backtop


Print 441 comment(s) - last by elgueroloco.. on Aug 11 at 5:34 PM


A color-coded map of undiscovered Arctic oil deposits. Darker areas of green indicate more oil.
Race to claim begins

The Arctic may hold far more oil than previously thought; as much as 90 billion undiscovered barrels according to a new study released today by the US Geological Survey.   The new amount, equivalent to nearly 20 years of US foreign oil imports, is worth over $11 trillion dollars at current oil prices.  One third of the amount may lie in Alaska alone, according to the study's authors.

The region also holds nearly 1,700 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, 27% of known world gas reserves.  Counting known deposits already surveyed, total oil and gas deposits in the Arctic are more than 410 billion barrels.

The study, known as CARA -- Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal -- included only those deposits that could be tapped with current technology.  Future advances would likely boost the number further.  Researchers in Denmark, Greenland, Canada, and Norway contributed data to the study.

According to project chief, Donald Gautier, "The extensive Arctic continental shelves may constitute the geographically largest unexplored prospective area for petroleum remaining on Earth."

A geopolitical scramble for the resources is beginning.  Russia has taken steps to secure rights to the region, last year sending a nuclear-powered ship to map a possible undersea connection between Siberia and the North Pole.  This would allow the nation a rationale to circumvent the UN 200-mile limit of offshore resource claims. 

Seven other nations have claims for the area, including Norway, Sweden, Canada, and the U.S.  Earlier this month, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the nation intends to "defend" its sovereignty in the Arctic, backing up the statement with a plan to divert 8 military patrol ships to the region, along with a new deep-water port.



Comments     Threshold


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

Greetings Dr. Falken
By puckalicious on 7/24/2008 12:16:35 PM , Rating: 5
"Shall we play a game?"

"Global thermonuclear war."

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

Or, how about we invest our time/money in renewable resources for long term prosperity instead of throwing away everything we have for the short term gain?




RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By michal1980 on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By vapore0n on 7/24/2008 12:40:29 PM , Rating: 5
I think he is saying:

instead of eating all the bread in front of you, just use as much as you really need and try and find another source for food.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By danrien on 7/24/2008 12:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
exactly. while americans have had very unhealthy diets for a long time, that hasn't stopped researchers from looking for new ways to make healthy foods. they didn't tell people to stop eating, but they did say give us some money so we can figure out how to make just as tasty food that won't give you a heart attack in 30 years. the present energy situation is the exact same in that respect, and is why research into resources not so easily depleted is so important.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By xsilver on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 3:02:07 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It might not be the same for energy but even if 1 in 10 people think like this then we're in trouble.
Regular people don't engage in these types of discussions. They're too busy living. Life must be good if we're able to have these discussions though. That means we're not worried about where our next meal is coming from or where we'll sleep tonight.

I'm actually happy that we aren't the one's in charge. I'm glad the one's doing most of the buying, decision making, etc are just regular people. Sure, it may not make for the best decisions but I'd rather have it this way then to have the more radical (us geeks) in charge. Thank God for the tyranny of the majority!


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Jim28 on 7/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Ammohunt on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By BruceLeet on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By kenferg1 on 7/24/2008 8:59:50 PM , Rating: 5
I find it odd that Europeans are quick to condem Americans for oil gluteny. After all, European economies are as oil bound as any. I also find it rather interesting that Europeans are virtual silent on fossil fuel consumption by China, India, and other previously third-world nations.

Do you really think that China is going to give up oil as well as the wealth and power that it builds? Do you think India and China will accept or abide by any accords that limit their production of the trace gas CO2? The Asian giant is awakening and the Indian subcontinent will not be denied. They want what the West has had for the past 150 years: economic progress, a seat in world politics, and military power to back both.

So, while I whole heartily agree that a search for alternative energy supplies is not only smart but a moral imperative, I also acknowledge the fact that right now oil is what drives the world economy. To deny drilling for a resource that is necessary today, would be to deny the economic prosperity and technological gains that will one day make oil obsolete.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By danielg001 on 7/24/2008 11:13:01 PM , Rating: 4
Europeans find it odd that Americans are yelling and screaming bloody murder over gas prices. Your petrol is about twice as cheap as it is in Europe. Its truly bizarre to to watch. Sort of like someone earning 20k watching someone earning 40k saying that the sky is falling.
The current problem with America, imho, is based around the old saying "to someone with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".
BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China ) all these countries are on the way up. You can thank the aggressively US pushed free trade for that. While its true the US has the only military that can sit around and consider how to stop this, it really isn’t a solution, its only a possible action. The big issue is that, there is no answer, you can drill and drill all you like, but all the easy oil is gone, even if there is some mysterious deposits we find, its only a delay, its not a solution. "Just because we haven't hit the ground doesn't mean we aren't falling". If you look in the cupboard and see 10 cans of food left, do you blame your house mates you have to share with... or find more food? If there truely was no more food ( alternate energy), that is one thing. However, I’m not sure who would deny alternate energy is available.. its only that its much harder to get. But of course, remembering how good things were doesn’t make things in the future any better :)
America is the one country that has the finances to do something, almost any problem America could solve (or at least give it the best shot any country could hope). However, too much rhetoric is used to gain politic support, its poisoned the minds of the public. Its too easy to blame someone else, if you can point your finger at something and say thats the problem... hey thats easy, anyone can sell that. However, going back and saying.. wait... this isnt the whole issue, we also have to go back and change. That is suicide.
Europe is good in the sense that the power is much less controlled, you don't find the EU going down such dramatically routes because each country can parry against each other to balance the point of view, no country leader commits political suicide by going against another country (which in America is the accepted wisdom), its the benefit of localized propaganda, you don’t have the whole EU being sold on one idea.
However, its also a weakness, when a good idea comes around, its almost impossible to execute it like America could. Even with 100% support, the EU doesn’t have the same sort of money available. The US could sink 1 trillion dollars into some idea per year if required, and they have the infrastructure and talent to use it. Not like the Mideast or BRIC when they get money, but have to outsource everything because they don’t have the infrastructure or talent.
How you can turn the country into supporting such a bold investment, which tacitly admits the country is in big, big trouble, I have no idea. I wish people could stop being so polarized by opinion. Is peak oil real? Is global warming real? From what I read, I don’t see how it can be false. However, I don’t care if its false, its great if its false. I just don’t get what people who are devoted to it being false have to gain? You are right and we are fucked or you are wrong and we aren’t? It makes no sense to me, sit on the fence, reserve judgement. That takes a lot more balls than choosing some position they think makes them right. You just have nothing to gain by being against it... more pollution at the least, is that something to be proud of? Best case scenario is we aren’t fucked? Seems weird to me *shrugs*... but im happy to hear it proved wrong, honestly. IMO, that’s the best position to have, but vigorous debate on the issues is very important, just don’t let it devolve to insults and yelling.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By NullSubroutine on 7/25/2008 6:39:20 AM , Rating: 5
Your price of fuel is also increased by the taxes that pay for things like health care and I think education. You cannot look at both prices in a vacuum and say 'oh bloody hell they are a bunch of whiners'.

Both Europe and the US have an economy and financial sector setup on a certain price of things, regardless of the disparity between other countries. Wages, income, prices for products, etc all are dynamic as in they are based on the costs of other things. Yet, they are rather static when looking at a traditional long term trend of gradual increase (inflation).

However, when you introduce a certain market which is a backbone the economy like gas (you need oil for everything) this unbalances and disrupts the homeostasis of the (our) country. Gas prices doubling in such a short period in time has made it so many cannot afford transportation - and not everywhere is there public transportation. There are many places in the rural areas of the US where citizens make the lowest median wage and have to drive 80 miles a day to get to work. Add in the fact these individuals can't afford hybrid cars or newer cars that can get 30-50MPG(US gallon) on the highway. What you have people barely able to make ends meet just by the increase of 1 commodity.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By clovell on 7/25/2008 11:23:44 AM , Rating: 5
Bear in mind the following:

Domestic oil production in the US crashed two decades ago.
There are large reserves that are untouched in the US.
The percentage of oil imported into the US has almost tripled in the last three decades.
There hasn't been a new refinery built in the US since I've been alive.

Americans scream bloody murder over gas prices not because they're high - they scream bloody murder over gas prices because they're high and we can do something about that problem, but aren't.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By BZDTemp on 7/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/25/2008 9:23:16 AM , Rating: 4
> "The US is using twice the amount of energy per capita than any other industrialized nation "

Eh? Many nations have a higher per-capita energy usage than the US. Canada, for one, along with Iceland, Luxembourg, Bahrain, Kuwait, and a few others.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 11:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
We are also the largest, most populated, most developed, and most wealthy first world country. (Canada is bigger landwise but not population.)

What would the EU be in a similar situation? Most like the same. If cars and fuel were not taxed to death in the EU more people would have cars and the situtation would be very similar on a per capita basis.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By fibreoptik on 7/25/2008 8:44:11 AM , Rating: 2
umm I think you meant "whole heartedly" rather than "whole heartily".


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By plinkplonk on 7/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By bodar on 7/27/2008 7:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the Amish weren't allowed to use the internet? We need to find a realistic alternative to oil BEFORE we give it up, otherwise we are back to 19th century transportation and production methods.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Moohbear on 7/24/2008 12:32:11 PM , Rating: 5
Let me see. On one hand, we have: preserving the ecosystem and solving the oil short/medium term shortage by developing costly or unproven alternatives and making a lot a very influent, very rich people angry.
On the other hand, we have $11,000,000,000,000 lying in the ground.
Now, try to guess what the jury will decide ;)


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By vapore0n on 7/24/2008 12:44:06 PM , Rating: 3
If true about these findings, then the choice is obvious. Drill the arctic. Maybe this will give us enough time to develop the alternate fuel at price that most can afford.

Cant say that oil is the only way. We still need to go to an alternate source of energy. Its only a matter of time....and money.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By foxtrot9 on 7/25/2008 4:01:45 PM , Rating: 4
While in a perfect world that sounds nice and all - it won't happen. If we drill and find another abundent source of oil, the focus will turn away from finding alternative sources. It will be much easier to just use what we have and let future generations worry about the problem. It's the same idea as our national debt and problems with social security - "don't fix the problem now because when it really becomes a big issue I won't be in office and it won't matter to me"


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By plinkplonk on 7/26/2008 12:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
its a shame but that's pretty much how the world works now


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By xti on 7/24/2008 12:46:40 PM , Rating: 5
one of those zero's just winked at me.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By lifeblood on 7/24/2008 1:41:28 PM , Rating: 5
The silly thing is, most everyone knows the best solution. Drill the oil while diversifying your current energy sources (nuclear, solar, wind, etc) and looking for new or improved sources of energy.

The problem is, if oil is plentiful then we won't seriously look for new or improved energy sources. It seems we only get serious when are wallet is getting hurt.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By porkpie on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By isorfir on 7/24/2008 2:30:38 PM , Rating: 5
Oh, that's why we're just now looking for viable alternatives when we've had 100+ years of no oil supply problems? Heck, early on we burned off natural gas just to get rid of it because we had so much oil. Yeah, having a lot of something really makes us look for ways to get more of it.

Necessity is the mother of invention.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 2:41:03 PM , Rating: 1
> " that's why we're just now looking for viable alternatives when we've had 100+ years of no oil supply problems?"

Eh? Both your statements are incorrect. We've been researching wind and solar for many decades...the first concentrated solar plants were built in the 1980, and we've utilitized wind mills for power long before we began using oil. Hydrogen production has been explored for decades as well, with our largest advances made in the 1990s, when gas was $1.50/bbl.

Furthermore, we've had much worse oil supply problems in the past. In the 1970s, the US had to institute price controls and rationing....people were only allowed to fill their cars on alternate days. In the 1920s even, President Coolidge convened an emergency council to solve the 'crisis', under the belief the world would be utterly out of oil within the next 10 years.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By isorfir on 7/24/2008 2:57:50 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry, by "viable" I meant that we're actually trying to bring them to market now, not just research them. If the oil price is low, it drives alternatives of out the market. The point that porkpie is making is that we'd spend more money researching alternatives when we're oil rich, which is plain wrong.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 4:34:39 PM , Rating: 5
i can't believe people are arguing against you isofir, your point is so obviously correct to me and I would hope many others.

sure, there have been alternative energy interests and research for a long time, but have you ever before seen the US as a whole so interested in reducing our dependency on oil? No. Why? 'cause no one likes paying $4 a gallon.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By grenableu on 7/24/2008 4:42:50 PM , Rating: 5
There's a difference between "interested" and "able". The more expensive oil gets, the more interested we are in not using it, but the less able we are to afford developing any alternative.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 4:48:20 PM , Rating: 5
sure, but again, the proof is in the pudding. never before has gas cost so much, and yet never before have we seen the interest and $ spend on R&D for alternative energy sources. this idea that we need the money saved on spending for gas to fund alternative energy is a very weak point. there might be a grain of truth in it, but it's insignificant. the money spent on alternative energy will come when enough people demand it, simple as that.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By grenableu on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 5:07:10 PM , Rating: 5
> " what about the number of solar panels installed this year vs. last year? "

Your examples deal with implementation rather than research. Acts like installing solar panels based on current technology don't help the situation. We can *never* solve our energy needs with such. They're a waste of time, money, and resources, plain and simple. A symbolic gesture valuable for emotional reasons perhaps, but not a practical advance.

What we need is a solution that works. Nuclear power is a viable solution for non-fossil fuel electricity generation, but there is no current solution for non-petroleum based transportation. None. Spending money on alternatives that aren't ready for prime time doesn't help us in the long run.

What's a better option...to spend $200M on a solar farm that produces power at 5X the cost of nuclear (or 40X the cost, if one has to store energy for night)....or that same money, spent on researching how to make cells cheaper and more efficient? Or an energy storage technology that's actually practical? Or better batteries for EV cars?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 7:21:41 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
and I still don't think you're giving solar enough credit. ask anyone in the solar industry how much of a difference their products make on their customer's energy bills and I'm sure you'll get some decent figures.

Ask those same customers how much they spent for those savings. $30K? $40K? $50K?

Justifying solar power by the so-called "savings" is kind of like when someone tells you how much they "saved" at the mall buying things.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 10:21:30 PM , Rating: 1
no, it's not. energy savings pay you back constantly. there is an upfront cost, but over time they pay for themselves and eventually turn a profit.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/25/2008 9:17:17 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
no, it's not. energy savings pay you back constantly. there is an upfront cost, but over time they pay for themselves and eventually turn a profit.

Have you ever done a break-even analysis for solar? I did one last year, using a solar industry web site, and the cost break even was like 25 or 30 years!

This is why, in my opinion, you only see a tiny fraction of our energy being generated by solar power. It will stay that way until those economics change.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By s12033722 on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By eldakka on 7/24/2008 10:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
While I tend to agree with you regarding ground-based solar not really being a solution (unless they come up with practical, room-temperature superconductors for power transmission and solar farms located all around the world...) what about space-based solar power?

A large (technically possible at the moment, but really, really expensive ;) ) space based array would get sunlight 24*365, undiluted by earth's atmosphere and unaffected by weather.

Of course, the initial costs and build times (even simple satellites take years to assemble) would be incredible...But probably less than trying to make huge ground-based solar farms...

As for nuclear, I think it IS a current, viable solution, all it lacks is political will by the pollies to allow it.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Starcub on 7/26/2008 5:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're throwing a red herring here. Nuclear is viable. All it takes to build the plants is the will to do so. One stroke of a pen on the right desk, and the problem is solved.

Solar isn't viable, however, for very real, technical reasons.

Solar is viable, even with tech currently commercially available here in the US (the EU is a larger customer of solar). Several southwestern states have already built solar farm plants, and here in Florida where I live, they are planning to build one as well (and unfortunately also a nuke plant). Do you think that they would do this if the evidence failed to promote solar's viability?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By danielg001 on 7/24/2008 11:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
Your reply is good, because it exposes the understanding problem.

Energy... how do we use it, how do we need it.

Petrol in cars is not really energy as we think of it, its a battery, its a frigging amazing battery. If oil ran out, youd look back at the days you can poor essentially free liquid into your car and it just drives for ever with amazement. The industrial revolution... modern life, is built of this amazing energy source. Factories and all industrial prosperity is grown based on using the energy the planet stored for millions of years as fossil fuels.

Alternate energy isnt exactly an amazingly easy enegy we can just use as we want, we already have that energy, its coal and natural gas and crude oil. However, when we supply a few percent via alternate already without a significant GDP investment, its hard to see why we couldn't supply almost all of it. Supplemented with nuclear or whatever, even fossil fuels, doesn't matter, if we use a lot less, it lasts much longer. However, this is for POWER, the grid. Your house, your office, anything stationary.

Alternates are hard for transport, its a completely different issue. Hydrogen isn't an energy source, its a battery, but its not anywhere as good as oil. Fuel cells have a great energy density but... lets look...

kw/kg kWh/l
Hydrogen, gas (300 bar) 33 0.7
Petrol, liquid 13 8.7

http://www.fuelcell.no/hydrogen_mainpage_eng.htm

That is key, its something < 10% of the energy that oil has, and fuel cells are far more delicate than just slushing some petrol into your tank and driving away allows. They require a lot of energy to make, rare materials, they don't last very long (cars might break down, but your gas never does, its simplicity is deceptive, but oil is amazing).

Unless oil estimates are wrong, and completely amazingly stupidly wrong (20-100% underestimates just buy time, even then, they are much harder to extract), I dont see how cars will exist as they do in they future. About 25% of corn in the US next year will be used for a few percent of the car fuel? I cant see a solution, even if you created clean, unlimited fusion energy. Made all the hydrogen you needed, can you imagine the effort to convert all the cars and petrol stations in the world to use this? It would be hundreds of trillions or more, and thats only if the market doesnt collapse with the news we are going to only get less and less oil year over year.

Though... on the other hand.. its pretty easy to imagine (at least in larger cities), converting roads to rail, solar powered trains running all the time in stead. Farms built in hydroponic skyscrapers, all in walking distance.. humans have already been able to travel a few km a day with ease, just by eating the same daily food. When we have to drive a 1 ton car 20km to get food for 70kg of person, its easy to see the problems (not that I want to go back to eating whatever comes from a local farm, but it sure is efficent).

