Whadaya mean "unfriendly"? The Emirates loves us and send us plenty of oil. Lets face it, they can't sell it to other Arab countries and we have an unlimited appetite, so it's a marriage made in heaven. Iraq loves us now, and if they don't we'll just spend another $200b to kick their ass to tell 'em that they do (and so Haliburton can make another extra $10b on the side). The Saudi's loves us, we let all the Bin Ladins fly home before they got their ass kicked on 9-11.
But, the Arabian countries don't really sell oil to "us", they sell it to the oil companies who jack the price and screw us all while getting massive US Gov't tax discounts because apparently there's no incentive to develop new oil wells. Go figure. I have to laugh when I hear about "arctic oil exploration" being a resource to lower our costs - like the oil companies are going to cut the cost of oil below market because they like selling to US citizens. Right. Exxon quarterly results in today - 10b quarterly profits largest ever in US History ...following last year's highest ever annual profits in US History. Those US oil companies really care about the country.
Lets face it - it does not matter where the oil comes from - we're going to get screwed by the government giving away our resources and tax money and the oil companies making obscene profits.
Such is life. I'll just work harder, make more money to pay for my high priced premium gas, and enjoy the turbo.
How about the 9-11 commission as a credible cite? A slew of Saudi citizens (150?) and 20+ members of the Bin Laden family were allowed to fly out in the week following 9-11 after cursory interviews by the FBI. It happened very quietly. It's in the 9-11 Commission report. All verified facts.
Read into it what you want, that's a political issue. I think the Saudi's appreciated it. MHO.
I know about the futures market. I also know that regardless of the price that the oil companies are paying when they actually exercise a buy, they are all making obscene profits from jacking prices for gasoline, fuel oil, and natural gas.
Not bad... but there has to be a better reason than paying them not to grow things. There has to be a valid market and products. Don't expect the current administration of ex- and current oil company executives to be pushing alternate fuel development (again, not a political statement, just a factual observation - it ain't gonna happen).
well, the money that is now going to them to *not* grow anything could be used to pay them to grow specific non-food energy crops. The point of the current farm subsidies is to (artificially) keep the food-crop prices higher.
It would be killing two birds with one dollar, so to speak...
in article snipped-for-privacy@individual.net, Dave Hinz at snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote on 31/01/2006 18:34:
Well, it's been around 1500 years since the Arabs got religious :)
It's more about power, than money. There are echelons of power above which the likes of you or I will ever know. Oil is one of those power bases. It could easily be nuclear power, but as you well know, your government is very vocal about nations trying to adopt nuclear power and spent many years in a very tense debacle with another global power over just that matter.
As you rightly say, local empowerment is paramount when one considers global oil usage and the ramifications, thereof.
The UK has long been paying its farmers not to farm, but it did not pay its coal miners not to mine! Our government decided that coal miners were practically terrorists when they decided to stand up and "not take it anymore". Farmers in the UK are no doubt very different from farmers in the US, being "land owners" and the last bastion of that layer of conservative power in the UK. After FMD devastated our land, I longed to see livestock back in the fields. It took years! In that slack time, our government decided that paying farmers not to bother was better for our economy, since we could import meat, grain, whatever cheaper from abroad ... Oh! Like the '80s when that bitch Thatcher* killed off British Coal in favour of Argentinean imports from her mate Pinochet, with whom we had some phoney war back then when no-one really knew where that Falklands were.
"Maggie Thatcher ... Milk Snatcher" Some will know ... Some will ask the question :)
I cannot see how it makes any actual sense to do that. Where people have vast areas of land that could be given over to beet production for alternative fuels, great! Why the f*ck not do it? All that offal from meat production can make Biogas. It comes down to money ... Simple as that! We don't follow global initiatives to explore alternative fuel sources because it costs too much. Or rather, it costs less to do nothing ... For now. That's the crux.
Back to cars ... We do need to shift from oil. Ethanol, bio-gas and bio-diesel are most definitely viable alternatives. By viable, I mean can continue a way of life as we know it with oil. When I visited Trollhättan a couple of years ago, I was thrilled to see the local buses running on biogas (well, really, I was thrilled to see over a hundred classic 900s drive by the hotel in under an hour, but ...) and it got me thinking about why we did not do this in the UK. We have an outstanding public transport service. I know we bitch on that the trains are never on time and so on, but our bus and coach service is excellent, generally. If local authorities could take on biogas powered public transport then we're one step closer to the ideal. I've long been hassling WYPTE (my local public transport executive) to take on bio-powered vehicles and be a UK leader. This really does smack of the Rio summit slogan "Think global ... Act local".
They do seem receptive, but I do understand timing is important. Well, I don't but they say so and have not come up with a better fob-off to date. They know it's important to do so, but I suppose corporations do need to get it right when they do make the jump.
I'm not sure the Kyoto agreement is all that important, globally, but when I see European nations taking it on and reaching certain goalposts well in advance of "the schedule", I wonder why other parts of the world are not doing so. I did ask about the US in a previous post. Who is receptive to change? Who can drive the environmental agenda in the US? I did read recently about the mayor? or governor? Of New York (sorry, my understanding of the tiers of government in the US is not very good) who seems to have been rubbished for pointing out how many cars could actually run alternative fuels, unaltered but do not. He was pointing out that his area could well drive an agenda of change, if only people would listen. Well ... Maybe he could talk louder?
Crap, I've written a lot there. Erm, it's not directed at Dave ... I'm mostly in agreement with Dave on the principles. I've been thinking about the numerous posts on this matter and I suppose that's my brain fart :)
Hey Paul - that's really encouraging. I'd kind of resigned myself to the the depressing thought that we were about to run out of oil and descend into chaos, war and the new dark ages. I read somewhere that we peaked the oil production curve 2 years ago, and it's downhill from now on, with increasing prices, diminishing resources, and it would all be over in 20 years time. Even if the US started a massive nuclear plant-building program today, there wouldn't be enough juice to go round. Apparently.
I could almost see individual households or even small towns running off wind power (no shortage of that up here in Scotland) or solar cells or whatever... but I couldn't figure what would keep all the factories going that produce all the things we need / take for granted. Maybe "biogas" or something will step in and keep the lights on.
Enjoy your beer. Although you've probably had too much already? ;)
It confirms exactly what I said - that the Saudi's were quietly allowed to exit the country after light FBI interviews. I'm not sure why you say it contradicts what I said. Go back and read my post. However, I do concede to a typo in my first post where I said "fly home before they got their ass kicked on 9-11" What I should have said was "fly home before they got their ass kicked after 9-11". Obviously they did not fly on 9-11 and I don't know of anyone who has alleged that. There are those that have alleged that they flew out before flights out were allowed and I haven't seen any evidence of that. I have seen that they were given some nice personal treatment by the head of the NSC (and that BS about the Pres and Vice Pres not being aware of what the head of the NSC head was doing is nonsense). That personal treatment certainly made them happy as I suggested in my original post.
It was still preferential and custom treatment by the head of the NSC with the knowledge of the President to help them get home fast. Read the report you cited.
I don't see any difference and I am not changing points. They are buying and selling oil and making record profits. We are getting screwed at the pump. Call it jacking, call it profiteering, it's the same thing in my book.
If you buy the political posturing by Bush concerning alternate fuels, so be it. Wanna buy a bridge ?
(shrug) I read somewhere that elvis is still alive. Saw it on tah intarweb so it must be true...
(rolls eyes) What do you find so unbelievable? That the black stuff will run out? That we'll reach the point that what's left will be too expensive to get at, or kept by "unfriendly" people?? OK, the internet is full of nonsense and personal opinions (as you can see). But I find a lot of the stuff more believeable than my local, cuddly news presenter or any of our politicians. And another thing - don't adopt that "redneck" tone with me.
Maybe you could quote me the part of the report that you think says what you're saying, because I've read the parts I think you refer to several times and they seem not to back up your claims.
Severe backpedal noted.
This is tiresome.
THEY DON'T SET THE PRICES.
See what I mean? Your type won't even be happy when he does something right.
So what part of "develop the biofuels infrastructure within the US so we can give less money to Arabic countries" do you disagree with, specifically, Bob? Can you answer that without more distortions, deceptions, and bias?
No, the part where you backed it up with "I read somewhere" type language.
If you don't like my tone, there's an easy fix, isn't there. You're free to take offense at that if you want; wasn't intended to do such, it's fairly common usage "round these parts" as a way of describing the phenomenon you were exhibiting. (shrug) Your choice.
Did you see GWB's State of the Union speech ? I got pissed off by the whining about 9/11 and the claim yet again that Iraq had something to do with it but when I came back......
I was gobsmacked that he said the USA has to get off it's dependency on oil and announced funds for research into alternative fuels including the aim to make ethanol 'commercially viable' within 6 yrs.
Quotes? I didn't see him blaming Iraq for 9/11, but I was doing two other things.
I wasn't surprised by that in the least, because I don't automatically assume the worst about the guy and his intentions. And yet there are undoubtedly people who will characterize it as nothing much - just like they don't give him credit for his other accomplishments. It gets tiresome.
Nuclear is a great answer. Unfortunately, people who "feel" about things rather than "think" about things, stand in the way of getting new nuke plants built.
The thing about nuclear in the UK that puzzles me wrt coverage in the media is that there's this assumption that the *government* will decide if we're to have new nuclear plants.
It ain't so. Thatcher's government privatised the electricity generating industry so it's entirely up to private investors to decide how to generate electricity now ! No amount of polticicking will change that. Either nuclear is a good investment or it isn't.
Of course, the rules may be changed ! Be interesting to watch this one.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.