# Imported oil and the threat to our security



## a_majoor (29 Mar 2005)

Here is an interesting article which lays out som of the vulneabilities Western civilization faces due to the reliance on cheap imported oil. Where it falls down is the second half, unless the RCMP is enforcing the laws of physics now, most of the "solutions" are in the realm of pipe dreamology. 

The efficiencies claimed by many of these technologies are usually the theoretical maximums, rather than the practical efficiencies that day to day machinery can achieve. (Want a real life example? the Toyota and Honda Hybrids are claimed to have 60mpg fuel efficiency, but real life testing by numerous car and consumer magazines only get 40 mpg. This is still better than the usual 30mpg of contemporary sedans, but not a doubling of efficiency).

As for freeing America from needing oil from unstable states, Canada has a trillion barrels of heavy oil (tar sands), which in the short run is more practical than trying to change the entire industreal and transportation infrastructure of the US. I have added a few comments in italics.



> *Freedom in Security*
> A naked energy gap.
> 
> The explosion of a BP oil refinery not far from Houston last week left at least 15 dead and over 100 wounded. It also served as the latest, vivid reminder of a truth we have for too long chosen to ignore: This nation is dangerously vulnerable to severe economic dislocation and possibly dire national-security threats as a result of its excessive reliance on imported oil and the infrastructure that transforms most of that oil into fuel for our transportation sector.
> ...


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2005)

Odd, how they had to  bomb Germany all to hell to stop their flow of POL, yet the West can be ground to a halt through a few dozen acts of sabotage.

My money is on Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel - ULSD.  

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (30 Mar 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> My money is on Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel - ULSD.



This is what I figured as well.  In an article in the Economist, they reported that hybrid diesel motors, when utilizing new emissions technology and hybrid setups, were getting better milage then the gas-hybrids being touted in the news today.  So far, the only company marketing these is Peugeot in France.

Still does us no good in the long run, as we are dependent on petroleum.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> This is what I figured as well.   In an article in the Economist, they reported that hybrid diesel motors, *when utilizing new emissions technology and hybrid setups, were getting better milage then the gas-hybrids being touted in the news today*.   So far, the only company marketing these is Peugeot in France.
> 
> Still does us no good in the long run, as we are dependent on petroleum.



Not to rain too much on your parade, but once again, this is an  example of "theoretical" being touted over "practical". The Clinton administration gave the US Big Three automakers several hundred million dollars in a program designed to double the fuel economy of US automobiles (although it was the unsubsidized Toyota which actually marketed the first practical hybrid car. Funny how that works). Chrysler developed several deisel hybrid prototypes with the same general form factor as the Intrepid, and after several attempts created a five passenger sedan which could get 70 mpg. 

The reason you can't buy one is it costs $15,000 more than a normal gasoline powered Intrepid. You would have to be driving for several decades to recover that cost differential. Toyota is reputed to take a loss of several thousand dollars on each Prius it sells, but the Japanese are looking long term to establish a market and baseline technology (not to mention that there are actually very few Prius on the market; just enough to excite the granola crowd).

Hybrid or even fuel cell technology will take a few decades to mature enough to be cost effective and practical, there are plenty of fairly simple ways that drivers can eak out an extra % point or two which are cost effective, or for that matter, we can walk (as an Infantryman, that is always plan "b" anyway).

The bigger problem with these plans is that there is already a huge sunk cost of existing infrastructure and equipment; how will it be possible to replace every car and truck in the United states in less than a decade in order to reap these benifits? I am not saying the reserch should be scrapped, but these things need to be realisticly looked at, there can only be a gradual change, and change will only be incremental unless there is an unexpected breakthrough (and even than, there will be a time lag for the effect to ripple through and replace current infrastructure).


----------



## Infanteer (30 Mar 2005)

From what I read in the Economist, the Diesel-Hyrbid actually did live up to its claims - you are right though, they were pricey.

Oh well, it's like BMD, you can't strike it off as impossible because of initial failures....


----------



## daniel h. (30 Mar 2005)

> As for freeing America from needing oil from unstable states, Canada has a trillion barrels of heavy oil (tar sands), which in the short run is more practical than trying to change the entire industreal and transportation infrastructure of the US. I have added a few comments in italics.




It's not our job to feed America's gluttonous appetite for oil so that the average person with an I.Q. of 80 can drive a Chevy Avalance to the corner store.

Canada should not have ever let foreign companies own over   50% of our oil. NAFTA must be scrapped so we can control our own oil wealth and energy security. We now supply 66% of our oil production to the U.S. as mandated by NAFTA at 66 cents to the dollar. It's a joke. How can any Canadian with any self-respect talk about "securing America's energy". Even Canada is a net-importer. Ontario, Quebec get oil from Venezuela.

We don't owe the U.S. anything.

 MOD EDIT: keep it clean folks


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Mar 2005)

danial h,........  PM incoming.


----------



## Cloud Cover (30 Mar 2005)

You guys with all this talk of fuel efficiency are making me feel bad, I'm trading in the Jetta TDI in for an 8cyl. Tahoe.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2005)

daniel h. said:
			
		

> Canada should not have ever let foreign companies own over  50% of our oil. NAFTA must be scrapped so we can control our own oil wealth and energy security. We now supply 66% of our oil production to the U.S. as mandated by NAFTA at 66 cents to the dollar. It's a joke. How can any Canadian with any self-respect talk about "securing America's energy". Even Canada is a net-importer. Ontario, Quebec get oil from Venezuela.
> 
> We don't owe the U.S. anything.



I would be interested to see the paragraph in the NAFTA agreement which says that. Please post the reference for the rest of us.

I would also state we don't "owe" anyone anything, but since we have a marketable resource, why not market it and reap the benefits. I certainly would like to see a lot more money get spent on education..... >


----------



## daniel h. (31 Mar 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I would be interested to see the paragraph in the NAFTA agreement which says that. Please post the reference for the rest of us.
> 
> I would also state we don't "owe" anyone anything, but since we have a marketable resource, why not market it and reap the benefits. I certainly would like to see a lot more money get spent on education..... >




www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050217.webcolaxer16/BNStory/National/

Canada currently produces about 40 per cent more oil than it consumes and so should not have to worry about shortages. Yet, because of NAFTA, Canada put itself in as precarious a position as the U.S. in relying on imports of oil from offshore. Canada now exports 70 per cent of its supply to the United States and imports almost 60 per cent of the oil it consumes. The pipeline taking Western Canadian oil from Sarnia, Ont., to Montreal was reversed several years ago and now brings imports the other way.

Proportionality favoured the short-term interests of exporting corporations and producing provinces, to the detriment of using Canada's raw resources to make other things, and for long-term energy security for Canadians.

The Mexicans were smart and got an exemption from energy sharing in times of shortage. Look at the respect that exemption got Mexico in the U.S. national energy task force report: "Mexico will make its own sovereign decisions on the breadth, pace, and extent to which it will expand and reform its electricity and oil and gas capacities."

Contrast this with the U.S. NEP report's assessment of Canada: "Canada's deregulated energy sector has become America's largest overall energy trading partner, and our leading foreign supplier of natural gas, oil and electricity."

In a cold, vast country, where energy is essential for life and a functioning economy, citizens take for granted that Canadians should have first call on Canadian energy. Governments ensure Canadians have enough flu shots and expect the same regarding energy supplies.

If Canada is not going to ensure security of oil and gas supply for Canadians, who is? Can we rely on the Americans? Have they secured Canadian interests regarding beef or softwood lumber? Alternatively, can we rely on the market to supply Canadians with energy when we need it? Just think of electrical power deregulation in Ontario and Alberta.

A national energy policy for the U.S. and a continental energy market for Canada is a raw deal for Canada. Instead of further integration with the U.S., what about a Mexican exemption for Canada?

Gordon Laxer is a professor of political economy at the University of Alberta and the director and co-founder of Parkland Institute in Edmonton.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Mar 2005)

daniel h. said:
			
		

> www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050217.webcolaxer16/BNStory/National/
> 
> Canada currently produces about 40 per cent more oil than it consumes and so should not have to worry about shortages. Yet, because of NAFTA, Canada put itself in as precarious a position as the U.S. in relying on imports of oil from offshore. Canada now exports 70 per cent of its supply to the United States and imports almost 60 per cent of the oil it consumes. The pipeline taking Western Canadian oil from Sarnia, Ont., to Montreal was reversed several years ago and now brings imports the other way.
> 
> ...



What you have just demonstrated is the oil producers are rationaly selling to the market which gives them the biggest return.

I SAY AGAIN: *What paragraph or article of the NAFTA agreement compells Canada to sell a fixed percentage of its output at a set price, as you claimed in your earlier post*?


----------



## daniel h. (31 Mar 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> What you have just demonstrated is the oil producers are rationaly selling to the market which gives them the biggest return.
> 
> I SAY AGAIN: *What paragraph or article of the NAFTA agreement compells Canada to sell a fixed percentage of its output at a set price, as you claimed in your earlier post*?




We're giving our oil away at a lower return due to fized prices, zero (0) royalty, and as quickly as possible, even though oil is likely to increase in value, not decrease. I'll post the NAFTA requirements when I find them. I'm busy for a few hours. No need to be belligerent.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Mar 2005)

Supply and demand:



> *The Growth-Driven Oil-Price Increase*
> Not an economy choker.
> 
> By Victor A. Canto and Samir Ghia
> ...


----------



## Spartan (31 Mar 2005)

> *Canada sends over 99% of its crude oil exports to the U.S., and the country is one of the most important sources of U.S. oil imports.* During the first eleven months of 2004, Canada exported 1.62 million bbl/d of crude oil to the U.S., the single-largest component of U.S. crude oil imports. Canada also sent some 500,000 bbl/d of petroleum products to the U.S. during this period, the most from a single country. The largest share of U.S.-bound Canadian oil exports (65%) go to the Midwest (PAD District II), with smaller amounts heading to the Rocky Mountains (PAD District IV) and the East Coast (PAD District I).


http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/canada.html#oil
and the fact that 65%+ of Oil companies operating in Canada are foreign (read American) owned and operated.
Plus the requirements in NAFTA for us to not maintain such stringent ownership rules (ie majority (even at 50%) to be Canadian.
I, as well have heard the arguement that we are bound to ship oil to the US under NAFTA - from Very right wing academic profs to boot - will try and find source as well to substantiate.


----------



## daniel h. (31 Mar 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> there isn't any paragraph in NAFTA with that provision.......just a bunch garbage he is spewing.



Ah, now I get slandered by the directing staff. Lovely leadership. Why don't you give yourself a warning?


NAFTA has a "national treament clause". Because American companies already own more than 50% of our oil, they are now allowed to exploit it as quickly as they see fit. Basically, they get our oil at that percentage (66%)  because that is how much they already own, and NAFTA prevents us from regaining control, with some new sort of NEP.

No conspiracies. Here is the NAFTA secretariat, chapter 6. I will post the exemption Mexico obtained, which Canada did not obtain:


PART TWO: TRADE IN GOODS

Chapter Six: Energy and Basic Petrochemicals

Article 601: Principles
Article 602: Scope and Coverage
Article 603: Import and Export Restrictions
Article 604: Export Taxes
Article 605: Other Export Measures
Article 606: Energy Regulatory Measures
Article 607: National Security Measures
Article 608: Miscellaneous Provisions
Article 609: Definitions 


Annex 602.3: Reservations and Special Provisions
Annex 603.6: Exception to Article 603
Annex 605: Exception to Article 605
Annex 607: National Security 
Annex 608.2: Other Agreements 

Exception to Article 603
For only those goods listed below, Mexico may restrict the granting of import and export licenses for the sole purpose of reserving foreign trade in these goods to itself. 


2707.50
 Other aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures of which 65 percent or more by volume (including losses) distills at 250 C by the ASTM D 86 method.

2707.99
 Rubber extender oils, solvent naphtha and carbon black feedstocks only.

2709
 Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude.

2710
 Aviation gasoline; gasoline and motor fuel blending stocks (except aviation gasoline) and reformates when used as motor fuel lending stocks; kerosene; gas oil and diesel oil; petroleum ether; fuel oil; paraffinic oils other than for lubricating purposes; pentanes; carbon black feedstocks; hexanes; heptanes and naphthas.

2711
 Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons other than: ethylene, propylene, butylene and butadiene, in purities over 50 percent.

2712.90
 Only paraffin wax containing by weight more than 0.75 percent of oil, in bulk (Mexico classifies these goods under HS 2712.90.02) and only when imported to be used for further refining.

2713.11
 Petroleum coke not calcined.

2713.20
 Petroleum bitumen (except when used for road surfacing purposes under HS 2713.20.01).

2713.90
 Other residues of petroleum oils or of oils obtained from bituminous minerals.

2714
 Bitumen and asphalt, natural; bituminous or oil shale and tar sands, asphaltites and asphaltic rocks (except when used for road surfacing purposes under HS 2714.90.01).

2901.10
 Ethane, butanes, pentanes, hexanes, and heptanes only. 




Annex 605 
Exception to Article 605
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, the provisions of Article 605 shall not apply as between the other Parties and Mexico. 



Annex 607 
National Security 
1. Article 607 shall impose no obligations and confer no rights on Mexico. 

2. Article 2102 (National Security) shall apply as between Mexico and the other Parties. 



Annex 608.2 
Other Agreements
1. Canada and the United States shall act in accordance with the terms of Annexes 902.5 and 905.2 of the Canada United States Free Trade Agreement, which are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement for such purpose. This paragraph shall impose no obligations and confer no rights on Mexico. 

2. Canada and the United States intend no inconsistency between this Chapter and the Agreement on an International Energy Program (IEP). In the event of any inconsistency between the IEP and this Chapter, the IEP shall prevail as between Canada and the United States to the extent of that inconsistency. 


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


www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/index_e.aspx?DetailID=124


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (31 Mar 2005)

I don't see your idea anywhere there, maybe I'm just not bright enough?

...and I noticed something today, Alberta is now debt-free[or has the money set aside for bills that aren't due yet, collecting interest] from "giving" that oil away.
If you research a little you will find that the reason the oil from Alberta doesn't flow out here past Windsor is it's cheaper and safer to transport it from the ME than pipeline it[with losses/upkeep] all the way from the West.
We are a large country.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Mar 2005)

I'm still waiting for the explanation why the US gets a special deal on Canadian oil, too.  All NAFTA has done is put oil out there as a freely traded commodity.  Recent and continuing increases in demand will continue to push oil prices up, which will tend to increase opportunities for oil extraction in Canada.

>Proportionality favoured the short-term interests of exporting corporations and producing provinces, to the detriment of using Canada's raw resources to make other things, and for long-term energy security for Canadians.

I can see where people go wrong in their reasoning.  They operate from an implied assumption that Canada should extend preferential treatment to itself for the consumption of its own resources, instead of letting those resources be traded freely and forcing Canadians to pay the market prices to obtain the required Canadian "share".  However, not paying free market prices is merely another way of placing in partial servitude those who provide the goods, including the workers in the oil fields.  If you want oil, you have to pay workers to extract and refine it.  So, you go to them and explain why their wages are to be set artificially low for the good of Canadians.  In fact, I would prefer that unionized public service employees with low risks of industrial injury, who work in comfortable climate-controlled offices year round, who enjoy excellent pay and benefits and generally enviable job security, explain one-to-one and face-to-face to oil industry workers why the latter must settle for less and continue to contribute taxes which provide the public service revenue stream.

There is also "what is unseen" - that in seizing long-term energy security, we might have to compromise long-term overall economic security at the hands of trading partners who can reciprocate with other commodities.

No offence, but the word "fools" is not too strong for protectionists.


----------



## daniel h. (31 Mar 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I know I am not the sharpest bit on the oil rig, but I didn't read anything about being required to sell oil to the US at below market rates?
> 
> As for slandering, you sir, are way off target!   It is you who came on the site flailing around with you vast right wing american conspiracies, I am still waiting for my cheap oil from the middle east let alone central alberta!   Get a grip.........




No offence intended, but how is it a conspiracy? Our oil is over 60% foreign-owned. No other developed country allows that. Norway has the highest standard of living in the world, stayed out of the E.U., and we don't even get oil royalties, according to David Orchard, another guy some love to hate. I'll try to find documentation of that.

Alberta would have much more for themselves and Canada if we charged a royalty.


----------



## daniel h. (1 Apr 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I'm still waiting for the explanation why the US gets a special deal on Canadian oil, too.   All NAFTA has done is put oil out there as a freely traded commodity.   Recent and continuing increases in demand will continue to push oil prices up, which will tend to increase opportunities for oil extraction in Canada.
> 
> >Proportionality favoured the short-term interests of exporting corporations and producing provinces, to the detriment of using Canada's raw resources to make other things, and for long-term energy security for Canadians.
> 
> ...






But protectionism does help most of the population in many people's view. I think NAFTA is working perfectly for those who created it. It created a North American energy market--that is, America gets Canada's oil, Canada gets.....nothing we need from America. We can buy oranges from other countries. 


Oh yeah, forgot to ask, does that make the United States a bunch of fools? They are very protectionist--well under 10% foreign ownership and very supportive of their industries.....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Apr 2005)

Quote,
America gets Canada's oil, Canada gets.....nothing 

....yea, money is nothing, I guess.
I just went through your posts and see that out of 54 almost everyone is in the "political" section and contains some dig at the US. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable at some other more political based website, cause a whole lot of people smarter than I are tearing all your "arguments" to shreds and still you come back bloodied and offer .....nothing.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Apr 2005)

>But protectionism does help most of the population in many people's view.

In my view, many people are innumerate, misinformed, and underinformed.

faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof

There's a lot of faith in Canada, but surprisingly much of it is not in the realm of what we conventionally think of as religion.


----------



## daniel h. (1 Apr 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> America gets Canada's oil, Canada gets.....nothing
> 
> ....yea, money is nothing, I guess.
> I just went through your posts and see that out of 54 almost everyone is in the "political" section and contains some dig at the US. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable at some other more political based website, cause a whole lot of people smarter than I are tearing all your "arguments" to shreds and still you come back bloodied and offer .....nothing.




I'd be banned if I told you what I thought of the political arguments on this web site. Glad you cared enough to look, but I thihnk too much time in U.S. formations really does things to people. Canadian nationalism will eventually prevail. We will not be defeated.


----------



## TCBF (1 Apr 2005)

" Canadian nationalism will eventually prevail. We will not be defeated."

Not by others we won't, but by ourselves.  We are rapidly pissing away our democratic heritage and emerging as the world's first sub-arctic banana republic.  Nationalism should be built on a common set of values and history created by a people who have endured together.  Hard to do when the world has been  deemed to have been created when Pearson and Gordon brought us medicare.  The minister of finance at the time, a businessman named Hellyer said it was a bad plan - "inflationary" - but who needs to listen to people with real life experience in meeting a payroll when dogma rules?

So what happens when the consumers outnumber the producers?  Maybe we can load up on CP Ships and sail away to another Stalinist paradise.  Don't try and talk to the crew, they don't speak English or French.

Tom


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Apr 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I use to live in Alberta and as far as I understand Alberta has had a royalty on oil for a very long time isn't the account called the trust fund?



Sherwood!!! Where the hell have you been!! PM me.


BTW, Alberta just declared themselves (the only province) debt free yesterday. Good on them!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Apr 2005)

Quote,
_Canadian nationalism will eventually prevail. We will not be defeated._

I'm just curious how you think that the ex-soldiers, soldiers and wish to be soldiers are not as "national" as you are.
Its not like they are working for, say a clothes company that started in Canada then moved its HQ to Vermont and uses cheaper labour in India to make those clothes.
Now that would just be wrong. Wouldn't it.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Apr 2005)

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/oil.html

I have long been interested in alternative  energy particularly the tar sands in alberta and oil shale in the US.

http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/shale/shale.asp


----------



## daniel h. (2 Apr 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> " Canadian nationalism will eventually prevail. We will not be defeated."
> 
> Not by others we won't, but by ourselves.   We are rapidly pissing away our democratic heritage and emerging as the world's first sub-arctic banana republic.   Nationalism should be built on a common set of values and history created by a people who have endured together.   Hard to do when the world has been   deemed to have been created when Pearson and Gordon brought us medicare.   The minister of finance at the time, a businessman named Hellyer said it was a bad plan - "inflationary" - but who needs to listen to people with real life experience in meeting a payroll when dogma rules?
> 
> ...




What's wrong with being optimistic. It's true most countries have some private health care delivery, but if Mulroney and Chretien hadn't downloaded onto the provinces due to the private debt-based economic system, we'd be fine.

It's English Canadians whose culture has been water-down, not French Canadians, because Americans speak English and have seduced our leaders into adopting economic and cultural liberalism in the true, libertarian laissez-faire sense of the word. We need to defend ourselves. No French-Canadians will do it for us apparently.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Apr 2005)

If you haven't realized it yet, no one is listening to you....


----------



## Zipper (2 Apr 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/oil.html
> 
> I have long been interested in alternative   energy particularly the tar sands in Alberta and oil shale in the US.
> 
> http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/shale/shale.asp



Confused. Neither of these are "alternative" energies. There just regular 'ol oil tied up in a different medium.

So with the price of a barrel of oil climbing rapidly towards 60 dollars, how is that going to affact the whole security issue? Should we and the States be looking at things like Hydrogen and Methanol (?) more closely and expanding the support services for these energies?

Oh, and don't get me started on Alberta and its "debt free" status. Now all they have to do is improve their standard of living and lower their pollution (1st amoung provinces) to that which reflects the fact that they are the 2nd richest provence in Canada. Maybe they will, maybe they won't.


----------



## mdh (2 Apr 2005)

> It's English Canadians whose culture has been water-down, not French Canadians, because Americans speak English and have seduced our leaders into adopting economic and cultural liberalism in the true, libertarian laissez-faire sense of the word.



It's true that English Canada has been "watered down" but not because of the wicked seductions of America. We English Canadians have done it to ourselves by buying into the federal game of placating Quebec nationalism at any price.

Since the accession of Trudeau we have supported a series of policies that have been little more than cultural vandalism (where the very word Dominion was erased, the Armed Forces sacked, the diplomatic corps reduced to a grim joke, the primacy of parliaments eroded in favour of judicial fiat, etc, etc) and we have done so with increasing abandon. 

In a sense, English Canada has been orphaned (lobotomized?) by the collapse of the British Empire and since the end of WW2 we've adopted what Levesque once described as a "bicultural, bilingual monstrosity" in its place where the ersatz values of the state have supplanted the old verities of King and Country. 

That may be a good thing in some ways. Perhaps national unity should be the overriding ideal that trumps everything else. It's one of the reasons why the Liberal Party descended into corruption in Quebec.   As Chretien said what's a few million to save the country? But meantime we English Canadians have lost our history in the pursuit of false Gods promising Compassion on Earth and National Unity in Our Time. 

We now think of ourselves as a little more than a giant hospital ward where the murder and torture of an innocent citizen in Iran counts for nothing beside the true atrocity of waiting for a hip replacement. We get saturation media coverage of the latter and a one day wonder for the former (even with the revelation that Ottawa continued to play footsy with Iranian officials while supposedly denouncing the regime in public.)

I think Peter Brimelow (whose book on Canadian federalism, _The Patriot Game_, is considered by the chattering classes as the political equivalent of Alister Crawley's book on Satanism) once said it best - that Canadian nationalism - as defined by the liberal-left in this country - was one of the great "toad stools of history" - and considering the results of the past 30 years it's hard not to agree.

rant out,

cheers, all, mdh


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2005)

Well spoken mdh!

As for the post on liberalism, libertarian, and  laissez-faire, I would suggest you get a good quality dictionary or encyclopedia, as the true meaning of these words is at varience to most of what we see done here in Canada. (Hint, look up Socialism. You might want to look at related concepts like Bolshevikism and "National Socialism" at the same time to see which way that road leads)


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2005)

Like BMD, these technologies are evolving, just more slowly than we might like, and certainly not fast enough to make a huge dent in oil consumption in the next five years.

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/04/issue/forward_gas.asp?p=0



> *Gas-Guzzling Hybrids*
> By David Talbot April 2005
> 
> In December, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler showed off the technology at the heart of their recently  ­announced hybrid-car partnership. The companies said that the contraptionâ â€a transmission packaged with two electric motorsâ â€would be in vehicles for sale in 2007, boosting their fuel economy by 25 percent. GM's announcement claimed it would â Å“advance the state of hybrid technology in the industry.â ? *But the system will, in the end, produce an SUV that averages about 20 miles per gallon instead of 16;* the Toyota Prius hybrid averages 55.
> ...


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Apr 2005)

From the Financial Times

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a3b6a0c2-a792-11d9-9744-00000e2511c8.html




> IMF warns on risk of 'permanent oil shock'
> By Javier Blas in London
> Published: April 7 2005 20:02 | Last updated: April 7 2005 20:02
> 
> ...


----------



## Zipper (15 Apr 2005)

By the looks of it, I'd say 55$ is even a little low. Its scary how fast it is going up these days.

I think a hybrid is the next pick as far as cars go.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Apr 2005)

A bit more perspective as to what is happening in the outside world




> What to Do About the Gas â Å“Crisisâ ?
> Maybe nothing.
> 
> By Jerry Taylor & Peter Van Doren
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 May 2005)

> *Energy Outage*
> The president and a misbegotten bill.
> 
> President Bush said the other day that he wishes he could wave a magic wand and make gas prices go down. That sounds like a plan that would almost be as effective as his misbegotten, long-languishing energy bill. Bush relentlessly touts the legislation as a potential salve for high gas prices, but it won't be, because it runs afoul of a force with which Bush should be familiar â â€ the free market.
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 May 2005)

Gas prices in the US ARE related to lack of new refineries. The environmental lobby has blocked the construction of new refineries as well as new nuclear power plants. The problem of the basing for refineries program is that few of these bases are located near a port. All the more reason to accelerate oil shale extraction in Colorado.


----------



## Zipper (3 May 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Gas prices in the US ARE related to lack of new refineries. The environmental lobby has blocked the construction of new refineries as well as new nuclear power plants. The problem of the basing for refineries program is that few of these bases are located near a port. All the more reason to accelerate oil shale extraction in Colorado.



Isn't Bushie boy planning on building refineries on newly closed military bases? Keep those jobs in town and all?


----------



## a_majoor (27 May 2005)

Too bad so many people do not understand economics, otherwise claimes like the ones raised in this article (and other places, like right here in Ontario, where corm based ethanol is being added to gasoline by law; despite the fact it takes 5 units of energy to produce 4 units of ethanol energy [that is the most optomistic estimate BTW]).

What is interesting is the suggestion that the dramatic reduction of oil consumption by the US (by whatever means) woudl actually help potential competators such as China and India, who could use the cheap oil to expand their economic and military muscle. Obviously, this topic has many unexpected ramifications.



> *Alternative-Fuel Nonsense*
> Forcing the U.S. to import less oil would only hurt Americans.
> 
> By Alan Reynolds
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 May 2005)

VDH on energy (also in the National Post)



> *Energy Compromises?*
> by Victor Davis Hanson
> Private Papers
> 
> ...


----------



## Zipper (27 May 2005)

Good article Majoor.

I completely agree that there needs to be more balanced view from both sides on this issue, and that the "nuclear" fear that is garnered (by the left) is just keeping a lot of wasteful dirty/environmentally impactive power plants open that need not be. While on the other side (right), their must be greater acceptance of alternative powers and investment in such so as to take the place of not only the older types of power generation, but to also replace the nuclear stations that are aging and cost more to refurbish then to replace with the newer technologies.

Alberta is a great example of this. It is fairly dependant on coal and natural gas to fuel its power stations. One nuclear station in central Alberta could supply the whole Provence. As well Alberta has one of the highest wind levels and sun intensities in the world, so to increase the efficiencies of wind and solar generation would allow much more of the oil/coal/natural gas to be sold worldwide for other things. 

All that and a better environment? Cool.


----------



## loyalcana (28 May 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Good article Majoor.
> 
> I completely agree that there needs to be more balanced view from both sides on this issue, and that the "nuclear" fear that is garnered (by the left) is just keeping a lot of wasteful dirty/environmentally impactive power plants open that need not be. While on the other side (right), their must be greater acceptance of alternative powers and investment in such so as to take the place of not only the older types of power generation, but to also replace the nuclear stations that are aging and cost more to refurbish then to replace with the newer technologies.
> 
> ...



The problems facing nuclear power has never been pressure faced by enviormental groups but by the high operating cost of running the plant. A single nuclear power plant will only be able to produce enough power to supply enough power to supply about 2-3 industrial parks.


----------



## daniel h. (28 May 2005)

Will said:
			
		

> The problems facing nuclear power has never been pressure faced by enviormental groups but by the high operating cost of running the plant. A single nuclear power plant will only be able to produce enough power to supply enough power to supply about 2-3 industrial parks.



The new-generation CANDUs are  like the difference between a 1971 car and a 2005 car.....startup cost is high, at around 1 billion a reactor, but after that they are much cheaper than coal on a per kilowatt hour basis.


----------



## a_majoor (28 May 2005)

Nuclear power may well be the way to go, here are some articles archived in "Wired" magazine:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear_pr.html

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html

And another system called OTEC:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/craven.html

The real key is to have a wide range of systems to choose from.


----------



## muskrat89 (28 May 2005)

> A single nuclear power plant will only be able to produce enough power to supply enough power to supply about 2-3 industrial parks.



That's funny.. I have one near me (not a CANDU) - seems like it generates a little more than 3 Industrial Parks' worth...

# In 2000 the Palo Verde nuclear plant generated 30.4 million megawatts of power.
# About 4 million people in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas receive power generated by the Palo Verde plant.
# Palo Verde is the only nuclear energy facility in the world that uses treated sewage effluence for cooling water.
# Palo Verde does not use fossil fuels to generate electricity. It is a zero-emissions facility.

Granted, it is the largest nuclear facility in the US, and not typical, but it certainly counters the generalization that you made, above.


----------



## loyalcana (29 May 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> That's funny.. I have one near me (not a CANDU) - seems like it generates a little more than 3 Industrial Parks' worth...
> 
> # In 2000 the Palo Verde nuclear plant generated 30.4 million megawatts of power.
> # About 4 million people in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas receive power generated by the Palo Verde plant.
> ...



Sorry I got some of my data wrong but Alberta does however consume 50 million megawatt hours per year so even the Palo Verde nuclear reactors would not be able to take the demand, not to mention that most new reactors in the world are now built in the 1000 MWe range and not the 3800 MWe of Palo Verde.


----------



## Zipper (29 May 2005)

Will said:
			
		

> Sorry I got some of my data wrong but Alberta does however consume 50 million megawatt hours per year so even the Palo Verde nuclear reactors would not be able to take the demand, not to mention that most new reactors in the world are now built in the 1000 MWe range and not the 3800 MWe of Palo Verde.



Ok I too got my figures wrong. But even 1 nuclear plant in combination with wind and solar plants, with the idea of replacing the nuclear plant down the road would be better then the crazy number of coal and natural gas plants in operation (because their cheap?) now. 

I mean whoever heard of (here in Edmonton) of building your coal generation plants upwind (prevailing wind) of your major cities? Sheesh!!


----------



## George Wallace (29 May 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> I mean whoever heard of (here in Edmonton) of building your coal generation plants upwind (prevailing wind) of your major cities? Sheesh!!



Have you ever visited Ottawa?  It's major Garbage Dump (the Carp Mountain) is upwind.  It must be a Canadianism.


----------



## GO!!! (29 May 2005)

I have heard rumours of the fuel cell technology that is being developed at RMC, which generates electricity by combining water with a special type of membrane - 0 emissions, extremely low cost and nearly ready for sale.

Anyone with more info on this exciting development?


----------



## Acorn (29 May 2005)

It's (was) under development at Ballard. As far as I know, from a former Ballard employee, they couldn't produce the fuel cell for cars that they were working on for Daimler Chrysler, so they lost that contract, and most of their R&D funding outside of Government (CF) funding. It was advertised as "nearly ready for sale" a few years ago, but I haven't seen anything new to indicate that it's gone any further.

Acorn


----------



## a_majoor (29 May 2005)

PEM fuel cells like the ones Ballard was working on need pure hydrogen gas as a feed, and oxygen from the air to operate. PEM fuel cells also require a lot of platinum to catalyse the reaction, so the basic fuel cell stack is very expensive.

The real killer right now is the need for pure hydrogen. There are no commercial H2 stations where you can fill up, and hydrogen is very tricky to store, needing insanely pressurized fuel tanks, or Dewars chilled to @ -200 C to be stored in liquid form. Other storage media hold a very small volume of H2 per unit of mass.

Getting the hydrogen is also a problem, since it takes a lot of energy (usually from coal fired plants) to electrolyse it from water, other schemes for decomposing hydrocarbon fuels like natural gas, methanol or gasoline require an energy hungry "reformulator". If any impurities from the hydrocarbon feedstock get into the PEM stack, it poisions the catalyst and renders the stack useless.

There are other types of fuel cells out there, and some are advertized as being able to use natural gas or methanol directly, but generally these sorts of fuel cells have lower conversion efficiency and are not as well developed as the PEM fuel cell (which has been refined since the first NASA missions in the 1960s, where cost was no object and fuel cells provided power for Apollo and Space Shuttle missions).

For military missions, a fuel reformulator and PEM fuelcell stack connected to electric motors would provide about a 30-50% increase in fuel economy (although I don't know of any groups working on a diesel reformulator), which makes this worth studying regardless of the negative points raised above. Civvies would't pay the huge cost premium for their vehicles, but they don't have to bulk ship fuel across the planet either.


----------



## GO!!! (29 May 2005)

I was led to believe that the fuel cell in development at RMC right now is not reliant upon an outside source of power. 

That is - add water to the membranes, and electric current is produced - period.

The problems revolved around shrinking the technology enough and making it portable. 

I was'nt referring to the Ballard fuel cell.

My contact could have been misinformed though...


----------



## George Wallace (29 May 2005)

Anyone old enough to remember the 60's?  There was a High School kid who developed a battery that ran on sugar and water.  I believe the big car companies bought out his patent right away quick to keep it from further development.  I always wonder what ever truly happened to it.


----------



## Zipper (30 May 2005)

I remember hearing about that GW. Good question. I wonder if there is any info running around about that?

As for the Ballard fuel cell. I remember that Chrysler pull out (damn them), as my shares in Ballard tanked right after.  :threat:

Grumble...


----------



## a_majoor (30 May 2005)

I didn't find anything on the RMC web site to indicate any water based fuel cell, but in straight physics terms it is impossible anyway; water (H2O) is already reacted. The energetic reaction of Hydrogen and Oxygen is what powers both the Ballard Fuel cell and the Space Shuttle, water is the exhaust product at the end. The only difference is the Space Shuttle is running its reaction thousands of times faster than the PEM fuel cell, producing heat and water, while the fuel cell stack mixes tiny quantities of hydrogen and oxygen, producing heat and water.....

Hydrogen and Oxygen is about the most powerful chemical reaction possible, some "tweaking" is possible by burning exotic elements like Boron in the mix, or cheating by using liquid Ozone (O3) or liquid Flourine (F2), but these produce toxic byproducts like Hydroflouric acid, and large quantities of O3 tend to spontaniously decompose into O2 in an exothermic reaction (i.e it explodes). Clearly, hydrocarbon fuels like kerosene, while more stable, don't produce as much energy, and sugar, which is mostly carbon, has about as much energy as charcoal (Try stuffing a tube full of marshmellows and igniting the end: it isn't going to take off like a rocket). The thermal energy of materials is a fairly good indication of how much energy is available in _any_ sort of chemical reaction.

Chrysler and the other auto makers are backing away from fuel cells for most of the reasons given in my previous post: you can't pull into a local "HydroCan" station and fill up with hydrogen, and extracting the hydrogen from fuels like gasoline requires a very complex "reformulator" in the car, along with the fuel cell stack. Cost wise, this is a non starter for the average car driver, but for a CF trucker or LAV crew in a place like Dafur, where PetroCans are also scarce, this still offers certain advantages.


----------



## Acorn (31 May 2005)

The Ballard cell system I'm thinking of relied on some form of membrane and reactant that was supposed to create the hydrogen needed to power an auto engine - as a_majoor says, water was the exhaust. Not sure what the fuel was. It didn't work. I wasn't aware that it was an RMC project.

My ex-Ballard contact was really enthusiastic about the prospects - silent generators, for example (though he was thinking on the "quiet campsite" line). He was pretty bitter when the project folded. Maybe some of it migrated to RMC - my info is 5-10 years old.


----------



## Zipper (31 May 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Chrysler and the other auto makers are backing away from fuel cells for most of the reasons given in my previous post: you can't pull into a local "HydroCan" station and fill up with hydrogen, and extracting the hydrogen from fuels like gasoline requires a very complex "reformulator" in the car, along with the fuel cell stack. Cost wise, this is a non starter for the average car driver, but for a CF trucker or LAV crew in a place like Dafur, where PetroCans are also scarce, this still offers certain advantages.



And this is why we (North America) are going to be on the losing end of this technological battle. It won't be long before Iceland is the worlds first hydrogen based economy, with Sweden and probably Japan not far behind. 

Non-starter from who's point of view? The N.American auto industry? The Oil and Gas industry? Its more a question of will then of dollars and cents. We could do it if we dropped the money into the R&D now. Problem is it would cut into the above mentioned bottom lines.


----------



## Spr.Earl (31 May 2005)

We export close on 30% of the U.S.'s needs never mind our own needs and other exports.
We have enough fuel and gas to survive,but whay get's up my craw why do we have to pay World Prices for own gas.


----------



## Acorn (31 May 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Non-starter from who's point of view? The N.American auto industry? The Oil and Gas industry? Its more a question of will then of dollars and cents. We could do it if we dropped the money into the R&D now. Problem is it would cut into the above mentioned bottom lines.



It's an economic non-starter. Hydrogen is still way more expensive to produce (refine) per Km driven than any fossil fuel. Same applies to electrical generation - hell, some stations still use coal.

The R&D is being done. It just hasn't reached the economic critical mass yet. Look at the hybrid cars - would you pay $5k more for a car that you have to change the engine (battery) every 5 years for an additional $3k when you can get a car that will last for decades before needing an engine rebuild (assuming decent preventative maint procedures)?

Acorn


----------



## a_majoor (31 May 2005)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> We export close on 30% of the U.S.'s needs never mind our own needs and other exports.
> We have enough fuel and gas to survive,but whay get's up my craw why do we have to pay World Prices for own gas.



Let me try an analogy. You see Tim Horton's charges $2.00 for a medium coffee and a donut, since they are an international company (owned by Wendy's), but due to my ruleing as Emperor of The Great White North, you can only charge $1.23 for the same product, even though the price of the coffee beans and raw donut dough (or whatever they are made of) is the same. Would you even consider getting into the coffee & donut business under those circumstances?


----------



## Long in the tooth (31 May 2005)

I believe the federal government tried to enforce a 'made in Canada' price for oil in the 70s and 80s.  This was Marc Lalonde's National Energy Plan.  Peter Lougheed fought that and won over the long haul, which is why Alberta is the richest province, because they don't have to share the wealth of natural resources when equalization is calculated.

Canada is no more than a collection of present day fiefdoms vying for more out of the central government than they contribute to it.  Like a perpetual motion machine, it can't happen.


----------



## a_majoor (31 May 2005)

Even if we were to resurrect the NEP through the Kyoto accord or other means, we would still end up paying a price. The artificial supression of fuel prices will drive up demand, while at the same time limiting the supply as producers get out of the game. Cheap gas will be rationed, or a black market will develop (only well connected Liberals will be able to drive, take an airplane etc.)


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jun 2005)

> High Pump-Price Fairy Tales
> Blame global supply-and-demand realities â â€ not the enviro-whackos.
> 
> By Jerry Taylor & Peter Van Doren
> ...


----------



## Long in the tooth (5 Jun 2005)

So at what price point will demand be reduced?  It seems that in the case of gas, demand is almost inelastic - after purchasing a vehicle, paying over $5 per day for insurance, driving is still a bargain.  In my case, with three kids, public transit is not an option, just an illusion the loonie left (Nick? Nick? You there?) trots out to justify higher taxes.  

Taking my family 7km downtown on the bus costs $20.  I'll take the van, thanks.

Right now Manitoba has a comparative advantage as our electricity is cheaper than the rest of Canada.  Our Premier wants to build a transmission network to sell power to Ontario and the Ohio valley.  Once we start to sell power our prices will rise to North American levels and MB will lose.  It is unclear how NAFTA will affect that, but you can bet that the US will put a case forward that resources should be sold to the highest bidder.

The only thing that stops the US draining the great lakes dry are the US Governors that sit on the Great Lakes Commission.  You sure as heck know the Americans give two cents to what our premiers want.  The Governor of N. Dakota is pressing to have the cess pool called Devils Lake flow through the Red River into Hudson's bay.  He's quick to cite 'American' and 'US State' studies to hasten this, and hardly mentions that it's just gotten to the Great Lake's committee stage.

I'm not a fan of Mel (Hurtig) or Maude (Barlowe), but when it comes to our resources and the US, be very afraid.  They are great at playing the provinces and federal governments off against one another, always to their benefit.  Oil, gas, electricity and water?  Step right up, we'll expedite that!  Free trade go go go!  When it comes to our value added finished products like furniture, cars, aircraft, sugar, wheat or potatoes, it's a protectionist bully second to none in the world.

I've heard many Canadians say we should link trade of our finished products to that of raw materials.  Alberta won't go for it.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Jun 2005)

And yet Canada is still able to generate 80% of its trade with the US - 20% with the rest of the world.


----------



## Zipper (5 Jun 2005)

That because Alberta sells very little beyond raw materials and so does not wish to be limited or penalized in any fashion. Hurt the rest of the country? Yes. But who cares beyond the borders of your own power base eh?

As for 80% trade with the US. Maybe we should diversify that some and not be so tied to the US.



> Taking my family 7km downtown on the bus costs $20.  I'll take the van, thanks.



Ok this confuses me? 20 dollars? How much are they charging you for a ride? And are the buses not transferable at intersections? Something is wrong there. I can get from one end of the city to the next with the same number of people for much less in Toronto, and even Vancouver (across water even). So they must be conducting some form of highway robbery.

As for mass transit. I think the whole idea behind it is for larger cities to reduce traffic congestion and mover larger amounts of people with more efficiency. Of course this requires a larger city to work properly, which many cities in Canada do not qualify as. There are many other things that go into this, but its rather to long to list.


----------



## GO!!! (5 Jun 2005)

Ill second the statement about the cost of public transit in the west, having lived all over it. It is cheaper to drive with a family.

Tomahawk6's statement about Canada generating 80% of it's trade witht the US is correct, thanks to the provisions in NAFTA and GATT before it, which tied us more closely (in economic terms) to the US. This was a great idea when the tories concieved and actioned it, but with the US federal deficit growing beyond anyone's expectations and a major US economic correction on the horizon, Canada should really be developing other markets.

As for Alberta not selling much beyond raw materials, nice try, 68% of the petroleum that leaves AB is refined, despite the best efforts of the federal government to prevent the building of upgraders and refineries. Alberta should not be letting it's primary industries be tied to those of the east, as they are exempt from things like the Kyoto accord, and vigorously subsidized by the federal government in order to protect the FEDERAL power base! If the NEP as Trudeau had envisioned it had not been snuffed out by such western heroes as Peter Lougheed, Alberta would be producing the same amount of oil it does today, but would rely on transfer payments to survive as all of the benefit (money) would be sent to Ontario and Quebec. 

In addition to this, comments about Alberta's wealth are misplaced in the area of natural resources. The average Albertan works 55hrs a week, the average Quebecker 37hrs and the average Ontarian 41. Might this have something to do with proportionate provincial wealth?


----------



## squealiox (5 Jun 2005)

The subject of this thread is exactly backward in the case of Canada, which is a net exporter of oil. Our problem is the fact we are tied too closely to a single foreign economy, the US. That is like holding a stock portfolio that consists of only one blue chip stock -- OK when it's earning a return, but not so clever when that stock moving downward. In fact it would probably be a firing offence if you were a fund manager.
Instead, we need to diversity our "portfolio" of export markets. That means aggressively pursuing trade deals outside of NAFTA, particularly throughout the Pacific region, and taking the initiative in the WTO. Only then could we ensure that we would be consistently selling our resources to the highest bidder, rather than simply the nearest.


----------



## GO!!! (5 Jun 2005)

The problem with this (diversification of markets) is that it is difficult to identify other international markets when presently, the US is the highest bidder. Only when the US loses the ablity to pay will diversification occur. 

Having said this, the US imports 80% (give or take) of our export goods. We only absorb 15% of theirs. We need them at present far more than they need us. Thus any nationalistic tendencies towards diversifications will fail, as they can do irreperable harm to certain industries (beef, softwood lumber) with little or no repercussions for themselves. 

Pacific rim market opportunities will only rise in the forseeable future, as their economies beome more diversified and industrially based. However, as this happens, the possiblility of the US pursuing an agreement on the export of Canadian energy under the aegis of a collective security arrangement becomes more possible. At the risk of sounding too alarmist, our great neighbor to the south regards the deprivation of petroleum markets as an act of war. This will become an issue now that world petroleum production has peaked. Saudi Aramco tapped it's last known resources at the end of March, putting world production at 100% of capacity.

The combined might of the WTO, NAFTA and the IMF will not protect us from further US exploitation.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jun 2005)

China is busy buying oil and into Alberta oil companies (as well as coal, lumber, minerals and other Canadian resources), which gives us a very interesting situation, do we sell to the highest bidder (as economic theory teaches) or should we also tie our sales to larger geopolitical imperatives (China is hardly a friendly power).

That said, there is an entire world of customers out there, but the fault isn't in them, it is in our industries which would rather shelter under the Liberal skirt hems for concessions and hand-outs rather than agressively persuing markets in India, Lebanon, or dozens of other nations (Why are the only Canadian companies you see in our "peacekeeping" AORs Atco Frontec and it's satellites? You'd think we have built up a positive reputation in those places).

If companies in Canada and the US are content to just pick the low hanging fruit, that is hardly exploitation. Indeed, if you own a mutual fund or any other investment with the exception of local real estate, you would be screaming blue murder or dumping the fund if they didn't attempt to get the best return for the least cost. 

Back to the first principle of this post; given the need for oil in the US and western economies, we should be in the catbird seat, since we are sitting on a trillion barrels of the stuff, and it is only hours away from the largest market on earth. Why should we NOT take advantage of this situation?


----------



## GO!!! (5 Jun 2005)

We should take advantage of this situation - but we should do it with our eyes open;

1. The US does not "need" us or our oil, we provide a drop in the proverbial bucket.

2. The oilsands are the most expensive oil fields on the planet to exploit, and we burn natural gas in order to extract the bitumen from the sand - gas is going up in price as well, as demand increases.

3. Not selling shares of companies to investors because they hail from an "unfriendly" nation is what makes international investors leery in the first place. We should be selling to the highest bidder - period. Selective sales only drive the price of the item down.

4. The reason you only see companies like Atco in PK AORs is that Canadian companies are prohibited from carrying out profitable actions in those countries by Canadian law. Look what happened in Sudan with Talisman Energy! They were profitable, but the feds did'nt like it, due to the half - assed reporting of a few obscure human rights groups with very vested interests.

5. The handouts that Cdn companies get are to offset the damage caused by such insanity as the Kyoto Accord and the Clean Air Act, which do nothing but harm our industrial base. - They only go for the low hanging fruit because the unions would prohibit the use of a ladder!


----------



## clasper (6 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Saudi Aramco tapped it's last known resources at the end of March, putting world production at 100% of capacity.



That's an amazingly ridiculous statement.   There's exploration going on all over the world (including in Saudi Arabia).   If world production is at 100% capacity, how did we manage to produce more oil today than we did yesterday, and more oil this month than last month?   Rightly or wrongly, this trend will continue for some time.



> Look what happened in Sudan with Talisman Energy! They were profitable, but the feds did'nt like it, due to the half - assed reporting of a few obscure human rights groups with very vested interests.



Economically propping up a genocidal government isn't so bad, but those Ottawa bureaucrats are truly evil- they want to stop Alberta companies from becoming profitable!

edit: I thought that last statement was sufficiently over the top that I didn't need to point out its sarcastic nature, but Zipper has asked for a clarification.  Actually, I believe that Ottawa bureaucrats are in fact less evil than genocidal governments.


----------



## Zipper (6 Jun 2005)

I'm going to have to question you on 3,4, and 5.

So your saying that we should sell to the highest bidder period without any other considerations period? Isn't that something akin to dealing with the devil without our eyes open?

And as for Talisman in Sudan? So they should be allowed to go about there business regardless of who their funding and where those funds are going? If cases like that were allowed, we would still have apartheid in South Africa. 

Clasper, I hope you meant the "not so bad genocidal" comment as a sarcasm? Sheesh  :

And number 5. So we shouldn't have any sort of environmental protection at all? Just let business run ram shod over all? How about getting rid of all the labour laws as well? 

I agree that we should be doing more business with countries in the pacific rim as well as else where, but we should also do it with our eyes open and our values intact.

As for my comments about most of Alberta's resources leaving as such. Yes they are refined, processed and what not, but they rarely leave if ever as a finished product. Ie. Oil does leave as gas, but it rarely leaves as say a finished plastic product. Wood doesn't leave as furnature but as lumber. etc... Thus we supply other industries outside with their raw materials.


----------



## GO!!! (6 Jun 2005)

clasper said:
			
		

> That's an amazingly ridiculous statement.   There's exploration going on all over the world (including in Saudi Arabia).   If world production is at 100% capacity, how did we manage to produce more oil today than we did yesterday, and more oil this month than last month?   Rightly or wrongly, this trend will continue for some time.



Clasper

World production capacity is not a measure of how much oil there is in the ground, it is a measure of how well we are exploiting the oil that we have already discovered, and the percentage of active wells we have producing at 100% capacity. As the world is considered by most exploration experts to be approximately 98.7% surveyed for oil and gas reserves, this is not an "amazingly ridiculous statement" it is a fact, agreed upon by all of the major oil companies and geological scholars. A quick peruse of the Economist's last two editions will clue you in.

As world oil refining capacity is finite, this is also an issue, as no new refineries are being built in North America due to the powerful environmental lobby.

As to your question about how "we produced more oil than yesterday". We (as a global economy) were not operating at 100% capacity a month ago. Now we are. Please familiarise yourself with some of the terms I am using before referring to them as "ridiculous".

As to your statement about propping up genocidal governments, we do it accross the Middle East, in all of the oil producing nations, we bought Iraqi oil two  years ago and we buy Iranian oil now. We buy oil from Hugo Chavez (venezuela) and have troops at a logisitcal base in Tashkent, Tajikistan, where the president is busy killing and jailing all his political rivals. We maintain friendly relations with Syria, Jordan and Morocco, all of whom have massacred dissident ethnic groups in the last twenty years. Why was Sudan so different, and why was only Talisman forced out? If the Sudanese government was so "genocidal" why did the Canadian government just give it 170 million $ to help "develop" the country, but no troops to ensure it was used properly?

Zipper,
     If we choose to embrace global free trade we are OBLIGATED by treaty to sell to the highest bidder. Taking a lead in the WTO will cement this. Or we can pursue nationalisation of resources and face impoverishing ourselves.

We should have environmental protection, but the Kyoto accord only gurantees that our industries will send money abroad, making us less competitive, and our goods more expensive. 

As fr getting rid of labour law, not getting rid of it, maybe just reign it in a little. When 35$/hr unskilled auto assemblers in Windsor strike for even better wages and benefits, and ford shuts down and moves the plant to Mexico, everyone loses. Most rational people would agree that big unions have become too powerful.

We do supply other industries with resources, but because these are far more marketable, and easier to sell as such. In addition to this, the unions and environmental regs fight the creation of most manufacturing plants and jobs, and thus make it more profitable to assemble elsewhere. In addition to this, there is not enough manufacturing capbility in Canada to finish all of the raw materials harvested in Alberta alone, so it is really a moot point.


----------



## Acorn (6 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> We maintain friendly relations with Syria, Jordan and Morocco, all of whom have massacred dissident ethnic groups in the last twenty years.



Friendly relations with Syria?

Also, what massacres are you speaking of? Hama in Syria? Jordan??

Acorn


----------



## Zipper (7 Jun 2005)

There have been many "massacres" in many of the countries we have dealt with. But to ignore them for the purposes of making money and being "competitive" is wrong whatever way you choose to look at it. Although does it happen? Yes.

Kyoto if handled properly would not make us less competitive. It would in fact make us go down the alternative/more efficient energy use (wind, solar, ethanol, hydrogen, etc.) route faster and enable us to be world leaders in such and thus more competitive. This of course would mean that we would actually be doing it properly (such as giving homeowners more incentives to better insulate their homes and become energy efficient). As for what that Liberal's are doing? I just shake my head and get a cold feeling down my spine.

Labour laws being reigned in? Maybe. Unions certainly need to be. They have become themselves the monsters that they once fought against. Although I certainly would love to see a union in wallmart if anywhere.

As for resources going elsewhere. I agree. moot.


----------



## clasper (7 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Clasper
> 
> World production capacity is not a measure of how much oil there is in the ground, it is a measure of how well we are exploiting the oil that we have already discovered, and the percentage of active wells we have producing at 100% capacity. As the world is considered by most exploration experts to be approximately 98.7% surveyed for oil and gas reserves, this is not an "amazingly ridiculous statement" it is a fact, agreed upon by all of the major oil companies and geological scholars. A quick peruse of the Economist's last two editions will clue you in.


98.7% is an awfully precise approximation, and it's total hogwash, unless you count the most cursory look as a survey.  Why do you think American politicians are dying to start drilling in ANWR, off the coasts of Florida, Virginia, etc.?  Because they're sedimentary basins which have not been explored yet.  They may have been "surveyed", but we still don't have a good idea how much oil and gas there might be in those areas (if any at all).

Major oil companies and geological scholars rarely agree on anything.  I highly doubt they agree on your assertion that we've reached peak production.  I'd be surprised if you could find one major (or even an independent) that said that.


> As world oil refining capacity is finite, this is also an issue, as no new refineries are being built in North America due to the powerful environmental lobby.
> 
> As to your question about how "we produced more oil than yesterday". We (as a global economy) were not operating at 100% capacity a month ago. Now we are. Please familiarise yourself with some of the terms I am using before referring to them as "ridiculous".


Right.  And next month, when we produce more than we did this month, will you revise your theory?  I haven't read the last two Economist issues, but I do have a few years in the oil exploration business.  I can assure you that the sky is not falling.  There are serious issues to be dealt with, upstream, downstream, and in between, but we aren't standing on a precipice.


----------



## GO!!! (7 Jun 2005)

Clasper,
    The precipce is already under us. ANWR and the sedimentary basins in shallow water are already surveyed. We already KNOW there is oil there. It was a matter of waiting until the price of oil became high enough for it to be worth it to extract it. 55$ a barrel for light sweet crude is definitely within this definition.

As for having reached peak production, I won't even justify that with a response, it's a fact, live it, love it.


The reason oil prices have take a quick climb in the last year is because it is a finite resource governed by the rules of supply and demand. Demand is up in Asia and North America, and is only predicted to rise. Supply is falling. This means higher petroleum prices, which is already happening. 

Will footnote Syrian and Jordanian massacres later today.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Clasper,
> The precipice is already under us. ANWR and the sedimentary basins in shallow water are already surveyed. We already KNOW there is oil there. It was a matter of waiting until the price of oil became high enough for it to be worth it to extract it. 55$ a barrel for light sweet crude is definitely within this definition.



The market price of sweet crude will be the driving force behind any petro alternatives. At $55/bbl, heavy oil begins to look attractive. If demand increases (as it will), then even more exotic alternatives become feasible; oil shale (cooking carbon compounds out of rock) or even the conversion of coal to oil (similar to how Nazi Germany attempted to prosecute the war near the end, and one way South Africa managed to get around those sanctions during the Apartheid era.)



> The reason oil prices have take a quick climb in the last year is because it is a finite resource governed by the rules of supply and demand. Demand is up in Asia and North America, and is only predicted to rise. Supply is falling. This means higher petroleum prices, which is already happening.



This is a bit hard to factor, there are also short term "spikes" and various political and "external" factors drive the market prices, such as the "terrorist" premium on Middle Eastern crude and various attempts to manipulate the commodities market such as evidenced during the last election in the United States. 

Over the long term, as market forces become apparent, it will become economical to turn to alternative sources of oil, or even forgo oil altogether for alternatives like nuclear energy. Our problem is not so much that we will run out of hydrocarbon fuels, rather we could be overwhelmed by a short term shock without having the ability to move to a viable alternative (how long do you think it will take to replace Saudi crude with Alberta Bitumen or Tennessee coal oil?). Just like your stock portfolio, energy sources should also be diversified!


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Jun 2005)

All we need is a National Oil Strategy (or perhaps a more widely encompassing Energy Strategy) to go along with our National Health Care Strategy and National Child Care Strategy and other National Strategies.

The National Government do real good making up that Strategy stuff.  Right?


----------



## clasper (7 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> ANWR and the sedimentary basins in shallow water are already surveyed. We already KNOW there is oil there. It was a matter of waiting until the price of oil became high enough for it to be worth it to extract it. 55$ a barrel for light sweet crude is definitely within this definition.
> 
> As for having reached peak production, I won't even justify that with a response, it's a fact, live it, love it.


For a tract of land the size of ANWR, a couple of seismic shots and one exploration well do not constitute much of a comprehensive survey.  In fact we don't even know if there's oil there.  We know from the seismic information that there are some interesting geological traps, which may hold hydrocarbon (or water).  The results of the exploration well are a tightly guarded secret of the oil company that drilled it (Exxon, IIRC).  We know it's encouraging, since the oil companies still want to explore the area.  We have no idea if it will develop into a Prudhoe Bay type operation, still producing 3/4 of a million barrels per day 30 years later, or if it will be something more like Badami, only producing 100 barrels per day a few years after drilling, and shut down.

Uncertainties like that (and they exist all over the world, not just in ANWR) are the main reason I tend to scoff at people who say that it's all downhill from here.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jun 2005)

Got this in my mailbox today (what, you think army.ca is the only site I go to? ), and it turns out we can also "grow our own"

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/06/wo/wo_060705jaffe.asp?p=0



> *Biodiesel: A New Way of Turning Plants into Fuel*
> By Sam Jaffe June 7, 2005
> 
> Eco-dreamers have long hoped for a way to drive around without contributing to global warming, but the slow pace of progress in alternative fuel technologies has kept that vision from materializing. Now, a promising new process, designed by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and outlined in a paper that appeared in the journal Science on June 2, could be a significant step toward turning that dream into a reality.
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jun 2005)

In Germany there are different Grades of Diesel, like for gas, and the cheapest was Bio-Diesel.  Well, I went and put some in the Rental I had for the trip back to the Airport in Frankfurt.  The Father-in-law said that It is hard on the engine and that I may suffer a breakdown on the way to the airport.  Made it to Frankfurt and filled up with Super prior to turning the car in to the Rental Agency.  So, Bio Diesel may not be all that it is cracked up to be.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jun 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> In Germany there are different Grades of Diesel, like for gas, and the cheapest was Bio-Diesel.  Well, I went and put some in the Rental I had for the trip back to the Airport in Frankfurt.  The Father-in-law said that It is hard on the engine and that I may suffer a breakdown on the way to the airport.  Made it to Frankfurt and filled up with Super prior to turning the car in to the Rental Agency.  So, *Bio Diesel may not be all that it is cracked up to be.  *



Maybe not, but at least it exists as an alternative. My concern isn't so much that we will run out of hydrocarbon fuels, but rather that the long lead times for bringing heavy oil, coal oil, oil shale or bio diesel will leave us with our pants down should some sort of external shock interrupt the current supply of oil.

As a military institution, perhaps we should be looking into some or all of these technologies, since a naval task force, combat team or CF-18 isn't going to get very far without a source of fuel. Based on what I have read, bio diesel would seem to fit the bill best, being relatively portable, able to utilize local waste materials like kitchen grease and plant material, and scalable (imagine a mini biofuel plant at each base, or a ROWPU sized unit you could take along to an overseas deployment). This would not be able to run things for very long, of course, but as a means of tiding you over until alternative arrangements can be made, it is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Zipper (8 Jun 2005)

I agree. It is a great step in the right direction. It would be a wonderful alternative until the processes for making hydrogen as well as making even better batteries has improved to the point of being commercially viable. All baby steps in the right direction.

Now I'm curious as to the energy and environmental costs of that producing this new bio-gas? Cheaper because of lack of distillation yes. But how much does it cost to create the nickel/tin catalyst, acids for the process, and especially the platinum/silica/alumina catalyst? Not to mention what was burnt to go into the production of the heat supplied for the process? 

Its rather funny/sad how much energy (burning fossil fuels) it costs to produce the alternative fuel sources that we are so longingly searching for.


----------



## GO!!! (9 Jun 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> As a military institution, perhaps we should be looking into some or all of these technologies, since a naval task force, combat team or CF-18 isn't going to get very far without a source of fuel. Based on what I have read, bio diesel would seem to fit the bill best, being relatively portable, able to utilize local waste materials like kitchen grease and plant material, and scalable (imagine a mini biofuel plant at each base, or a ROWPU sized unit you could take along to an overseas deployment).



This is the last thing that we should be thinking about. If BioDiesel is a plausible alternative, lets wait 20 years, and when it's perfected THEN buy it. Diesel is (and will be for the next 10-15 years), the most easily purchased energy source anywhere on the planet. In addition to this, there is no biomass in some parts of the world to speak of (Kandahar comes to mind) and the locals would'nt really appreciate us cutting down the trees that are there for diesel! 

When you put it that way - cutting down trees to make them into diesel - I can see the greens going for this already!


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> This is the last thing that we should be thinking about. If BioDiesel is a plausible alternative, lets wait 20 years, and when it's perfected THEN buy it. Diesel is (and will be for the next 10-15 years), the most easily purchased energy source anywhere on the planet. In addition to this, there is no biomass in some parts of the world to speak of (Kandahar comes to mind) and the locals would'nt really appreciate us cutting down the trees that are there for diesel!
> 
> When you put it that way - cutting down trees to make them into diesel - I can see the greens going for this already!



Like everything else, there is no "perfect" solution. Waiting 20 years is of course what might happen in the normal course of events, but should an oil shock hit in the next few years, then what are we going to do with the ready sources of diesel dried up and nothing yet on line to replace it? The wholesale conversion of the CF to bio-diesel will take a long time to do, but having a few units around for testing and able to press them into emergency service would certainly add flexibility to any plan.

The lack of biomass in places like Khandahar or Dafur is a limiting factor, although it would be interesting to see if these sorts of conversion plants can utilize some of the garbage and sewage that the task force puts out. That would be a neat and efective way of taking care of a number of problems at once! An alternative source of biomass would be to pay the local poppy farmers more to harvest the whole plants and bring them in than the various warlords are willing to pay....another two for one deal.


----------



## Zipper (10 Jun 2005)

Good reply Majoor. 

To add. Not everyone is going to be able to use biomass diesel. But if the majority of the 1st world changes over to some kind of alternative fuel source, it would not be long after before other nations follow and everyone is on the same playing field or close enough to it to make a major difference. 

As for the finding of biomass other then trees? I would think that would be relatively easy since there are so many waste products from so many industries that could be used towards such. Not to mention in Kandahar's case, such as growing something other then poppies (drugs) for use to not only feed the population, but to create fuel for their vehicles and industry.

This is all pipe dreams of course until it is made to work in an economical fashion.


----------



## GO!!! (11 Jun 2005)

Majoor

We still need to concentrate our efforts on perfecting the technology that we have. An excellent example is the boosting of diesel engines with natural gas or propane, increasing fuel efficiency without an unproven and expensive new technology. This is an under - utilised but effective technology that we already have access to. 

As for acquiring a test unit. We have a nuclear reactor in Kingston, the slowpoke. Not really used for anything, because it was acquired when the tecnology was not perfected, and on too small a scale to be useful. 

Deployments are already burdened with enough kit to transport, so when bio - diesel works - I'll be using it, but until then, let industry sort it out. If the CF purchased every new technology out there we would have Ballard fuel cells lying around right now!

Finally, the title of this thread is "imported oil and the threat to our security" Bio diesel is a threat to any oil exporting nation, as it threatens a lucrative and strategic export. Since we export oil, an abundance of renewable hydrocarbons will only degrade the Canadian oil industry. 
Just a thought.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jun 2005)

Since the United States spends about $100 billion on imported oil every year, going to alternative sources puts that amount of money safely outside the hands of Saudi sheiks, Iranian Mullahs and other unfriendly people who invest that wealth in ways that are not to our mutual benefit. I would personally bet on oil sand as the best short term resource, and that benefits Canada as well.

Bio diesel is intriguing, since it is independent of actual mines or wells, and it is "near term" enough to give some serious attention to. Reading some technical papers on bio diesel reveals that this fuel can be added to ordinary diesel in a ratio of 20:80 biodiesel/oil diesel without any changes to the engine or fueling infrastructure (i.e. storage tanks and bowser's). Higher concentrations of bio diesel require the seals in the fuel system be made of different material (much like air conditioners have different sealing material since Freon was banned), so there would be some cost in the changeover. In the short term, being able to create our own fuel from waste material provides a form of local security; CF Bases or task forces deploying with a bio diesel generator have the local security of their fuel supply for a limited time.

Bio diesel adoption on a large scale would impact our oil industry along with the rest of the global market, but on the other hand, the prairies produce vast quantities of bio mass, even here in SW Ontario, fully 80% of the corn and soy crop is devoted to animal feed, which can be diverted to the fuel stream. The farm industry will generate the net gain that the oil industry will loose.

Incidentally, the CF does purchase a lot of new technologies for trials and evaluations, and indeed DRES is one of the R&D leaders in Canada, we don't just buy stuff, we invent it as well. (Sadly, most of the really good inventions are sold to the Americans, as we cannot afford to bring it into production.) See http://www.dres.dnd.ca/


----------



## GO!!! (12 Jun 2005)

Majoor

The number one investment destination for all of the oil producing world is - you guessed it, the USA. While oil money is directed towards terrorist activities, the majority of it ends up back in North America as invested dollars. Rather than a parasitic arrangement, the US-OPEC axis is more symbiotic than anything. 

As I said before, the CF should not even consider bio-diesel until it is perfected by private industry, and is a replacement for oil, not an additive, the last thing we need is make alterations to our equipment, only to have the technology flop, and require changing back, or be trapped using obsolete technology.

As for the farm industry making up the net loss that the oil industry loses? Where do you think that the "biomass" comes from, or goes right now? It is eaten, by the animals that provide us with food. "Diverting" our food supply into diesel production is hardly a sound alternative to high fuel prices!

As for trials and evaluations, great idea. We can put a bio diesel reactor in DND HQ, and all of our leaders can drive Bio-diesel fuelled LSVWs, as a testament to the R and D leadership of DRES.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jun 2005)

> Dakota Gasification Company
> 
> FY 2005 revenues: $234.5 million
> Employees: 700
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jul 2005)

> *No Blood for Oi*l
> Lets cut terror's lifeline.
> 
> So after London, what next? Al Qaeda may seek to target our energy supply. Last February a message was posted to the al Qaeda-affiliated al Qalah (the Fortress) website entitled "Map of Future al Qaeda Operations." It stated among other things that the terrorists would make it a priority to attack oil facilities in the Middle East. According to the posting, attacking the U.S. energy base in the Gulf would have three effects: Damaging the American economy; embarrassing the United States and emboldening other countries seeking to secure their own energy supplies; and forcing the U.S. to deploy further troops to the region to stabilize the situation. "The U.S. will reach a stage of madness after the targeting of its oil interests," the terrorists reason, "which will facilitate the creation of a new front and the drowning of the U.S. in a new quagmire that will be worse than the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan."
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jul 2005)

Sadly some people still don't "get it", and would like to see oil and energy use limited to support spurious claims rather than adjusting production to strengthen the Western economies and strangle the economies of terror supporting states. An all out program to develop the tar sands, modern nuclear power stations, a highly distributed generating and distribution system, "real" alternative energy like OTEC which can generate megawatts of energy is what is needed.

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view372.html#slacker



> US: Environmental Slacker, or Feinstein, Political Hack?
> 
> The Monday, July 25, LA Times op ed page features an article by Senator Dianne Feinstein entitled "U.S. an environmental slacker." While writers are not responsible for headlines, this one is a fair summary. (I have searched for this article on line but apparently it isn't up yet; when it is I'll put the URL here.)
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Apr 2006)

Link to a round-up of alternative energy ideas. Greens take note: most of the practical plans involve using current hydrocarbon energy resources more effectively. Phillips is introducing a high efficiency wood stove, for example. The law of unintended consequences makes an appearance here as well; ethanol plants in the US are powered by coal due to the rising cost of natural gas (heh). This only reinforces the idea ethanol is not a viable alternative fuel anyway.

Long link, but well worth reading: http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008392.php


----------



## Spartan (8 Apr 2006)

In further thinking about the use of diesel in the near term and future, Mr. Diesel when he had designed the diesel engine - it ran off of peanut oil and other oils
http://www.ybiofuels.org/bio_fuels/history_diesel.html
It was in the 1920's that the engine designed changed to accomadate fossil fuel - after the patents had been bought up by automakers and the oil industry tycoons
 *and conspiracy theorists will argue that it was the oil and auto industry that forced this change in design, and that it was not because of some of the problems of the biofuel...

So I'm wondering today, how might alternative fuel be created when it is still the automakers in partnership with and/or owned by the Oil industry megacorporations who happen to be enjoying very large record shattering profits.
I think what needs to happen is that there needs to be more independant research and development/improvement of technologies - of course there is the funding issue - and the concerns of the industries to prevent a loss of their profits, but without this major push - prices will continue to rise as demand skyrockets and increases in all the countries that are increasingly becoming industrial.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2006)

Record shattering profits are what attracts people into business. If you can create and sell some sort of oil substitute, you will be able to get about $60 USD/bbl, and it shouldn't be too difficult to find a "captive" market like your local municipality or transit company who might find a reliable source of fuel for a fixed cost attractive. 

Of course, your process will have to cost less than that, but this should encourage the smart people reading this board.....


----------



## TCBF (9 Apr 2006)

I have a one word solution...

COAL.

Of course, Coal is a four letter word in the  DPRO (Democratic Peoples Republic of Ontario), but with proven German technology, it can be burned cleaner to power our cities and the tar sands, as well as 'coal liquifaction'.

Alberta will run out of oil long before she runs out of coal.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Apr 2006)

In either scenario, Tom, we will be all long dead, and it will be the problem of some future generations, who will probably have harnessed fusion.   ;D


----------



## TCBF (9 Apr 2006)

We all need one of those "Mr. Fusion 2" under our hoods, like in BTTF.  Give the stinking hillbillies someplace to dump their stinking ashtrays other than all over the Timmies parking lot.  Bloody stinking Phillistines...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2006)

Here is something you can do with the contents of ashtrays (or if you are really bloody minded, the people who empty them in the parking lot): http://www.btgworld.com/technologies/pyrolysis.html


----------



## ready to go (19 Apr 2006)

It's all about the dollar $igns the CEO's see and can afford to do virtually anything they so choose to get them. Then they go and buy million dollar houses and cars and treat everybody who isn't as rich as them like pieces of shit. But that's beside the point, if Iran _really_ wanted to do some damage to the global economy they would attack Alberta's oil supplies. It's an easy target for one, and for two, makes the West nearly completely dependent on imported oil: something that's oh so easy to interecept with their new weapons.


----------



## ready to go (19 Apr 2006)

The solution is go back in time and change everything. Simple. Or start from scratch here and now. There is no turning back from this though. There is no fixing this problem. It has to be erradicated and replaced. Unfortunatley our world is so dependent on the oil and the money that it will cripple our way of life when it falls apart. What do you do when it all falls apart? That is the real question.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Apr 2006)

A novel meathod of converting coal to usable liquid fuel. Perhaps a variation of this process can be used to convert the bitumen from the tar sands into a more useful fuel as well?

http://www.technologyreview.com/BizTech/wtr_16713,296,p1.html



> Wednesday, April 19, 2006
> *Clean Diesel from Coal*
> 
> A novel catalytic method could let you fill up your tank with coal-derived diesel, cutting U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
> ...



Follow the link to read the rest.


----------