Im equally surprised how easy some huge improvements could be made compared to the huge issues that could face us if we really did run out of oil. The big problem my brain has is that I pretty much never see humans doing anything, on a large scale, pro actively. If it all goes to shit, sure, the effort we would apply would be hard to imagine. It just seems like we need to put ourselves in a position where when we do dig in and do something, it can actually have an effect. If nothing is done, oil peaks without us believing it, oil hits $500 a barrel, too expensive for trucks to deliver food. Inflation explodes, food runs out, Im not sure what could be done unless we are already moving in the right direction.

On the flip side, if you have a few solar panels on your farm and a bunch of dvds. Life would probably be about the same :)


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Lugaidster on 7/28/2008 5:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
If you want an example of what would happen if oil just disappeared and you had no more money look at Cuba and how things changed when the USSR disappeared. Suddenly there was no way to get oil so people had no means of transportation. Without which there was barely any means to deliver food or produce electricity. There were blackouts almost every day. And you couldn't even get basic raw resources, so if you wanted to build something wood was practically your only alternative. People starved and deflected to other countries USA being the most popular. People got used to walk as there were no alternatives. There weren't many imports because of the embargo. And so on...

I just hope that this doesn't happen to the rest of the world and we find other ways to produce energy (besides using food, because that's almost the same thing). Otherwise, population will go back to 19th century numbers.

I say leave that oil buried in the arctic and use the money to research other alternatives.

---

On the subject of saving oil for flights I would say that planes are probably the easiest problem to solve if we were oil constrained (or at least oil constrained enough to come up with a solution). After all, planes enjoy the flexibility that the car industry doesn't have. Given that R&D takes time, if we really need a specific technology, time won't be as much of an issue (otherwise look at war times as an example).


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 11:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
Hybrids are not alternative to fossil fuel cars, it is a convervation method.

A true alternative to fuels would be electric and hydrogen-fuel-cell electric for example.

You can't replace traditional power plants with AF of 80-90% with something that has an AF of 30-40% and costs more. That just does not make sense! I have worked in the power industry. Alternative sources are poor choices for the grid due to their variability. Balancing the grid is hard enough due to the dynamic nature of the electrical load, and that is when you have a stable reliable set of power generation to tap.

If the alternatives performance figures were equal to or better than fmore traditional methods and the cost was similar, than now we are talking.

Be more pratical and make sure the solution does not perform worse and/or cost more than the problem.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By plinkplonk on 7/26/2008 12:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
are you?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By mmatis on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By epobirs on 7/24/2008 4:18:24 PM , Rating: 3
Uh, no. There was nothing requiring us to institute price controls and rationing. That was an idiotic outburst of socialistic thinking that has thankfully not been repeated.

Price controls created a situation where gas station owners found themselves required to sell for less than their cost. Not being stupid, they decided it was better to run out until they could buy more supply at a reasonable price than to actively lose money on every gallon sold.

This was an incredibly stupid policy on the part of the government that created an artificial shortge. The problem was the rising price driven by OPEC, not a lack of supply. It would have far better to let prices at the pump rise to whatever the market dictated. This would have gotten more than a small minority deeply interested in purchasing cars that got much better mileage. If Detroit couldn't or wouldn't do it, the rewards would go to whoever offered a better choice.

No hamfisted government intervention needed.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 4:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "This was an incredibly stupid policy on the part of the government that created an artificial shortge"

Of course. I never disputed that. The fact remains that the 1973 oil embargo was a more severe situation than the price escalation we see today. With OPEC refusing entirely to sell to the US and several other nations, oil prices went almost overnight from $3/bbl to $15/bbl, then continued rising over the next few years up to $40/bbl.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By William Gaatjes on 7/24/2008 6:31:04 PM , Rating: 1
Are the time frames you are naming coincidence ?

1970 oil supply problems.
1980 alternative energy source like solar plants where being taken to production if i understan correclty.
Now given that research takes some years that would not seem like a coincidence.

If it is or not, you have to agree that when the oil get scarce it is more of a push in the direction of alternative energy sources. Our infrastruture depends on oil and that infrastructure would only change if it is necessary. When there is enough oil, nobody would go through that trouble.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By SiliconAddict on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Solandri on 7/25/2008 12:37:26 AM , Rating: 2
No company can be at the forefront of every potential technology. It would just cost too much. So they essentially place their bets on which technology they think will win out. The Japanese car companies gambled that hybrids would be the next big thing. They won. The American car companies gambled that hydrogen fuel cells would be the next big thing. They lost. That's the way the market works. I remember reading an article around 2000 where a Japanese car company CEO said that they were 5-10 years behind the Americans on fuel cell research, and if the fuel cells won out they were in big trouble.

And it's really ironic that you posted what you did as a criticism of American car companies not conducting alternative fuel R&D. The environmental groups condemned hybrids when they first showed up because they got all their energy from gasoline. They wanted electric and fuel cell vehicles, not something that just used gasoline differently. The American car companies were doing what the environmental groups wanted. It ended up costing them, and now you're condemning them for not developing hybrids?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 2:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
Well said. And then guys like him also give credit to Honda for releasing a "production" fuel cell car despite GM having done something similar over a year before.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 2:42:32 PM , Rating: 3
The flaw in your argument is that alternative energy R&D didn't just start when oil prices shot up this time around. It's been going on for many decades already.

People are always looking for and working on alternatives; they just become more attractive, relatively speaking, when the cost of traditional energy sources increases.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By 4play on 7/24/2008 2:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
R&D existed, but it never amounted to anything. Are you seriously going to argue that if gas was dirt cheap, people would look to EVs and Hybrids?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 3:05:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
R&D existed, but it never amounted to anything.
It didn't? How so? Explain.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 5:04:27 PM , Rating: 1
I'll explain since you're enjoying playing the dumb game. Who knew what a Hybrid car was 5 years ago vs. how many people know now?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 5:09:25 PM , Rating: 3
Public awareness is not the same as research and development.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 5:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
and yet it "amounts to something". the fact is interest drives funding, and larger amounts of interest come from necessity than anything else. pinch the gas prices and people will demand electric cars. pinch natural gas prices and people will demand geothermal heating and cooling


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 5:55:03 PM , Rating: 2
> "pinch natural gas prices and people will demand geothermal heating and cooling "

But people aren't demanding geothermal heating right now. They're demanding cheaper natural gas. Look at the article I posted above.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 6:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
that's 'cause they don't know about geothermal!

give people an alternative that they understand and that's cheaper and they'll jump to it, guaranteed.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 7:02:50 PM , Rating: 2
> "give people an alternative that they understand and that's cheaper and they'll jump to it, guaranteed. "

Of course. The problem is those alternative sources *aren't* cheaper...and only further R&D can make them so.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 7:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
a well designed geothermal heating and cooling system in your home can save you 70% on your energy bills and totally remove your dependence on natural gas. it may not be cheaper to install at first, but it will pay for itself within a few years in most cases, even faster in some.

http://waterfurnace.com/benefits.aspx
http://waterfurnace.com/how_it_works.aspx


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Solandri on 7/25/2008 1:04:44 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, I priced several heating/cooling systems for a construction project at my last workplace. Initially it was supposed to be eco-friendly, but budget costs forced it to standard construction. We already had some of the eco-friendly options priced out, and geothermal actually ended up being cheaper than regular heating/AC within I think it was 3 years.

Don't confuse it with geothermal energy, which is only viable near volcanoes and hot springs. Essentially a geothermal heat pump is the same thing as a regular heat pump (which operates cheaper than heating/AC for efficiency reasons), but uses the ground as a temperature sink instead of the air. That makes it a lot more efficient than a regular heat pump (since the ground is a lot warmer than the air in Winter, cooler than the air in Summer). The only drawback is you need to dig up the lawn. But the payback is relatively quick, nothing like solar. It's one of the few eco-friendly options I consider to be viable right now.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 3:08:02 PM , Rating: 2
> "Are you seriously going to argue that if gas was dirt cheap, people would look to EVs and Hybrids? "

If gas is dirt cheap, it implies its plentiful and not in short supply. If such is the case, why would we need to be driving around more expensive hybrids and EVs? Doesn't it make more sense to save that money, and instead spend it on something more useful...like more research to improve the alternatives?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By isorfir on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 3:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
If we're spending the money on gas, we CAN'T spend it on anything else. Wealth creates progress, plain and simple.

Seen Zambia fund much alternative energy research lately? Only a wealthy nation can engage in such endeavors...and if oil continues to rise, the US will no longer be such.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By 4play on 7/24/2008 4:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
Gasoline in Europe is far more expensive than in the US, they are also a leader in alternative energy. Coincidence?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Noya on 7/24/2008 4:25:52 PM , Rating: 3
That's because EU countries tax their fuel considerably more than the US does = that's what subsidizes the alternative energy research/sources.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 4:53:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Gasoline in Europe is far more expensive than in the US, they are also a leader in alternative energy.

I'd like to know how you reached that conclusion. When I look at Europe, compared to other developed nations, I see basically the same energy sources.

Nearly all vehicles are powered by oil (diesel or gas), and nearly all infrastructure powered by oil, coal, nat. gas, nuclear, and hydro. All developed nations have just a tiny fraction generated by "alternative" energy sources like wind, solar, etc.

So how is Europe a "leader" exactly?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By DanoruX on 7/24/2008 5:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
They're a leader in R&D.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By 4play on 7/24/2008 5:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
@ TomZ:

Germany is up to getting 14% of it's electricity from renewables http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/40791/54...

maybe 14% is considered a "tiny fraction" but you need to start somewhere.

heres a wiki link as well :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:European-union-...


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 5:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
> "@ TomZ: Germany is up to getting 14% of it's electricity from renewables "

Yes they are:

quote:
BERLIN'S POLITICAL CONUNDRUM
Voters Furious over Surging Energy Prices

In 1997, the Germans spent €69 billion ($107 billion) on electricity, heating and fuel. By 2007 -- a year with a warm winter -- that combined figure had increased to €95 billion ($147 billion)...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518...


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By foolsgambit11 on 7/25/2008 4:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well, considering that US natural gas prices have doubled since 1997, and gas and diesel prices have more than doubled, I wouldn't be surprised if the US figures showed at least a proportional rise in energy costs. And that without serious investment in alternatives. So from this admittedly small sample, you could conclude that investment in renewables is not causally linked to Germany's energy prices.

In fact, the article you link to specifically cites traditional energy sources (natural gas and oil specifically) as being the source of the increased energy costs. Quoting out of context, for shame!


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 11:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
If they are such leaders in alternative energy, then why are new coal plants being built there?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 5:59:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
maybe 14% is considered a "tiny fraction" but you need to start somewhere.

If you want to play the game of cherry-picking statistics, I'll give you Washington State, which generates 84% of its electricity from renewable sources.

http://www.energyatlas.org/PDFs/LowRes/atlas_state...

Hopefully Germany will catch up sometime in the future... :o)


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By foolsgambit11 on 7/26/2008 2:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
Being from Washington State, I wish that I could be proud of that statistic. In fact, since 83% of that energy comes from hydroelectric plants, it doesn't really demonstrate an energy policy that will work anywhere. It also doesn't reflect any sort of commitment to developing 'green' technology. Hydro has been a major source of power for decades in Washington because it makes economic sense, but recent decades have seen a backlash against increasing the number of dams due to their environmental impact on Washington's watersheds, and especially their impact on spawning salmon.

And the PDF you link to doesn't actually classify hydro as a renewable energy source. It also says that California has more installed capacity (although I bet as a percentage of power usage, Washington comes out ahead). I can understand why you wouldn't choose California as an example of a successful energy policy, though. After all, their energy costs are roughly double Washington's ($.1282/kWh versus $.612/kWh)


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By isorfir on 7/24/2008 4:24:18 PM , Rating: 3
I understand that if the US is crippled by oil prices then it doesn’t have much to spend on alternatives. I may have been mistaken, but it seemed like the idea was if we had cheap oil prices we would already have alternatives, which doesn't make sense because there would have been no necessity for it. If the price of oil is low the market won't support more expensive alternatives just because "it's the right thing to do."

There was a problem with oil in the 70s, as you said, because of the embargos, but yet once the prices came down again we (the public) all but lost interest in alternatives. History as proven that if you alleviate the pressure, then we won't change course. How quickly we forget.

Too many people get on the either/or boat where you can either get more oil or develop viable alternatives. Obviously we need both. More oil can only be seen as a band-aid until we get something better. If oil prices do come down (which I hope it does) we need to make sure than the public doesn’t forget that everything’s not alright.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 4:27:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "but yet once the prices came down again we (the public) all but lost interest in alternatives"

We didn't lose interest in researching and developing alternatives, we lost interest in implementing them. As well we should. Had we tried to implement EVs or some other alternative with 1980s technology, it would have been a multi-trillion dollar boondoggle with no real results.

But the research continued anyway and -- as long as an oil crunch doesn't cripple our economy today -- it still will. At some point, those alternatives will make sense.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Solandri on 7/24/2008 5:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I understand that if the US is crippled by oil prices then it doesn’t have much to spend on alternatives. I may have been mistaken, but it seemed like the idea was if we had cheap oil prices we would already have alternatives, which doesn't make sense because there would have been no necessity for it. If the price of oil is low the market won't support more expensive alternatives just because "it's the right thing to do."

I think the point is that artificially raising the price of gasoline doesn't make alternatives cheaper. It just makes them more affordable relative to gasoline. Certainly having a market for alternatives generates interest and increases the installed base. But it doesn't change the basic fact that the price of alternative energy is still higher than for gasoline minus the taxes.

In other words, the downward pressure on alternative energy prices doesn't increase simply because you tax gasoline. You have to actually fund R&D to drive alternative energy prices down. And you can do that with or without gasoline taxes. Not only that, the gas taxes (in and of themselves) could actually discourage research which drives down the prices of alternative energy, since it'd be sustainable at the artificially higher price point.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 4:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we're spending the money on gas, we CAN'T spend it on anything else.


EXACTLY! so now that gas is expensive, we're finally starting to THINK about how to spend the rest of our money, and that's why people are looking to alternatives.. they realize this is a real problem when they're having a hard time at the pump.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 11:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but then you have killed the goose that laid the golden eggs, and without those eggs no more research money. (Duh!)


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By epobirs on 7/24/2008 4:42:59 PM , Rating: 5
So that would explain why electric cars have been touted as coming Real Soon Now throughout my life.

There is more than fuel prices driving alternative energy research. Pollution has been a high concern for many decades, with increasingly stringent laws compelling businesses to make their products and processes cleaner. This in turn means a company that makes a major advancement in cleaner technology can make major profits.

Likewise, there have always been buisness opportunities in new technologies that perform the same task as an existing product but in a differnt that, the producer hopes, makes it more desirable.

Just because a viable technology has failed to emerge doesn't mean nobody has been trying. For instance, there is considerable interest in better battery technology to enable electric vehicles to master a list of requirements: range, rapid recharge, ease of recycling, etc. But none of that is new developments for the battery industry. You can eliminate electric vehicles as a potential market and there would still be a multi-$Billion demand for better batteries possessing all of those qualites for the well established markets of portable computing, entertainment, communication, and medical devices. All of those products have constantly demanded better batteries or alternate power sources without a dramatic rise in fuel prices.

This is also why conspiracy theorist who think the oil industry is suppressing better batteries are simply insane.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By porkpie on 7/25/2008 9:52:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can eliminate electric vehicles as a potential market and there would still be a multi-$Billion demand for better batteries possessing all of those qualites for the well established markets of portable computing, entertainment, communication, and medical devices. All of those products have constantly demanded better batteries or alternate power sources without a dramatic rise in fuel prices.

This is also why conspiracy theorist who think the oil industry is suppressing better batteries are simply insane.
But. . . but. . . I saw Who Killed The Electric Car and it told me it was all a giant conspiracy! It has to be true!


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By 4play on 7/24/2008 4:05:08 PM , Rating: 2
I know your views on AGW so I won't argue with you on that one.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 3:08:22 PM , Rating: 3
How much did gasoline cost, per gallon, when EVs and hybrids were developed and introduced to the market?

For example, the current generation of hybrids were introduced to the market in the late 1990's, when gas prices were less than 1/2 of what they are now.

The data doesn't support your argument.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By 4play on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By mvpx02 on 7/24/2008 2:58:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Necessity is the mother of invention.


we did not NEED airplanes, they simply are a better solution than cars & trucks in some instances

we did not NEED cars & trucks, they are simply a better solution than trains in some instances

we did not NEED trains, they are simply a better solution than horses & wagons in some instances

don't doubt humanity's ability to improve its tools... we've been doing so (out of both necessity and convenience) for thousands of years

There are plenty of scientists/companies who are (and have been) working on improvements to all aspects of life (including energy).

profit is almost as powerful a motivator as necessity.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By isorfir on 7/24/2008 3:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
Everything you listed fulfilled a need: Travel. They were better than the previous ones, which was needed. If you’re going to travel around the world, you need something better.
quote:
profit is almost as powerful a motivator as necessity.

Make something that is not needed and tell me how much you profited from it. The reason the profit exists is because the invention was needed.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By mvpx02 on 7/24/2008 3:53:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Make something that is not needed and tell me how much you profited from it. The reason the profit exists is because the invention was needed.


Be careful not to confuse luxuries with necessities. If humanity has been able to survive up until this last century without the luxury of flight, it must not have been a dire necessity. Many of today's perceived "needs" exist because there's a solution available... my boss wouldn't say "I need you to be at the meeting tomorrow in NYC" if flight weren't an option... people wouldn't expect to be able to contact me at any time day or night if I didn't have a cell phone.

Most things that fit into the category of entertainment/recreation are, by definition alone, not needs. Do you think Sony/Sharp/Samsung/Etc. are making 60" TV's because people NEEDED something bigger than 50"? Do you think that people NEED things like drugs & alcohol? Do you think people NEED a Corvette that goes 200MPH when there's almost nowhere (in USA) to drive it at that speed (legally)? All of these things were developed, produced and sold for the purpose of profit.

I'm not arguing a person's need to be entertained and to relax, those necessities are undeniable. However, the means by which we currently fullfill those needs are not necessities.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By isorfir on 7/24/2008 4:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say survival needs. I'm talking about what the market demands, a market based need. Nothing more.

Need, noun
"2 a: a lack of something requisite, desirable , or useful "

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/need


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By mvpx02 on 7/24/2008 4:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
So you're saying if the market demands cheaper oil, it only makes sense to increase supply if possible. I can agree with that.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Solandri on 7/24/2008 5:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rephrase the old adage as efficiency is the mother of invention. Anything that's desired (whether a need or a want) motivates improvements in the efficiency of how those things are acquired.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JakLee on 7/24/2008 5:56:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Make something that is not needed and tell me how much you profited from it. The reason the profit exists is because the invention was needed.

Pet rock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_rock
"The fad lasted about six months, ending with the Christmas season in December 1975. During its short run, the Pet Rock made Dahl a millionaire."

No one needed a pet rock - lots of people wanted one. People do lots of stupid things when money is involved. Profit pushes people in different ways then neccessity - the want to be rich makes people try new things too.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By MrBungle123 on 7/24/2008 5:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
maybe we didn't NEED those items when they were first developed, but if you get rid of trains, and trucks, and tractors now people would starve to death until our numbers dropped to a point where the magnification of work capacity provided by those items is no longer needed to support the population. So we may not have needed them before but we NEED them now.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By elgueroloco on 8/11/2008 5:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
You're wrong. Henry Ford and George Washington Carver teamed up and investigated the soy bean as an alternative fuel source, but decided it was not viable. Read the wiki on GWC.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By 4play on 7/24/2008 2:44:47 PM , Rating: 2
Is that why we had all those electric cars, hybrid vehicles, efficient solar panels in the 80's and 90's?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 3:06:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is that why we had all those electric cars, hybrid vehicles, efficient solar panels in the 80's and 90's?
We still don't have them now. LOL!


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By 4play on 7/24/2008 3:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
LOL good point!


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Maud Dib on 7/24/2008 4:37:53 PM , Rating: 3
You are correct...

It takes PAIN to move humans..

Those that disagree with what you have said are failures of nature.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Nik00117 on 7/26/2008 2:53:04 AM , Rating: 2
One thing you are forgottening, whose to say that this Oil reserve is going to bring down the price of gas? Maybe the cost of drilling etc, will just make it more stable. Who knows, I however believe that the logitics to get this oil will keep the cost up. I mean we aren't exactly talking about finding oil in some field next to I-75.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By jay401 on 7/25/2008 8:11:13 AM , Rating: 2
It's not an either/or situation, it's an "and/both" (grammatically wrong, but that's apparently what it's called).

We can do both.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By clovell on 7/25/2008 4:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
The jury? There are real consequences on either side of the aisle - renewable fuels has raised food prices and hurt everyone - particularly the poor. Oil has provided cheap, affordable energy for those same individuals.

Forget the lofty morality of all this for a second and remember Jimmy Carville - 'It's the economy, stupid.'


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By epobirs on 7/24/2008 4:23:04 PM , Rating: 3
Meanwhile, back in the real world, alternatives to petroleum are not remotely ready to replace it. If they miraculously became so tomorrow there would still be many years needed to change over the infrastructure to use it.

This means exploiting more untapped petroleum locations is critical to our continuing economic wellbeing. There is simply no getting around it.

Considr also, while high energy prices provide an incentive to conduct more R&D for alternatives, it also hampers that R&D by making it, like everything else, more expensive.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Fubar0606 on 7/24/2008 11:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
I agree man, couldn't have set it better


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By jay401 on 7/25/2008 8:09:06 AM , Rating: 2
No reason we shouldn't be doing both, Joshua.


LOL at Canada
By Sylar on 7/24/2008 12:25:22 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Earlier this month, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the nation intends to "defend" its sovereignty in the Arctic, backing up the statement with a plan to divert 8 military patrol ships to the region, along with a new deep-water port.


Is it me or would they be defenseless if they moved their entire army to the region? Time to invade!!! :P




RE: LOL at Canada
By FITCamaro on 7/24/2008 12:28:19 PM , Rating: 5
http://www.code7r.org/Bintoons/canadian_navy.jpg

Hey Canada is a force to be reckoned with!


RE: LOL at Canada
By rivercat on 7/24/2008 12:34:21 PM , Rating: 5
I want that boat. The only problem is that the boat will go backwards when you fire that .50 cal. Hey, maybe it's a French boat! It automatically retreats when you fire the weapon!


RE: LOL at Canada
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 12:39:56 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think that coat of arms on the side is French or Canadian.

I'm guessing the owner of that boat is some guy from Louisiana who decided it would be fun to strap an M2 to a $30 bathtub with a hair dryer as an offboard motor. I mean he's wearing a flight helmet for God's sake.


RE: LOL at Canada
By RjBass on 7/24/2008 12:48:26 PM , Rating: 5
That coat of arms if from the U.S. Coast Guard. How funny.


RE: LOL at Canada
By rivercat on 7/24/2008 12:52:36 PM , Rating: 3
Notice the patch on his sleeve. IIRC, that's a US Army TRADOC patch!


RE: LOL at Canada
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 4:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
Downrated because I was right :(


RE: LOL at Canada
By clovell on 7/25/2008 4:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
Hey! I resemble that remark!!!


RE: LOL at Canada
By omnicronx on 7/24/2008 12:39:16 PM , Rating: 1
Although they are obviously not equipped the way your US forces are, Canadian forces are basically special forces when compared to US marines or the US army, not to mention we have the best snipers in the world.


RE: LOL at Canada
By jarman on 7/24/2008 1:22:52 PM , Rating: 1
right...


RE: LOL at Canada
By Goty on 7/24/2008 1:28:22 PM , Rating: 1
Sources?

=P


RE: LOL at Canada
By Inspector Jihad on 7/24/2008 1:30:44 PM , Rating: 1
sources, who needs sources on the intarwebs??


RE: LOL at Canada
RE: LOL at Canada
By Alexstarfire on 7/24/2008 3:43:03 PM , Rating: 1
Well, that's nothing. I'm sure the US will reclaim the title whenever they get out that new sniper rifle. Supposed to be a semiautomatic .50 cal sniper rifle with little to no recoil and can break a cinder block wall at close to 2 miles.


RE: LOL at Canada
By HrilL on 7/24/2008 4:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
We are also working on the laser sniper rifle that uses chemicals and will be able to take people down 5 miles away.
http://www.dailytech.com/Portable+SolidState+Pulse...


RE: LOL at Canada
By DASQ on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: LOL at Canada
By omnicronx on 7/24/2008 4:40:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I haven't heard much about the CF training, but I assume the infantry is more or less about as train as most first world countries.
Completely untrue, sure we have a tiny military compared to just about any first world country and if it came down to a one on one fight, Canada would obviously be in trouble, but the our basic infantry are better trained and equipped than the US. Just so you know what I am talking about, the basic rifle is essentially an automatic m16 with a sight.... something a basic marine with his 3 shot burst m16 probably envies.


RE: LOL at Canada
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 4:53:35 PM , Rating: 3
I'm well familiar with the Diemaco copies of the M16/M4 used in the CF, the C8/C7 flattop with an Elcan sight.

The only reason we DON'T have the 3 round burst selection limitation on our rifles is because we don't engage in as much widespread fighting as the US does, and that 3 round burst means you save a lot of ammo (Saves money, saves logistical PITA). Lessons learned from Vietnam, where marines would simply empty an entire magazine at the slightest hint of a shadow. The burst limitation forces controlled, aimed fire. Marksmanship.

Of course, the full automatic switch has it's own uses too.


RE: LOL at Canada
By threepac3 on 7/24/2008 1:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
...but who's snipers have the most war experience.


RE: LOL at Canada
By dgingeri on 7/24/2008 3:11:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
..but who's snipers have the most war experience.


That would be the British snipers.


RE: LOL at Canada
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/24/2008 3:28:46 PM , Rating: 1
Hmmmmm....I don't recall the British being one of the options. So you are the weakest link...Good bye. :P

Really, I know British have good snipers but I thought top dog was Russia?


RE: LOL at Canada
By napalmjack on 7/24/2008 3:56:20 PM , Rating: 1
"Aha ha ha. Oh, gosh that's funny. That's really funny. Do you write your own material? Do you? Because that is so fresh. You are the weakest link goodbye. You know, I've never heard anyone make that joke before. Mmm. You're the first. I've never heard anyone reference that outside the program before. Because that's what she says on the show right? Isn't it? You are the weakest link goodbye. And yet, you have taken that and used it out of context, to insult me in this everyday situation. God what a clever, smart girl you must be, to come up with a joke like that all by yourself. Mmm, that's so fresh too. Any titanic jokes you want to throw at me while we're hitting these at the height of their popularity? Hmm? Cause... I'm here. God you're SO funny."


RE: LOL at Canada
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/24/2008 4:09:08 PM , Rating: 2
Stewie are you having a bad day?

You forgot to add, British comment so British created show joke. How did you miss that angle?


RE: LOL at Canada
By JWalk on 7/25/2008 2:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yikes. Talk about an utter meltdown. For future reference, writing a 300 word essay, just because someone made a goofy joke, might be considered overreacting. Just putting it out there.


RE: LOL at Canada
By Aloonatic on 7/25/2008 4:36:32 AM , Rating: 2
During the second world war, the Russians were pretty handy, not sure about now but they would be used to the cold, probably?

The truth is, most countries have snipers and they are all trained to a high level, the odd one or 2 mite be better on one day or another, but it's numbers and experience that counts.

I would have thought that America has the highest number of trained and battle conditioned "veteran" snipers out there in the field though, with all the current conflicts that are going on.

They might get a bit chilly in Canada mind you but most countries are clever enough to train their troops in many different conditions, or buy gloves.

For extra assistance, maybe the Norwegians or Alpine nations could be drafted in with the promise of some shiny US silver dollars or the odd barrel of oil, if sniping ids really what it's all about?

Or perhaps there is a use for all of those kids who like sniping on HALO3, CoD4 etc etc? It's all falling into place.


RE: LOL at Canada
By sld on 7/24/2008 4:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
...but who is snipers have the most war experience.

hmm...


RE: LOL at Canada
By Suntan on 7/24/2008 1:57:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Canadian forces are basically special forces when compared to US marines or the US army, not to mention we have the best snipers in the world.


Hey!... Hey!... We’re important too!...

…Look up here! We’re important darn it!!!

-Suntan


RE: LOL at Canada
By jimbojimbo on 7/24/2008 3:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
You guys better quit making fun of him or they're all going to go on strike! They'll all want more money.


RE: LOL at Canada
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/24/2008 3:36:10 PM , Rating: 2
not to mention we have the best snipers in the world.

What, both of them, Captain Richards and Lt. First class Anderson?


RE: LOL at Canada
By Aloonatic on 7/25/2008 4:27:57 AM , Rating: 2
You're all forgetting that fighting is useless.

Russia has planted a flag under the North Pole already.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6927395.stm

Games over, checkmate.

There's no arguing with a flag, the oil's theirs.


More hype
By Bazra on 7/24/2008 12:45:23 PM , Rating: 5
Gotta love these misleading topics. USGS has not found anything but simply put out an estimate using their models. To quote Matthew Simmons: "To pretend anyone could guess at undiscovered resources in such precision is as naive as banks lending mortgage money to folks with no money."

Also, I don´t think one can overstate how difficult it will be to produce oil from such sites, it´s going to be gigantic effort to reach good flow rates.




RE: More hype
By porkpie on 7/24/2008 12:50:19 PM , Rating: 1
You're right, there's no oil up there we can possibly get to. That's why so many countries are already fighting over it.

/sarcasm

quote:
To pretend anyone could guess at undiscovered resources in such precision is as naive as banks lending mortgage money to folks with no money."
That cuts both ways, friend. They could easily be underestimating the amount of oil up there as overestimating.

Still, I'll take their estimate over yours.


RE: More hype
By RjBass on 7/24/2008 12:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking something along those lines. For the last couple years, multiple attempts from several energy companys to find natural gas and oil have come up empty in the artic.


RE: More hype
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 1:00:34 PM , Rating: 1
Eh? Exxon and Gazprom both have made major finds in the Arctic...part of the 300+ billion barrels of oil and gas already known and charted in the region.


RE: More hype
By xsilver on 7/24/2008 2:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
Quick question, is all this oil still from decomposed organic matter (plants+animals)?
With all these large numbers floating around, Im having trouble calculating if there is even enough animals+plants in the history of the earth to make this stuff.

Is it possible for sludge at the bottom of the sea to turn into oil?


RE: More hype
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 2:31:54 PM , Rating: 1
> Is it possible for sludge at the bottom of the sea to turn into oil? "

That's the primary source, in fact. Unlike the popular conception of "dead dinosaurs", most petroleum is formed from decayed phytoplankton in the sea.


RE: More hype
By xsilver on 7/25/2008 12:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
cool, thanks for confirming that. It was a guess on my part.
No idea why u got modded down though. I guess people dont like to know where their gas comes from.

Maybe to make people use less there should be a sticker on the bowser that says "stolen from the mouths of whales to feed you" :P

My leading question would then be: has there been any research into the formation of said petrochemicals? eg. was there a large dropoff in production after dinosaur extinction or some other seismic activity?


RE: More hype
By Ammohunt on 7/24/2008 2:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
Thats why there is a school of thought that Oil is a mineral resource(Abiotic) similiar to the hydorcarbon lakes that exist on titan.


RE: More hype
By Sazar on 7/24/2008 2:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
IT'S PEOPLE.

SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE FROM PEOPLE !!!

Sorry, just had to :)


RE: More hype
By Bazra on 7/24/2008 12:55:33 PM , Rating: 5
To illustrate here is a snippet of the study itself:

"Because of the sparse seismic and drilling data in much of the
Arctic, the usual tools and techniques used in USGS resource assessments, such as discovery
process modeling, prospect delineation, and deposit simulation, were not generally applicable. Therefore, the CARA relied on a probabilistic methodology of geological analysis and analog modeling. A world
analog database (Charpentier and others, 2008) was developed using the AUs defined in the USGS World Petroleum Assessment 2000 (USGS World Assessment Team, 2000)."

In other words, they don´t really know what´s out there and are just guessing at this point.


RE: More hype
By porkpie on 7/24/2008 1:55:52 PM , Rating: 3
They're "just guessing" in the same way astronomers are "just guessing" about the reason the sun is hot, or what the surface temperature of Jupiter is. They're looking at actual maps and geologic formations, and judging how similar they are to oil-bearing deposits we've already found.

If they're similar enough to mean a 10% chance of oil being there, then on the average, 10% of those deposits will contain oil. There's a big difference between a scientific analysis like that and "just guessing".


RE: More hype
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 11:28:14 PM , Rating: 3
Don't forget they are just guessing like those AGW scientists. So it is ok to follow the guessing for AGW but not for oil?


RE: More hype
By redsquid5 on 7/24/2008 3:03:26 PM , Rating: 1
NO oil was "discovered". This is simply a WAG.

And I quote: " Because of the sparse seismic and drilling data in much of the Arctic, the usual tools and techniques used in USGS resource assessments, such as discovery
process modeling, prospect delineation, and deposit simulation, were not generally applicable. Therefore, the CARA relied on a probabilistic methodology of geological analysis and analog modeling."

Fancy words for WILD A** GUESS.

Come on, Asher, wheres your integrity? None, zip, nada, eh? Did you even read the article?
I'm with T Boone Pickens, lets get the hell off the Oil drug and mine the wind. Let the rest of the world go to war in the Arctic.


RE: More hype
By dgingeri on 7/24/2008 3:33:18 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever heard the term "hypothesis"? It means "educated guess", not "Wild @## Guess", as you so mildly put it. This means they do know what they are talking about a whole lot more than you do.

Why don't you stick to what you know and let them stick to what they know. Someone educated and practiced at oil finding geology is much more likely to find oil using these methods than you are with your methods. You have no place to criticize their methods unless you are actually educated in the same way they are and have as much experience and success in the field as them.


RE: More hype
By redsquid5 on 7/24/2008 4:31:51 PM , Rating: 1
NO OIL WAS FOUND.
I absolutely respect the scientists that conducted this study and their conclusions. I performed research for years and was responsible for publishing. Many of MY hypothesis were WAG. and WRONG. I proved them wrong myself.
( did you know, one definition of hypothesis is: a mere assumption or guess. )

Asher stated : Geologists FIND 90 Billion New Barrels of Oil in Arctic.
Not "Geologists, not able to use their usual methods, have conducted a statistical aproximation of the resources, that, based on the probability of similar formations actually containing oil, might exist."

And then, somehow, the study gets released just when it might be help to justify offshore and Alaskan drilling. How convenient.

>> NOBODY FOUND ANY OIL. The headline is a lie. There are huge costs in actually exploring for oil in places that "statistically" it should be and often isn't.

( Hypothesis: a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. )


RE: More hype
By grenableu on 7/24/2008 4:45:35 PM , Rating: 3
Oil was found by analyzing geologic features against a probabilistic model, rather than the old techniques. Call it a wild guess if you want, but these geologists know what they're doing.


RE: More hype
By grenableu on 7/24/2008 5:14:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'm with T Boone Pickens, lets get the hell off the Oil drug
T Boone Pickens loves alternatives because he sold his oil holdings and is now investing billions in government-subsidized wind farms. "Getting off oil" will make him even more obscenely rich than he is now.


RE: More hype
By clovell on 7/25/2008 4:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
The point being what? That because T Boone Pickens would profit from the idea, it must suck?


RE: More hype
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 11:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
No but his word is certainly suspect as he would get the most from it.

I believe that is called a conflict of interest, or maybe bias or something like that?


LOL @ Oil
By gamerk2 on 7/24/2008 1:26:34 PM , Rating: 1
A) Even though there's a ton of Oil there, how quickly can we get to it? And how many barrals/day will we get? If it a number like 500,000 day, then the oil won't even ding global supply.

B) Even if we CAN get the oil, we're talking 5 years minimum before prices react as a result.

C) The US is at refining capacity, and has been for some time. More drilling means more refinarys must be built.

On average, refinaries cost around $25-$50 Billion, which is why most are co-owned by multiple oil companies, because no single company can afford the price tag. And I doubt we won't end up paying some of the tag...

If the cost of oil is such a big problem, power thw US by filling Nevada with solar generators, and make a giant windfarm outside Chicago. With the extra power, you could shut off all the oil electric power plants in the US. That should halp with prices.

Also, its possible, today, to make 100% power efficant houses. I live in one, and out power company pays US for the extra power we provide (not much, but its an extra gallon of gas a month :D). There's a solution to fix oil prices.

