back in the saddle again!!!

[Robert Waters]

Subject: The Oil Shortage Problem The following was written on 5-29-2008 by James Johnson to a woman on a discussion list who, althought a conservative, was beginning to think that the solution to our oil prices is for the government to nationalize oil. rw Dear Beth, I share your frustration at the high oil prices, but do you think that the oil companies are the problem, and is not what you suggest the essence of covetousness? Is not what you suggest here the essence of communism and the antithesis of capitalism and democracy? Free enterprise and property rights are fundamental to a free people. Take away property rights, and you have a totalitarian state. Furthermore, do you believe that the government represents your interests and desires the best for you? That's pretty hard for me to believe. They basically want to make a lot of money, have a lot of power, and get reelected time after time. The government to a large degree has created the problem. They have bought the environmentalist argument that carbon dioxide emissions are killing us, when nothing could be further from the truth. Human production of CO2 has an extremely small (.01 degree per year) effect on the global temperature. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere actually makes crops more productive and does not appreciably warm the atmosphere. Greenhouse growers do it all the time. The result of these ignorant lawyers trying to do economics is that the collective sense of Congress has been been to restrict ANY kind of energy production. Gov. Mario Cuomo even shut down a operable nuclear reactor in NY state after they had spent years jumping through innumerable regulatory hurdles and had the thing running. They won't let us drill for oil where we know it is. They won't let us open new coal mines. They won't let us build nuclear reactors. They won't let us build new refineries. The government has placed so many restrictions on energy production that we have to buy energy from our sworn enemies. This is incredibly stupid. The price of oil is not the oil companies' fault. They produce some oil and benefit from the Saudis restricting the production in their own country. When the Saudis produce less than they can, they drive up the price of oil. The effect of the Saudi restriction of their own oil production is further exacerbated by speculators on the oil futures market who buy oil futures in expectation that oil prices will go up. The solution to this problem is simple. Drill for oil. More oil means lower prices. We can drill for oil in an environmentally friendly manner and we can do it quickly. There is oil off the coast of Florida that the ChiComs are getting because Congress won't let the much maligned oil companies drill there. The same is true off the coast of California. The same is true for oil shale in Colorado, Utah, Arizona and Wyoming. The same is true of Anwar in Alaska. It is a complely foolish and ignorant energy policy. Just two weeks ago, Congress forbade the development of oil shale in Colorado. There are hundreds of billions of barrels of oil tied up in oil shale out west in Colorado and Utah. At the current price of oil it would be economical to produce oil from it, but the environmentalists will not permit it because it has to be dug up and it would mar the earth. Well, we are going have to do like Obama says and revert to Third World status, or we are going to have to produce energy. Something has to give, and a strip mine in remote mountains in Colorado is NOT going to hurt us. The solution to the problem is not nationalizing oil. The oil companies are very happy to produce all they are permitted to produce. Having the government take over would not produce a single drop more oil. It would make oil production vastly less efficient. The solution is to tell the environmentalists to get a grass shack warmed by buffalo chips and let the rest of us alone so we can produce more energy and drive down the price. Robert Waters www.TotalHealth.bz [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[E.L. Green]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Waters" wrote:

> > Subject: The Oil Shortage Problem The following was written on > 5-29-2008 by James Johnson to a woman on a discussion list who, > althought a conservative, was beginning to think that the solution to > our oil prices is for the government to nationalize oil.

Note that 90% of the oil produced in the world is already produced by government-owned oil companies, so this isn't a solution either. Nor is allowing offshore drilling off of Florida and California, the reservoirs out there are measured in the hundreds of millions of barrels of oil, i.e., a few months' supply for the United States. There's probably a large amount of usable oil left out there in Africa and South America, but the problem is getting to it. The reason the oil fields of the U.S. are depleted is because the U.S. had a working transportation infrastructure and thus it was easy to get to where the oil was. Brazil or the Congo could have bazillions of gallons of oil in its jungles, but lacking any affordable way to "thump" the jungle and thereby get a picture of its underlying geology, there's no way to know where it is. Not to mention the slight problem of Africa being a violent pesthole...

[d_m_plum]

Robert, I agree that nationalizing the oil companies would be a disaster. I also agree that there is a lot of undeveloped oil in this country, and that we COULD develop those resources and bring down the cost of oil. I also recognize that some of the problem lies with the environmentalists. But think about this. If we develop these resources now, we will bring down the price of oil FOR THE WHOLE PLANET, and consumption will INCREASE. Is it just possible that our leaders actually have brains, and that they recognize the long-term benefits of DEFERRING the development of our own oil resources? Consider that oil WILL run out, probably in THIS CENTURY. Would you like to see this country BEGGING for the last barrel of oil, or SELLING the last barrel of oil? The only true long-term solution is nuclear energy. No other energy source can provide the enormous quantity of energy need on a RELIABLE basis. With the exception of the Chernoble disaster (a reactor built by the russians) there hasn't been a major loss of property or life that I know of. Three Mile Island was hyped to the point most people think it was disaster, but what was really lost? A small island became unusable. I can visualize a future where this country has resumed nuclear energy production on a large scale, and is then in a position to SELL our own oil to a world that has depleted all other oil reserves. This is a recipe for ENORMOUS profit, for our descendants if not for ourselves. --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Waters" wrote:

> > Subject: The Oil Shortage Problem The following was written on > 5-29-2008 by James Johnson to a woman on a discussion list who, > althought a conservative, was beginning to think that the solution

to

> our oil prices is for the government to nationalize oil. rw Dear > Beth, I share your frustration at the high oil prices, but do you > think that the oil companies are the problem, and is not what you > suggest the essence of covetousness? Is not what you suggest here

the

> essence of communism and the antithesis of capitalism and

democracy? ...

[Mike Frey]

Another good (this time short) essay from Eric.I don't always agree with him, but he's a good writer. I love a debate as long as no one gets angry. My opinion: There is currently NOT a shortage of oil. There's plenty - for now. The reason the prices are up so dramatically are very complex. Global competition, weak dollar, refining capacity, and more are all contributing to the price rises. Some are artificial, and we are in a bubble. And, bubbles burst. I hope this one does soon, or we are in for more trouble. We all like to look for a villain to blame for our problems. This time around, we are fighting many, and they aren't necessarily people and countries. It's hard to tell who the "bad guys" are, if there are indeed any. Oil companies are making huge profits, but they are public companies, so it's the shareholders who benefit the most - and a large percentage are ordinary citizens whose 401k, retirement plans, and stocks benefit. OPEC nations are reaping huge gains, but they aren't really setting the prices. They do control the quantities, but the USA's largest supplier of oil is Canada, and they are our friends - I think! Chinese companies are paying pretty much the same for oil as US companies are. They have plenty of money, thanks to all of the US dollars that flow over to there. That's us, buying MADE IN CHINA. Are they the bad guys? Maybe. Probably not. Probably the greatest beneficiaries of the prices are the commodities and futures traders, and that group more so than all the rest may be responsible for the price being where it is today - as well as making obscene profits. I doubt there are any here on the KLR list. They are busy on their yachts and sitting in their New York high rises watching their money flow in. A few years back, when the price was $50 a barrel, there was reluctance on the part of companies, investors and countries to drill for oil. "Costs too much, can't profit at $50 a barrel". OK, now at $125 (give or take a few dollars), why are there not holes being drilled all over? Perhaps because it's going to come back down? When? ...Soon, I hope. E.L. Green wrote:

> > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com > , "Robert Waters" > wrote: > > > > Subject: The Oil Shortage Problem The following was written on > > 5-29-2008 by James Johnson to a woman on a discussion list who, > > althought a conservative, was beginning to think that the solution to > > our oil prices is for the government to nationalize oil. > > Note that 90% of the oil produced in the world is already produced by > government-owned oil companies, so this isn't a solution either. Nor > is allowing offshore drilling off of Florida and California, the > reservoirs out there are measured in the hundreds of millions of > barrels of oil, i.e., a few months' supply for the United States. > > There's probably a large amount of usable oil left out there in Africa > and South America, but the problem is getting to it. The reason the > oil fields of the U.S. are depleted is because the U.S. had a working > transportation infrastructure and thus it was easy to get to where the > oil was. Brazil or the Congo could have bazillions of gallons of oil > in its jungles, but lacking any affordable way to "thump" the jungle > and thereby get a picture of its underlying geology, there's no way to > know where it is. Not to mention the slight problem of Africa being a > violent pesthole... > >

[roncriswell@sbcglobal.net]

Yeah anybody that thinks government can run a company better than the private sector should look around. Mexico nationalized their oil business in 1938 after companies like Shell or whatever showed them how to get it. Now ........ those fields are ...... running dry ......... and they know there is oil out in the Gulf ........ but an inept government like Mexico's can't drill it ..... because it isn't able to. Guess who they will have to call? Good old Shell or Exxon. Heh! Exxon is based about 30 minutes from where I live. Justice. Criswell

On May 28, 2008, at 1:31 PM, d_m_plum wrote: > Robert, > > I agree that nationalizing the oil companies would be a disaster. I > also agree that there is a lot of undeveloped oil in this country, > and > that we COULD develop those resources and bring down the cost of > oil. > I also recognize that some of the problem lies with the > environmentalists. > > But think about this. If we develop these resources now, we will > bring > down the price of oil FOR THE WHOLE PLANET, and consumption will > INCREASE. > > Is it just possible that our leaders actually have brains, and that > they recognize the long-term benefits of DEFERRING the development of > our own oil resources? Consider that oil WILL run out, probably in > THIS CENTURY. Would you like to see this country BEGGING for the > last > barrel of oil, or SELLING the last barrel of oil? > > The only true long-term solution is nuclear energy. No other energy > source can provide the enormous quantity of energy need on a RELIABLE > basis. With the exception of the Chernoble disaster (a reactor built > by the russians) there hasn't been a major loss of property or life > that I know of. Three Mile Island was hyped to the point most people > think it was disaster, but what was really lost? A small island > became > unusable. > > I can visualize a future where this country has resumed nuclear > energy > production on a large scale, and is then in a position to SELL our > own > oil to a world that has depleted all other oil reserves. This is a > recipe for ENORMOUS profit, for our descendants if not for ourselves. > > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Waters" > wrote: > > > > Subject: The Oil Shortage Problem The following was written on > > 5-29-2008 by James Johnson to a woman on a discussion list who, > > althought a conservative, was beginning to think that the solution > to > > our oil prices is for the government to nationalize oil. rw Dear > > Beth, I share your frustration at the high oil prices, but do you > > think that the oil companies are the problem, and is not what you > > suggest the essence of covetousness? Is not what you suggest here > the > > essence of communism and the antithesis of capitalism and > democracy? ... > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Randall Marbach]

----- Original Message ---- From: d_m_plum To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 11:31:43 AM Subject: [DSN_KLR650] Re: [NKLR] The Oil Shortage Problem

>The only true long-term solution is nuclear energy. No other energy

The only problem is ...... that the Chinese have quietly been cornering the market on the world's uranium supplies...

[Russell Scott]

A shale formation stretching North Dakota and Montana may have an estimated 3 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, according to a U.S. Geological Survey assessment. Known as the Bakken Formation, the find would make the recoverable oil in North Dakota and Montana the largest U.S. oil reserves outside Alaska. The recently released assessment shows a 2,800 percent, or 28-times increase in the amount of oil recoverable from the Bakken Formation, compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil. According to the USGS, the dramatically increased estimate of recoverable oil in the Bakken Formation results from new geological models, advances in drilling and production technologies, and recent oil discoveries. By the end of 2007, approximately 105 million barrels of oil had been produced from the Bakken Formation. "The Bakken Formation estimate is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest 'continuous' oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS," said a news release making the announcement. The Bakken Formation lies in "Williston Basin," a geological formation in the north central U.S., underlying much of North Dakota, eastern Montana, northwestern South Dakota, and southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Canada, according to the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy. The EIA says the success of horizontal drilling and fracturing efforts in Montana is the reason a decision was made to re-evaluate the 1995 USGS Assessment of Resources that had estimated only 151 million barrels were technically recoverable from the Bakken Formation. Lynn Helms, director of the oil and gas division of North Dakota's Industrial Commission told the Grand Forks Herald the USGS announcement had prompted new interest from investment bankers and the oil industry. "We have had contacts from Scotland and Australia today," Helms told the newspaper. "And of course, lots of Canadian interest, and contacts from across the United States, both from the media and the oil industry. And banks. I think they are looking for a place to invest venture capital." The USGS announcement should give "a significant boost to North Dakota's already-booming oil industry," according to a news release from the office of North Dakota's Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan. "The oil industry in North Dakota has already seen substantial growth," Dorgan said, "but this report is important, because it gives oil companies another set of eyes." "The Bakken Shale should attract significant new investment to this region," he continued. "This is an exciting time for North Dakota's oil industry. We're going to see new growth that will boost our economy and help our country shed its dependence on foreign oil." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- After three years of clandestine development, a Georgia company is now going public with a simple, natural way to convert anything that grows out of the Earth into oil. J.C. Bell, an agricultural researcher and CEO of Bell Bio-Energy, Inc., says he's isolated and modified specific bacteria that will, on a very large scale, naturally change plant material - including the leftovers from food - into hydrocarbons to fuel cars and trucks. "What we're doing is taking the trash like corn stalks, corn husks, corn cobs - even grass from the yard that goes to the dump - that's what we can turn into oil," Bell told WND. "I'm not going to make asphalt, we're only going to make the things we need. We're going to make gasoline for driving, diesel for our big trucks." The agricultural researcher made the discovery after standing downwind from his cows at his food-production company, Bell Plantation, in Tifton, Ga. "Cows are like people that eat lots of beans. They're really, really good at making natural gas," he said. "It dawned on me that that natural gas was methane." Bell says he wondered what digestive process inside a cow enabled it to change food into the hydrocarbon molecules of methane, so he began looking into replicating and speeding up the process. "Through genetic manipulation, we've changed the naturally occurring bacteria, so they eat and consume biomass a little more efficiently," he said. "It works. There's not even any debate that it works. It really is an all-natural, simple process that cows use on a daily basis." But does he think it will make environmentalists happy? "They love this. We had one totally recognizable environmentalist from Hollywood say this is everything they ever had hoped for," Bell said. "This could be considered the ultimate recycling of carbon. We are using the energy of the sun through the plant. We're not introducing any new carbon [to the environment]." The research has received strong support from the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture and committees in both chambers of Congress, and Bell plans further discussions in Washington, D.C., next week. He expects to have the first pilot plant for the process running within two to three months, and will operate it for a year to collect engineering data to design full-scale production facilities. He thinks the larger facilities will be producing oil "inside the next two years." And just how much oil is in Bell's bio-forecast? "With minor changes in the agricultural and forestry products, we could create two to two and a half billion tons of biomass a year, and you're looking at 5 billion barrels of oil per year. That would be about two-thirds of what we use now." Turning some of nature's produce into energy has been done for years, especially when it comes to the conversion of corn and cellulose-based products into ethanol, used to extend gasoline volume and boost octane. The Energy Information Administration says in 2005, total U.S. ethanol production was 3.9 billion gallons, or 2.9 percent of the total gasoline pool. Bell admits his bacterial breakthrough has been kept under wraps until now, but he plans to explain it all once his website is fully operational. "We're actually gonna tell people how we do it, with streaming video. We're to the point now with our patent that we can say more and we fully intend to. "We want to develop public support so they can understand what we're doing; to develop political support, because this is a combination of making the United States more independent from foreign oil sources; make [the country] healthier from an economic point of view; and it goes a long way to solving the environmental problems a lot of people are concerned about." When asked why he thought no one else has patented this process, Bell answered, "It literally is because it's too simple. Everyone was looking for a real complicated mechanism. We looked at how it occurs naturally. But it's now going to develop in a hurry." Recalling other great inventions, Bell cited on another person with his last name. "Alexander Graham Bell put together stuff that was already on the shelf and made a phone. I don't want to compare myself to the great inventors. I'm not there yet, but to be able to look at simple things and create things from them, that's how we think in this company." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[E.L. Green]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Russell Scott" wrote:

> A shale formation stretching North Dakota and Montana may have an

estimated

> 3 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, according

to a U.S.

> Geological Survey assessment.

The main problem with oil shales is that it takes several barrels of water to extract each barrel of oil (the water is injected as super-heated steam into the shale formation in order to liquify the shale, which then is sucked out via normal means). The Canadians are currently using 2/3rds of a major river exploiting their Alberta oil shale discovery. Unfortunately, there are no major rivers flowing through North Dakota and Montana . A Rand study from the early 1990's identified water availability as the crucial factor preventing exploitation of this shale formation. (BTW, they identified at least one TRILLION barrels of oil in this formation, but not all of it is recoverable with current technology). The other problem is that it takes a lot of energy to create super-heated steam to inject into the formations. There's some folks who believe the Canucks are putting more energy *into* their oil shale formation than they're managing to suck out as oil. However, this is not necessarily bad if you're using, say, a nuclear reactor, to generate the electricity used to generate the steam. A nuclear reactor isn't portable. Oil is. You're basically turning nuclear energy into oil in that case. Given that we currently have no other easy way to haul energy around in a portable manner other than oil (a 15 gallon tank of gas weighing 75 pounds holds more energy than 2,000 pounds of batteries), that may be a good trade-off. But without water, all this discussion is moot. There just isn't enough water in that area to do any sort of large-scale exploitation of the oil shale reservers. We've tried buying water from the Canucks, but they just laugh at us.

>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> ----------------------------------------------------------------- > After three years of clandestine development, a Georgia company is

now going

> public with a simple, natural way to convert anything that grows out

of the

> Earth into oil.

Yes, cellulositic ethanol. But there is a fundamental problem. Plants convert solar energy into hydrocarbons with about 5% efficiency. Our best solar cells are now converting 20% of solar energy into electricity. Furthermore, once you "plant" the solar cells, they just sit there for year after year silently collecting energy. Plants, on the other hand, require planting, fertilizing, harvesting, cultivation... in short, they require a continuous input of energy to make them grow. Unlike solar cells. So we're back in the same situation as the oil shale, in that we're converting solar energy *very* inefficiently into oil because oil happens to be the most portable way to haul energy around given current technology, when the most efficient way to utilize the land for energy purposes would be to "plant" solar panels on it. In short, we're not going to grow enough plants to power a technological civilization. At best we'll be able to power some things like jet airliners that can't easily be powered by overhead electrical catenaries or batteries (or hydrogen fuel cells, just a fancy battery in the end where water is turned into hydrogen and oxygen via electricity then the hydrogen hauled around). Personally, I think we need to start building nuclear power plants, *now*. But I suspect that given the resistance to doing so by radical environmentalists, if I don't want to be shivering in the dark ten years from now, I'll have to move to France (which gets most of its electricity from nuclear power). _E

[Jud Jones]

FWIW, I just got back from a weekend of riding in the North Dakota Badlands along the Little Missouri and near Teddy Roosevelt National Park. Even outside the park, this is beautiful country. There are pump jacks all over the place, but strangely, they do not seem to blight the landscape. The pumping installations are very tidy, unlike many you see in Texas, which are littered with, pipe, sucker rod, and junky-looking machinery. A typical installation sits on a graded pad, and includes a large pump jack, some storage tanks, and some kind of service shed, all painted in earth tones. No junk anywhere to be seen. The neatness is kind of eerie, but the overall effect is not bad. I hate to see a real wilderness like ANWR opened up to drilling, but if it is kept as neat as the installations I saw, I guess it will not be the end of the world.

[roncriswell@sbcglobal.net]

Jud, what you see as ugly junk, we here in Tejas see industrial beauty (especially if your family happens to own some pump jacks). I'm for Anwar drilling, California drilling, Florida drilling. We in west central Tejas see a new thing of beauty. Bookoo wind generators especially around Sweetwater TX. They are paying my Italian Stallion brother - in - law 15 grand a pop to put those on his worthless land around Amarillio. I wish my family had bought (lucky) land. Criswell

On May 29, 2008, at 7:22 AM, Jud Jones wrote: > FWIW, I just got back from a weekend of riding in the North Dakota > Badlands along the Little > Missouri and near Teddy Roosevelt National Park. Even outside the > park, this is beautiful > country. There are pump jacks all over the place, but strangely, > they do not seem to blight > the landscape. The pumping installations are very tidy, unlike many > you see in Texas, which > are littered with, pipe, sucker rod, and junky-looking machinery. A > typical installation sits on > a graded pad, and includes a large pump jack, some storage tanks, > and some kind of service > shed, all painted in earth tones. No junk anywhere to be seen. The > neatness is kind of eerie, > but the overall effect is not bad. I hate to see a real wilderness > like ANWR opened up to > drilling, but if it is kept as neat as the installations I saw, I > guess it will not be the end of the > world. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]