Another angle to this global warmingering:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213&q=bullshit
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213&q=bullshit
An Inconvenient Truth
- Thread starter Very Veronica
- Start date
Another study that talks about the Mid East Oil Fields being mature and needing technology to continue extraction.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061226/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_study_dc
Copy of news story pasted here:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran's claim to need nuclear power may be genuine, given that it could run out of oil to export as soon as eight years from now, according to an analysis published on Tuesday by the National Academy of Sciences.
The study's author, Roger Stern, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland, said investment in Iranian oil production had been inadequate to offset oil field declines and the explosive growth in domestic demand.
"I'm not saying that Iran will have no oil in eight years," Stern said in a telephone interview. "I'm saying that they will be using all of it for themselves."
The analysis, published in the latest issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said the Iranian government could become "politically vulnerable" from declining exports.
Oil exports account for about 70 percent of Iranian government revenue, said Stern, of the university's department of geography and environmental engineering.
He projected that in five years, Iranian oil exports may be less than half their present level, and could drop to zero by 2015.
"It therefore seems possible that Iran's claim to need nuclear power might be genuine, an indicator of distress from anticipated export revenue shortfalls," he wrote. "If so, the Iranian regime may be more vulnerable than is presently understood."
Iran has vowed to boost its uranium enrichment drive despite new U.N. sanctions approved on Saturday aimed at rolling back a nuclear program that the West fears is a prelude to atomic weapons.
Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns called on Japan, Europe, Russia and China to stop "business as usual" with Iran "to drive up the cost to the Iranians of essentially doing what they're doing" with uranium enrichment.
My comments:
As usual, the journalist that got the press release hasn't actually thought about what it means.
Oil Fields have lifetimes. In each section of that lifetime, various extraction methods will work. The problem is some methods preclude future methods of extraction.
Iran and most of the Mid-East have been using Natural Gas insertion to extract their oil. This means that there is still lots of heavy oil in the field, but they haven't the technology to get it out.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061226/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_study_dc
Copy of news story pasted here:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran's claim to need nuclear power may be genuine, given that it could run out of oil to export as soon as eight years from now, according to an analysis published on Tuesday by the National Academy of Sciences.
The study's author, Roger Stern, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland, said investment in Iranian oil production had been inadequate to offset oil field declines and the explosive growth in domestic demand.
"I'm not saying that Iran will have no oil in eight years," Stern said in a telephone interview. "I'm saying that they will be using all of it for themselves."
The analysis, published in the latest issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said the Iranian government could become "politically vulnerable" from declining exports.
Oil exports account for about 70 percent of Iranian government revenue, said Stern, of the university's department of geography and environmental engineering.
He projected that in five years, Iranian oil exports may be less than half their present level, and could drop to zero by 2015.
"It therefore seems possible that Iran's claim to need nuclear power might be genuine, an indicator of distress from anticipated export revenue shortfalls," he wrote. "If so, the Iranian regime may be more vulnerable than is presently understood."
Iran has vowed to boost its uranium enrichment drive despite new U.N. sanctions approved on Saturday aimed at rolling back a nuclear program that the West fears is a prelude to atomic weapons.
Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns called on Japan, Europe, Russia and China to stop "business as usual" with Iran "to drive up the cost to the Iranians of essentially doing what they're doing" with uranium enrichment.
My comments:
As usual, the journalist that got the press release hasn't actually thought about what it means.
Oil Fields have lifetimes. In each section of that lifetime, various extraction methods will work. The problem is some methods preclude future methods of extraction.
Iran and most of the Mid-East have been using Natural Gas insertion to extract their oil. This means that there is still lots of heavy oil in the field, but they haven't the technology to get it out.
Saudi Arabia has been using the technology for some time. They have so many nuclear reactors providing superheated steam that the electricity they use to desalinate water is a waste product.westwoody said:
Iran is trying to self develop the technology. The problem is that the USA has driven them into the Nuclear Weapons club. Remember that Iran isn't likely to get much interest from investors. Most remember how much got paid back when they nationalized the assets of the oil companies in the 80s.
What is going to be there in 2015 is similar to the Oil Sand Deposits near Peace River. Unlike the deposits near Fort McMurray, the Peace River deposits are too deep to mine. There have been experiments with inserting natural gas and with inserting superheated steam to extract the very heavy, very deep oil. Natural gas failed because the oil still wouldn't pump. Superheated steam works, but takes a lot of water. There would have to be pipelines to carry water to the site. There also cannot be any potential of labour disruptions. Steam Extraction is a continuous process, if it's disrupted, it's very expensive to get enough heat into the steam that has condenced into water and the oil deposit itself so that production can resume.
This spring, the Americans are going to be paying U$4.50 per Gallon or U$1.19 per Litre, that's about C$1.25 per Litre for us Canadians.
By 2015 the Americans will be paying over U$7.00 per Gallon. That's U$1.85 per litre. It could easily be more.
Last edited:
Inconvenient Questions
More Globaloney -- Al Gore Skips Agreed to Newspaper Interview With Danish Skeptic
Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Last week he was in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune.
The interview had been scheduled for months. The day before the interview Mr. Gore's agent thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?
more here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009552
Mr Rose has a just a few examples of Gore's misrepresentations and lies in the Wall Street journal piece:
- Gore says global warming has increased malaria in Nairobi, but the World Health Organization says the country is considered malaria free, unlike in the 1920's and 30's when it had epidemics regularly.
- Gore says that Antarctica is melting and presents picture to "prove" it, but those pictures are from only 2 percent of Antarctica whereas 98 percent of the continent has actually COOLED over the last 35 years.
- Gore says seas will rise 20 feet, but the U.N. climate panel only thinks it will be 1 foot. Also seas rose only 1 foot over the last 150 years already with little real trouble world wide.
- Gore says the heat of global warming will kill "2,000" people in the U.K., but freezing temperatures will kill 20,000 more without such "warming". Why are the 2,000 killed by warming more important than the 20,000 who would be killed by freezing?
Yes, it's no wonder that Gore doesn't want to address the hilarity of his absurd claims. The editors of Jyllands-Posten should be happy that he skipped the interview he once agreed to. Dying from laughing is much worse than buying it from global warming!
More Globaloney -- Al Gore Skips Agreed to Newspaper Interview With Danish Skeptic
Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Last week he was in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune.
The interview had been scheduled for months. The day before the interview Mr. Gore's agent thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?
more here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009552
Mr Rose has a just a few examples of Gore's misrepresentations and lies in the Wall Street journal piece:
- Gore says global warming has increased malaria in Nairobi, but the World Health Organization says the country is considered malaria free, unlike in the 1920's and 30's when it had epidemics regularly.
- Gore says that Antarctica is melting and presents picture to "prove" it, but those pictures are from only 2 percent of Antarctica whereas 98 percent of the continent has actually COOLED over the last 35 years.
- Gore says seas will rise 20 feet, but the U.N. climate panel only thinks it will be 1 foot. Also seas rose only 1 foot over the last 150 years already with little real trouble world wide.
- Gore says the heat of global warming will kill "2,000" people in the U.K., but freezing temperatures will kill 20,000 more without such "warming". Why are the 2,000 killed by warming more important than the 20,000 who would be killed by freezing?
Yes, it's no wonder that Gore doesn't want to address the hilarity of his absurd claims. The editors of Jyllands-Posten should be happy that he skipped the interview he once agreed to. Dying from laughing is much worse than buying it from global warming!
Randy, best be careful when you venture into academiaRandy Whorewald said:
SourceWatch... suggest you bookmark it! I'll just provide you a link... I have neither the interest or inclination in pulling out select quotes that soundly refute the credibility of "Bjorn Lomborg"... have a read and come back and let us know how crow tastes.
by the by... easy to target Gore, rather than the science... hey Randy?
Don't be a sore LOSER OTBn. I would reply to you if you knew what you were talking about.OTBn said:Randy, best be careful when you venture into academia
SourceWatch... suggest you bookmark it! I'll just provide you a link... I have neither the interest or inclination in pulling out select quotes that soundly refute the credibility of "Bjorn Lomborg"... have a read and come back and let us know how crow tastes.
by the by... easy to target Gore, rather than the science... hey Randy?
Have a look aroung Lomborg's site & open your mind.
http://www.lomborg.com/
He wasn't named named one of the world's 100 most influential people by Time Magazine for nuthin.
The contests are here.OTBn said:LOL! Randy is this a contest?
..
http://www.contestcanada.net/
Good night now.
the problem is...
Sure, the climate is chaning, we see it happening all the time....is it possible the fossil fuels contribute? Of course.
It is also possible that the amount of time man has been here is irrelevant on a geographical time scale....over the millennia, the planet's climate has changed many times, orbital wobbles etc. So, it is quite impossible to say that what is happening is solely the responsibility of mankind.
The thing that pisses me off about Gore is that he presents his little speech like it is a documentary - all fact, no fiction and yet his models do not match the UN - and yes, anythign that comes form the UN must be taken with a grain of salt.
Should we reduce the gases, yes - is this the only reason the climate is changing....pretty unlikely.
Sure, the climate is chaning, we see it happening all the time....is it possible the fossil fuels contribute? Of course.
It is also possible that the amount of time man has been here is irrelevant on a geographical time scale....over the millennia, the planet's climate has changed many times, orbital wobbles etc. So, it is quite impossible to say that what is happening is solely the responsibility of mankind.
The thing that pisses me off about Gore is that he presents his little speech like it is a documentary - all fact, no fiction and yet his models do not match the UN - and yes, anythign that comes form the UN must be taken with a grain of salt.
Should we reduce the gases, yes - is this the only reason the climate is changing....pretty unlikely.
The thing that people like Gore never mention is that there is a way to very quickly reduce and maybe even reverse the problem.Ilovethemall said:
Put a road tax on vehicles. Base it on weight of vehicle, size of engine and fuel used. Have road taxes for cities that are expensive, have road taxes for highways that discourage long road trips.
Years ago England used this system. It's the reason the Austin Mini was invented and so popular. It's the reason that motorcycles and scooters are so popular in Europe.
Spend the money that isn't needed anymore for public transit. In England, people commute to their job in London from Scotland. The public transit is that good.
This means that people like Gore aren't so important that they need to drive a GMC Suburban to the corner store. The road tax should be high enough that a vehicle that size isn't affordable.
you're right
I was in London in January and they have another road tax coming into effect in 2008 - the additional tax will be 1.5 pounds per km driven on certain roads (basically any road going into London) - that is about $3 CDN per km....the thing is that they DO have an excellent PT system, you can be in downtown London in no time....the same is true for many European cities.
I love the fact that all these Hollywood stars are getting nailed because the movies they are in are greenhouse gas PIGS. I guess prevention is only good when it doesn't cost them anything.
.....and how does Gore justify his ozone killing private jet or the fleet of security people that follow him? Hypocrisy is a bitch Al.
I was in London in January and they have another road tax coming into effect in 2008 - the additional tax will be 1.5 pounds per km driven on certain roads (basically any road going into London) - that is about $3 CDN per km....the thing is that they DO have an excellent PT system, you can be in downtown London in no time....the same is true for many European cities.
I love the fact that all these Hollywood stars are getting nailed because the movies they are in are greenhouse gas PIGS. I guess prevention is only good when it doesn't cost them anything.
.....and how does Gore justify his ozone killing private jet or the fleet of security people that follow him? Hypocrisy is a bitch Al.
of course not
GL, he would never do anything while in power!
Why not - wellllll could it be that he didn't want to be the one that would piss off all the voters by making the hard choices? Or could it be that he wasn't getting paid what he is now with his movie and speaking engagements?
GL, he would never do anything while in power!
Why not - wellllll could it be that he didn't want to be the one that would piss off all the voters by making the hard choices? Or could it be that he wasn't getting paid what he is now with his movie and speaking engagements?
goodlube said:
Whether he did enough is open to debate... what's not, is that he "did nothing" - that's a ludicrous statement. From his days as a Tennessee congressman on through to Senator and continued into the Vice Presidency, Gore had a strong environment position that carried through to significant legislation during the Clinton/Gore administration. Google... it's your friend.Ilovethemall said:
But again... easier to attack the messenger, uhhh, than the message.
Politicians can only lead by example
The way the political system works means that politicians can only lead by example.
Telling us that we have to change our ways, without changing your own ways just gets you ignored.
Al Gore and numerous others are very good at telling us that we must do this or that. They haven't been willing to provide an example.
Much of that comes from the way politicians have to fund their campaigns. Al Gore can't afford to alianate the auto unions. Therefore he has to drive a gas guzzler.
Al Gore can't afford to alianate the soccer moms. Therefore he can't support high gas prices and high road taxes on gas guzzlers.
There aren't any politicians who are willing to walk the walk. We've all stopped listening to the ones who only talk the talk.
The way the political system works means that politicians can only lead by example.
Telling us that we have to change our ways, without changing your own ways just gets you ignored.
Al Gore and numerous others are very good at telling us that we must do this or that. They haven't been willing to provide an example.
Much of that comes from the way politicians have to fund their campaigns. Al Gore can't afford to alianate the auto unions. Therefore he has to drive a gas guzzler.
Al Gore can't afford to alianate the soccer moms. Therefore he can't support high gas prices and high road taxes on gas guzzlers.
There aren't any politicians who are willing to walk the walk. We've all stopped listening to the ones who only talk the talk.
Yes, the little things have a symbolic influence. I expect Gore probably has a few vehicles... in a July 2006 interview with Der Speigel when asked what kind of car he drives:sdw said:
"About a year ago we bought a hybrid, but I don't drive very much. We've changed our entire lifestyle. We made the decision to be carbon-neutral and eliminate any net CO2 contribution to the environment. Even "An Inconvenient Truth" was produced in part using carbon-neutral, alternative energies. Paramount also made the decision to ensure that the tour and the promotional activities would be done in a carbon-neutral way." ..... Symbolic enough?
Continuing with your vehicle theme, Gore brought forward 2 significant initiatives while U.S. Vice President: (1) Next Generation Trucks & (2) Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles..... a little bit more than symbolic.
It's much more than the automobile. Althrough, road taxes would have an immediate effect on how much oil we use and how much we dump in the atmosphere. Remember that engines create heat. I think the heat that we dump into the atmosphere is more of a problem than the carbon. Alcohol fuelled engines run cooler than gasoline or diesel fuelled engines. This can be a problem if the tempature is cool as the engine heat is part of how the fuel is vapourized for the engine.OTBn said:
If you look at Eastern Canada and USA, Coal Fired Electric Plants are the primary source. Clinton actually had more Coal Fired plants built on his watch than Bush has had on his term. Why? Because Coal Fired Electric Plants have UNION workers running the plant AND digging up the coal. The Union worker may not vote Democrat, but his Union Leader gives money to the political partys. Let's not even talk about the Left-Wing Blogger who suddenly becomes voiceless without electricity to create and distribute his dream-like fantasies.
The lefties are in love with alcohol fuel, but they don't drive cars that use it. Even Gore's hybrid specifically requires higher octane fuel than the alcohol fuel that is pumped. The people that use alcohol are the middle americans who buy the GEOs and FITs that a social activist wouldn't be caught dead in, the farm equipment that the NIMBYs don't want around and the long-haul truckers that are a little too redneck to be PC.
Diesel Engines actually love a pretty hefty amount of alcohol in their fuel. The only problem is that it's hard to start an engine if there's more than 10% alcohol. Once the engine is running, you can have almost pure alcohol. Check out a truck stop in Montana, you will find a great many trucks have a small pure diesel tank and 2 large alcohol mix tanks. A switch controls which tank is used. When you know you are going to shut the engine off, you switch to diesel to load the engine's fuel lines with pure diesel and ensure that you can easily start.
The system is too complicated for the average lefty to understand. They would forget to switch over and be unable to start their engine.
The Lefties still have difficulty breathing if anyone mentions the benefit of replacing Coal and Gas Fired Electric Plants with ... Gasp ... Nuclear Electric Plants.
A combination of Road Taxes and Nuclear Plants would extend the time we have to actually look at solving the problem. It won't happen.
