backtop


Print 137 comment(s) - last by TheBaker.. on Oct 12 at 10:48 AM


An artist's conception of Nakheel's new development complex  (Source: UK Sun)

Nakheel Towers itself.  (Source: UK Sun)
Yet Middle-East neighbors race to announce even taller buildings.

A Dubai development group has released plans for a colossal skyscraper over a full kilometer in height. The building, dubbed Nakheel Towers after its developer, will be the centerpiece of a new harbor development which Nakheel hopes will become the nation's new “unofficial” capital.

With the current record holder, the 2700-foot tall Burj Dubai, nearing completion nearby, this new structure would dwarf it by more than 600 feet. The building will have over 200 floors and 150 elevators. Special high-speed elevators will be fast enough to allow residents to view a sunset twice an evening: once from the bottom, and again from the top floor. The air temperature at the top floor could be as much as 18 degrees cooler than at ground level.

The entire complex will be home to some 55,000 people, a workplace for 45,000 more, as well as hosting art and cultural developments.

Speaking at a press conference in Dubai yesterday, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, president of Nakheel holding company Dubai World, said the entire project will cost some $38B. "There is nothing like it in Dubai", he said.

Nakheel CEO Chris O'Donnell said he is confident that, despite troubled world financial markets, the firm will have no trouble raising the $5B/year the project requires. O'Donnell said, "when you go about trying to fund a project like this, you have to account for the economic cycles".

Nakheel currently has $60B worth of projects under construction.

Ground breaking has already commenced on the complex according to bin Sulayem. In addition to Nakheel Tower and the harbor development, some 40 smaller skyscrapers ranging up to 90 stories will also be constructed. The complex will be built in phases, and is due for completion in 2019.

The design is said to be inspired by various icons of Islamic architecture, such as Egypt's Alexandria harbor, the Alhambra in Spain, and the palaces and bridges of Esfahan in Iran.

But even as the announcement was made, rumors of a far larger building -- to be built in Saudi Arabia -- began to swirl. The competitor, said to be in pre-planning by Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal's Kingdom Holding, may be as much as a mile high, nearly twice as tall as Burj Dubai. The building's site would be in the Red Sea port of Jeddah, in Saudi Arabia

The nation of Kuwait is also working on plans for its own kilometer-high skyscraper, the Burj Mubarak.

Nakheel previously constructed the Palm Islands, a group of artificial islands off the coast of Dubai, built in the shape of a palm tree, as well as ”The World”, an artificial archipelago built in the shape of the planet Earth.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What's the point?
By Rob94hawk on 10/6/2008 11:44:58 AM , Rating: 4
The US needs to stop buying foreign oil and start drilling for our own. We're funding everyone else's economy except our own.




RE: What's the point?
By Indianapolis on 10/6/2008 11:48:49 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, didn't you hear that drilling for oil is the equivalent of RAPING the planet? You aren't for rape are you?


RE: What's the point?
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 12:00:38 PM , Rating: 5
Yes.


RE: What's the point?
By Gul Westfale on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: What's the point?
By crleap on 10/6/2008 12:36:25 PM , Rating: 5
we could build something bigger than that.
of course someone would fly a plane into it...


RE: What's the point?
By Gul Westfale on 10/6/2008 12:41:19 PM , Rating: 4
hahahahahahahahahahaaa

i knew someone would say it, but it still made me laugh :)

and yes, i know i will get voted down now by all the people that don't understand sarcasm... whatever :)


RE: What's the point?
By TerranMagistrate on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: What's the point?
By Indianapolis on 10/6/2008 12:46:42 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
some retard with shit for brains and an affinity for penis-shaped buildings decides to build yet another one of these things, and you guys immediately turn it around and start talking about oil... bravo!


So I guess that making the mental connection between the oil market and Dubai's economic explosion is beyond your faculties?


RE: What's the point?
By Gul Westfale on 10/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: What's the point?
By xti on 10/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: What's the point?
By ebakke on 10/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: What's the point?
By Noya on 10/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: What's the point?
By dubldwn on 10/6/2008 1:07:54 PM , Rating: 5
Gul, I really hate you, but this time I couldn’t agree more. It seems many who read this article immediately got angry and started with the hate posts. Conspicuously missing are the right wing posters, because they know what a real manifestation of capitalism looks like: it looks like Hong Kong and Dubai. The irony is it was the wild hatred after 9/11 that caused these Arabs to fear their assets would be frozen in the US, resulting in them investing in their own country instead.
quote:
Before September 11, World Bank figures show Middle Eastern oil exporting countries were plowing as much as $25 billion a year into U.S. investments. For the three years of 2001-03, the figure reached $1.2 billion.

-Washington Times


RE: What's the point?
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 3:11:36 PM , Rating: 2
What am I invisible now? So unappreciated.


RE: What's the point?
By dryloch on 10/6/2008 7:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
Dubai looks great as long as you only look at the surface. You cannot go to Dubai if you have an Israeli passport. They are also using more or less indentured servants to build this great metropolis. The working conditions are miserable and if you don't like it that is too bad because you are not allowed to switch employers. I could go into the way women are treated the same as in Iran but why bother.


RE: What's the point?
By wvh on 10/6/2008 8:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
This counts for many places in time, including the US and Europe. All great constructions have been built by lowly workers in relatively miserable working conditions while the rich party at the top floor.

As for people with Israeli passports, I think few non-jewish/arab people really care about how these people try to deny access to each other in their respective countries because of some stupid age-old feuds and religiously motivated atrocities.

I don't deny the fact most muslims seem to live in the Dark Ages especially when it comes to savage punishments, but then again, even the US has trouble to give up the death penalty and torture – mostly supported by the religious far right, not unlike the situation in Iran.

Let this be an article about architecture.


RE: What's the point?
By FITCamaro on 10/7/2008 6:02:42 AM , Rating: 2
The death penalty has nothing to do with religion here. It has to do with believing in justice. With believing that some people will never change and are better off dead than alive. Someone who rapes and murders a child does not deserve to live. Someone who kills people intentionally and without remorse does not deserve to live. So what's the point of spending tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars for them to sit and rot in jail for the rest of their life, likely to get out due to crowded prisons, and then have them commit other crimes.