Instead, people want a quick fix, that will cost close to $75 Billion (rigs + refinaries), that will take a minimum of 5 years to get, for a resource that we don't NEED to use, if people are willing to change the way they do things a bit.




RE: LOL @ Oil
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: LOL @ Oil
By gamerk2 on 7/24/2008 1:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
A: I'm not getting into another debate on this topic...Investers will react to the news, and prices will slightly lower...until the next oil spill (like the one yesterday on the missippi) drives up the price again.

B: Refining capacity is at 87% because demand has dropped significantly. Once that demand raises again, refinaries reach upwards of 95% capacity (sometimes higher). Either way, 13% capacity won't be enough if the oil in the artic comes out in any meaningful way.

C: So...Spending $75 Billion to make rigs and extra refinaries, + cost of oil transportation + cost of new oil rigs + cost of exploration (repeat each time a new oil well is found) is LESS EXPENSIVE than a one time cost for total energy independence?


RE: LOL @ Oil
By ksherman on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: LOL @ Oil
By fibreoptik on 7/24/2008 1:53:57 PM , Rating: 5
Not THE solution, but PART of the overall solution, which will most likely include marine energy, geothermal and biomass technologies.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 2:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, solar and wind is a part of the solution - the 1% part. :o)

Sorry, solar and wind power are stupid to think about on a large-scale basis. They only make sense when government tax rebates and other incentives are applied. By themselves, they don't come even close to being anything other than a niche, high-cost energy source.

So let's quit flapping our lips about solar and wind, and focus on actual, practical sources of energy. Like drilling and refining more oil, more gas, more nuclear. As long as energy prices are relatively high, this is a powerful incentive for R&D investment into alternative energy sources that have not been developed yet.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By HrilL on 7/24/2008 5:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
Since we are talking about oil. Wind and Solar are able to take over the amount of power that is generated by just oil here in the US. Thats only around 4% of our total engery. That might help drop the prices a little at least until growing demand out paces what was saved by the 4%. But also I believe the oil they are burning is not the same oil they like to use to make gas.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 5:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
Where did you get that 4% figure from? Seems like the real figure is a lot higher:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/frame.html


RE: LOL @ Oil
By FITCamaro on 7/24/2008 1:53:08 PM , Rating: 3
You're acting like a massive solar farm and wind grid would never need maintenance or replacement. And solar is only good when the sun is out, wind is only good when its windy. Those two things are never guaranteed. So you have to have the ability to generate the nations power by other means when those two sources aren't operational.

Unless you plan to build several hundred miles worth of batteries to store enough energy to get through say a month of cloudy skies.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By clovell on 7/25/2008 4:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
... or used pumped water storage - just sayin'...


RE: LOL @ Oil
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 2:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
Great idea when droughts are becoming an issue...


RE: LOL @ Oil
By mvpx02 on 7/24/2008 2:00:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
C: So...Spending $75 Billion to make rigs and extra refinaries, + cost of oil transportation + cost of new oil rigs + cost of exploration (repeat each time a new oil well is found) is LESS EXPENSIVE than a one time cost for total energy independence?


Ok, rather than spending $75 billion to make 90 billion Barrels of oil available, how do you propose we spend that $75 billion to GUARANTEE that we'll have enough "clean", "efficient", & convenient energy to take the place of this oil? (excluding Nuclear power, since the liberals won't allow new plants to be built in the United States)

Finding & using more oil isn't going to stop the research/development for alternative fuels, rather its going to enable us to more comfortably wait until those options are viable, rather than adopting prematurely.

Also, these oil companies are in business to make money. They re-use as much of their equipment as possible. Deep sea drills & such are used to drill wells, then move on to new locations.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By gamerk2 on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: LOL @ Oil
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 2:20:23 PM , Rating: 1
> "Again, I point out, my house is solar powered. And yes, we have plently of electricity at night. The extra power gets stored, and moonlight is still an effective source of light"

Sorry, but I have to call BS on this. "Moonlight" isn't enough flux to generate appreciable sources of power...it's roughly 14 orders of magnitude fainter than sunlight. That's 100,000,000,000,000 times weaker, by the way.

I sincerely doubt your house "stores" electricity either. Battery arrays capable of storing thousands of watt-hours are prohibitively expensive...and fairly dangerous too for in-home storage.

> "no one in the US cared about alternatives until the price of gas skyrocketed."

Eh? We've been researching solar and wind power for more than 50 years, and our largest advances yet on hydrogen were made in the 1990s, when gas was $1.50/bbl.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By croc on 7/24/2008 8:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
OK, cut the BS. When was gas / oil ever at 1.50USD / bbl? And who is this 'we' you keep talking about?

A 'good' (not necessarily unbiased) website about oil
prices / trends.

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

While I'm not saying that the USGS is biased, I would say that some of their data models are a bit optimistic.

And how much of this undiscovered, untapped resource is drillable by the US without raising an international mess? 30% of the oil? 20% of the gas? 20% of the gas liquids? Note by 'drillable' I mean wells that are shallow enough, in water that is polite enough to make them economically viable. Then you have the issue of transporting this resource to the POS. A bit difficult to get somewhat fragile tankers through ice, so now what? Overland pipelines? Through CANADA?

This whole 'report' smells of a shrub's last gasp at getting more drilling approved in Alaska.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By TomZ on 7/25/2008 5:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
OK, cut the BS. When was gas / oil ever at 1.50USD / bbl? And who is this 'we' you keep talking about?

Obviously the OP meant US$1.50/gallon - it was probably a typo.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 2:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
> "The US was getting below market value for oil for ages; the price we have now is more in line to what other countries have been paying for years. "

Err, every country in the world pays the same price for oil...except for a very few socialistic oil-producing nations (e.g. Venezuela) which divert their own production from the free market.

The price difference you see in gasoline is the result of widely varying tax structures.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By Starcub on 7/26/2008 4:56:39 PM , Rating: 1
As I've pointed out to you recently, there is no world price for oil. The world bank's own global commoditiy price lists break down the prices for different commodities on a per nation, and in the case of crude, a per company basis (and, of course they are different). The price indicies listed are also average prices which suggests further differential within companies and nations. The differentials consumers pay are sometimes due to largely to taxes, but taxes are not the whole story.

And those free trade agreements you like to promote come at a high cost to the people of the countries they are made with. These less developed countries don't have the economic might to subsidize thier industries like the US can. Wonder why Chavez gets elected despite the fact he uses questionable means to maintain power? It's because the people who were historically economically depressed by crime and bad/bought government put him there. Unfortunately, here are the options South America faces:

Independence. Or,

The consequences of NAFTA, which even Mexico's world bank rep has admitted haven't yielded the promised economic benefits. Why? because US companies are there after increased profit margins, not to develop the local economies in the same way that the stronger members of the EU did for the weaker nations to make them competitive in the global marketplace. The US industries who do business in Mexico don't provide good wages or benefits, and aren't required to abide by govermet regulations which they view as overly restrictive. Or,

Subversive attempts to gain market share and access to local resources. I'm talking about the kind of activities between the US and third world nations that are commonly set up by 'economic hitmen' working secretly for the state department, like John Perkins as you can read about in his book. Now that the NAFTA provisions have reach full maturity, Mexican political leaders are about to meet with US corporate reps in closed door meetings regarding the future of their economies. Needless to say, thier people aren't happy about it. Read more here: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5152 -- caution -- it's eye opening.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By mvpx02 on 7/24/2008 2:29:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
High prices are the only incentive for people to change what they do. Thats why I support doing what Europe did, and putting a mandatory $6 a gallon floor on gas prices, until the US is running on at least 30% alternative energy.


So you want people to be inconvenienced now (when its not necessary) to prevent possibly being inconvenienced years down the road when we'll be technologically better suited to deal with the problem?

When oil becomes unreasonably expensive, people won't need anybody's help persuing alternative options, they'll do it all by themselves.

Eventually oil will run out, and as it does, prices will go up all by themselves. If you can justify and afford making yourself less energy dependent ahead of time, I'm happy for you. However, most people cannot, and it's selfish to impose additional expenses and inconveniences on people now simply because YOU think that they should have to deal with them and that they should have to deal with them now.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By badmoodguy on 7/25/2008 2:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
wrt C: Absolute dollars isn't actually a factor in most cases. Not everybody has the same priorities as you and to think they are wrong/stupid because they hold different priorities that you evaluate differently is conceited.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 11:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
forgive me but how is it a one time cost? I guess these things last forever?


3 year supply
By excelsium on 7/24/2008 2:06:15 PM , Rating: 1
30+ billion barrels of oil is consumed globally every year, this isn't a big deal.




RE: 3 year supply
By walk2k on 7/24/2008 3:07:53 PM , Rating: 1
exactly. woo-hoo.. let's destroy the arctic so I can drive my Escalade XXXLT for 3 more years!


RE: 3 year supply
By porkpie on 7/24/2008 3:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you don't realize the food you eat is grown with fertilizer produced with oil, and harvested by machines run off oil.

Yeah, its not a big deal if we run out of oil. No problem if a few billion people starve to death. That would just reduce our carbon footprint right?

You people are frightening.


RE: 3 year supply
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 3:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think he thought of that when he posted like most ignorant posts here.


RE: 3 year supply
By walk2k on 7/24/2008 4:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and?

All that still happens if we don't develop alternate fuels & energy, it only happens 3 years later, big whoop.


RE: 3 year supply
By grenableu on 7/24/2008 4:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
You ecochondriacs always pull the same trick. A find in the Arctic? Only 3 years, big deal. A find in Brazil? 1 year, big deal. A find off the Florida coast? another year, big deal. But when you add up all the oil that's been found in the past 10 years, it turns out to be more than we've used in that time.

That is a big deal


RE: 3 year supply
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 3:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly and that is the name of the game!

Every find won't be as big as Ghawar, but it is still worthwile to go get.


RE: 3 year supply
By 4play on 7/24/2008 3:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
3 years if you use the oil from this field ONLY. All fields add up to hundreds of years or reserves.


RE: 3 year supply
By excelsium on 7/24/2008 6:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
first part correct.. proven conventional oil = only 30 years left, less if the consumption of oil grows, MAYBE if hard oil is included (terrible process of harvesting tar sands etc) it would last a few hundred years however its doubtful that oil could be extracted fast enough to meet global demand, the process of harvesting the oil consumes a lot of oil in itself.


In that case
By FITCamaro on 7/24/2008 12:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Russia has taken steps to secure rights to the region, last year sending a nuclear-powered ship to map a possible undersea connection between Siberia and the North Pole. This would allow the nation a rationale to circumvent the UN 200-mile limit of offshore resource claims.


In that case the US has sovereignty rights to every other place on earth because the ocean floor connects us to them.




RE: In that case
By danrien on 7/24/2008 12:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
indeed.... what we really should do is form our own little OPEC with Canada, Russia, norway, et al, drill that stuff up and show those money grubbing bastards in the middle east (and Venezuela) how it feels.


RE: In that case
By 4play on 7/24/2008 1:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
I hope that was sarcasm. Either way it cracked me up!


RE: In that case
By danrien on 7/28/2008 10:59:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hope that was sarcasm. Either way it cracked me up!


Only partly.


RE: In that case
By Etsp on 7/24/2008 1:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
We don't have a mountain range that connects us to them. That was the point of the russian mission, to see where one of russia's mountain ranges ended underwater. The reasoning is because of how the UN determines what counts as "International Waters" (I think, not 100% sure.) and using those rules they could lay claim to the ocean in that area.


RE: In that case
By FITCamaro on 7/24/2008 1:49:43 PM , Rating: 2
We're just at the flat top of a very tall mountain range that goes down several miles.


I may be a DB but....
By foxtrot9 on 7/24/2008 2:36:01 PM , Rating: 1
I honestly hope that we don't find any more significant supplies of oil. It has been a horrible addiction of this country. W/o oil we wouldn't be sending $700B over seas each year to...well to put it blatenly, very bad countries. If we find more oil then it will just perpetuate our addiction and we will never be forced to find a better source of energy - because you know our politicians won't do anything until they have to and it affects the short run - they will not do it because in the long run (after they are out of office) it would have been the best thing to do. We need to get off oil for so many reasons.




RE: I may be a DB but....
By Noya on 7/24/2008 4:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
Are you kidding me? Have you ever heard of the "petrodollar"? Oil is what made this country.


RE: I may be a DB but....
By andrinoaa on 7/24/2008 7:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
Says something about the country, doesn't it?


RE: I may be a DB but....
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 3:43:41 PM , Rating: 2
I guess it says something about everycountry as the EU is trying very hard to make the euro the petroeuro.

If you think that the US alone has ambitions like this, you don't know the real world at all.


RE: I may be a DB but....
By foxtrot9 on 7/25/2008 3:57:50 PM , Rating: 2
First off oil is not what made this country my friend, oil is what feeds the machine that is our country. Back when, much of that oil was coming from our own soil, now we pay other nasty countries to feed our over-consuming machine. This is not a sustainable model and hence we need to get off the oil kick. The sheer fact that oil is denominated in dollars has given us some economic clout, but it happened because we have the best economy...it didn't happen the other way.

Besides, who really gives a .... what made this country...what is going to keep this country going? I can tell you it's def not sending $700B a year abroad - it will be energy advancement.


Here is a thought...
By Arctucas on 7/24/2008 12:56:37 PM , Rating: 3
Why don't all you libeal, socialist, ex-hippie-from-the-sixties, dope-smoking, granola-eating, sandal-wearing, tree-hugging eco-fascists go off somewhere (like the moon, or the bottom of the sea) and develop a Prius that runs on fresh air and sunshine and let us realists have all that dirty oil until you do?




RE: Here is a thought...
By oTAL on 7/25/2008 9:00:11 AM , Rating: 1
That idea would actually be nice, if we could separate both groups on a different planet so that the consequence of burning fossil fuels with no thought on the possible consequences would not affect the ones that choose not to.

It's the horrible dilemma of making an investment where someone else collects the profits. For example, in Europe you tend to have much better social services, free education, and opportunities for young people. However, that costs high taxes for the ones actually generating money to feed the economy. In the US you have lower standards for social programs and you tax less. This means that a visionary entrepreneur will rapidly acquire fortune and reinvest in the economy creating a fast growing economy. But it also means that a black child born in a ghetto will likely end up in prison, even if he has a curious mind and tries to learn something in school. This leads to a social Darwinism that is not necessarily bad... just a different take on the same problem. (disclosure: I prefer the European way)

Now this would be swell with the two approaches competing in a free market until one of those proves superior but.... Europeans can take the provided opportunities, get their free education, and go work in the US, getting the best of both worlds and making the US economy profit from the European investment... see the similarities?


RE: Here is a thought...
By Solandri on 7/25/2008 11:15:33 PM , Rating: 2
It goes both ways. Europe gets to buy and use technology developed in the U.S. by its fast-growing economy.

From an ideological standpoint, it would be interesting to fork reality and have one run with the pro-environment view, the other with the pro-business view. In a hundred years I would suspect the pro-environment fork would be cleaner, while the pro-business fork would be several decades more advanced technologically.

But we're stuck with each other. And instead of throwing out ultimatums and absolutes to try to stop those you oppose in their tracks, we're better off figuring out ways to compromise and work with each other.


RE: Here is a thought...
By wordsworm on 7/27/2008 11:04:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
while the pro-business fork would be several decades more advanced technologically.


Ironically, it's the environmentalists who're inspiring technological advancement with their ideologies of conservation and finding cleaner technologies to accomplish the same tasks as the inefficient and dirty technologies that you are content with.


Meanwhile
By wordsworm on 7/24/2008 12:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the nation intends to "defend" its sovereignty in the Arctic, backing up the statement with a plan to divert 8 military patrol ships to the region, along with a new deep-water port.


Meanwhile, Harper's minister of defense has declared that someone stole the navy's oars, and it will therefore be sending Canadian polar bears to scare off the Russians instead.

In other news, the Canadian Navy has demanded that the West Edmonton Mall release the submarine it has. MacKay has released this statement: "Since acquiring the West Edmonton Mall submarine, the Canadian Navy has effectively been able to double the size of its fleet, and triple its firepower."




RE: Meanwhile
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 12:40:54 PM , Rating: 2
Oh Jesus Christ, not the bear cavalry!


RE: Meanwhile
By fibreoptik on 7/24/2008 1:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
They are not just any bears! They are bears with LASERS attached to their heads.

Bears are the #1 Threat to America you know... It's all there on the Dept. of Homeland Security website.

Oh wait, that's the Colbert Report. My bad.


addicted...
By danrien on 7/24/2008 12:42:52 PM , Rating: 5
i would post something intelligent and meaningful if only it didn't feel so good to know that my addiction can continue... yes....... feels... so.... good.......




re: LOL @ Canada
By PascalT on 7/24/2008 2:34:17 PM , Rating: 1
People making fun of our army (which is used for peaceful purposes around the world btw, not to invade countries for oil) are short-sighted idiots. Americans for sure.

We might not spend trillions on missiles, but somehow I'd much rather have a healthcare system for everyone, cheap education, and a better overall quality of life. =]

Also, the world doesn't hate us!




RE: re: LOL @ Canada
By rcc1 on 7/25/2008 4:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'm happy for you. It's always nice to have a neighbor to look out for your interests and defense when you don't want to do it for yourself.

Talk about your self-righteous hypocrits.

We won't even get into the other party line spewage in your post.


RE: re: LOL @ Canada
By wordsworm on 7/27/2008 11:25:36 AM , Rating: 1
As a Canadian who doesn't really care for his country, I'd like to spew some crap on both sides.

First off, you should know that Canada went to the European party long before the US got its invitation. In both WWs, the effect of the Canadian military was greater in Europe than was the American impact. What many folks in both Canada and the US miss about the Canadian military is that it sports more generals per soldier than any military on earth. That might seem silly to you, but consider how long it takes to educate a soldier to get ready for combat vs. how long it takes to educate a general on how to use those soldiers.

Another aspect to the Canadian war machine is that Canada's ability to produce munitions and tanks is competitive with the US. Ontario's auto-manufacturing plants are quite capable of being converted into tank building plants. They produce millions of cars every day for export to the US. For the initial punch, Canada has always been lackluster. If WWI and II are to be taken into account, then one could say it takes Canada about 6-12 months to get itself into full battle mode.

In any case, the comment that the other Canuck made is equally moronic. Morally, there was no reason to back England. The crap it was doing to India at the time when Hitler was invading France, et al, was reprehensible to say the least. What the gov't did to Natives in those years, stealing their land to give it to war vets, what it did to Asian people - throwing them into concentration camps and selling off all their belongings, make us as despicable as anyone. We were not too far off from being no better than the Nazis we laud ourselves as heroes for fighting.

It wasn't until I read 1984 that I even realized Armistice Day (aka Remembrance Day) was our version of Hate Week and how politicians use it to manipulate the people into fighting whatever target the gov't sees fit for the day.

When it comes to wars, we're all fools for believing the hate that politicians drudge into our hearts and souls. Nonetheless, here we are... competing for that one thing man hasn't quite managed to invent or manufacture: power over land.


Sweden?
By ganjha on 7/25/2008 4:54:27 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder on what basis Sweden is claiming rights to the arctic. Sounds silly to me.

The only countries that I see having any claims to the arctic would be Canada, Russia, Greenland, Norway and the U.S. and Iceland trying to argue that it has rights as well.




RE: Sweden?
By wordsworm on 7/27/2008 11:30:51 AM , Rating: 2
Greenland is not a country. Denmark is a country of which Greenland is a part.


where is this Global Warming ? Just politics ?
By swizeus on 7/25/2008 12:50:24 PM , Rating: 2
Earth : [Self Destruct mechanism activated]

Self Destructing in year 2050

or

maybe faster




By dickeywang on 7/25/2008 1:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
"The earth will be fine, we are the ones that are leaving." -- by Jon Stewart.


Arrogance.
By andrinoaa on 7/24/2008 7:50:11 PM , Rating: 3
The shear arrogance of you guys. Its a WORLD resource and already the greedy rich are trying to carve it up to suit themselves. I'd rather pull the plug! Its disgusting.

Its rather pitifull that Dr Strange Love is alive and well too!




Bush will invade the artic !!!
By bokwa on 7/24/2008 9:21:26 PM , Rating: 1
Bush Administration will suddenly declare that their intelligence information reveals that the polar bears are building weapons of mass destruction.

Also some of the polar bears are members of the Al Qaeda and that the polar bears are killing their own countrymen (the seals)




RE: Bush will invade the artic !!!
By swizeus on 7/25/2008 12:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
an ultimate joke i've ever read about the bush... absolutely correct. Hey, bush is just the administrator and executor, see who's behind it.


New Oil in Arctic
By Bucky Beaver on 7/27/2008 11:21:33 AM , Rating: 3
"Geologists Find 90 Billion New Barrels of Oil in Arctic"

So much better than finding 90B barrels of used oil :).

I often wonder where all that old motor oil goes..




Build Fast
By bobcpg on 7/24/2008 1:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the nation intends to "defend" its sovereignty in the Arctic, backing up the statement with a plan to divert 8 military patrol ships to the region, along with a new deep-water port.


Well they better hurry and build 7 more patrol ships.




By eyebeeemmpawn on 7/24/2008 1:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
With all this worry of coming conflict stemming from potential oil territory conflicts, sounds like the cost of oil will continue to rise. Perhaps instead of senselessly chasing oil into WW3, we should focus even more on discovering alternative means of powering our transportation, and let the rest of the world duke it out.




Tangential thinking
By andrinoaa on 7/24/2008 7:40:20 PM , Rating: 2
In case no one else got the wording correct. The auther did say MAY. He didn't specifically say HAS. More vapourware and useless arguements going nowhere.




Finally
By kc77 on 7/24/2008 7:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
Finally a great amount of oil still left. So when are those oil prices going to come down??




By imaheadcase on 7/24/2008 9:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
Like all these "finds" it is only THREE YEARS worth of oil at the worlds current projected needs.

Nice profit margin, trillions of dollars for 3 year worth of oil. Its a band-aid solution. They should use that money to research newer technology.




there is oil in Arctic?
By dickeywang on 7/25/2008 11:39:48 AM , Rating: 2
Santa has WMD, let's bomb him!
:D




By plowak on 7/25/2008 3:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
This has not really been well thought out. The earth turns on its axis, Right? Don't you suppose all that oil up there has something to do with keeping that axis lubricated? If we remove all that oil I'm sure the increase in friction at the axis will end up giving us what...thirty hour days? Forty hour days?

Blondie




8 Canadian Patrol Ships
By osalcido on 7/26/2008 1:46:54 AM , Rating: 2
lol?

Little tip to Canada... you can't be militaristic without a military




Oh really?
By Polynikes on 7/27/2008 12:54:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Earlier this month, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the nation intends to "defend" its sovereignty in the Arctic, backing up the statement with a plan to divert 8 military patrol ships to the region, along with a new deep-water port.
I wonder what the next major war will be fought over...




By bubba551 on 7/27/2008 1:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
since our congress will never allow the US to drill and pump on our side and it would be ashame to see such a valuable resource go unused.




Deny it all you want...
By fibreoptik on 7/27/2008 4:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
We are in TROUBLE and this fossil fuel dependency needs to stop! Along with all the speculation and GREED that goes with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IBG2V98IBY




By phxfreddy on 7/29/2008 7:26:07 PM , Rating: 2
Somehow it escapes them that we can use this oil as we are developing the new alternative sources.

That word alternative energy makes me itch. The very sound of it implies it ain't ready to be used yet. That is still vapor ware. You can't eat vapor-cake. That is called starvation.

EnvironMENTALists show so little understanding of how societies function. They show so little aptitude for numbers.




if it comes to a fight..
By kattanna on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: if it comes to a fight..
By BladeVenom on 7/24/2008 12:14:39 PM , Rating: 2
How long does it take to inflate 8 boats?

Do a Google image search for Canadian Navy. :)


RE: if it comes to a fight..
By rivercat on 7/24/2008 12:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps the bought foot pumps.


RE: if it comes to a fight..
By Grast on 7/24/2008 12:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
I almost fell out of my chair with that post.....


RE: if it comes to a fight..
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 12:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, Canada even has a diesel submarine or two!


RE: if it comes to a fight..
By cokbun on 7/24/2008 1:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
Really, canadians are good at counter strike. That's how they train their snipers !


RE: if it comes to a fight..
By GoodRevrnd on 7/24/2008 3:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
Their bunny hopping skills are unparalleled. They can also out no-scope most militaries.


Good news, well not
By AnnihilatorX on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Good news, well not
By Inspector Jihad on 7/24/2008 12:08:14 PM , Rating: 5
90 billion gallons of oil is good news no matter how you look at it.


RE: Good news, well not
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/24/2008 12:26:18 PM , Rating: 5
Definitely.

On a side note ...

quote:
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the nation intends to "defend" its sovereignty in the Arctic, backing up the statement with a plan to divert 8 military patrol ships to the region, along with a new deep-water port


Forget the puny Spanish or English armadas of yore, nothing says bada$$ like an armada of 8 Canadian patrol ships. I would not want to mess with them. Be warned Russia and U.S., be warned.


RE: Good news, well not
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 12:34:51 PM , Rating: 5
It's about presence, not phallic waving. You think someone is going to fire a shot over this?


RE: Good news, well not
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 12:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
Do you think its impossible that someone could?


RE: Good news, well not
By Treckin on 7/24/2008 12:49:12 PM , Rating: 2
yes.


RE: Good news, well not
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 12:51:36 PM , Rating: 5
Those born into the unusually peaceful period following WW2 often have unrealistic ideas about how nations tend to settle their differences.

That is, unless they've studied history.


RE: Good news, well not
By ajfink on 7/24/2008 1:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Anyone who's studied even basic political science or international relations knows that nearly all diplomacy essentially comes down to who has the bigger guns.

It's a little skewed these days with global economic integration, but it could still easily apply if a state feels its livelihood is being threatened.


RE: Good news, well not
By 4play on 7/24/2008 1:08:39 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have a scenario in mind? I can't see western nations firing shots over the arctic oil reserves, nor Russia. Now if it was the only oil reserve left... thats a different story, but it's not.


RE: Good news, well not
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 1:16:01 PM , Rating: 5
There's an infinite amount of such possibilities, I wouldn't even attempt to state what will definitely happen.

A potential scenario though, would be for Russia to simply begin building oil rigs on land which Canada -- or one of the other 7 involved nations -- claims, though doesn't yet occupy. An appeal to the UN would be blocked, of course, by virtue of Russia's Security Council vote. Canada might then retaliate by seizing a tanker leaving the area as being illegally in Canadian waters. Russia responds by escorting later tankers with military ships. Then what's Canada's next move? You either give up, or you appeal to your ally the US.


RE: Good news, well not
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 1:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well, first of all, the word 'possible' changes definitions when you talk to a statistician, a politician, or an economist.

Secondly, Canada is likely going to stop the first ship from entering territorial waters if the tensions actually rose to that level. It would come down to a detente of who would fire the first shot. Nations have many other weapons aside from ye olde musket. How many tonnes of grain does Canada ship to Russia annually anyway?

Russia can't really afford to fight a war... especially a war they won't win (The US being the US, will intervene with published whole hearted intentions while really just looking for a piece of that oil pie).


RE: Good news, well not
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 1:27:13 PM , Rating: 5
> "Russia can't really afford to fight a war... especially a war they won't win"

No nation can afford to fight a war it won't win. Yet historically, 50% of nations lose every war fought. Each side has a winner AND a loser. It doesn't stop them from happening.


RE: Good news, well not
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 1:30:23 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah but the thing is, those losing nations thought they could win. At least they thought they could win when they fired that first shot.

War doesn't always end in a clear cut win and lose scenario. War does not mean you must use all your available resource and fight down to the last man, woman, and child.


RE: Good news, well not
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 1:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
Mis-replied, see below.


RE: Good news, well not
By FITCamaro on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Good news, well not
By Eri Hyva on 7/24/2008 2:35:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
No nation can afford to fight a war it won't win. Yet historically, 50% of nations lose every war fought. Each side has a winner AND a loser. It doesn't stop them from happening.


From historical point of view, there are more than enough wars that both parties have lost.


RE: Good news, well not
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 1:42:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(The US being the US, will intervene with published whole hearted intentions while really just looking for a piece of that oil pie).
We ALREADY have a piece of that oil pie son. Canada is our number one source of oil.


RE: Good news, well not
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 1:49:27 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah. You're still BUYING it as opposed to OWNING it.

And don't call me 'son', your patronization makes you look like a child.


RE: Good news, well not
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 3:35:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Russia can't really afford to fight a war... especially a war they won't win
And this isn't a childish statement?


RE: Good news, well not
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 4:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
Childish how? In that it's true? Russia is not going to go to war over whatever oil found there, because they can't win.

Try again.


RE: Good news, well not
By wordsworm on 7/27/2008 11:37:20 AM , Rating: 2
No fight with Russia is going to end with any happy faces. Japan and Germany were a walk in the park compared to what they can do. They've gotten a lot stronger since their first years after the separation.

Anyone taking on Russia in full battle is the harbinger of Armageddon/WWIII.


RE: Good news, well not
By 4play on 7/24/2008 1:54:53 PM , Rating: 2
There are hundreds of territorial disputes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputed_territories

Hardly any wars taking place due to them, maybe only in Africa.


RE: Good news, well not
By porkpie on 7/24/2008 1:58:31 PM , Rating: 3
Few of those areas contain trillions of dollars of an essential world resource, however.


RE: Good news, well not
By 4play on 7/24/2008 2:19:44 PM , Rating: 2
The ones that do have assets are the ones without war. Like China vs Japan over some island that would covers an area rich with natural gas. They are hardly at war with each other.


RE: Good news, well not
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 2:32:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They are hardly at war with each other.
They aren't because the US and a few other countries are Japan's allies.


RE: Good news, well not
By Alexstarfire on 7/24/2008 3:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, and China has no allies. /sarcasm


RE: Good news, well not
By djkrypplephite on 7/24/2008 1:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think we'd flatten another middle east country and take their oil before we went to war with another western country over oil. Think about it.


RE: Good news, well not
By OoklaTheMok on 7/24/2008 3:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah that peaceful period after after WW2... The Arab-Israel wars, Korea, Vietnam, Hungary, Sarajevo, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Angola, the Falklands, Peru... etc

Everything was just peaceful as can be after WW2, until just recently. The Cold War was just fantastic! Man I loved worrying about nuclear holocaust.

I would suggest you go back and study your history books before making such an outlandish remark.


RE: Good news, well not
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 3:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
> "The Arab-Israel wars, Korea, Vietnam, Hungary, Sarajevo, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Angola, the Falklands, Peru..."

All of which combined -- over more than half-century of time -- killed less people than a single year of WWII. The Battle of Stalingrad alone had more than 1.5 million casualties...more than most wars in human history.

While no period in history is without all conflict, the period in question was certainly much more peaceful than the Second World War.


RE: Good news, well not
By OoklaTheMok on 7/25/2008 4:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
The Khmer Rouge alone killed approximately 1.5 million people.

I think your perception of what defines peace may be a bit askew. The total number of casualties does not define peace or lack of peace. Peace is the absence of conflict. This is something that did not exist after WWII. Besides WWII was a conflict that existed for only a relatively short period of time compared to the sum of conflicts since then.

So as someone who proclaims to be extensively knowledgeable of history, I propose you learn to be less selective of your facts and interpretations. I don't know how old or young you are, but I am guessing that there are many events in modern history that you are omitting that would certainly defy the definition of peaceful. In the modern age, the Reagan era was full of those types of events. The Soviets shooting down KAL 007 for one, and many people in this country wanted to immediately go to full scale war over that. That, my good sir, does not qualify as peaceful event, in any regard.


RE: Good news, well not
By wordsworm on 7/24/2008 5:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
unusually peaceful period

What peaceful period could you possibly be talking about? In what years has the world had peace?


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/25/2008 9:34:29 AM , Rating: 2
he means "relative peace"

the world has NEVER and will NEVER be a utopian shangri-la. As much as John Lennon would dance in his grave should we ever somehow (miraculously) achieve that.

As long as there is GREED and GLUTTONY in the world - there will never be peace.


RE: Good news, well not
By OoklaTheMok on 7/25/2008 5:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
"relative peace"

Relative to what?!?

There hasn't been any peace since WWII other than the fact that "half" the world wasn't wrapped up in the same war, unless you want to consider the cold war and the relationship between each individual conflict and the overall battle against communism.

The comment by masher2 about our "peaceful period" after WWII has to be one of the most moronic things I have heard in a long time.


RE: Good news, well not
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 11:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
It may not be good, but you are really dumb to think it is as bad or worse than WW1 and WW2 were 60-70 million people died. (Don't know exactly how many more or less.)


RE: Good news, well not
By wordsworm on 7/27/2008 11:13:39 AM , Rating: 2
You know, there have been several genocidal attempts in the recent past. The wars in Africa that have been raging have been just as bloody and perhaps passing in casualty rates that of WWII. Wars are happening all over the world all the time. Heck, they've even got this thing called the drug war which is causing all kinds of nasty casualties and political prisons where inmates are often confronted with severe violence, including rape. Quite frankly the folks who think the world has seen peace since WWI or II have had their heads in the sand. It doesn't stop.

I used to think that it should stop. But somehow I feel that everything is as it should be. War is how we compete. The consequences of that competition suck, but it seems to be in our nature. I don't care to second guess nature. Sometimes an emotional response, not to mention the human response, is ignorant. Well, I am human, so it's hard not to get upset about all the wars that are going on right now, and all the wars that have been going on since someone decided to write about them in books.

It doesn't seem as bad now because the number of casualties and the threat to your personal safety is less than it was in those days.


RE: Good news, well not
By lifeblood on 7/24/2008 12:54:45 PM , Rating: 2
I see people at the gas station all the time who are willing to go to war right now if it meant lower prices.


RE: Good news, well not
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 12:59:53 PM , Rating: 3
I highly doubt it's the people filling their cars that are the most willing to grab their rifle and march to some front lines overseas.


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/25/2008 9:36:50 AM , Rating: 2
Just like there are virtually no senators or congressmen/women with children serving any kind of active duty in Iraq...


RE: Good news, well not
By masher2 (blog) on 7/25/2008 12:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "Just like there are virtually no senators or congressmen/women with children serving any kind of active duty in Iraq... "

McCain's son was a marine serving in Iraq. Senator Webb, among others, also has a son in Iraq.


RE: Good news, well not
By Polynikes on 7/27/2008 12:56:27 AM , Rating: 2
Haha... Ha... Ha... You haven't a clue.


RE: Good news, well not
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 12:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
It's not impossible. The weapons are on the boats. The boats are in range of each other. They're all on the same planet.

I'm sorry, did you have an actual point to make?


RE: Good news, well not
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 12:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
I believe I did. When you put non-allied military forces in close proximity to each other, hostilities sometimes break out, regardless of what the nation's leaders themselves authorize.

Furthermore, at some point the issue of Arctic rights is going to be ultimately settled by force. Hopefully not overt military actions, but by occupation and veiled intimidation. The idea that the UN will come up with a settlement acceptable to all parties flies in the face of historical precedent.


RE: Good news, well not
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 1:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I don't think Tom Clancy is running this show, unfortunately.


RE: Good news, well not
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/24/2008 1:18:35 PM , Rating: 2
What do you think the odds of doing a international space station set up?
If a country has a legit claim (land backing up to the area) then they can put money into a drilling site (each country match money and workers). If there is a total of four countries then each would receive a 1/4 of the oil pumped.
I know it's a pipe dream, but there is enough there to split up and with more countries drilling/selling oil Opec's power over the price of oil will weaken greatly. They could become their own oil group, call themselves Cepo, just the Piss off Opec if for no other reason... :)


RE: Good news, well not
By jbartabas on 7/24/2008 1:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You think someone is going to fire a shot over this?


Come on, nations going to war for resources control?! That would really be a first in Human history ... :-D

And we're talking here about an "amount, equivalent to nearly 20 years of US foreign oil imports". Really nothing to fight for ...


RE: Good news, well not
By Yawgm0th on 7/24/2008 2:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
It's not that far-fetched to think there could be military conflicts over this.


RE: Good news, well not
By SiliconAddict on 7/24/2008 9:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yah, one that mushroom clouds. You guys are fools if you don't think people are willing to fight over who claims 90 billion barrels. Countries have EASILY gone to war for much less and the power grab, pun intended, for the 21st century isn't political (Cap vs. Com.) its not, totally, economical. Its certainly not over spices. Its the ability to power your country. If you look at china and its strategic relations over the last 7 years. (Yah know those years we have been wasting in Iraq.) you will see that they are setting up a supply chain from the Middle East right to their front door. China is outright HUNGRY for energy. And they have gone on record as to say that impeding the flow of oil will be considered an act of war to them.

Seriously I think you better bone up on your history and your politics. The world is a hell of a lot scarier place then you think right now. Or it will be in the next 10 years. America is about to loose its throne as the largest world power in a big way in that time frame. still a world power but hardly what we were in the 1940's.


RE: Good news, well not
By barjebus on 7/24/2008 12:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
We've also been sending dog sled patrols on the various islands up in the north. You've been warned America. ;)


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Good news, well not
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/24/2008 1:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming you're actually offended...

For the record I really love Canada ... Montreal, Manitoba, BC, the Arcona area of Ontario... its an awesome country. Got great hikes, great people.

But, I however do have a sense of humor.

Lay off the uptight pills. If you take yourself so seriously you can poke fun at yourself and what you like, you have a problem.


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Good news, well not
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/24/2008 2:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
"I just need to stop watching (and listening to) American D-bags such as Anne Coulter and Bill O'Reilly."

What you do not like logical, fair, un-bais and facts that are back up with real evidence and not made up stories like the New Times or Washington Post comes up with? Well at least for O'Reilly (if you say, O'Reilly lies or is unfair then you've never watch his show. When and if he makes a mistake he says it loud and clear, I was wrong and I apologizes, then explains how he was wrong. I never watched other reporters or stations do this, well maybe an opps we mis-spoke on page 214 when the day before the wrong statement was the cover story). I've never read Anne Coulter - something about her bugs me, and it has nothing to do with what she says or thinks.


RE: Good news, well not
By isorfir on 7/24/2008 3:03:04 PM , Rating: 5
RE: Good news, well not
By William Gaatjes on 7/24/2008 6:49:43 PM , Rating: 2
hilarious.

And what a fake smile.


RE: Good news, well not
By William Gaatjes on 7/24/2008 7:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
What an incredible dumb guy.
And annoying too.

Who would ever wanted to listen or look at this guy.


RE: Good news, well not
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 7:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, that must explain his high viewership ratings. :o)

You may not agree with his views, or even know what his views are, but the fact remains that a lot of people find him insightful.


RE: Good news, well not
By kc77 on 7/24/2008 7:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
American Idol gets high ratings too, that doesn't mean it's insightful and projects the richness of American culture.


RE: Good news, well not
By William Gaatjes on 7/24/2008 8:06:47 PM , Rating: 2
I find him obnoxious.
And i feel very uncomfortable thinking of the idea people find him insightful.

Jerry springer had high ratings too.

That says enough i think.


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/25/2008 9:41:59 AM , Rating: 2
A lot of RETARDS find him insightful. In the exact same way that they find idiots like George W. Bush to be worth re-electing as US President not just once but TWICE.


RE: Good news, well not
By clovell on 7/25/2008 4:48:46 PM , Rating: 2
George Bush wasn't re-elected twice. Would you like to try that again or would you rather get a life?


RE: Good news, well not
By rcc1 on 7/25/2008 6:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
Wow!!!! Have we elected him again already?

I must have missed it.


RE: Good news, well not
By wordsworm on 7/27/2008 11:43:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow!!!! Have we elected him again already? I must have missed it.


You do know that Jr. was just a proxy for Sr? That makes it nearly 12 years of going down on Bush.


RE: Good news, well not
By Ratinator on 7/24/2008 2:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lay off the uptight pills. If you take yourself so seriously you can poke fun at yourself and what you like, you have a problem.


Most of us have no problem poking fun at ourselves. We Canadians do it all the time. It is when others outside our country poke fun at us. Then we get offended because we already know there is a huge bias out there against us.


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/25/2008 9:45:15 AM , Rating: 3
Insecure people make fun of those they KNOW are better than them. It makes them feel better. They do it in school at a young age and they carry on doing it as they "grow up". But I guess they never truly grow up since they keep using the pathetic "put-down crutch". ;)


RE: Good news, well not
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 3:53:46 PM , Rating: 2
pot meet kettle.


RE: Good news, well not
By Captain Orgazmo on 7/24/2008 1:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
I assume you are being sarcastic Jason, but keep in mind that modern navies are much smaller than those of old, and much more powerful. A modern missile destroyer can potentially sink dozens of capital ships, and the superiority of even the mighty nuclear aircraft carrier is questionable when a missile a few tenths of a percent of its cost can fly in at wavetop height and sink it.

Also these patrol vessels are not being "diverted" they are being built from the ground up for arctic patrol, and are capable of cutting through moderate sea ice, a capability few other armed ships hold, and an absolute necessity for arctic warfare.

As well, these ships are being deployed mainly to assert Canadian presence in their largely unpopulated northern territories, and any real fighting would be done mainly by the Canadian airforce (and their F-35s when delivered).


RE: Good news, well not
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 1:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "the superiority of even the mighty nuclear aircraft carrier is questionable when a missile a few tenths of a percent of its cost can [sink] it."

While your point in general is valid, its my understanding no single non-nuclear missile can sink a carrier.

A properly-placed torpedo strike, now, is a different story, if it's programmed to come from underneath.


RE: Good news, well not
By Captain Orgazmo on 7/24/2008 1:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
Modern anti-ship missiles impact at the waterline, and if it hit at the right spot, it could possibly sink anything. Of course the probability of sinking a carrier with one hit is pretty damn tiny. Like you say though, torpedoes are a different story, and destroyers carry those too. I remember seeing a test a couple years back, where a torpedo actually split the target in two from directly below. The next generation of US carrier will have a deformable outer hull to help defend against this type of attack, but the Nimitz class is totally vulnerable.


RE: Good news, well not
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 2:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
"> "Modern anti-ship missiles impact at the waterline, and if it hit at the right spot, it could possibly sink anything"

Not when our current aircraft carriers are comparmentalized and bulkheaded. A non-nuclear missile just isn't going to rip open nearly enough compartments to sink a carrier, even if it strikes at the waterline.


RE: Good news, well not
By Fluxion on 7/24/2008 3:27:42 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't be so sure. The Navy has admitted that it has no defense against newer-generation anti-ship missiles (capable of using both conventional and nuclear warheads) such as the Yakhont and Sizzler. In fact, over the past few years, the Navy has stated that if we were to become directly involved with a conflict with Iran, that they have enough conventionally-armed Yakhonts and Sunburns to take out the Fifth fleet (including aircraft carriers).

Given the capabilities of supersonic anti-ship missiles now, bulkheads wouldn't hold up very long, and even the fact that they're compartmentalized, wouldn't save a ship from several strikes from anti-ship missiles.


RE: Good news, well not
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 3:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "even the fact that they're compartmentalized, wouldn't save a ship from several strikes from anti-ship missiles..."

Several strikes, sure. But a single missile won't sink a modern aircraft carrier. Take a look at a WW2 carrier like the Yorktown. After being struck by several 500 lb bombs and torpedos, it was still floating and would have actually been saved, had the Japanese not struck it again the next morning with several more torpedoes. And a Yorktown-class carrier is tiny compared to a modern Midway-class carrier, that has a far more compartmentalized design.


RE: Good news, well not
By rcc1 on 7/25/2008 6:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
Not to be a stickler Masher, ... well, maybe.... anyway, the Midway class was launched in the mid 40s. The Midway herself is a museum in San Diego.

However, you are correct. The aircraft carrier is an extremely tough warship. Not to mention the problems in simply finding it.

If an Iranian attack caught a carrier in the Persian gulf, there would certainly be a good chance of damaging or even sinking it, with enough missiles. And no carrier fleet commander is going to be happy about being there, they like *lots* of sea room.

However, that would be their only shot.


RE: Good news, well not
By OoklaTheMok on 7/24/2008 3:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
That is a bit of an overly generalized statement. Modern missiles may or may not impact at the waterline. Cruise missiles tend to have a varying flight pattern. A missile that is only sea-skimming, is actually an easy target to shoot or disable.

U.S. cruise missiles particularly ship-based, while slower than their counterparts, have complex flight patterns, including what is called "terminal pop up" which maneuvers the missile to come down upon it's intended target from above after cruising in sea-skimming mode. This makes it much more difficult for a close in weapons system to track and engage.

All ships, not just destroyers, carry torpedoes and they come in varying types. You have the typical pneumatic and you have rocket assisted. Torpedoes can essentially break the backbone of a ship when the explosion occurs beneath the ship's hull causing primary damage to the hull via the explosion, and further damage is caused by the resulting vacuum beneath the ship which can cause the hull to crack and break.

This I know from first hand experience.


RE: Good news, well not
By rcc1 on 7/25/2008 6:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All ships, not just destroyers, carry torpedoes and they come in varying types.


All ships do not carry torpedos. And a great many of those that do carry them, only carry ASW torpedoes which are of limited/no use against a surface combatant larger than a harbor patrol boat.

For example, a Mk 48 sub launched torpedo weight in at about 3500 pounds, depending on model. Surface launched ASW torpedoes are in the 500-750 range (US type), yes the Russians have some larger ones.

Regardless, once a Navy has cruise and or high altitude missles at it's disposal, torpedoes are pretty much religated to ASW and sub launched roles. There's no practical way to get a surface ship close enough to launch them.


RE: Good news, well not
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 1:11:13 PM , Rating: 2
For every weapon there is a viable counterweapon (except the wookie defense, it's so unstoppable it is a weapon in itself). A high speed cruise missile still has to fly past missile defenses (countermeasures, electronic and physical, as well as direct force weaponry like the Phalanx).

Those F-35's would also be delivered from American factories... which is one of the two major factions fighting for this little piece of circle.


RE: Good news, well not
By FITCamaro on 7/24/2008 2:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
The F-35 is about 3 years away from delivery at least. They're just now doing the first test flights. Granted Canada is buying the CV(carrier variant) version due to its increased fuel capacity which is easier than the STOVL version to develop. Their 20 planes (somewhere around there) won't really be much of a match for the US's fleet. Plus we've got the F22 which is arguably a more maneuverable plane thanks to its vector thrust ability.


RE: Good news, well not
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 2:35:13 PM , Rating: 3
We're not going to war with Canada!! LOL! It will never happen. We're like two peas in a pod. We're down like 4 flat tires on a dump truck.


RE: Good news, well not
By lifeblood on 7/24/2008 3:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
Any war fought over Arctic oil will not be the US vs Canada. It would be Russia vs Canada (and any others). Russia is the one claiming the arctic and dropping flags on the bottom. They may not be what they once were, but they're no pushover, either. And it will not be a war of aircraft, but of submarines. Submarines have been patrolling under the arctic ice ever since they went Nuclear. As one submariner put it, their are two type of boats; submarines and targets.


RE: Good news, well not
By Ratinator on 7/24/2008 6:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
Heck, we even had the 4th largest navy in the world after WWII.


RE: Good news, well not
By MrSmurf on 7/24/2008 1:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
8? Isn't that putting all their eggs in one basket?!?


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Good news, well not
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 1:12:38 PM , Rating: 3
I wouldn't really categorize "ice", "rocks", and "more ice" as 'flora and fauna'.


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/24/2008 2:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Good news, well not
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 1:24:50 PM , Rating: 5
> "are you gonna be the first to head up to the Artic and start raping the flora and fauna "

How about you and I both are dumped in a large area of virgin forest, jungle, swamp, or taiga...without camping supplies, food, or any other of the comforts of civilized society. Care to bet on which of us would start "raping the flora and fauna" first to survive?

There is a serious social problem when any of man's attempts to use planetary resources are invariably viewed as inherently bad. Modifying the environment to suit ourselves is the sole reason we no longer spend our time in caves, scratching fles and dying of simple problems like tooth aches.

Roman civilization ultimately fell because of a change in philosophical attitudes led of an unstable, unviable society. I really do fear Western culture may not be far behind, with this rapidly flowing belief that man and all his works are ultimately evil.


RE: Good news, well not
By Fluxion on 7/24/2008 3:31:38 PM , Rating: 1
I agree, in that we are better off than we were even a hundred years ago.

But it seems like you often imply, that any type of conservation movement is bad. We're overpopulating the planet. We branch out into environments that aren't really ideal for large human populations (such as where I live, Phoenix), and tax the local resources essentially to the point of breaking, so that we can live as comfortably as possible.

In order to progress as a civilization, we have to take advantage of the earth's resources. But that doesn't mean we have to abuse and destroy the entire planet, simply to suit our unquenchable desire for material wealth.


RE: Good news, well not
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 3:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But that doesn't mean we have to abuse and destroy the entire planet, simply to suit our unquenchable desire for material wealth.
I would like to see evidence that we're destroying the entire planet. Also, you live in Phoenix and say that it's not an ideal place for humans, yet you still live there. LOL! Humans are MUCH better suited to hot climates that cold one's although we seem to adapt to those fairly well.

I live in the desert as well and I say that we're suited just fine. Complaints from people saying it's too hot doesn't mean anything. People complain about all sorts of things.

Material wealth. Where's the line drawn on too much? Let me guess. More than what YOU have, right? Do some people waste money? I don't know. What's wasting money? If you earned it, then you earned the right to spend it as you wish. Would you like these people to give some of their extra wealth to you? Would that make you happy?

Do you know that these wealthy people give BILLIONS away every year? Did you know that even people that don't have anywhere near wealth give away billions every year? Without the material wealth and the sense of satisfaction and accomplishment that goes along with it, there is no charity. People will not give away what they don't have. I'm not rich but I do make quite a bit more than the average American and have been giving (time and money) to charities for the last 20 years. I've since cut back drastically on giving to charities. Gas prices and the overall crappy economy suck and I (we) need to make sure that everything is good at home for the duration.

And if I'm feeling this way, there's a ton of people that feel that way too. Oh well, according to you.


RE: Good news, well not
By William Gaatjes on 7/25/2008 5:48:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about you and I both are dumped in a large area of virgin forest, jungle, swamp, or taiga...without camping supplies, food, or any other of the comforts of civilized society. Care to bet on which of us would start "raping the flora and fauna" first to survive?


Ha, good one. would you eat the only chicken or just her eggs ? :)

quote:
Roman civilization ultimately fell because of a change in philosophical attitudes led of an unstable, unviable society. I really do fear Western culture may not be far behind, with this rapidly flowing belief that man and all his works are ultimately evil.


Roman civilization fell because of corruption and greed. Because the leaders at those times refused to wait for democratic decisions by the public. They wanted total control for themselves and they took it. And that is where the downfall started. I am thinking for example of Pompeius and Caesar. They used there military force upon rome itself to force their will. They did not wanted to wait for the senate or the people.

This sounds familiar does it, looking at recent history of America.

But also in the EU it is happening. Many decisions that should be democratically taken are forced upon the people.

I don't know what the future will bring but when i look at history i see too many parallels i do not wish to see.

quote:
There is a serious social problem when any of man's attempts to use planetary resources are invariably viewed as inherently bad. Modifying the environment to suit ourselves is the sole reason we no longer spend our time in caves, scratching fles and dying of simple problems like tooth aches.


When you can make a chemically closed circle you should.
This is for the best interests for humans and other life on the planet. I think more people are realising we just take and destroy and not give back. It is all about balance Daniel-san !

However the same people who not want to touch nature are together with the people who do anything for money, the people who prevent research and techniques to accomplish a
chemically closed circle. If we could catch all the waste we create and chemically bind it that it does not react with other materials in the enviroment there is not a problem. Or we process the waste that it can be used again by the enviroment(nature) itself. We already do this to great extent but improvements are still to be made.

That is where we need to go.


RE: Good news, well not
By Bcnguy on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Good news, well not
By Some1ne on 7/24/2008 12:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and now the U.S. is going to annex Canada in order to get at more of the new oil reserves, and China will invade Alaska, and the European commonwealth will dissolve into quarreling, bickering nation-states.

Fallout anyone?


RE: Good news, well not
By B3an on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Good news, well not
By porkpie on 7/24/2008 12:45:42 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, because the US has gotten so much free oil from Iraq, and preventing them from selling it all on the open market, just like every other country.

Oh wait...


RE: Good news, well not
By gyranthir on 7/24/2008 1:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
And not to mention the 550 metric tons of Yellow Cake Uranium that the current iraqi government just sold "lock, stock, and barrel" to Canada. No possible WMD's there at all.

The news corps claim that yellowcake is not weapons grade, they forget about dirty bombs, irradiation and fallout bombs are no joke.


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Good news, well not
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 1:15:08 PM , Rating: 2
uh.. Why would Canada by crappy yellowcake from Iraq when we have hefty supplies of other fuels (enriched and otherwise) to power our dozens of nuclear reactors?


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/28/2008 11:52:33 AM , Rating: 2
Because Americans "asked" us to take it... (or so it seems)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/inde...

Funny how people conveniently choose not to mention the fact that the USA was the orchestrator of the whole thing, including use of a US military transport vessel. :p


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/24/2008 2:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
Did you personally observe this delivery?

lets see some proof of this, jackass.


RE: Good news, well not
By ZachDontScare on 7/24/2008 2:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
lets see some proof of this, jackass.


20 seconds with google would have saved you the embarrassment of revealing your ignorance of whats going on in the world.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/


RE: Good news, well not
By arazok on 7/24/2008 10:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
lol. Read the papers much?

You're such a douche.


RE: Good news, well not
By gyranthir on 7/25/2008 11:05:33 AM , Rating: 2
Wow nice. Total epic failure for sure.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/08/07/06/163...

Who's the jack*** now, sir?


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/28/2008 11:41:46 AM , Rating: 2
Right, because MSNBC and SLASHDOT are the most reputable news sources on earth...


RE: Good news, well not
By wordsworm on 7/27/2008 11:55:03 AM , Rating: 2
Canada has never denied having weapons of mass destruction. We've got tons of them sitting in Alberta. Heck, Canadian scientists tested those chemicals on their own soldiers. They could at least have used prisoners rather than forcing its own people to become guinea pigs. True, we've technically given up on them. But they would sure be easy to find should anyone make an issue out of it.

However, I appreciate your humor.


RE: Good news, well not
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 1:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry? I couldn't hear you over the polishing of my AR-15.


RE: Good news, well not
By djcameron on 7/24/2008 12:11:16 PM , Rating: 5
Let's hope that it goes to a country that won't have a problem with drilling. The idiot US congress won't let anyone drill it, if it turns out to be US territory.


RE: Good news, well not
By rivercat on 7/24/2008 12:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, no kidding!


RE: Good news, well not
By markitect on 7/24/2008 1:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's hope that it goes to a country that won't have a problem with drilling. The idiot US congress won't let anyone drill it, if it turns out to be US territory.


I'm pretty sure nobody will complain about us interfering with the wild animals there, as their basically aren't any


RE: Good news, well not
By mvpx02 on 7/24/2008 1:33:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm pretty sure nobody will complain about us interfering with the wild animals there, as their basically aren't any


You underestimate the stupidity of some of the people here. They'll use anything they can to stop it, from bogus claims about anthropogenic global warming to the negative impact on the quality of life of some bacteria in the region.


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/24/2008 2:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Good news, well not
By mvpx02 on 7/24/2008 2:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm well aware of the animals and plants that live in the Arctic, I was giving a range of potential arguments.

I'm sorry I didn't have time to give you an itemized list of every known plant, animal, & insect species to live in the region.

I'm not even sure why you bothered to reply, as you've neither agreed or disagreed with anything I said.


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/25/2008 11:11:50 AM , Rating: 2
you are implying that only "bacteria" would be affected in the area. which is clearly bullsh1t.

do I need to dumb it down any more for you?


RE: Good news, well not
By Regs on 7/24/2008 1:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
They say increasing the supply won't help prices at the pump since half of our money go to those greedy sobs in congress anyway (who lobby for their own benifit and not the peoples).

The real problem today is that the rich are holding on to too much money. Instead of reinvesting it into new endeavors or business opportunities, it's being squandered on crap people don't need.

Greed is driving our econmy down. Though no one wants to admit it. They rather blame it on x - y(t * c)= crap.


RE: Good news, well not
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 2:38:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Greed is driving our econmy down. Though no one wants to admit it. They rather blame it on x - y(t * c)= crap.
It's not greed but it is stupidity that started it. Either way, this not a new thing and will happen again and again and again.


RE: Good news, well not
By arazok on 7/24/2008 12:15:34 PM , Rating: 5
Myth: – The Arctic is a “pristine” environment which should be preserved at all costs.
Fact: The arctic is frozen tundra, with minimal biological activity. Mining operations have minimal environmental impact when compared to similar operations in warmer regions. The arctic should be the preferred location for all mining operations.

Myth: – Drilling for Oil causes irreparable damage to the environment.
Fact: - Drilling for Oil has virtually no impact on the environment. The drill sites take up minimal acreage, and the oil is piped to other locations for use.


RE: Good news, well not
By Rob94hawk on 7/24/2008 12:20:30 PM , Rating: 1
Watch yourself there buddy, you might accidentally kill a liberal with those facts.


RE: Good news, well not
By FITCamaro on 7/24/2008 12:26:29 PM , Rating: 1
What a shame that would be...


RE: Good news, well not
By gyranthir on 7/24/2008 1:03:10 PM , Rating: 1
seriously...


RE: Good news, well not
By wempa on 7/24/2008 12:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
^^^ VERY intelligent words. I'd buy you a beer. :)


RE: Good news, well not
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 12:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't quite say the arctic is 'preferred' for mining... the cold kills machinery very easily.

But otherwise, good post :)


RE: Good news, well not
By ksherman on 7/24/2008 12:39:46 PM , Rating: 2
w00t! Let the pumps roll in ANWR!!

I hope against all hope that McCain comes around on his stance on ANWR.

Sure, its not as long term a solution as the pipe-dream hydrogen, but it is here now and can be used to alleviate supply concerns in the short run, getting us to that fateful day when our cars produce only water as a by product.


RE: Good news, well not
By MicahK on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Good news, well not
By porkpie on 7/24/2008 12:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And what do you call oil spills that occur in this transportation of oil? I would say those are extremely damaging to the environment..
Yeah, yeah. You guys said the same thing about the Exxon Valdez spill. And yet within a few years, no one could tell the difference.

And how many major spills have we had SINCE then eh?

quote:
furthermore the arctic contains the second largest forest ecosystem on Earth,
Um, they don't clear cut huge swathes of forest to pump oil. Rigs are very small. And nearly all the oil is in the ocean shelf anyway, meaning they wouldn't cut any at all.


RE: Good news, well not
By arazok on 7/24/2008 1:12:03 PM , Rating: 2
Oil spills are accidents, not a normal part of operations, and rare. The economic loss of revenue, plus the punishing penalties for oil spills are excellent incentives to ensure all possible measures are taken to prevent spills. I’d still argue that a spill in the arctic is preferred to a spill in the Gulf of Mexico or any other habitable region of earth.

You seem to suggest that drilling necessitates the destruction of Arctic forests. You could suck every drop of oil out of the arctic region, and I promise you that the arctic would still contain the second largest forest ecosystem on earth.


RE: Good news, well not
By Megadeth on 7/24/2008 1:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
Just throwing this out there... But I would say that the potential for an oil spill is more likely occur and potentially more hazardous when it's being shipped over from the middle east than it would be in this case....


RE: Good news, well not
By jamdunc on 7/24/2008 1:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
Well seeing as I work in the Oil Industry, an abandoned oil field in the UK/Norwegian sector and consists of filled up drill holes and that's about it.

Plus what most people don't know is that there isn't much life in the open sea, (not counting krill/plankton) but as soon as I come across a pipeline or jack-up rig (the North Sea is only around 90m deep in the UK sector) like just flourishes around it. All the fish and crabs and eels, always by the oil developments.

Funny that.


RE: Good news, well not
By porkpie on 7/25/2008 9:55:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Plus what most people don't know is that there isn't much life in the open sea, (not counting krill/plankton) but as soon as I come across a pipeline or jack-up rig (the North Sea is only around 90m deep in the UK sector) like just flourishes around it. All the fish and crabs and eels, always by the oil developments.
Oh sure. And even the enviro-nuts know that drilling for oil isn't bad for the ecosystem. They just use it as an excuse to shut down the projects, because they're opposed to industrialization of any sort.


RE: Good news, well not
By Alkapwn on 7/24/2008 12:49:36 PM , Rating: 2
Site your source(s) for these "facts". Especially the part about "minimal biological activity".


RE: Good news, well not
By 4play on 7/24/2008 1:16:04 PM , Rating: 3
He doesn't need to, when you diss the environment on dailytech it gives you infinite credibility. If he took a crack shot at Al Gore his comment would be rated a 6.


RE: Good news, well not
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 1:24:03 PM , Rating: 5
That's because Al Gore is a lying idiot.

(Let the upratings begin...)


RE: Good news, well not
By psychobriggsy on 7/24/2008 1:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
You meant to write:

"That's because Al Gore is a PS3 loving idiot!"

Instant +6.


RE: Good news, well not
By 4play on 7/24/2008 1:56:15 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, see! lol


RE: Good news, well not
By arazok on 7/24/2008 1:23:41 PM , Rating: 5
You would think common sense would suffice, but ok, I’ll bite…

Fact: The arctic is cold. http://www.athropolis.com/map4.htm

Fact: Check your freezer, living things don’t like the cold. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/allentropic

Fact: You are a moron if you think that Arctic supports a comparable level of biodiversity as, say, tropics. http://staffwww.fullcoll.edu/tmorris/elements_of_e...


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Good news, well not
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 2:40:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Fact: You are a moron for comparing the Artic environment to the freezer in your house
LOL! And you are a moron for not seeing the comparison. Cold=cold whether it's in your brain, your freezer or in the Arctic Circle.


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/25/2008 10:12:36 AM , Rating: 1
how can you be so stupid?!

that is NOT a valid comparison and you ARE the moron.


RE: Good news, well not
By clovell on 7/25/2008 4:47:13 PM , Rating: 2
No you are!! Neener-neener!!!!!


RE: Good news, well not
By AnnihilatorX on 7/24/2008 5:42:39 PM , Rating: 1
The Arctic seabed is actually very rich in biodiversity according to recent studies. Note that we do not currently have very much knowledge of life under the Arctic sea, because of the seabed being much unmapped and yet to be probed.

The diagram you quoted there are for plants, which of course you would not find in the Arctic.


RE: Good news, well not
By AnnihilatorX on 7/24/2008 5:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Good news, well not
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 5:53:35 PM , Rating: 3
> "The Arctic seabed is actually very rich in biodiversity according to recent studies"

When compared to the interior of the Antarctic, sure. Not when compared to a warm tropical clime.

In any case, the issue is wholly moot. A few oil derricks aren't going to cause any reduction in biodiversity. In fact, the additional surface area generated by such facilities acts as an artificial reef structure, and actually benefits life in the area.


RE: Good news, well not
By BSMonitor on 7/24/2008 12:55:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Fact: The arctic is frozen tundra, with minimal biological activity. Mining operations have minimal environmental impact when compared to similar operations in warmer regions. The arctic should be the preferred location for all mining operations.


Fact, huh. What constitutes minimal biological activity? The largest bear on earth inhabits the arctic and only the arctic. One could argue that your house constitutes minimal biological activity.

quote:
Drilling for Oil causes irreparable damage to the environment.


I am certain no one has made this argument. The actual drilling may not cause damage. It's the spilling, transporting, leaking, accidents, etc that cause the damage. Exxon Valdiz anyone?


RE: Good news, well not
By porkpie on 7/24/2008 1:04:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Exxon Valdiz anyone?"
Here's a picture today of where the Valdez spilled its oil. See any oil? Any damage at all?

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/...


RE: Good news, well not
By Doormat on 7/24/2008 1:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
Ask the fishermen whos livelyhoods have been dramatically impacted...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0...


RE: Good news, well not
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 1:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
Cost of doing business. Always plan for hardship.


RE: Good news, well not
By porkpie on 7/24/2008 2:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
You mean the fishermen looking for a huge handout from a suit against Exxon? Yeah, they wouldn't have any reason to exaggerate now would they?

Sure the fishing was poor in Port William Sound for a couple years. Sure, 40 or 50 fisherman lost some business. But to claim we shouldn't drill oil anywhere in the world because some of it might spill is like claiming we should never do laundry, because someone might spill some bleach.


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/24/2008 2:17:10 PM , Rating: 1
bleach spill in the laundry room = oil spill in the ocean

what a fantastic comparison!


RE: Good news, well not
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 2:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
It was.


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/25/2008 11:05:27 AM , Rating: 2
d-bag!

explain how those are even remotely similar scenarios?!


RE: Good news, well not
By kbehrens on 7/27/2008 4:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
Because spills aren't ordinary ocurrences. Refusing to drill for oil because of a remote chance of a spill is crazy.


RE: Good news, well not
By Orbs on 7/24/2008 12:55:28 PM , Rating: 1
Myth: - Simply because there's "minimal" impact to the environment, it's a good idea to drill this oil.
Fact: There may be good reasons to extract this oil, and there may be good reasons not to. The only good reasons I see to extracting the oil are:
a) To temporarily reduce the price of oil by introducing additional supply

b) To generate additional revenue for one or more countries' economies.

The good reasons not to drill that I can think of off the top of my head are:

a) We as a society and a species need to remove our dependency on oil. Period. Foreign or otherwise. In fact we should remove our dependency on all fossil fuels as they are not sustainable and burning them does do significant damage to the environment (no matter where the fuel originated).

b) There may be unnecessary political ramifications. Canada sending 8 ships may be just the tip of the iceberg. It may be funny to some, but can you remember the last time Canada sent ships anywhere to protect its own land? Canada sends support to other countries regularly (most recently to the US for Katrina I believe) but I'm Canadian and I can't remember the last time Canada deployed ships or troops to protect its own land.

c) There may be unforseen consequences to completely using the Earth's oil. I personally would rather let the majority of it lie (once we've got infrastructure for alternative sources of energy). This is the most "out there" but I think it warrants some thought as everyone assumes it doesn't matter if we completely deplete our oil reserves.


RE: Good news, well not
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 1:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
Your arguments make no sense.

a) Why do we "need" to remove our dependency on oil? The only point at which we "need" to do that is well into the future when the cost of drilling exceeds the cost of other energy sources.

b) Pure speculation about some kind of "international incident"...oh, please.

c) Again, what is the purpose in not using? What would we be saving it for? Why would we choose to let more people live in poor conditions when we can continue to raise the standard of living for everyone by using relatively inexpensive sources of energy? Makes no sense.


RE: Good news, well not
By Relion on 7/24/2008 4:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
We do need to try our best to remove the dependency on everything that pollutes the air we breath, and oil is one of them. I'm not saying no to drilling that oil, but we must search ways to produce cleaner and cheaper energy sources, for our own good and our children.

As for this raising the standard of living for everyone...let me ROTFLMAO...that is a minuscule thing compared to so much other things people can do to help people in need


RE: Good news, well not
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 4:25:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We do need to try our best to remove the dependency on everything that pollutes the air we breath, and oil is one of them. I'm not saying no to drilling that oil, but we must search ways to produce cleaner and cheaper energy sources, for our own good and our children.

All human activities have some environmental impact. We just have to be smart about taking reasonable steps to mitigate that, and to continue to apply cost-benefit analysis to decide what things to do and not do.
quote:
As for this raising the standard of living for everyone...let me ROTFLMAO...that is a minuscule thing compared to so much other things people can do to help people in need

Unless you're just talking about the "power of prayer," any material impact towards raising anybody's standard of living is going to require lots of energy. Without energy, you can't do anything really.


RE: Good news, well not
By rninneman on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Good news, well not
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 10:45:22 PM , Rating: 2
"but I'm Canadian and I can't remember the last time Canada deployed ships or troops to protect its own land."

If your country has no political will to protect itself from outside invaders, or people that encroach on it's resources, you deserve everything you get.

Seriously, what country would not fight to protect itself and it's resources? None! And you should be proud that your country will protect itself if required, not role over and have no national pride or will.


RE: Good news, well not
By lifeblood on 7/24/2008 1:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The arctic is frozen tundra, with minimal biological activity.


Actually, the north Atlantic and Arctic oceans are highly productive during the summer months. Humpbacks and other whales feed there during that time.

quote:
Drilling for Oil has virtually no impact on the environment.


I grew up in Texas outside of Houston. We had a couple of oil fields near us. Lovely place. Lots of active and inactive derricks, overflow pits, oil soaked ground, abandoned 55 gallon drums, etc. My eyes tell me it does have an impact on the environment.

Drilling in the arctic will not be easy. The arctic is an icecap, not a continent. It also is constantly moving. To drill for oil from on top of the ice cap will require you to keep moving or rebuilding you pump. Google "Fram" for a historical explanation. A submersible oil drilling platform may be required. It will definitely be interesting to see how they pump it out.


RE: Good news, well not
By Spuke on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Good news, well not
By lifeblood on 7/24/2008 2:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that series is in Alaska which is part of the N. American Continent and US Territory. And while the N. American continent does move it's on the scale of an inch a year. I was referring to trying to drill on the Arctic ice cap. Which moves much quicker.

If "Ice Road Truckers" is the extent of your knowledge of the Arctic I suggest you educate yourself about it.


RE: Good news, well not
By porkpie on 7/25/2008 9:56:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1) My eyes tell me it does have an impact on the environment.

2) Drilling in the arctic will not be easy.
You clowns are so funny. On one hand, you're busy telling us how damaging it will be, on the other you're trying to convince us its impossible to even try.

So which is it? Make up your mind.


RE: Good news, well not
By lifeblood on 7/25/2008 12:57:42 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe I said it's impossible to try, I said it would be difficult but it would be interesting to see how they do it. I believe it actually should be done, as long as it's done in a safe, minimally harmful manner.

I think that sums up many environmentalists concerns. We can build and operate nuclear power plants safely. But looking at past history, we don't. We cut corners in both construction and operation. Reactor walls aren't as thick as they should be, low grade nuclear waste is left in the woods rather than being properly (and expensively) disposed of. The agency responsible for supervising the nuclear industry is made up of those who worked in it. Conflicts of interest abound, and the public that is supposed to be served and protected end up suffering.

Same thing can be said about the oil industry. Oil is drilled for in the cheapest manner, not the safest or one that has the least environmental impact. People get lazy, regulations get overlooked, oil is spilled and left, 55 gallon drums sit rusting, the environment suffers. It can be done safely and cleanly, but it's not.

Unfortunately, we need to do it and it needs to be done safely and cleanly. We need Nuclear power, but we need it safely. We need oil, but we need it cleanly. How are we going to do it? I'm not sure.


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/25/2008 11:09:57 AM , Rating: 2
Right...

"frozen tundra with minimal biological activity"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic


RE: Good news, well not
By masher2 (blog) on 7/25/2008 12:21:49 PM , Rating: 1
There is as much biologic activity in your average desert as there is in the Arctic. Yet environmentalists don't mind suggesting we wallpaper tens of thousands of square miles of desert habitat with solar cells, an act that would most assuredly destroy nearly all life in the region. Plants require sunlight to grow, and animals require plants for the food chain...not to mention the cooling effect of pumping billiong of kilowatt-hours of heat out of a monolithic region.

Furthermore, offshore oil derricks are generally some of the most active regions for biological activity in the area. The structures act as artificial reefs, actually boosting plant and animal growth.


RE: Good news, well not
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 12:22:23 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The discovery is not good news at all, neither politically nor enviornmentally. Now we have countries fighting each other for the oil and gas, claming sovereignty in the Artic.

How can it not be good news, when you have a global economy that is currently dependent on oil and gas. To not care about that is to not care about the standard of living of people around the world.

Please join us in the real world, where energy scarcity is the difference between life and death for many in undeveloped nations, or living a difficult versus comfortable life in more developed nations.

It's real easy to bite the hand that feeds you - to sit comfortably in a nice home or apartment behind a computer surrounded by everything you need. Just remember, that type of widespread comfort exists largely because of cheap energy. Large oil finds like this one make that way of living available to more people.


RE: Good news, well not
By PaxtonFettel on 7/24/2008 12:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well said, we're totally reliant upon this stuff. New fuels/renewables etc. are all very well but they're not even close to ready to replace the petroleum economy yet. Even from the perspective of someone who sees us with an oil free future, it's undeniable that we need this stuff to keep us going until it can be sensibly replaced.


RE: Good news, well not
By kc77 on 7/24/2008 8:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
Bite the hand that feeds you??? Where have you been the last decade??? Oil isn't cheap anymore if you haven't noticed. At this point just about any other means of energy is cheaper like natural gas.

It's one of the main reasons we are seeing all of these hybrids, EV's, and we are evening having this discussion. If you oil was so cheap you think this article would even been posted?


RE: Good news, well not
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 10:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
It still is the prime mover in your life, without it you would be dead. It feeds you, clothes you, transports you to work, lights the dark for you, washes your clothes, etc.etc. Absolutely it is the hand that feeds you and you can't see it.
Without these fuels to generate electricity and to provide as transportation fuels, plastics, etc.etc. Unless you know how to farm and you don't live in a city you would be dead fairly quickly if the oil stops tomorrow.


RE: Good news, well not
By kc77 on 7/26/2008 12:32:12 AM , Rating: 2
You make a lot of assumptions just like the post I commented on.

You........

a) Don't know where I live so how do you know my means of transportation.

b) Don't know where I live so you don't know what country / state / continent I live in to know what the primary source of energy is.

c) Have no idea what my ability's are in regards to surviving without oil.

Actually I live in the suburbs with a farm within walking distance. The farm is older than President Lincoln would be if he were alive today. So I'm pretty sure since most of the families here have lived here for quite a while we most likely wouldn't starve. I wish I was making this up but I'm not. It's also a good example why you shouldn't make assumptions about people in order to prove a point.

I'm not even going to mention...yeah I am .. oil isn't even the main source of electricity within the US. So if oil "went away" in terms of powering power plants 98% of our power within the U.S would still be online.


RE: Good news, well not
By Jim28 on 7/26/2008 12:54:46 AM , Rating: 2
Really?

I guess all of that fertilizer on that farm ain't oil based.
The thar tractor don't need diesel. I guess you know how to make plastic without oil? You know how to make soap? Can you dig a well? Do you know how to farm? Do you know how to hunt? Can you make bullets? Can you make candles? Can you make lumber? can you make nails? Can you make gunpowder? Can you make clothes? Can you make thread? Can you make flour? Can you repair cars?
No oil, none of that stuff is transported so you better know how to do it or make it. I can't, I can only answer affirmtaive to a few of those things and that is not a full list by any means.

If you don't know how to farm, or have someone that takes great pity on you and will agree to feed you, then yes you will die just like almost all of the rest of us. Deal with it.
I live in a small town in north florida, with abundance in farms, fishing and hunting. Even with all of that I and my family would be lucky to survive without fossil fuels.

Literally the energy and products provided by fossil fuels ARE the hand that feeds you.

Oil is a fossil fuel, coal is a fossil fuel. We can make oil out of coal. Fossil fuels provide most of the power for this country and almost every other with the notable exception of france with their nuclear powered electrical grid. (Which I wish we would duplicate.)


RE: Good news, well not
By kc77 on 7/26/2008 1:21:07 AM , Rating: 2
You've never heard of an organic farm before??? You need to get out. Your assertion about oil is really funny. So what you are saying is before Billy Joe Clampett found "snake oil" the homo genus species was butt naked living off of the dung and out of the trash cans from the surrounding birds, trees, and fish who knew how to refine crude oil???

That is soo sheesh... I'm not trying to insult you but your statements are quite foolish. Do you have any idea how long the human species has been alive before oil???

I told you before that me myself and I would fare quite well in surviving without oil if I had to. It's not the end of the world. It's the end of luxury items/convenience but it isn't the end of the world. It seems to me you are in disbelief of your own abilities. Just because you couldn't survive doesn't mean that I couldn't.

I just read this little nugget...LOL

quote:
Can you make lumber?


Dude do you live out of an X Box or something?? Is your wife / husband named Playstation??

Get out... go on a hike, go skiing, ride a horse, and for the love of everything holy read a book...preferably a book that goes over the progress of homo sapiens.


RE: Good news, well not
By onelittleindian on 7/26/2008 3:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You've never heard of an organic farm before??? You need to get out...I told you before that me myself and I would fare quite well in surviving without oil if I had to. It's not the end of the world. Dude do you live out of an X Box or something?? Is your wife / husband named Playstation??
"Dude", are you 13 years old or something? I've never read anything so stupid. If the world ran out of oil tomorrow, you would NOT survive "just fine". Think you'd still have electricity, because power comes mostly from coal? No, because the people running the plants wouldn't get to work. Most of them would starve to death. Think your little "organic farm" would feed you? No, because thousands of hungry refugees would swarm it, looking for food. Think the police would protect you, by riding up to your farm on horseback? Think again.

Grow up. Yes man survived for thousands of years without oil. But we depend on it now. If we ran out, it would mean the biggest riots the world has ever seen. Billions would starve, and billions more would die in the ensuing chaos. A VERY few would survive. But it would take a lot of luck and some smarts to manage, and you obviously don't qualify.


RE: Good news, well not
By kc77 on 7/27/2008 10:28:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've never read anything so stupid.
Maybe you don't read much.

If you are going to speak about something you should know a little bit about it before opening your yapper. First of all the nations power grid and water supply is completely automatic. They run on HMI systems. How do I know this..?? Well I design the systems these things run on. Like I said know a little about something before you open your yapper.

So lets say we ran out of oil tomorrow. I would say on average these systems run at least a month without major issue . In locations like California, where most city utility trucks run their vehicles on natural gas or are planned to be within the next few years. The grid in the west coast would stay running for quite a bit longer.

There's a number of failsafe's within the system that if oil left us tomorrow there would be a number of things that would happen to assure that we wouldn't implode. What do you think this nations oil reserves are for ... making jelly??

In your examples it seems to me that your implying that if we run out of oil it will be instantaneous. Care to tell me how that possibility would happen?? Just give me example how the worlds oil well would all run dry at the same exact time like out of movie. I really would like you to tell me through using your keen insight of just how this would go down.

So here we having you writing out two paragraphs of crap pretending to know what you are talking about and if that weren't enough, you go on an extended diatribe on "how it would go down".

So genius just how many doomsday scenarios have you run???
I'm talking about calculated scenarios that take into account government services, allied capabilities, alternative energies currently in use, and documented switchover time to maintaining power in those areas where the surrounding infrastructure becomes compromised. If you haven't, I can tell you based on the quarterly (different areas do this at different times)tests that happen at our nations power / water plants every year which go over scenarios such as decoupling from the grid and testing how backup systems would run in remote areas, that on average the systems would run for quite a while until something could be figured out. That's if we take your instantaneously oil dry scenario.

Fact is you make assumptions about something you can't make assumptions on. We've never had worldwide decimation of a universal energy source before.

You would have been far better off saying that to me than writing a post full of insults without one redeeming fact. Who is behaving like a 13 y.o again?? Thought so.


RE: Good news, well not
By onelittleindian on 7/27/2008 11:25:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So lets say we ran out of oil tomorrow. I would say on average these systems run at least a month without major issue . In locations like California, where most city utility trucks run their vehicles on natural gas or are planned to be within the next few years. The grid in the west coast would stay running for quite a bit longer.
When I said your previous post was the most idiotic thing I've ever read, I was wrong. This one tops it.

Well genius, you're right, power grids are mostly automatic. But you forgot the power that flows into them isn't. Power plants need constant supervision. If the operators don't show up, the plant shuts down. Coal plants are the worst of all. If we run out of oil, the trucks that bring the coal to the plant shut down. Good luck generating electricity without fuel. Hrm, maybe your comment wasn't so bright after all huh?

And by the way, in your limited west-coast perspective, you forgot the weather. Here in the east coast, lightning and windstorms cause a LOT more problems with the power grid. In the stormy season here, there isn't a single day that repair trucks don't roll. How do I know? I run the OSP center that dispatches them.


RE: Good news, well not
By kc77 on 7/27/2008 6:18:45 PM , Rating: 2
Power plants need constant supervision???.... no they don't... and I live on the east coast. Care to tell me how many storms we have that take down power lines??... It does happen, but that crap isn't 24/7 by far. You act like everyone lives in tornado alley. Sorry kid they don't ... oh maybe in your video games they do but the average engineer that monitors power stations is actually pretty bored most of the time.... apparently you didn't get it....I put together the systems that drive this crap and install them, and test them....the average uptime for these systems is months... not days or weeks...some have run 24/7 without any interaction at all. I've had systems literally run for over a year and were only taken down for upgrades.....

As far as transporting coal to the powerplants that drive this stuff... what you think that the entire nation just sits there and doesn't bother to move said trucks to different forms of energy?

And you still haven't answered my main question which is how exactly would we run out of oil worldwide without any warning, nor have you addressed the oil reserves we have???

You're just as bad as a all-or-nothing environmentalist. You think by insulting me that makes your points anymore valid?? Your whole argument is full of holes and you just skip by them without addressing any of it.

Really you run OSP for repair trucks and you're on the east coast???.... fine .. so are your systems Honeywell, Siemens, or GE?? Because whomever you work for I'm sure that these companies that make the control systems would love to know that their systems aren't industrial grade as they claim to be. These things run for quite a while without human interaction and new plants go even longer.

The people are there to make sure things don't happen they don't have daily emergencies as you would seem to claim. Unless the plant is poorly supervised.


RE: Good news, well not
By Jim28 on 7/27/2008 8:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
I have worked in the power industry myself. (Not for very long unfortunately as it a very easy job when you know what you ar doing!) Truly, it is mostly boring but to say those systems don't need maintenace is foolhardy. They absolutely do. Constantly on a lot of little things, which left neglected have an effect. (Plant around where I live died becuase of a bad serial cable in the turbine controller for example.)

Now I build internet backbones (Much less boring!), and they too have great uptime averages. (5 minutes of total downtime a year.) But the redundancy is built into the system such that it stays up in spite of maintenace, to deal with failures, not beacuse they don't happen.

and I live on the east coast. Care to tell me how many storms we have that take down power lines??...

I live in florida, explain to me then Andrew, Hugo, Opal, Katrina, Rita, Elena, etc.etc. Those happen fairly consistantly in the late-summer/fall. True not 24/7 but when they hit they make up for the gaps in time. (Ask FPL if they want another round.)

How about explaining the blackouts of 2003, and 1977 for example. (Faulty components (2003), and Weather (1977)

You think by insulting me that makes your points anymore valid?

Again you are doing exactly what you find fault in others for doing.

And you still haven't answered my main question which is how exactly would we run out of oil worldwide without any warning, nor have you addressed the oil reserves we have???
Not the point. Everyone here believes in doing as much as we can. (Duh!) Fact of the matter is most people do not know what sustains them or how. They only know they can go buy it at the grocery store everyweek, in a car that most people do not know how to repair. Yet they decry and hate the very technologies that sustain them.


RE: Good news, well not
By Jim28 on 7/27/2008 8:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
Straight from the horses mouth!

"It's also a good example why you shouldn't make assumptions about people in order to prove a point."

Dude do you live out of an X Box or something?? Is your wife / husband named Playstation??

Or more correctly horses ass!

Get out... go on a hike, go skiing, ride a horse


Really, how about run, wakeboard, surf, taekwondo, hapkido, body build, deep sea fishing, snow skiing, husband, and father for example? Just a small part. Think you can keep up?


RE: Good news, well not
By kc77 on 7/26/2008 1:25:43 AM , Rating: 2
Oh and don't try to worm your way out now. You said oil .. you didn't say jack crap about coal till i pointed it out to you that oil isn't the main fuel powering the US's power plants.


RE: Good news, well not
By Jim28 on 7/27/2008 8:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
No but oil is the prime mover in getting the coal to the power plants!


RE: Good news, well not
By fibreoptik on 7/27/2008 4:26:34 PM , Rating: 1
It does not light my house or wash my clothes. Hydroelectricity does. it's a called a renewable resource for a reason.

Fossil fuels are absolutely NOT renewable and while we deplete them at an ever greater rate, we are polluting the shit out of the ONLY HOME WE HAVE. :p


RE: Good news, well not
By kbehrens on 7/27/2008 4:33:40 PM , Rating: 2
So why is our air and water cleaner today than it was 30 years ago?


RE: Good news, well not
By Jim28 on 7/27/2008 6:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
I guess the steel vanes and generator steel didn't use oil or coal in their fabrication and as the base raw material?
Not to mention the concrete, the transport of the concrete, the hydro operators and maintanence personnel without which the dam fails. Sure we will be alright for a little while, but the instability of humanity itself would be the most destructive aspect initialy. After a few months/years then lack of maintenance will take it's toll on the machines that still run.


RE: Good news, well not
By SerafinaEva on 7/24/2008 2:21:31 PM , Rating: 1
There are too many dumb republicans on this site just thinking about themselves and the short term. They only think about their needs.

Thats why so many of them support the retarded articles of Michael Asher.


RE: Good news, well not
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 2:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
If by "their needs," you mean "human needs," then that's correct. There are a lot of us here who feel that welfare of humans on our planet is the #1 priority, and that we should be using natural resources in order to raise the standard of living for humans, present and future.

I don't even begin to understand the logic behind alternative views. That people should die to preserve the environment in its current state? That people should live difficult lives so that some more oil stays in the ground? Makes no sense to me.


RE: Good news, well not
By andrinoaa on 7/24/2008 8:06:50 PM , Rating: 2
Are you saying poor people will be helped by drilling out more oil? Sounds like crap to me.


RE: Good news, well not
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 8:17:17 PM , Rating: 3
Cheaper energy raises everyone's standard of living, rich or poor. It's a simple fact.


RE: Good news, well not
By kc77 on 7/24/2008 8:19:10 PM , Rating: 2
Let's not use extremes shall we. Who has said that the human race should die to preserve the environment? I don't think anyone has.

Alternative views understand basic elementary school science, oil is a finite resource. Therefore how illogical is it to not eventually start working our way off it?


RE: Good news, well not
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 10:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
As opposed to "learned" hypocritical democrats that tried to cheat their way out of paying gasoline taxes during their convention in Denver. Those same democrats that said the very same gas taxes that were good for us, evidently were not meant for them to pay they must be above that. Those taxes are only meant for the little people. I don't get most Democrats at all, they must simply like getting fleeced and treated like sh1t at every turn.

One of the many things the hypocrites do! (FYI I am not a Repubclican or Democrat.)


RE: Good news, well not
By kc77 on 7/26/2008 12:41:06 AM , Rating: 2
So if you say you're not a republican or a democrat then you are suppose to be safe of criticism??? LOL yeah sorry not gonna work.... what are you a right-leaning unicorn??? Maybe your a compassionate conservative cicada?

There isn't a single political party that hasn't crapped on it's followers at least once. So please step down from the soap box.


RE: Good news, well not
By Jim28 on 7/27/2008 6:11:14 PM , Rating: 2

"There isn't a single political party that hasn't crapped on it's followers at least once. So please step down from the soap box. "


We just needed your brilliance to make that clear! Thanks captain obvious! Without you we are lost!

The issue was stereotyping, but you were not smart enough to figure it out.

What are you then? Lucky marxist the court jester?


RE: Good news, well not
By kc77 on 7/27/2008 6:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently you did need help from Captain Obvious, otherwise you wouldn't have said something so stupid that you needed correction and direction.

Also in case you didn't know you can't use the specter of someone "stereotyping" you if you meet all of the criteria of said stereotype.

Just another word of advice from Captain Obvious because unlike the rest of us you sound like you need all of the help you can get.


RE: Good news, well not
By Jim28 on 7/27/2008 7:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
Also in case you didn't know you can't use the specter of someone "stereotyping" you if you meet all of the criteria of said stereotype.

And you don't eh? You look, smell, talk, and are an idiot hypocrite just like most liberals. Gee, you fit that stereotype quit nicely.

If you think all that crap that comes out of your mouth is useful, well think again.

I think this sums it up rather nicely:

Pot meet kettle.


RE: Good news, well not
By kc77 on 7/27/2008 8:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
Who said I didn't. That's the difference between you and I. I can admit what I am. I don't say dumb crap like "I'm not a republican or a democrat" when it's obvious you're one of them. If you don't like who you are don't come here expecting others to make you feel good about yourself. You need a counselor not a news blog.


RE: Good news, well not
By Jim28 on 7/28/2008 8:35:11 PM , Rating: 2
Not at all.

I have no problems with what I am.

Where Rebuplicans make sense to me on issues, then I aggree with them. Same as with issus that make sense from Democrats. I am an independent don't have any problems with that.
Whereas you are simply a fool.
A fool that brands everyone else if you don't like what they say or do. What you need to do is pull your head from your ass and stop clapping at your own applause sign. The world does not pause on it's axis for you.

Respond if you want but I am done with you.


Michael Asher is a retarded Republican
By SerafinaEva on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 2:29:21 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The writer of this article is obviously a retarded conservative
You don't back up your post with ANY facts but are quick to call the author retarded?


RE: Michael Asher is a retarded Republican
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 2:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
For the record, I'm not a Republican.


By DASQ on 7/24/2008 2:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
For a second there, I read "Pokemon".

I don't know why.

But also, I am disappointed :(


By arazok on 7/24/2008 10:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
Sith Lord? ;)


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/25/2008 11:57:21 AM , Rating: 2
hmmmm... I would have thought you'd say for the recorded I'm not retarded. Not being a republican I thought was pretty clear. :)


By Fronzbot on 7/24/2008 10:09:36 PM , Rating: 1
Being a "republican" and being a "conservative" are actually two different things.

On the bright side, you did just make everybody who posted on this article seem much more intelligent :)


RE: Michael Asher is a retarded Republican
By fibreoptik on 7/25/2008 11:17:14 AM , Rating: 1
**DISCLAIMER**

The views/musings/vitriol of SerafinaEva are not necessarily representative of the other "leftist, bleeding-heart, granola-eating, Sierra club card-carrying, Prius driving, patchouli-burning, Birckenstock-wearing, pot-smoking, hippies", such as me...

... so please don't ummm... stereotype us. mmmmk?

Thanks! :D


RE: Michael Asher is a retarded Republican
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 10:57:08 PM , Rating: 1
Tell your buddies to do the same and the courtesy will be returned.


By fibreoptik on 7/28/2008 12:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
You were supposed to "LOL" :(


By kyleb2112 on 7/26/2008 5:24:30 AM , Rating: 2
It's pretty clear who the retarded Democrat is.


By Bill2001 on 7/30/2008 8:10:25 PM , Rating: 1
You need a hug.


So?
By Tacoloft on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki