Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Chavez is talking this way because he knows full well that Venezuela and Iran have us over a barrel. There is where we are after five years of cowboy diplomacy and an anti-conservation energy policy. We can't wish our way out of this one by growing some oil-excreting plankton in a petri dish.

Posted by Mike Johnson at July 31, 2006 01:00 PM

Clearly, he thinks he does. Whether he actually does remains to be seen.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 31, 2006 01:02 PM

Whether he actually does remains to be seen.

Sure, for those who like to watch grass grow.

(But hey, maybe alt.space fans do enjoy that.)

Posted by Mike Johnson at July 31, 2006 01:12 PM

Well, if there is a working process that converts sewage et all into oil at $80 per barrel, I think that pretty much puts a hard stop on the maximum price of oil. We are so close to that now it might be worth it to say "no more foriegn oil", just to get rid of that uncertainty. Of course, I believe in free markets more than that... maybe a special "war tax" on oil would be in line, though.

High oil prices obviously do not hurt our economy that much anymore!

Posted by David Summers at July 31, 2006 01:22 PM

Actually, as shale starts to come on line at under thirty bucks a barrel, that will set the new ceiling.

And Hugo plays a dangerous game. We could, if we chose, quickly remove him from power and protect the Venezualan fields. He seems to be asking for it. And there are many there who wouldn't be displeased of we did.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 31, 2006 01:25 PM

If there is a working process that converts sewage [etc] into oil at $80 per barrel.

But there isn't. These processes don't work or don't scale, or both.

What does work is to drive less and drive smaller cars. A man's car doesn't have to be his castle.

High oil prices obviously do not hurt our economy that much anymore!

The prices will continue to climb until we use less. It's that simple.

Posted by Mike Johnson at July 31, 2006 01:35 PM

We could, if we chose, quickly remove him from power and protect the Venezualan fields.

I'm sure that we could topple Hugo Chavez just as quickly as we toppled Saddam Hussein. Ever since then, we've been spending much more on Iraq than the value of the oil that they pump. Invade in haste, repent at leisure.

Posted by Mike Johnson at July 31, 2006 01:47 PM

High oil prices obviously do not hurt our economy that much anymore!

The prices will continue to climb until we use less. It's that simple.

Okay. And until it hurts our economy, what does it matter what the price is? Isn't that the definition of a price equilibrium in economics?

That's like saying that the price of supercars such as the McLaren or a Ferarri Enzo will continue to rise until people stop buying them. Oh, and thinking that it's somehow a profound statement, rather than a definition from an economics book.

Good on you for driving a smaller car, and driving it less. Now, if you could just be convinced to stop blocking ANWAR drilling and also let us build a few new nuclear power plants in the US, you might start to see your "low oil price" dreams come true.

It still amazes me that greenies block nuke plants on a regular basis but more and more coal plants are still being built to belch smoke for our power grid. (And, yes, I realise that it's just as ridiculous of an out-of-left-field statement as your slam about alt.space people)

Posted by John Breen III at July 31, 2006 01:50 PM

Hey - I didn't know that. I had thought it was around $70 per barrel. OK, so here is a fiendish plan - we can split the proceeds. First, we sell $20B of oil futures at $60/barrel delivered in 2010. Next, we take the money and build a plant. Then we either 1) buy oil at $27/barrel if oil is cheaper, or 2) run our new oil shale plant if that is cheaper. (What do you want to bet someone is doing this right now?)

The long term outcome - oil prices go down and stay down. Because if this was a fluke and the mideast caves and sells cheap oil then they can never do it again (since we now have refineries). If it is a long term oil crisis, we make tons of money in the future of our factory.

Which brings up the question, why did noone fire up the old factories built in the 80s during the current crisis? OK, so the original investors lost their shirts - someone must own them, right?

Posted by David Summers at July 31, 2006 01:53 PM

Hey mike, out of curiousity.. Can you answer Rand's first question? I understand you hate Bush's policies, and so does Chavez. But Chavez goes on to say he wants to finish off the US. Hugo Chavez is the leader of his country. If Chavez, as the leader of his country, expresses the desire to finish off the US: How is this not a functional declaration of war?

I'll note in the past, the US has ignored declaration of war from various entities, only to have their ignorance overcome by a vicious attack. Bin Laden's declaration of war on the US in 1996 comes to mind.

Posted by Leland at July 31, 2006 01:54 PM

I understand you hate Bush's policies, and so does Chavez.

I don't know that Chavez hates Bush's policies. He plays off of them pretty well. True hatred at the top in politics is often under the table.

If Chavez, as the leader of his country, expresses the desire to finish off the US: How is this not a functional declaration of war?

I didn't answer Rand's question because I didn't have any strong opinion -- the real issue is the context of Chavez's statement rather than what he said. But since you ask, Chavez's statement would only be a functional declaration of war if Chavez functionally mobilizes against the United States. So far it's a lot of trash talk, which could perhaps be taken as a nominal declaration of war.

It just doesn't amount to a hill of beans because Bush is full up in Iraq. He has no intention of either reinstating the draft or paying for any of his wars with taxes. He has learned the hard way that you invade in haste, repent at leisure.

Posted by Mike Johnson at July 31, 2006 02:07 PM

Now, if you could just be convinced to stop blocking ANWAR drilling and also let us build a few new nuclear power plants in the US, you might start to see your "low oil price" dreams come true.

But I didn't say anything about ANWR! Or nuclear power plants. ANWR doesn't have enough oil to make much difference. Nuclear power plants could be a good idea, in my view, but they replace coal, not oil.

I had thought [oil shale] was around $70 per barrel.

That's because it is. The cost of oil shale goes up with the price of oil. It's a lot like corn ethanol in that respect.

Posted by Mike Johnson at July 31, 2006 02:12 PM

Mike says: The prices will continue to climb until we use less. It's that simple.

Not really. About 90% of experts agree that oil prices per barrel will hover from 75-95 over the next ten years. The main hike to our current gas prices is the replacement of MTBE additive with ethanol. On top of that, the oil price per barrel that gets all the news is light sweet crude which we don't use in the US. We use heavy crude and Valero does 90% of the refining, because of high sulphur content. Chavez is getting a pretty penny from us for the heavy crude, but not near what light sweet crude is at. Anwar IS a significant amount of oil and we have the technology and the will to drill it cleanly, but the tree-huggers don't want us to, but we're supposed to find sources of oil....typical. The largest untaped oil supply on earth sits just south of the US, in the Gulf of Mexico, but damned if the tree huggers don't let us get that either. Once again, the roadblocks are put up by those screaming the loudest for relief.

Posted by Mac at July 31, 2006 02:36 PM

I love this kind of gobbledy gook, double talk,

I didn't answer Rand's question because I didn't have any strong opinion

cowboy diplomacy isn't just opinion Mike, it's straight from the DemocratUnderground buzz word list

you further said,

-- the real issue is the context of Chavez's statement rather than what he said. But since you ask, Chavez's statement would only be a functional declaration of war if Chavez functionally mobilizes against the United States.

We got a functional declaration from the Japanese once, about 3 or 4 hours late, but it was functional.

The U.S. is ALWAYS and supposedly threatening somebody with far less forceful words. If it's George W. Bush who says things like, we won't stand by and be attacked or we won't allow our allies to be attacked or God forbid, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!! Oh brother, we deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth for those sacrileges.

If any non-Democrat says anything about defending the U.S., it's considered an act of aggression. No matter who strikes at us, no matter where in the world the U.S. goes or for what reason, we are the aggressors. No matter how much foreign aid we pay out we are the aggressors.

Chavez didn't allude to anything Mike, he DID call for the forcible destruction of a sovereign nation. OURS!! Personally I don't think either of them currently has the means or the testicular fortitude to try it. The day that Iran and Venezuela have the United States over a barrel of crude oil, gasoline or even peanut butter, you better watch yourself Mike.

If history shows us anything about Communists and Religious Zealots, they kill the native members of their species first. Your anti-Bush rhetoric marks you as at least left leaning, the vehemence marks the depth of the hatred and it smells like religion to most of us living on the right!

Beware!

Posted by Steve at July 31, 2006 02:36 PM

> If there is a working process that converts sewage [etc] into oil at $80 per barrel.

But there isn't. These processes don't work or don't scale, or both.

I don't know about sewage, but coal can be profitably turned into diesel fuel by gasification/Fischer-Tropsch synthesis at an equivalent of about $40/barrel (and into gasoline, lube oils, etc. at similar costs). At the current price of oil, the internal rate of return for such a coal-based synfuel plant, in Wyoming, would exceed 100%/year.

The technology behind such plants is state of the practice; what's been inhibiting it is the expectation the price of oil would come down too fast to recoup the investment. That expectation has been seriously dented by continuing high prices, so multi-billion dollar GTL and CTL (gas-to-liquids, coal-to-liquids) investments are going ahead around the world.

Posted by Paul Dietz at July 31, 2006 02:41 PM

Chavez didn't allude to anything Mike, he DID call for the forcible destruction of a sovereign nation. OURS!!

Okay, he called for it. And Fidel Castro has been saying the same thing for 45 years. Maybe it means something and maybe it doesn't. The fact remains that Bush doesn't want to pay for the wars that he is already fighting, much less any new wars.

but the tree-huggers don't want us to

With enough of this talk about the tree huggers this and the tree huggers that, you can almost forget that the Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. The guys at the top who write and sign the laws are singing the same tune: the tree huggers this and the tree huggers that. Some people just aren't satisfied even when they have it all.

Posted by Mike Johnson at July 31, 2006 02:51 PM

Of course, if the US cuts its oil usage, this will lead to lower prices, which will lead to increased usage in the rest of the world, resulting in prices going most of the way back up to where they were in the first place.

Posted by Mike Earl at July 31, 2006 02:57 PM

Mike says: With enough of this talk about the tree huggers this and the tree huggers that, you can almost forget that the Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress.

Yes they do.

The guys at the top who write and sign the laws are singing the same tune: the tree huggers this and the tree huggers that.

Singing the same tune, yes. Reaching out to the other side of the aisle for assistance in getting things done. For instance, the education money that Ted Kennedy authored a bill for and got the amount he wanted.....then wanted more. The drilling for oil has been blocked by the left and the enviromentalist lobby. Just because the govt is conservative, doesn't mean they can do what they want.

Some people just aren't satisfied even when they have it all.

POT, HEY POT! Kettle calling again, pick up will you?

Posted by Mac at July 31, 2006 03:01 PM

Paul Dietz: I don't know about sewage, but coal can be profitably turned into diesel fuel by gasification/Fischer-Tropsch synthesis at an equivalent of about $40/barrel (and into gasoline, lube oils, etc. at similar costs).

That could be, Paul. But you either have to be a big fan of atmospheric carbon dioxide to like this solutio, or you have to have CO2 sequestration, even to bring CO2 release down to the level of oil. I don't kow how much that adds to the cost, whether sequestration can scale, or whether this promised price of $40 per barrel can be trusted. But yes, unlike oil-bearing plankton, this one could be realistic.

Even so, this is somewhat beside the point in regard to Hugo Chavez. It will take years for any of these alternatives to come on line. Chavez's rule is limited to only 4 more years by the Venezuelan Constitution, although it is true that he wants to change that law. If the price of oil does go down and the Iraq war somehow ends during his rule, he could just back off and play nicey-nicey at that time, just like Muammar Qaddafi.

Posted by Mike Johnson at July 31, 2006 03:10 PM

Maybe so, but at least we would have less of the monkey on our back. The price of oil matters less, if you buy less.

Posted by Mike Johnson at July 31, 2006 03:22 PM

Chavez is walking down a well worn road. Oil industry investment has been slashed - the money is being spent elsewhere. Extraction cost going up.... It is an old old story. It will be an expensive mess for whoever follows him....

Posted by anon at July 31, 2006 03:25 PM

> I don't know about sewage, but coal can be profitably turned into diesel
> fuel by gasification/Fischer-Tropsch synthesis at an equivalent of about $40/
>barrel (and into gasoline, lube oils, etc. at similar costs). At the current
> price of oil, the internal rate of return for such a coal-based synfuel plant,
> in Wyoming, would exceed 100%/year.

Syncrude is producing oil from Canadian tar sands for $10 a barrel, according to Wired magazine.

Posted by Edward Wright at July 31, 2006 05:37 PM

Mike, Castro has in fact been making similar noises for years.

But way back when, He actually attempted to carry it out. It was called the Missile Crisis. We won, he's been defanged ever since. It helped defang the Soviets too.

Iran and Chavez are doing the same now, attempting through our need for oil to make noise. The difference is that the Soviet Union is not around to prop up either country.

If either country thinks we'll sit back as Iran builds nukes and Chavez threatens our families and homes, they better both start making caskets.

Posted by Steve at July 31, 2006 06:05 PM

All these pencildicks like Chavez and the Iranian Nutjob think they are Luke Skywalker and all they have to do is fire one proton torpedo down our reactor exhaust port to do us in.

They seem to forget we aren't the empire and the US isn't the death star and an Ohio class SSBN is death beyond their wildest fantasies.

BTW, taking Venezuela would be baby piss compared to Iraq. It would take about twice the effort it took to topple Noriega to take out Chavez.

Central and Souh Americans just aren't down with the jihad thing, they pretty much let the government fall and go on with life. If they fought back with any zeal, it would be the first time in 150 years. They pretty much emulate the French in effective military resistance. I don't think there are enough die hard Chavez fanboys to pull it off.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 31, 2006 06:21 PM

********

More Daily Kos talking points. Oil companies are going nuts to get the offshore rights in Greenland where the estimated oil there is about 1.2 billion barrels. ANWR is estimated at 15 billion barrels.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at July 31, 2006 06:42 PM

ANWAR has the capaciy to replace Venezuela if we would only tap it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 31, 2006 06:49 PM

BTW, taking Venezuela would be baby piss compared to Iraq.

It really seems to stick in people's craw here that Hugo Chavez can talk trash without Washington doing anything about it. It seems that some people mind loss of face a lot more than loss of security. If people were truly worried about loss of security, they might think a little less about Chavez and a little more about Pakistan, home of the "Islamic bomb".

Yes, taking Venezuela would be "baby piss" compared to Iraq. But then, taking Iraq was also "baby piss" compared to what Iraq is now. It's just basic NRA propaganda, which isn't entirely wrong by any means, that holding a country can be harder than taking it.

Now it may be comforting -- again for no reason other than that Chavez is an irritating little twit -- to trade in stereotypes and claim that the Latinos don't have a lot of bite, they just sit on the porch and grin. It may be true that Latin American radicals are not as interested as Islamic radicals in, say, suicide bombings. It is not true that they have no bite. Before the OKC bombing and the 9/11 attacks, one of the most alarming modern acts of terrorism in America occurred when Puerto Ricans opened fire on the floor of Congress. Luckily those guys were poor shots, but it still proves the point.

Besides, if Latin Americans really were such pushovers, Cuba wouldn't still be Communist. Which brings us full circle to the present situation in Iraq. The American mission in Iraq is looking more and more like Guantanamo. Not in the sense of Camp X-Ray, but rather that the American bases are turning into little armed islands that don't control the country around them. We never did "cut and run" from Cuba either, for all of the good that it did.

Posted by Mike Johnson at July 31, 2006 07:03 PM

"Syncrude is producing oil from Canadian tar sands for $10 a barrel, according to Wired magazine."

And the Alberta Tar Sands (they are owned by the province of Alberta, not by the government of Canada) hold the equivalent of over 1.7 trillion barrels of oil - one third of the world's total oil reserves. Another 1.8 trillion barrels are in tar sands in Venezuela, but they would need Canadian and American investment and expertise to extract the oil... what are the chances of that while Hugo-a-go-go is spouting off his blather?

Posted by Ed Minchau at July 31, 2006 07:08 PM

ANWR is estimated at 15 billion barrels.

It is fashionable these days, sometimes in the name of "optimism", to take the best case of every Republican proposal for granted. The USGS study did say 16 billion barrels, but that was not any kind of promise, it was at the 95th percentile of their range of estimates. The middle of their range is 10 billion barrels, and what is more important, the middle estimate for production is 874 thousand barrels per day in the year 2024. (See http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ogp/results.html .)

This is not "replacing Venezuela". Venezuelan oil production is not 900 thousand barrels per day in 2024, it's 3 million barrels per day in 2005, according to the CIA Almanac - https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ve.html .

Posted by Mike Johnson at July 31, 2006 07:17 PM

You're wasting key strokes on Mike. He's got the Daily Kos / Democrat Underground talking points on his desk top, and he believes them.

He's right, we're wrong, ask him.

Not enough oil, Bush sucks, Cheney sucks, Cowboy Diplomacy, Hybrid Cars are the wave of the future, no WMDs, yadda, yadda, yadda...

If and when we run out of oil, (which I don't believe) some enterprising technical type will figure out how to get oil out of used grocery store bags or old curtains. Probably some guy that's been tinkering in his garage, that everyone has been sneering at for 25 years.

When there is a NEED, there is almost always an innovation. Technology never was static, is not now static, and never, never will be static.

Remember my rock throwing cave monkey? It took about a week for his buddy, Oog, to figure out a sling to throw that rock farther and harder. We've been moving forward technologically ever since. We need two garage tinkering monkeys tired of $3.00 a gallon gas, it's that simple.

EEK EEK!! Curtain Gas, $2.00 per gallon!! EEK EEK!!

Posted by Steve at July 31, 2006 07:49 PM

That could be, Paul. But you either have to be a big fan of atmospheric carbon dioxide to like this solutio, or you have to have CO2 sequestration,

You don't have to be a big fan of CO2, you just have to not care. For example, if you own huge amounts of coal, you probably won't care too much about CO2. And Peabody (one of the largest coal producers in the world) is very interested in building coal-based FT plants. There are enough people around the world who don't care, and enough money to be made (trillions of dollars!) that this solution will be adopted if the price of liquid fuels stays high.

I suspect carbon sequestration, with extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere, is going to have to be the solution, since I doubt the global society is any more capable of preventing CO2 emissions than it is capable of preventing war or slavery or dictatorships. Sequestration with atmospheric capture has the advantage of not requiring global cooperation.

Posted by Paul Dietz at July 31, 2006 08:04 PM

Chavez may think that Venezuela and Iran have the U.S. over a barrel, but those countries are at least as dependent upon oil revenue as the U.S. is on oil for energy and unless they change their ways, they have no alternatives. The U.S. does have alternatives, lots of them. Exploiting ANWAR and Gulf oil fields, nuclear power, driving smaller cars and driving less, GTL and CTL, etc.

There's no one silver bullet, but we have many energy options. Choice is good. I ride a motorcycle, 45 MPG and a ton of fun.

Posted by Steve Rogers at July 31, 2006 08:41 PM

If and when we run out of oil, (which I don't believe)

You mean when American oil production peaks? Yeah, that will probably never happen.