I'm not religious at all and I believe in the death penalty. My parents are Catholic and they believe in the death penalty against the teachings of the church.


RE: What's the point?
By Myg on 10/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: What's the point?
By JonnyDough on 10/8/2008 12:31:25 PM , Rating: 1
It's been shown that putting someone to death costs more than keeping them alive in prison.


RE: What's the point?
By TheBaker on 10/12/2008 10:48:18 AM , Rating: 2
Only because of the legal fees involved with the dozens of appeals they go through to try to prevent it. The actual process of execution costs far less than keeping someone in prison for life.


RE: What's the point?
By dubldwn on 10/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: What's the point?
By Continuation on 10/6/2008 9:50:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So I guess that making the mental connection between the oil market and Dubai's economic explosion is beyond your faculties?


Given the fact Dubai doesn't have much oil to speak of (oil only accounts for 5% of Dubai's GDP - http://www.ameinfo.com/122863.html) your "mental connection" is quite a stretch.

Dubai makes money the same way Hong Kong does - by being an international finance hub facilitated by low taxes and free trade policy.


RE: What's the point?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/6/2008 9:59:23 PM , Rating: 4
> your "mental connection" is quite a stretch...

You're both correct, actually. Although Dubai pumps little oil on its own, the trade it facilitates with its oil-rich neighbors and the rest of the world is indeed fueled by rising oil prices.

Here's a story on Dubai's oil boom:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/06/...


RE: What's the point?
By Indianapolis on 10/6/2008 12:52:18 PM , Rating: 1
Apparently you guys aren't for sarcasm either.


RE: What's the point?
By StevoLincolnite on 10/6/2008 1:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
Mondayitis.


RE: What's the point?
By Alias1431 on 10/6/2008 9:18:00 PM , Rating: 2
For real. I laughed.


RE: What's the point?
By PlasmaBomb on 10/8/2008 1:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
RE: What's the point?
By nafhan on 10/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: What's the point?
By Indianapolis on 10/6/2008 11:56:27 AM , Rating: 3
Do the words "national security" mean anything to you?


RE: What's the point?
By Gzus666 on 10/6/2008 11:58:43 AM , Rating: 1
I hope what he meant was doing our own drilling, but not buying it from them. For instance, "Hey, we are going to be drilling in your country", "But that is our oil", "Tough shit jerkoffs, what are you going to do?". AMERICA GO! Man I miss America of the past, where we just kickass and take things. Survival and progression is a fight, whether it be for food, or other resources, can't always be the good guy.

Side note, who would stop us? Just get allied with Russia and China, let them get a piece of the deal, and screw the UN, they won't have an army if we leave anyway.


RE: What's the point?
By xti on 10/6/2008 12:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
hippies everywhere would form a supper hippie, and kill us all. think voltron, with a fuzzy beany.


RE: What's the point?
By Gzus666 on 10/6/2008 2:05:19 PM , Rating: 1
That is quite terrifying. I believe that is what crazy rednecks are useful for though, clearing out hippies.


RE: What's the point?
By justpassingthru on 10/6/2008 12:01:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Drilling for oil in the US would only moderately lower worldwide oil prices, since oil is a commodity. Middle Eastern oil would just get bought by China or Japan if the US wasn't buying it. Also, US oil companies would not sell for less than market price unless mandated by the government. So, the benefit for you and me is pretty small. Not drilling for oil in the US means that US oil reserves will still exist when everyone else runs out...


You just don't get it... transferring the wealth of our nation to other nations to the tune of nearly 1 trillion dollars per year is a BAD thing. Utilizing our own natural resources keeps our money at home.


RE: What's the point?
By Gzus666 on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: What's the point?
By Moebiwankenobi on 10/6/2008 12:26:07 PM , Rating: 4
That was also when the US had the only Nuke. Lets all nuke everyone so that this is all a moot point and won't have to be dealt with until humans evolve again from the desolate Earth.


RE: What's the point?
By Gzus666 on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: What's the point?
By tim851 on 10/6/2008 2:41:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
we ally with China and Russia


Why would they ally themselves with a dying empire?

If anything, China will invade the Iran and the Emirates and the US can't do nothing about because the military is overstretched and the country is bankrupt.


RE: What's the point?
By Gzus666 on 10/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: What's the point?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/6/2008 3:23:55 PM , Rating: 3
> "We pump more money into military than pretty much everything else combined "

Eh? Entitlement programs alone (SS, Medicare/Medicaid, etc) vastly outweigh military spending. DoD funding in 2008 alone is less than 17% of the total federal budget.

If you've seen charts that seem to portray otherwise, look closer. Many don't consider non-discretionary budget items, which are now well over 50% of the total budget.


RE: What's the point?
By Solandri on 10/6/2008 4:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
Furthermore, as a percent of GDP, our military spending (2.4%) is only slightly above the world average (2.0%). France (2.3%) spends about as much as we do. Once again, the enormous size of our economy exaggerates any of our expenditures in raw dollar amounts.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_dol_fig_...


RE: What's the point?
By Gzus666 on 10/6/2008 4:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well, since GDP involves the economy of the country and not the government only, I would venture to say that has nothing to do with our military spending. But thanks for more useless percentages. At any rate, Schooling is one of the least funded programs, and that is severely needed. Meanwhile we feed old farts pills and surgeries non-stop for free so they can live a bit longer. If we focused more on properly educated people, we would probably do better off than worrying about old people.

My point is why put so much money into the military, if we don't use it to make some money back?


RE: What's the point?
By Solandri on 10/6/2008 5:11:08 PM , Rating: 2
So countries with smaller governments have less need for defense? That's an interesting theory you have there.

Items with mandatory spending (food, housing, police, military, health care, education, energy, etc.) are eminently comparable as a percentage of GDP since it automatically factors in population, standard of living, and cost of labor. Even if you don't agree entirely, it still makes a helluva lot more sense to compare as percentage of GDP than to compare raw dollar figures.


RE: What's the point?
By Gzus666 on 10/6/2008 5:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
I believe a percentage of total government spending would be more relevant, but nice save.


