saying it is simply about freedom OR oil, is not seeing the bigger picture.

I was not talking about the bigger picture. I was only addressing the economics of oil in America and its true role in the war.

LifeMage wrote:

As far as alternatives to the, (greed based-eco suicide), use of fossil fuels. One thing you did not mention is HEMP as fuel. Ford originally designed the Model T to run on a methanol petrol, produced from hemp seeds. Until 1937 hemp was used in too many ways to list here, everything from clothing to medicine, food to paper and as an energy source. It was actually a mandatory crop for farmers during war.

I totally agree with this. There is no good, in my opinion, reason that Hemp should be illegal. Hemp is an extremely useful plant, and very easy to grow (there's a reason they call it "weed" after all). It is my understanding that hemp was outlawed due to lobbying done by Dupont. Is this correct?

Do you have any hard data on how much ethanol or methanol could be produced from an acre of hemp? Is it a more, or less, efficient ethanol source than corn? If done on a large scale, how much could ethanol be produced for (i.e. would it be able to compete economically with gas on the market)?

Thanks,

Joe
www.joecope.com

frenchlover1999
Shanghai Royalty

Joined: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 8730

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 09:28 AM

Now its cleverly-disguised propaganda for drugs! Ah ah! Move to newly liberated Afghanistan guys!

_________________
That was no shark. That was my personal submarine. But enough of this polite conversation. What is the purpose of your visit?

kasei

Reacher

Joined: May 28, 2005
Posts: 334
Location: Hongkou, Shanghai, China
Status: Offline

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 10:03 AM

frenchlover1999 wrote:

Now its cleverly-disguised propaganda for drugs! Ah ah! Move to newly liberated Afghanistan guys!

First of all, I don't think that THC is any worse than alcohol. Most of the harmful side effects are caused by smoking the plant, not the drug itself. Ingesting the drug, or using a vaporizer, eliminates these side effects. As long as nobody drives or flies an airplane while high, I say let them get high if they want to!

Second, what LifeMage is true: hemp is an extremely useful plant. Also, almost anybody can grow it (after all, it grows in closets). It would be a great secondary at-home business.

Third, and I am no expert on Cannabis, but I don't think that all types of hemp produce THC. If they do, I think some types that produce so little that it isn't useful. Aren’t there types of hemp that produce no, or not enough to be used, THC to get high?

bougie
Board Buddha

Joined: Nov 20, 2004
Posts: 13323
Location: Wuhan Hubei China

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 10:09 AM

^ correct, most hemp doesn't produce THC. I'm curious about growing weed in the closet. Anybody got BC buds?

I can buy grow your own stone on-line, but I need good seeds.

Btw the oil subject is very boring, so predictable

frienddefender2000

Seeker

Joined: Oct 19, 2005
Posts: 65

Status: Offline

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 10:42 AM

I dont understand all these political nonsense. I don't buy it either. I esp. dont give a flying **** to all these online politiciana's crap. it makes feel sick. real sick.

the only fact I know about the Saddam-US-Iraq thing's US's interfere destroyed everything every bloody thing that's built up over YEARS and CENTURIES by Iraq people even their government's the evil the shite and their life's miserable, however, a life of misery and no hope's still better than none? so US and UN is going to help out with the reconstruction and rebuild the country? in what way whose style? what about the damaged tradition? all those lost culture and good values? it could have been reserved better if US was not that stupid and self-centered.

no?

feel free to call me an idiot ... it is politically correct I guess.

bougie
Board Buddha

Joined: Nov 20, 2004
Posts: 13323
Location: Wuhan Hubei China

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 10:49 AM

Currently searching through the Dictionary to decode this message ...

LifeMage
FooSlinger

Joined: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 3956
Location: In the world...... but not of it.

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 11:31 AM

Quote:

Missing U.S.-Iraq History

"With all the hoopla surrounding the capture of Saddam Hussein—“caught like a rat,” read the Chicago Tribune headline—it is time to take a step back and consider the full story of the Saddam Hussein and his long time relationship with the U.S. government, beginning in 1959, when the CIA put Saddam on its covert operations payroll in a plot to assassinate then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim."

"In almost all of the instant histories that filled the news pages and the airwaves after his capture, the relationship between Saddam and successive U.S. presidential administrations has been ignored. National Public Radio, the Washington Post, the New York Times, all ignored the documented fact that for the decade of the ’80s, Saddam was a key U.S. ally in the Middle East."

read this informative article~
http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=498_0_1_0_C
By Robert Parry

Quote:

Like I said, for me it isn't about politics or money. The justification for me was, after we entered Baghdad, the people of Iraq running through the streets cheering.

Most of that has been proven to be propaganda! The infamous fall of the sadam statue as an example was orchestrated by the U.S military.

Quote:

It was a lie? True, they were not there, but did the administration know this? Substantiate your opinion please. I did for mine.

Like you, all we can really know is what we read, about these issues. This is what I read;

There is no doubt even though there was no proof of Iraq’s complicity, the White House was focused on Iraq within hours of the 9/11 attacks. As CBS News reported, “barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq.” Former Bush counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke recounted vividly how, just after the attack, President Bush pressured him to find an Iraqi connection. In many ways, this was no surprise—as former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and another administration official confirmed, the White House was actually looking for a way to invade Iraq well before the terrorist attacks.

But such an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country required a public rationale. And so the Bush administration struck fear into the hearts of Americans about Saddam Hussein’s supposed WMD, starting with nuclear arms. In his first major address on the “Iraqi threat” in October 2002, President Bush invoked fiery images of mushroom clouds and mayhem, saying, “Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”

Yet, before that speech, the White House had intelligence calling this assertion into question. A 1997 report by the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—the agency whose purpose is to prevent nuclear proliferation—stated there was no indication Iraq ever achieved nuclear capability or had any physical capacity for producing weapons-grade nuclear material in the near future.

In February 2001, the CIA delivered a report to the White House that said: “We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.” The report was so definitive that Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a subsequent press conference, Saddam Hussein “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.”

Ten months before the president’s speech, an intelligence review by CIA Director George Tenet contained not a single mention of an imminent nuclear threat—or capability—from Iraq. The CIA was backed up by Bush’s own State Department: Around the time Bush gave his speech, the department’s intelligence bureau said that evidence did not “add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what [we] consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons.”

Nonetheless, the administration continued to push forward. In March 2003, Cheney went on national television days before the war and claimed Iraq “has reconstituted nuclear weapons.” He was echoed by State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, who told reporters of supposedly grave “concerns about Iraq’s potential nuclear programs.”

Even after the invasion, when troops failed to uncover any evidence of nuclear weapons, the White House refused to admit the truth. In July 2003, Condoleezza Rice told PBS’s Gwen Ifill that the administration’s nuclear assertions were “absolutely supportable.” That same month, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted: “There’s a lot of evidence showing that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”

Quote:

"I am sorry, are you saying that we should liberate people who were imprisoned unjustly, or liberate the people by imprisoning more people?"

I'm saying, and to quote the bible;

“What do you see but the splinter in your brother’s eye, and are you not aware of the sliver in thine own eye? You hypocrite, first, pull the sliver out from your own eye, and then see how you can pull the splinter out of your brother’s eye. First, learn the Laws of Nature and of The Creation, their logic, before you judge and want to see the mistakes of your fellow man. First, learn through the Laws of Nature and of The Creation your own mistakes, so that you can correct the mistakes of your fellow man”.

Quote:

"The problem with the UN is that it is supposed to govern but its mandates are not law. Did America break international law when we ignored the UN? If we had, I have seen no repercussions. A governing body without authority is useless."

I can't answer that question because I don't know international law.

But.........some interesting stuff;

A NSA memo was leaked to "the observer"

"The memo describes orders to staff at the agency, whose work is clouded in secrecy, to step up its surveillance operations 'particularly directed at... UN Security Council Members (minus US and GBR, of course)' to provide up-to-the-minute intelligence for Bush officials on the voting intentions of UN members regarding the issue of Iraq.

The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York - the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China and Russia.

The memo is directed at senior NSA officials and advises them that the agency is 'mounting a surge' aimed at gleaning information not only on how delegations on the Security Council will vote on any second resolution on Iraq, but also 'policies', 'negotiating positions', 'alliances' and 'dependencies' - the 'whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises'.

Dated 31 January 2003, the memo was circulated four days after the UN's chief weapons inspector Hans Blix produced his interim report on Iraqi compliance with UN resolution 1441.

It was sent by Frank Koza, chief of staff in the 'Regional Targets' section of the NSA, which spies on countries that are viewed as strategically important for United States interests.

Koza specifies that the information will be used for the US's 'QRC' - Quick Response Capability - 'against' the key delegations.

Suggesting the levels of surveillance of both the office and home phones of UN delegation members, Koza also asks regional managers to make sure that their staff also 'pay attention to existing non-UN Security Council Member UN-related and domestic comms [office and home telephones] for anything useful related to Security Council deliberations'.

Koza also addresses himself to the foreign agency, saying: 'We'd appreciate your support in getting the word to your analysts who might have similar more indirect access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines [ie, intelligence sources].' Koza makes clear it is an informal request at this juncture, but adds: 'I suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels.'

Disclosure of the US operation comes in the week that Blix will make what many expect to be his final report to the Security Council.

It also comes amid increasingly threatening noises from the US towards undecided countries on the Security Council who have been warned of the unpleasant economic consequences of standing up to the US.

Sources in Washington familiar with the operation said last week that there had been a division among Bush administration officials over whether to pursue such a high-intensity surveillance campaign with some warning of the serious consequences of discovery.

The existence of the surveillance operation, understood to have been requested by President Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, is deeply embarrassing to the Americans in the middle of their efforts to win over the undecided delegations."

read the leaked memo here;
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905954,00.html

Quote:

"I was not talking about the bigger picture. I was only addressing the economics of oil in America and its true role in the war."

Yes, this was not a statement directed at you. It is impossible to address all the issues in a forum. Many, many books could be written (and are), about the war in Iraq.

Quote:

I am, by no means an expert or even highly informed about the stats for hemp as fuel or corn as fuel. I have read that it would take only 6% of farm land in the U.S to produce enough hemp (for fuel) to make the U.S independent from the rest of world for energy needs. I don't really know If this is true(?)

I think it is about a combination of many known renewable energy sources that would work best to ween ourselves off oil. I think it is also as much a case of reduction of energy waste as well, not just replacement.

Thanks Joe, too many times topics like this will become a fight with no-one coming out any more informed, and that's what it is really about, sharing information. We take what we feel is true and pass it on. Well, I got to move into my new apartment now. look forward to hearing others opinions on these topics!

frienddefender2000

Seeker

Joined: Oct 19, 2005
Posts: 65

Status: Offline

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 11:35 AM

yawn. sorry. I am yawnin' at a wrong thread it seems. again, sorry for the wrong yawn.

kasei

Reacher

Joined: May 28, 2005
Posts: 334
Location: Hongkou, Shanghai, China
Status: Offline

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 05:47 PM

bougie wrote:

the oil subject is very boring, so predictable

1. If it is so boring, why did you read it?

2. If it is so predictable, why do I hear "The US invaded Iraq for oil."?

LifeMage: Thanks for the links. Interesting reading.

Anyway, we have gotten off-topic. I want to know if anyone can refute my claims? Are there any suggestions on how oil consumption can be significantly reduced? Since about half of the oil consumed in America is used as gas, I would like to hear ideas about cars, fuel & transportation.

Also, thanks LifeMage for bringing up Hemp as an alternative to oil. I like it when someone suggests something that I wish I had thought of.

The main problem that I can see with hemp is that 6% is actually quite a large bit of land, about 55,907,715 acres. As a comparison corn, the United State's largest crop, uses 9% of the nation's farm land.

Personally, I think a gradating tax (based on weight) should be imposed on personal vehicles with the tax money being spent on subsidizing bicycle and motorcycle usage (if it was expensive to drive a pickup and a new motorcycle was dirt cheap to buy, which would you chose). This would not only cut down on gas consumption it would also reduce congestion on the roads and increase available parking in crowded areas.

acujerjer
Board Royalty

Joined: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 7770
Location: up your butt and around the corner

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 05:55 PM

Kasei:

"I am not going to argue whether the war is good or bad. I wish we hadn't needed to go, but I am glad that we did. For me it isn't about oil or money, it's about ethics"

I'm sorry top hear how ignorant and retarded you are. You truly need a lobotomy. If you are so glad about the war, why don't you put down your bucket of KFC, get off your fat ass, join the military, put a gun in your hand and go kill people while risking yourself getting killed you sick fuuk!

It is so ethical to kill thousands and thousands of people including children. People like you should be bombed, not Iraqis!

_________________
acujerjer:This is an American, also is everywhere provokes the young woman the dandy.

acujerjer
Board Royalty

Joined: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 7770
Location: up your butt and around the corner

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 06:00 PM

One more thing, do you not know about Haliburton? Do you not know about the pipeline? (the real reason of Afghanastan) Do you not know about the Bush family and the Saudi connection? Do you not know that Bush's have a long line of Texas oil business? Do you not know that Saddham Husein while tear gassing people and doing all those "unethical things" America was behind him? Do you not know that we supported him while he was a fascist leader killing Iranians? Do you not know that America wants a strong prescence in the Middle East for it's imperialistic interests? Israel isn't enough. Do you not know how many mult5-national corporations went to Iraq and are currently deciding on who gets what and how to split up the pie? Do you have no brain?

_________________
acujerjer:This is an American, also is everywhere provokes the young woman the dandy.

bougie
Board Buddha

Joined: Nov 20, 2004
Posts: 13323
Location: Wuhan Hubei China

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 06:08 PM

kasei wrote:

bougie wrote:

the oil subject is very boring, so predictable

I haven't read all of it, because it is all predictable and boring. How naive are you anyway ? Maybe GWB did go to Iraq for oil, he certainly didn't go there because of terrorism. Maybe, just maybe it was to justify for some previous screw-ups.

And of course there are already many alternate energy possiblilties other than fossil fuels, but the powers at be are not interested , as they woouldn't be lining theior pockets anymore. And let me guess, you drive a gas guzling SUV?

Any GWB is a puppet, simply a puppet

kasei

Reacher

Joined: May 28, 2005
Posts: 334
Location: Hongkou, Shanghai, China
Status: Offline

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 06:48 PM

acujerjer wrote:

I'm sorry top hear how ignorant and retarded you are. You truly need a lobotomy. If you are so glad about the war, why don't you put down your bucket of KFC, get off your fat ass, join the military, put a gun in your hand and go kill people while risking yourself getting killed you sick fuuk!

It is so ethical to kill thousands and thousands of people including children. People like you should be bombed, not Iraqis!

1. I don't eat at KFC
2. I am not fat, in fact I am underweight
3. I am an honorably discharged Petty Officer 3rd Class (Nuclear Electronics Technician) of the United States Navy
4. I am talking about oil, not the war. I am sorry that I failed to resist the temptation to go off-topic in that post. If you want to discuss the ethics of war with me, start a topic about it and send me the address.

kasei

Reacher

Joined: May 28, 2005
Posts: 334
Location: Hongkou, Shanghai, China
Status: Offline

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 06:56 PM

bougie wrote:

And of course there are already many alternate energy possiblilties other than fossil fuels, but the powers at be are not interested , as they woouldn't be lining theior pockets anymore.

List them please. I would like to know too... Smile

bougie wrote:

And let me guess, you drive a gas guzling SUV?

Sorry, you don't win any prizes for that guess, I drove a motorcycle (Honda, not Harley) untill I moved to Shanghai. Now I take the bus like everyone else.

bougie
Board Buddha

Joined: Nov 20, 2004
Posts: 13323
Location: Wuhan Hubei China

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 07:06 PM

Ok then you can get an electric scooter here, I'm sure i'll make a big difference and I'll breath a cleaner air. Yua hahahaha.

As far as alternate solutions, it's a touchy topic. You know most inventors or people that persue un popular things like that do attract some nasty peoples attention. I am not as clever as Frenchlover who can keep the CIA operatives at bay ... so far

bougie
Board Buddha

Joined: Nov 20, 2004
Posts: 13323
Location: Wuhan Hubei China

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 07:17 PM

Maybe my hog can be powered by some magnetic free energy device.

Not very cool though. Not good for picking up chicks

kasei

Reacher

Joined: May 28, 2005
Posts: 334
Location: Hongkou, Shanghai, China
Status: Offline

Posted: Oct 23, 2005 - 11:21 PM

bougie wrote:

Maybe my hog can be powered by some magnetic free energy device.

Not very cool though. Not good for picking up chicks

Nothing sexier than a silent Harley with a top speed of 20mph!

Henry_Chinaski
Board Lord

Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 5025

Posted: Oct 24, 2005 - 01:17 AM

Well. you gotta admit casey has a lot of data in his hands. but that hardly means knowledge. data is not equal to knowledge.

True that the US imports more from Venezuela and Mexico than from the Gulf BUT, you need to look at another column to understand the reason to invade and rape Iraq: the years of reserves at present consumption. Truth be said North America's reserves are on its last decade of economically extractable life. Same to the North Sea. Saudi Aribia and Iraq has 50+ years at present consumption rate. Iraq is not about what oil is today, it's about what it will be 30 years from now. I suggest you to download BP's yearly oil statistics review at their website. It's pretty good.

As for ethics, well, I think you put yourself in trouble there.

Which ethics are you talking about? A dictator that the US sold chemical weapons to? A dictator that the US funded for so many years?

The US RAPED so many countries. So, now they decided to be the good boys is it? Ridiculous.

Probably you havent heard about Salvador Allende? Or perhaps Timor East and Indonesia? Or Granada? Or Panama?

Ethics? Twisted Ethics this of Uncle Sam. Very twisted.

Further, let us not forget that there were NO wmds in Iraq and nothing that justified the invasion of a free country. If this ethic of being the white horse knight is any good, then the US should be in many other countries too. Oh, wait. These other countries dont have any oil. Ermm. Hmmm. Well. Never mind!

kasei

Reacher

Joined: May 28, 2005
Posts: 334
Location: Hongkou, Shanghai, China
Status: Offline

Posted: Oct 24, 2005 - 02:19 AM

Henry_Chinaski wrote:

True that the US imports more from Venezuela and Mexico than from the Gulf BUT, you need to look at another column to understand the reason to invade and rape Iraq: the years of reserves at present consumption. Truth be said North America's reserves are on its last decade of economically extractable life. Same to the North Sea. Saudi Aribia and Iraq has 50+ years at present consumption rate. Iraq is not about what oil is today, it's about what it will be 30 years from now. I suggest you to download BP's yearly oil statistics review at their website. It's pretty good.

That is true. At present rates it would take about 3.5 years to run dry, probably less after the hurricanes.

Would you be kind enough to send me a link to the BP file, or do I need to hunt it down myself?

Henry_Chinaski wrote:

As for ethics, well, I think you put yourself in trouble there.

Yeah, I think you are right there. I should have stuck with expressing facts that I could substantiate, not personal opinion. I've never liked debating ethics anyway. I doubt that anything said ever changes the other side's opinion.

acujerjer
Board Royalty

Joined: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 7770
Location: up your butt and around the corner

Posted: Oct 24, 2005 - 04:41 AM