Okay, that wasn't a serious comment. You probably mean world oil production. THAT will probably never peak. Unlike American oil production.

He's got the Daily Kos / Democrat Underground talking points

But I don't read either one of those web sites. Everything that I have to say is just informed common sense. If it happens to intersect with Daily Kos, so be it.

Which is why we are just about to boycott the world oil market. Woohoo!

Posted by Mike Johnson at July 31, 2006 09:24 PM

Everything that I have to say is just informed common sense.

That's the funniest thing you've written all day, Mr. Troll. I suspect it wasn't intentional, though.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 31, 2006 09:43 PM

A "leftie" demolishes Peak Oil:

Reserves are the measure of oil recoverable at a certain price. Raise the price, raise the reserve. Cut the price and the amount of oil in the ground drops. In other words, it's a fool's errand to measure the "amount of oil we have left." It depends on the price. At $9 a barrel (the price in 1998), we've peaked. It's over. All gone. But at $70 a barrel (reached in the third year of the Iraq occupation), miracles happen. Oil gushes forth like manna. How much more? If you are willing to pay $70 a barrel-and apparently you are-it's worth it to melt sand and drain out the petroleum. Indeed, the "tar sands" of Alberta, Canada, hold 280 billion barrels of oil-for enough high octane to run our Humvees for a century. Canada's tar oil reserves are, notably, about 15% higher than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. It's not pie-in-the-sky stuff. America is dependent on foreign oil-but not from Arabia. Our biggest source of oil is Canada and half of the Canadian supply today comes from tar sands. And that will grow. How could Hubbert have missed all this oil? Answer: He didn't. On page 20 of his famous "Peak Oil" study, he accepts that the planet can yield up 800 billion barrels of oil from tar sands equal to all the "crude" (i.e., liquid) oil we are using up.

Given the cost of maintaining our military, why are we sending petrodollars to Saudi Arabia?

Get Alberta tars sands on line and the next time some Saudis attack a US skyscraper tell Beijing to buy Canadian because the Straits of Hormuz have been closed - - courtesy of the US Navy.

At $80 or $90 a barrel that is still a better deal than playing up to Arab oil shieks.

Posted by Bill White at July 31, 2006 10:32 PM

No I don't think we'll run out of oil. New technology will meet the demand.

25 years ago, extracting oil from the Canadian tar sand was TOO EXPENSIVE, it could never be done economically. That was the constant nay sayer drone, now they are extracting, it's real, it's viable.

I have no idea what the technology will be to meet the future demand. I don't have a garage and my current landlord doesn't allow me to keep tinkering monkeys, even if they too are tired of $3.00 per gallon gas.

Posted by Steve at August 1, 2006 03:58 AM

Yet "Peak Oil" does mean cheap oil is already gone for good.

Posted by Bill White at August 1, 2006 05:55 AM

I don't have a garage and my current landlord doesn't allow me to keep tinkering monkeys, even if they too are tired of $3.00 per gallon gas.

Hey, I was tired of $1.00 per gallon gas. I want gas to be 4 cents a gallon, like it was in Iraq until a few months ago. (They raised it to 42 cents.) All of these years I expected the "tinkering monkeys" to think of something, but for some reason they played stupid.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 1, 2006 08:17 AM

If the US was in Iraq for the oil, there wouldn't be any troops in the cities.

In fact, we'd pretty much ignore the populace and build bases around the wells and terminals and patrol the pipelines 24/7.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 1, 2006 08:26 AM

Syncrude is producing oil from Canadian tar sands for $10 a barrel, according to Wired magazine.

Understand the cost varies depending on local details. Some tar sand deposits are at the surface, and can be mined (using these Really Big trucks and draglines). Others have to be liquefied in situ, which is more expensive, involving drilling, steam injection, etc.

Posted by Paul Dietz at August 1, 2006 10:10 AM

Understand the cost varies depending on local details.

The cost also varies if you don't count all of it.

The Wikipedia article on the Athabasca Oil Sands explains what is really going on. It may only cost $10 per barrel to dig and filter the Athabasca oil sands, but capital depreciation is another $10 per barrel. Upgrading the bitumen to petroleum is another $20 per barrel. That makes $40 per barrel total.

Wikipedia is such a great antidote to Weird Magazine, Fix News, Already Been Chewed News, and so many other crummy news sources.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 1, 2006 10:40 AM

Mike, I’m glad you compared wikipedia with news outlets like Fox and ABC, because that is a proper comparison. None of those sources should ever be considered authoritative.

Posted by Leland at August 1, 2006 10:55 AM

Mike, I’m glad you compared wikipedia with news outlets like Fox and ABC, because that is a proper comparison. None of those sources should ever be considered authoritative.

No, there is a difference. Wikipedia may not be authoritative, but it is often very good. There is no point in watching Fix News and Already Been Chewed News at all. Or the Cowardly News Network. Comedy Central beats all of them.

The only serious news on TV is on PBS, e.g., Frontline. Wikipedia does cite Frontline thousands of times.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 1, 2006 11:14 AM

"mmmm...atmospheric carbon dioxide..."

Posted by Billy Beck at August 1, 2006 11:27 AM

>> Syncrude is producing oil from Canadian tar sands for $10 a barrel,
>> according to Wired magazine.

> Understand the cost varies depending on local details. Some tar sand deposits
> are at the surface, and can be mined (using these Really Big trucks and
> draglines).

Actually, the draglines have already been replaced by cheaper equipment.

Posted by Edward Wright at August 1, 2006 03:39 PM

> Yet "Peak Oil" does mean cheap oil is already gone for good.

:-) By that new, revised definition we reached "peak oil" long ago. So what?

In the real world, "cheap" is only meaningful in comparison to income and buying power. The fact that oil is more expensive than it once was (but affordable relative to GDP) doesn't mean we're doomed, doomed, DOOMED -- which is what "peak oil" supposedly meant until this week. :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at August 1, 2006 03:54 PM

In the real world, "cheap" is only meaningful in comparison to income and buying power.

Precisely.

And if someone could craft a multi-billion dollar TV deal to broadcast Russia & the EU beating NASA back to the Moon then Soyuz and Proton are plenty "cheap enough" to get the job done.

Maybe that would frighten / annoy / humiliate the US Congress into getting serious about a US space program.

Posted by Bill White at August 1, 2006 05:13 PM

I wonder how much HHO gas will benefit us in the future?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=660759158947266385&q=hho

Posted by Josh Reiter at August 1, 2006 06:54 PM

"Besides, if Latin Americans really were such pushovers, Cuba wouldn't still be Communist"

Do you understand the comcept of "Soviet Union?"

Are you really naive enough to think the cuban military was sufficient to deter the United States all by itself?

BTW Mike, no need to answer those questions. It is self-evident that the answer to one is no and two is yes.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 1, 2006 07:15 PM

Ed,

Draglines and Large Trucks are the most cost ffective mining equipment if you have a large block of resource to mine.

The big stuff uses fewer people to mine more coal but requires a large chunk of stuff to gnaw on. It is fun to watch a big dragline operation work, the coreography between the grubbers, blasters, dragline and trucks is simply amazing.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 1, 2006 07:20 PM

Do you understand the comcept of "Soviet Union?"

That ended 15 years ago Mike, fully one third of Cuba's Communist history.

Are you really naive enough to think the cuban military was sufficient to deter the United States all by itself?

No, that's not my point. It would be easy to overthrow Castro just like it was easy to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The problem is what would happen after. Invade in haste, repent at leisure.

BTW Mike, no need to answer those questions. It is self-evident that

Look, Mike, I know it may be tempting, but no shadow boxing please.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 1, 2006 08:27 PM

> Draglines and Large Trucks are the most cost ffective mining equipment if you have a large block of resource to mine.

Read this:

http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/syncrude/index.html#syncrude7

Posted by Edward Wright at August 1, 2006 09:30 PM

"That ended 15 years ago Mike, fully one third of Cuba's Communist history"

Yep, and they have been pretty impotent without their Soviet Masters funding haven't they?

Better to let them die on the vine slowly as long as they don't kick their heels up like they did during the soviet era.

BTW, the latest news is your hero Fidel is soon to join your idol Che in Hell. My condolences.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 1, 2006 09:31 PM

Ed,

I have considerable knowledge of urface mining technology having worked in the Coal industry. It depends on the local Geology. The article you linked to provides insuficent information in relation of the local Geology. Draglines tend to work where the general reilef is less severe and you have a large continous block of recource.

Rugged terrain where you have lots of erosion features favors truck and shovel.

I stand by my statement on the efficeincy of large equipment.

Go visit the powder river basin and see what they are using to mine those huge beds of lignite.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 1, 2006 09:40 PM

> if someone could craft a multi-billion dollar TV deal to broadcast Russia & the EU beating NASA
> back to the Moon then Soyuz and Proton are plenty "cheap enough" to get the job done.

Several billion? Sure, Bill. All you have to do is onvince one television network to spend its entire yearly programming budget on one show. :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at August 1, 2006 10:13 PM

BTW, the latest news is your hero Fidel is soon to join your idol Che in Hell.

But Fidel Castro isn't my hero and Che Guevara isn't my idol. There you go shadow boxing again. All I said is that the United States didn't topple Castro and probably won't topple Chavez. I didn't say that they were good guys.

Since you ask, it would be very nice if Cuba became capitalist and a liberal democracy after Castro dies. (Liberal democracy in the sense that Rand used.) It would also be nice if the United States pointed Cuba in the right direction. But it is yet possible that crazies in Washington will screw it up, just like they did Iraq.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 1, 2006 10:54 PM

Mike says: All I said is that the United States didn't topple Castro and probably won't topple Chavez. I didn't say that they were good guys.

Right on the money. We may helped castrate him power-wise, but we didn't topple him.

Mike says: It would also be nice if the United States pointed Cuba in the right direction. But it is yet possible that crazies in Washington will screw it up, just like they did Iraq.

And you were doing so well until you threw that last part in. Sigh

Posted by Mac at August 2, 2006 06:35 AM

After all, no other country is ever responsible for the leaders it chooses or tolerates - it's always the US' fault.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 2, 2006 08:14 AM

After all, no other country is ever responsible for the leaders it chooses or tolerates - it's always the US' fault.

No, not always, Andy. It depends on whether the United States invades the countries in question. Which is not to say that the US should never do it, but it does indeed open the door to blame.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 2, 2006 08:38 AM

Right on the money. We may helped castrate him power-wise, but we didn't topple him.

He's doing that well enough himself, what with incredibly stupid lobotomization of the state-run oil industry. Chase out the people who know what they're doing, turn the thing into a charity, make the environment prohibitively hostile for investment, and, gosh, production rates go all to hell.

Containment works fine on economic idiots, as the cold war demonstrated. It will work fine on Cuba and Venezula as well, unless you happen to live there.

Posted by Paul Dietz at August 3, 2006 06:48 AM

America is dependent on foreign oil-but not from Arabia. Our biggest source of oil is Canada and half of the Canadian supply today comes from tar sands.

As Dogbert observed, comments like this send the message 'Look! I don't know what "fungible" means!'

Oil is a largely fungible commodity. To a first approximation, it doesn't matter where the production is, or where the consumption is, only the sum total of each. If we want to reduce the price of oil, reducing demand elsewhere, or increasing production elsewhere (even if that oil doesn't get shipped to the US), will work just as well as doing so in the US.

Posted by Paul Dietz at August 3, 2006 06:59 AM

Post a comment