RE: What's the point?
By mdogs444 on 10/6/2008 5:28:37 PM , Rating: 1
A percentage of your GDP is the proper justification because a country's total wealth needs to be taken into effect.


RE: What's the point?
By MPE on 10/7/2008 12:49:50 AM , Rating: 2
Incorrect. The government charts is not accurate. Our spending on defense is much higher if you include budget from other departments that is defense related (like Dept of Energy to maintain our nuclear arsenal), veterans benefits (health and retirement), war on Iraq and Afghanistan (budgeted separately from the yearly DoD budget) - it is closer to 25-30% (a bit higher actually depending how you come up with the Iraq and Afghanistan budget).

Budget vs spending are two different numbers in regards to US military. The DoD budget is around $510 Billion. Now factor in Iraq/afghanistan (150-200 Billion). Add other things like nuclear and research and veterans benefit, then you see a better picture.


RE: What's the point?
By Diesel Donkey on 10/6/2008 11:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We need to start clearing out some annoying groups of people. Middle east is annoying, they need to be dealt with. I foresee Africa getting quite annoying sooner or later with their constant wars that stop us from taking resources, as they seem to ignore them as a country.


Yeah, let's get some good old-fashioned genocide going! Do you, by any chance, keep a copy of Mein Kampf on your bed stand?


RE: What's the point?
By dubldwn on 10/6/2008 3:16:48 PM , Rating: 1
Is this a serious post? China wouldn’t invade the gulf because:
a) they would get their ass stomped. If you attack the UAE, you attach the whole GCC. Saudi Arabia has the third largest fleet of F-15’s in the world. The UAE alone has 150 multirole fighters. Also, my bet would be on the IRGC in Iran. If Hezbollah is any indication, those guys are pretty tough.
b) China imports half its oil, so any perceived hostility would ruin them.
c) We are in the gulf, and while what you say about ground troops is true, our Navy is hanging out, and is more than capable of handling any Chinese aggression.
d) Most importantly, China doesn’t have the carrier battle groups and transport required for such a feat, let alone the required allied airbases. Developing these capabilities would be far more expensive than just buying the oil.


RE: What's the point?
By porkpie on 10/6/2008 7:17:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most importantly, China doesn’t have the carrier battle groups and transport required for such a feat,
They're building them now though.

But I don't worry too much about China. They're going to invade Taiwan one day, but other than that they're not big on expansion. Russia is a much bigger problem.


RE: What's the point?
By DASQ on 10/7/2008 3:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
You don't need a navy to invade Taiwan from China. You need to buy millions of water wings.


RE: What's the point?
By eldakka on 10/7/2008 2:20:36 AM , Rating: 2
Why would china need carrier battle groups?

It's on the same continent as the middle east, it could just romp through a couple of the 'stans and would never need a naval presence at all.


RE: What's the point?
By crleap on 10/6/2008 4:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
until humans evolve again from the desolate Earth.


I'd like to hope that the earth could do better than humans the 2nd time around.


RE: What's the point?
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 12:42:02 PM , Rating: 4
The great thing about nukes, is that there are no bodies to clean up. It's eco-friendly.


RE: What's the point?
By Gzus666 on 10/6/2008 12:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
Ha, well, depends where they are at in the explosion. I figure to keep the oil usable, you would have to tactically kill people with radiation rather than the direct blast. So, a lot of half dead people we would have to carpet bomb and kinda shimmy the last bodies out of the way.


RE: What's the point?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/6/2008 3:40:17 PM , Rating: 2
Re-open Neutron Bomb manufacturing.


RE: What's the point?
By Gzus666 on 10/6/2008 4:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, that would be cool. Nothing like a few year half life, just plow through, and move in a few years later. My favorite were the bunker busters, so bad ass.


RE: What's the point?
By MPE on 10/6/2008 12:08:54 PM , Rating: 1
Drilling means very little. It is a political hot word that actually will affect you very little. First off, the US known reserve is small - like 1-2% of the world. It will not affect price nor our dependency for the 25% of the world energy.

Second drilling at best case scenario will produce useable oil in the next 5 years - high output not in 10-15 years. Add more years if you are going to do some research to find other locations.

So yes drilling means very little in reality. It is just the politicians are using it for their own gains.


RE: What's the point?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/6/2008 12:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
> "The US known reserve is small - like 1-2% of the world"

Utterly false. ANWR alone is estimated to be as much as 1.2% of world production once developed. Add in the Outer Continental Shelf and areas of the Arctic under our control and the estimate is several times that. The amount is easily enough to cut our foreign consumption of oil by a third for the next 30-40 years, and also drastically reduce the impact of BRIC economic expansion on world oil prices.

As for the red herring that oil will take at least five years to develop -- how many of us are planning on being dead in the next 5 years? That excuse was used a decade ago...had we started then, we would have been pumping now.


RE: What's the point?
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 12:43:38 PM , Rating: 1
Don't forget the still unknown quantities of oil in oil shale in the mid west.


RE: What's the point?
By MPE on 10/6/2008 12:48:10 PM , Rating: 1
So I am right ANWR is 1.2%.

The Outer Con and Artic is JUST A GUESS. There has not been an actual useable survey for those areas in DECADES. Even if there are it would take several MORE YEARS to just to find it and create a plan to drill it. So again I am right to say if you need to increase the known source - add more years. Drilling is a several process. Just surveying and building drill stations take YEARS.

So the estimate of 10-20 years is the reality. Even in 5 years oil comes our of ANWR it will be a trickle - full production will be reach several more years later.

And BTW - drilling does not guarantee lower prices. The government would have to legislate it that. And that is a whole another issue that can take several years to figure out.

In 10-15 years we could be in 2 or more wars (Iran, Pakistan, etc). The reality is drilling is least pragmatic solution. Oil dependency (be it air, nuclear, solar) is much more realistic. Look at Germany. They drive high MPG cars, have always had $4/g gas prices and yet they have moved significant of their energy needs to solar.

I am not saying drilling is bad. But all this 'Drill Baby drill' people need to settle down. It is the least efficient solution to a long term problem. It should be part of the solution but the reality it is the longest one to implement. And in our current situation 10-20 years is a luxury.


RE: What's the point?
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 12:50:04 PM , Rating: 2
Well considering that there's so much oil off of California's coast that its bubbling out of the ground into the ocean, that tells me there's a pretty damn good amount there.


RE: What's the point?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/6/2008 12:54:53 PM , Rating: 2
> "The Outer Con and Artic is JUST A GUESS."

No. It's a highly educated assessment conducted by expert geologists, based on large amounts of real world data. Furthermore, it's a conservative estimate that has a large probability of being welll below the true amount, especially when future advances in technology are taken into account.

> "there has not been an actual useable survey for those areas in DECADES"

You think geological formations that lasted millions of year are going to vanish in a couple of decades? In any case, the USGS has never stopped surveying areas, even ones off limits to oil production.

> "And BTW - drilling does not guarantee lower prices"

If you're living in the real world rather than fantasy land, it most certainly does. Basic supply and demand is a law not even the US government can legislate away.

> "So I am right ANWR is 1.2%."

Your original statement about total US reserves being "1-2%" was incorrect, plain and simple.


RE: What's the point?
By MPE on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: What's the point?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/6/2008 1:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
> "Even Iraq's and Saudi Arabia's oil reserve have been wrong and they have more recent data than the US!!!!"

The original estimates of Saudi oil from the 1940s were only "wrong" in that they dramatically underestimated the total recoverable oil.

You're not fooling anyone. There's trillions of dollars worth of oil in the OCS and Arctic regions. Odds are the actual amount is substantially larger than what we currently estimate.

> "You do know our rate of increase of our energy needs surpasses those what ANWAR can add in the next decade right?"

So? That increase will occur whether or not we drill. Exploiting ANWR and the OCS will dramatically lower oil prices from what they otherwise would be.

Yes, oil prices will certainly be higher at some point in the future. But the point is that exploiting domestic sources can mean the difference between $200/b versus $300/b oil.

Petroleum has a relatively inelastic demand curve. Increasing world supply by just a couple percent can drop prices by a third or more.


RE: What's the point?
By MPE on 10/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: What's the point?
By ebakke on 10/6/2008 3:47:55 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
There is NO DRASTIC changes for ANWAR and OCS since the production is long term. You will not suddenly pump out 4 billions. That is extracted in decades.
Just like the production is long term, so are the effects of lower prices. Asher's not making the argument that tomorrow (and for only the next 6 months) prices will drop immensely. He's saying they will drop slightly tomorrow (as the price of oil is based on the speculation of future supply/demand), and going forward it will continue to be lower than it would be if we didn't drill more. From the day we start drilling until the day we stop, there will be more supply and thus a lower price. This isn't that difficult to understand.


RE: What's the point?
By Gzus666 on 10/6/2008 4:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't OPEC recently make the announcement they want to slow down production to keep the price per barrel high? I know I saw this at least a few times in articles and on the news. Seems to me they don't want proper supply, cause the price drops, as do their enormous profits.


RE: What's the point?
By MPE on 10/6/2008 4:46:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
He's saying they will drop slightly tomorrow (as the price of oil is based on the speculation of future supply/demand), and going forward it will continue to be lower than it would be if we didn't drill more.


But that is my point. The slight input of ANWAR and others is slight. If you factor in our and the rest of the worlds consumption rate and OPECs ability to negate such slight increase with their own slight decrease the effect would be minimal to the point of negligible.

Look I am NOT against the drilling. I would love OPEC to have no affect on our lives. But the reality is as long as our dependency on oil remains the same and ANWAR/OCS do not reveal 12 TIMES as much reserve (rough estimate how much we need to stop importing today) our problems in the Middle East will continue.

I will also like to tell you why drilling is liked by many Americans. You know why? It is the solution that LEAST affect the typical consumer. There is no sacrifice asked from drilling. Solar, wind, and reduce consumption means sacrifice. To many of us it means we can continue driving the stupid Hummer.

I'm not sure about you but I rather sacrifice my driving habits than sending my friends to another god awful war. My little brother is about to finish college soon. God I hope we don't expand our military campaign in the next 2 years.

As much as like the idea of drilling - the reality is - it is far from pragmatic.


RE: What's the point?
By ebakke on 10/6/2008 11:11:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I will also like to tell you why drilling is liked by many Americans. You know why? It is the solution that LEAST affect the typical consumer. There is no sacrifice asked from drilling. Solar, wind, and reduce consumption means sacrifice. To many of us it means we can continue driving the stupid Hummer.
Drilling requires the least amount of sacrifice, and it's the most viable at this point in time. Wind and solar aren't viable, and reduced consumption only goes so far. It's also pretty ignorant/naive of you to assume that the only thing people would have to sacrifice is a Hummer, or an equivalent SUV. I drive a Civic (as it was the most cost effective, highest mileage car I could afford), and I want cheaper gas so I don't have to sacrifice my ability to visit family. Drilling for oil domestically helps in this area.

quote:
I'm not sure about you but I rather sacrifice my driving habits than sending my friends to another god awful war. My little brother is about to finish college soon. God I hope we don't expand our military campaign in the next 2 years.
Domestic drilling is a completely separate issue from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, if you honestly believe we're headed for another draft, I feel sorry that you live in such fear. And until a draft takes place, your brother's safe from the military unless he voluntarily chooses to join.

quote:
As much as like the idea of drilling - the reality is - it is far from pragmatic.
That is just blatantly false.


RE: What's the point?
By JediJeb on 10/6/2008 3:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
"And BTW - drilling does not guarantee lower prices"

Im not sure of all the reasons, but seems that since it was apparent that the US coastal areas would be opened to drilling the price of oil has dropped quite a bit. Maybe a coincidence, maybe not, but they did seem to occur about the same time.


RE: What's the point?
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 1:02:59 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
They drive high MPG cars, have always had $4/g gas prices


Their high cost of fuel is because of the insanely high taxes on it. Their prices do not reflect the market cost. They reflect the government restricting the feasibility of ownership of low MPG cars to the fabulously wealthy. That is hardly a model to follow.

quote:
and yet they have moved significant of their energy needs to solar.


http://www.solarbuzz.com/fastfactsgermany.htm

According to the facts on that site (albeit they're somewhat confusing):
1) Germany has between 400MW and 1.4GW of solar power being produced

2) In 1999, 6% of Germany's power was from renewable sources. Of that < 1% was from solar power.

3) Germany's power usage in 1999 was 495 GW. I'm sure it hasn't dropped.

Assuming the 1.4GW figure from around 2006 from fact 1 and total power usage of fact 3 from 1999, Germany produces around .2% of its electricity from solar energy.


RE: What's the point?
By TSS on 10/6/2008 12:23:21 PM , Rating: 1
seems to me most people dont "get it"...

how about using much, much less oil to begin with? all in all that'll probably be cheaper then to build more rigs, use up your own resources then face another crisis down the road where you don't have the option left of "using your own resources".

however it's good to see the oil discussion still around, as crude oil prices have dropped significantly since their high in the summer. usually the problem dissapears untill the prices go up again...


RE: What's the point?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/6/2008 12:07:52 PM , Rating: 3
> "So, the benefit for you and me is pretty small..."

Eh? There is estimated to be well over $3 trillion worth of oil in areas off-limits to drilling today -- enough to fund our financial "bailout" bill 5 times over. However do you arrive at the fact that's a "small" benefit?


RE: What's the point?
By MPE on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: What's the point?
By Aloonatic on 10/6/2008 12:07:41 PM , Rating: 4
When all the worlds oil has gone or is starting to dry up and suddenly America remembers that it has loads waiting to be exploited, BAM, you whip out your spice weasel and knock it up a notch.

Unless people start finding alternative forms of energy for their cars and whatnot by then of course :-s

Quick, drill drill drill =D


RE: What's the point?
By Gzus666 on 10/6/2008 12:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
I tip my hat to a fantastic Futurama reference. Ah the spice weasel, how I miss that show.


RE: What's the point?
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 12:44:45 PM , Rating: 2
It's coming back. :)


RE: What's the point?
By Gzus666 on 10/6/2008 12:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
Oh god, don't screw with me here. Are you serious? If so, please linkify me, as I would cream my jeans to have that show back.


RE: What's the point?
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 1:31:18 PM , Rating: 1
They had those new movies they made. Which will eventually become episodes. And I think there was some thing that has prevented them from making new episodes until 2009. Everything I heard said 2009.

http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/06/22/new-episodes-of-...


RE: What's the point?
By V3ctorPT on 10/6/2008 1:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
It seems that there is no need for the Space Elevator... just use that building... some day the mountain climber's decide to climb a building, it's more dangerous with planes flying next to it


RE: What's the point?
By winterspan on 10/6/2008 10:44:39 PM , Rating: 2
What we really need is a massive new investment strategy that spurs renewable energy development on a national scale.

Domestic Oil drilling is red herring political issue coming from energy lobbyists and their right-wing supporters. The fact is that there is just not enough oil to have any kind of significant impact on the market, especially with global and domestic demand growing so quickly.

Based on data from the US Energy Information Administration, oil production from drilling offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) wouldn't hit the market until 2016-2017. And It is estimated that it would hit peak production around 2030 producing just over 200,000 barrels per day. The figures I have below use today's consumption figures, which are projected to swell another 20% by 2030.

Domestic U.S. Oil consumption per day (2008) = 21,000,000 barrels
Domestic US. Oil production (2008) = 6,000,000 barrels
Net Oil imports per day = 15,000,000 barrels

New Oil from off-shore drilling per day = 200,000 barrels
New Oil from off-shore drilling as percentage of total imported oil = 1.3%
New Oil from off-shore drilling as percentage of total oil consumption = 0.95%

This is hardly a drop in the bucket, especially considering the growth rate in energy demand. We are going to face shortages and crushing prices within another decade if we don't do act quickly to reduce demand in this country.


RE: What's the point?
By JonnyDough on 10/8/2008 12:25:21 PM , Rating: 2
This is likely to happen with McCain's chosen running mate. I suppose it's too early to say it but I don't know many people voting for Obama...

Alaska, here we come.


Brings a tear to my eye...
By Indianapolis on 10/6/2008 12:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
As an American, it brings a tear to my eye when I see all the great things that are being done with my four-dollars-a-gallon. I feel like a proud papa! Thank you Nancy Pelosi!




RE: Brings a tear to my eye...
By MPE on 10/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Brings a tear to my eye...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/6/2008 12:26:47 PM , Rating: 5
> "Why blame Nancy Pelosi only?"

Because she, more than any other politician in recent memory, had taken legislative action to block expansion of US domestic oil reserves. She's also been a strong proponent of environmental regulations which have stymied new refinery construction.

When you don't build a new refinery in a nation for 32 years of economic expansion and demand growth, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize you're going to start having gas shortages and skyrocketing prices. When a nation goes from importing 20% to 70% of its oil, it doesn't take a crystal ball to realize that problems are impending.

> "No one told you to drive a Hummer?"

I think I can safely say that Nancy Pelosi uses more oil herself than any twenty readers of this board combined.


RE: Brings a tear to my eye...
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 12:48:28 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I think I can safely say that Nancy Pelosi uses more oil herself than any twenty readers of this board combined.


That's why people like her and Al Gore need the rest of us to stop using so much. They need to fuel their private jets. If the rest of us are using oil, it makes it harder for them to do it.


RE: Brings a tear to my eye...
By MPE on 10/6/2008 12:57:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Because she, more than any other politician in recent memory,


Have you really checked that? Or are you giving me talking points? Let me put it this way - recent memory = during W Bush era.

Second, it takes several votes to kill legislation.

Third, as noted above, drilling actually would have little impact (at least for another decade) to gas prices.

Fourth, refinery construction has been a industry thing - nothing political. The industry has been unwilling to build for decades. No one has stopped them. They have been asking for government subsidies even though they have been very profitable every year.


RE: Brings a tear to my eye...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/6/2008 1:37:29 PM , Rating: 5
> "Have you really checked that? "

Yes.
quote:
Several weeks ago House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced efforts to expand offshore oil exploration as a hoax that would do nothing to solve our country's energy woes.

Though it was clear that firm majorities in both houses of Congress support opening the outer continental shelf and restricted portions of the Gulf of Mexico to drilling, Pelosi made clear she would not allow it to come to a vote. Why? She said she was "trying to save the planet." So she adjourned the House for a five-week vacation
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/08/21/200...

> "Nothing political. The industry has been unwilling to build for decades."

Err, no. The Clean Air Amendment that passed in 1976 made it impossible to build new refineries at current oil prices. Current refiners were grandfathered in at set emission levels...new refineries had to meet far stricter (and thus more expensive standards)

When oil prices rose, several companies immediately began trying to build new refineries. None have so far been successful. One company in Arizona alone spent $25M and five years just trying to get permits from federal and state regulators. So far they haven't even been able to break ground. Another refinery in SD hasn't been able to get off the ground either, due to legal action from environmental groups.

> "even though they have been very profitable every year."

Every year? Refiners were losing billions anually all through the 1990s. Now they're making money...but based on prior to 2008 at least, most refiners had a profit margin of between 5-10%...hardly what one would call a runaway investment.


RE: Brings a tear to my eye...
By MPE on 10/6/2008 3:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes. five-week vacation http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/08/21/200...


that has nothing to do with your comment. How is that in 'recent' memory? You are not making any sense. McCain voted once agaist off shore drilling - are you going to classify him as against it?
"Of recent memory" means you have compared it to everyone else. But you just quote one article about one vote. :/
And you work for DT? Wholy sh!t is that what you call journalistic research here?
Don't answer that - cos a lot of this site's article and writing does it for you.

quote:
Err, no. The Clean Air Amendment that passed in 1976 made it impossible to build new refineries at current oil prices.


Uhm because BP and Exxon themselves said they do not need new refineries - guess why? (hint: price).
Refineries are private businesses. You need state and local approvals. You need bILLIONS of dollars invested initially and the return maybe several years. Top off that it takes several years to build them...
I mean you may get the OK from feds but have you tried getting permits locally? NIMBY anyone?

That is why there is no new refineries. Even feds allowed exception to the clean air for refineries there was no rush to build new ones - even to the point that BP and others saying they have no intention to.

quote:
Every year? Refiners were losing billions anually


I am not talking about private refineries as they dont have enough political and financial resource to build new refineries. I am talking about the industry in general.


RE: Brings a tear to my eye...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/6/2008 3:38:38 PM , Rating: 4
> "How is that in 'recent' memory? "

It's from six weeks ago...long after the oil crunch started. Yes, many other politicians also voted against offshore drilling....years ago, back when oil was selling for $35/barrel or less.

> "But you just quote one article about one vote. :/"

You're digging yourself in deeper here. Pelosi hasn't been shy about her position on domestic drilling. There are literally thousands of such stories. And, in her dominant position as Speaker, she's more than once blocked a House vote (or even debate) on allowing drilling.

> "Uhm because BP and Exxon themselves said they do not need new refineries - guess why? "

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. The entire industry has been begging Congress for a decade to allow additional refinery expansion. Here's testimony by the President of the Petroleum Refiners Association (which includes Exxon, BP, and every other major refiner) all the way back in 2004:

http://www.npradc.org/news/testimony/20040512testi...

>"I am not talking about private refineries ...I am talking about the industry in general."

You're off in outer space here. There are no "public" refineries, and the entire industry lost money throughout most of the 1990s.


RE: Brings a tear to my eye...
By MPE on 10/6/2008 5:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's from six weeks ago...long after the oil crunch started.


No you said "more than any other politician in recent memory"
- where is the comparison with "other politician' in that article? Don't look - it is not there. It is like saying Tom's Hardware is the most popular website and I quote NYTimes article how they love TH. That is not a comparison. Your comment implies a comparison - not only with one or 2 or few - but with ALL politicians. Understand?
I mean you are some kind of journalist/blogger. I assume you know about evidence and proof?

quote:
You're digging yourself in deeper here.


Uhm you are doing that to yourself. You confuse press clippings with actual research. Where is your proof?
I mean it is shocking you confuse 'stories' as actual journalistic proof. That is like Fox quoting the Washington Post. I mean you have heard of primary sources right?

quote:
http://www.npradc.org/news/testimony/20040512testi...


thank you for quoting that. You do know that Congress did make an exception to refineries after that right? You do know that Conference Report on HR 6 passed shortly after (2005).

And you do know that the industry decided to close refineries that could not meet environmental standards and not replace it right?

Again, that PR piece does not change the fact that the industry is unwilling to build new refineries without government subsidies (aka tax breaks and bypass local laws).

quote:
here are no "public" refineries,


Who said about public? I was talking in generalities.


RE: Brings a tear to my eye...
By porkpie on 10/6/2008 7:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And you do know that the industry decided to close refineries that could not meet environmental standards
And that's somehow the industry's fault? Did IQ's just drop sharply while I was away?

People have been trying to build new refineries. The problem is they CAN'T. Seriously, look into how many failed bids there have been in the past 5-10 years.


RE: Brings a tear to my eye...
By MPE on 10/6/2008 5:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
BTW - thanks for mentioning the 1990s. This is another reason that no one wants to build refineries. they have discovered that in order to protect themselves with the cyclical trait of the industry, limiting oil refinery allows them to maintain their profits.

the environmental thing is a red herring. It is all about profit margins. Look at the PR piece you are referencing. Even then they mention that there was no urge to build new ones until very recently. And Congress addressed that quickly.


RE: Brings a tear to my eye...
By consumerwhore on 10/6/2008 4:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think I can safely say that Nancy Pelosi uses more oil herself than any twenty readers of this board combined.


And I can safely say that Georges Bush uses more oil than Nancy Pelosi...

Were you trying to make point or show once more your hatred of them there gosh darned libruls?


RE: Brings a tear to my eye...
By FITCamaro on 10/7/2008 6:09:48 AM , Rating: 2
You don't see Bush telling everyone that they shouldn't be able to use oil though. Or telling everyone to go on a vacation when House Republicans are all but rioting to have a vote on drilling. Pissed me off that Bush didn't drag her skinny little @ss back to Washington and not let any of them leave until we have a vote. And now even that the moratorium on drilling has expired, they still can't really drill.


RE: Brings a tear to my eye...
By Indianapolis on 10/6/2008 12:30:34 PM , Rating: 2
Because Nancy Pelosi is the one "saving the world" by blocking expanded US exploration/drilling. But I have no problem spreading the blame around to all the politicians that have fought domestic drilling for years.

And could you please tell me which parts of my house I'm allowed to air condition? Thanks.


RE: Brings a tear to my eye...
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 3:09:42 PM , Rating: 5
Gotta love idiots like him who think all of us should live in the third world and not be allowed to air condition our entire house because god forbid it use electricity. Nevermind that whole quality of living thing.

Even Obama has said we shouldn't be allowed to keep our house at 74 degrees and expect the rest of the world to say ok.


RE: Brings a tear to my eye...
By Aloonatic on 10/7/2008 6:47:10 AM , Rating: 2
Just a quick European based comment about "excessive" American energy use and regressing to a "third world" lifestyle.

For a long time you have been living a rather "crazy" lifestyle when it comes to energy use (from a European perspective) but that was fine, you could afford it.

I remember on my last trip to NY being somewhat amazed that almost every shop, restaurant, hotel etc had their doors wide open when it was snowing outside, heat blasting out of the doors as you walked by them.

This was about 4 or 5 years ago I think.

I tried to shut my hotel room's window which was open to do my bit to save some energy, no because I was cold. It was juts natural to try to when it is snowing out side, but as the heater was on constantly it was toasty warm inside.

I then noticed that every other window was open too and that the snow was actually going upwards, not down. All because of the thermal currents produced by all the heat flooding out of the rooms.

The same kinda goes for the big trucks that you guys dive/used to drive. I'm guessing that smaller and more economical trucks are starting to appear now though?

The thing is, if you can afford to live like that, then why not?

I never really understand the superior smugness that some Europeans get about the mileage that they get from their little 3 cylinder roller-skate that they call a car?

You guys at least have many opportunities to save money and energy pretty easily now, whereas in Europe we really don't.

If you are already economical and turn of every light as you leave the room, never leave a TV on stand by and all those tiny little measures that we are assured make a big difference what is there left?

You guys are not being asked to live a "third world" lifestyle just yet, just a 21st century European one. I think that it is us that only have the third world to go to.


Another waste of money
By TxJeepers on 10/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another waste of money
By Ordr on 10/6/2008 12:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
Ew.


RE: Another waste of money
By dubldwn on 10/6/2008 12:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Another waste of money
By chmilz on 10/6/2008 12:57:29 PM , Rating: 4
This single building will house 45,000 people, with enough jobs for every one of them. Picture your typical SMALL CITY of 45,000 people living in houses with yards, plus the streets, infrastructure, and industrial/commercial lands to supply them with jobs. This building is the epitome of being green, considering all factors. The energy savings by having the air at the top cool the warmer lower floors alone will make this building an energy-efficiency marker to beat.


RE: Another waste of money
By masher2 (blog) on 10/6/2008 1:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention most the apartments will only have to heat/cool one or two of their six surfaces...the others will be shared by other apartments.


RE: Another waste of money
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 4:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
You can live in your giant Arcology (anyone remember those from Sim City 2000?) if you want. I'll take a home with a front yard and room to drive around.


RE: Another waste of money
By chmilz on 10/6/2008 6:32:47 PM , Rating: 3
Hey, I like a house and a yard as much as the next guy, but the reality is that in a world with an exploding population where we're ripping up food producing fields and C02-recycling rain forests, we need to cinch up the borders of our cities and go up, not out. Besides, have you seen how people drive these days? Moving away from the personal vehicle isn't such a bad idea.


RE: Another waste of money
By masher2 (blog) on 10/6/2008 7:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
> "in a world with an exploding population where we're ripping up food producing fields and C02-recycling rain forests..."

In the US and Europe, acreage under cultivation has gone down dramatically in the past century, even as population has risen. The reason is advances in agricultural technology; we need much less land to grow much more food.

Furthermore, if one ignores Brazil and Indonesia, global forested area is actually rising , not falling.

As I've pointed out before, one could put the entire population of the world in the state of Texas, and still every family would be able to live in a two-story, 6,000+ SF mansion -- with space left over to spare.

Most of the world is still wide open. Fears about overpopulation are baseless. Europe at present has a much larger problem with underpopulation-- most nations aren't reproducing at a level even high enough to maintain a stable population.


RE: Another waste of money
By chmilz on 10/7/2008 12:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
Can't a guy dream of cities made only of phallic looking monster skyscrapers? Ridonculous!


RE: Another waste of money
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 4:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be more impressed by a big building than those things.


And best of all...
By Indianapolis on 10/6/2008 11:46:43 AM , Rating: 2
And best of all, the offices on the top floors come with breathing masks and a year's supply of oxygen!




RE: And best of all...
By nafhan on 10/6/2008 11:48:26 AM , Rating: 2
I know you are probably joking, but the top floor will still be at a lower altitude than Denver, and you don't see a whole lot of people wearing masks there.


RE: And best of all...
By Indianapolis on 10/6/2008 11:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
<SARCASM>

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

</SARCASM>


RE: And best of all...
By austinag on 10/6/2008 12:00:43 PM , Rating: 5
So... If we build one in Denver, we won't even need a space elevator, just pogo stick and a parachute.


RE: And best of all...
By johnsonx on 10/6/2008 6:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
Your joke does raise an interesting issue though, particularly concerning the proposed mile-high building. People who live in Denver are acclimated to thinner air at that altitude. People who live on the ground and then take an elevator to a high floor of a mile high building might tend to get a bit drowsy; they might be just about adjusted to it when it's time to go home. Not very good for productivity.

I guess the solution will be to be rich enough to actually live on one of those high floors, so you start each day already acclimated.


RE: And best of all...
By porkpie on 10/6/2008 7:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
Or even better, just pump FRESH AIR into the buildings.


RE: And best of all...
By theapparition on 10/7/2008 9:56:43 AM , Rating: 2
They could artificially oxygenate the upper floors to minimize any effects.


That's great an all but...
By ThisSpaceForRent on 10/6/2008 11:49:47 AM , Rating: 2
I think the history of tall buildings in the United States has shown that while it is entirely possible to build these huge structures, filling them (i.e. finding tenants) is another matter entirely.

Given the states of the economy world wide, I wouldn't be surprised that upon completion the tower sits mostly unoccupied for several years.

I wouldn't be surprised if they had a fire sale on floor space to fill the tower, which, one would think, depress real estate values in the process.

Just my two dirham.




RE: That's great an all but...
By nanogeektech on 10/6/2008 11:57:23 AM , Rating: 2
Hey Budai is a special place..they have more contruction going on any place in the world..and they are filling the buildings, and the made made islands..they made.

Alot of wealthy people are buying places in Dubai as a second, third, etc home.


RE: That's great an all but...
By Indianapolis on 10/6/2008 11:59:13 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Hey Budai is a special place


That's great, but where's Budai?


RE: That's great an all but...
By Indianapolis on 10/6/2008 11:57:37 AM , Rating: 4
I'm waiting to see the world's tallest parking garage rise alongside this building.


By ThisSpaceForRent on 10/6/2008 1:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
Hehe, that made me giggle. I have to say I like the engineering, but the drive behind everything does have that slight taste of absurdity. The world's tallest parking garage would be the icing on the cake. (Watch that will be an article on DailyTech next week.)


RE: That's great an all but...
By Solandri on 10/6/2008 4:55:07 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, if you look at Dubai on Google Maps, I think the first question that'll come to mind is - Why?

New York and Chicago have lots of skyscrapers because they're large urban areas with little room for expansion. The only way to build is up. Los Angeles is the second largest metro area in the U.S., but it's population density is very low so it doesn't have very notable skyscrapers (and before anyone thinks earthquakes - skyscrapers do better in earthquakes than smaller structures - the vibrational frequency of most quakes is right around the resonance frequency of a 3 story building, which are precisely the structures which collapsed during Northridge and Loma Prieta).

Now look at Dubai. It's surrounded by nothing. They have plenty of room to grow at the outskirts. So you're probably right that it will sit mostly empty,a nd this is profligate spending for the sake of spending They will get some tenants who want to rent there for the cachet and because they can afford it, but most sensible businesses will rent elsewhere.


RE: That's great an all but...
By AnnihilatorX on 10/7/2008 5:32:46 AM , Rating: 2
Basically the government has too much money to spend

They also realise black gold can't be mined and stay profitably for 100 years to come.

So they invest in infrastructure to turn the economy to tourism and finance


RE: That's great an all but...
By Ringold on 10/7/2008 3:50:16 PM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding has been that a huge of amount of these sorts of projects have been privately financed operations, not government infrastructure projects as, say, a highway would be in the US.


anyone remember playing jenga as a kid?
By tastyratz on 10/6/2008 11:33:56 AM , Rating: 1
is it me or does that phallic tall skinny tower look like something that will REALLY suck if it tipped over.




RE: anyone remember playing jenga as a kid?
By noirsoft on 10/6/2008 11:39:52 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't that describe any skyscraper?


RE: anyone remember playing jenga as a kid?
By Indianapolis on 10/6/2008 11:52:48 AM , Rating: 3
Or any glass of milk, for that matter.


By tastyratz on 10/6/2008 3:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
Its all about proportions.
Looking at that picture it seems like it is significantly taller while being marginally wider. One would think with the basic concept of leverage it would only take a small high altitude storm to blow that thing over


Babylon?
By Dreifort on 10/6/2008 4:03:19 PM , Rating: 1
This goes back to Biblical times...

Someone in the middle east is always trying to build building that will let them reach heaven on their own - with no help from a deity.

If history is correct - either a natural disaster will end it's creation or they will stop it's production and leave it uncompleted.

Anyone care to take a guess as to how much sand has to be manually shifted/moved annualy to keep the beach from corroding away beneath this tower?




RE: Babylon?
By JS on 10/6/2008 9:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
You are confusing the word "history" with "fairy tale".


RE: Babylon?
By TerranMagistrate on 10/7/2008 1:53:41 AM , Rating: 2
No confusion is present there. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it didn't happen.


RE: Babylon?
By JS on 10/7/2008 8:09:03 AM , Rating: 2
That is just a silly argument. Just because you don't believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe doesn't mean it didn't.

The important question is: Is there any REASON to believe that such-and-such actually did happen? If so, it might be considered history. If not (which is the case with pretty much the whole Old Testament), it is instead to be considered a fairy tale.


Terrorism
By TerranMagistrate on 10/6/2008 1:07:55 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if this Dubai development group is at all worrying about the possibility of these structures being targeted by terrorist organizations. After all, probably 90% of terrorism in the world originates from the Middle East in the form of Islamic fundamentalism. I doubt the airports in those regions have the security that U.S. airports now have. I'd be wary if I were them.




RE: Terrorism
By kattanna on 10/6/2008 2:39:56 PM , Rating: 4
but why would you blow up your own building?

;>)


Some more research needed...
By Amiga500 on 10/6/2008 11:58:44 AM , Rating: 2
Didn't these guys ever watch the Towering Inferno?




But WHY?
By JS on 10/6/2008 12:53:42 PM , Rating: 2
Here's an interesting look at the psychological driving forces behind buildings of this kind. Very informative, and at the same time quite entertaining.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N495wu2Dprg




Get Ready !
By crystal clear on 10/7/2008 9:16:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yes Dubai get ready to make office space for AMD....

Here comes the new AMD to Dubai....ABSAMMD....

Sheikh Ahmed Bin Saeed Al Maktoum Micro Devices

in short ABSAMMD




By iheartzoloft on 10/9/2008 1:16:05 PM , Rating: 2
P enis E nvy




By Shadowmaster625 on 10/9/2008 2:16:08 PM , Rating: 2
If those crazy rihadical islarmofascist ex-tar-eemists hate a-merka, imagine what they must think of Dubai! I sure hope they dont let Larry Silverstein buy any buildings in Dubai!




"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki