[Rhodes22-list] Energy, Farming, High School Geopolitics

[DCLewis1 at aol.com]

Brad,
 
I think your reaching to make your arguments and your conclusions.  I  think 
your are confabulating outdated “facts”, loose logic, and strawmen.   In the 
following I’ve taken on specific topics raised in your post as they  appeared. 
 The responses are numbered and segregated so that each item is  focused on 
and addresses an issue raised in your post.
 
1. Hormuz: No one ever said the Straits of Hormuz was not a strategic choke  
point.  Rather I challenged your statement that a single tanker, i.e. 1,  can 
shut the Straits.  As I recall the Straits of Hormuz are 50 mi wide at  their 
narrowest point, the exact number doesn’t matter, what matters is that  it’s 
a helluva lot bigger than any single tanker.  The Wikipedia source  shows 
there are 2 shipping channels one mile wide separated by 2 miles.   I’m not aware 
of any single ship that when sunk is remotely large enough to shut  down a 1 
mile wide channel, let alone 2 one mile wide channels separated by 2  miles.  I 
am aware of super tankers, super Panamax container ships, and  CVNs, none are 
close to being 1 mile long (i.e. one channel width), let alone  21,000 ft 
long (needed to shut down 2 channels simultaneously including the  buffer).  The 
explicit question you ask in your post is “What happens if  you sink a tanker, 
or a US aircraft carrier in the middle of the shipping  channel?”; my 
explicit answer is you sail around it, it’s not a big deal,  and oh, you've still got 
that other channel that's totally  unobstructed.   I’m challenging your 
statement that a single sunk ship  is going to shut the Straits - from my 
perspective, it makes no sense.
 
Regarding Iranian gunboats and submarines: First, this was not a part of  
your initial post, your statement was that one well placed ship could shut the  
straits down - that statement is wrong.  But as to gunboats and submarines,  
bring em on.  I have some familiarity with naval warfare and the capability  of 
our Navy.  I say again, bring em on.  Mines could be a problem, but  they have 
to be laid and there is technology involved.  You may remember  the last time 
our middle east friends(Iraq) tried mines they were minimally  effective. 
 
There is no doubt in my mind the Iranians could disrupt the oil supply to  
some degree, but  I expect the vast majority of any disruption will be on  land 
(pipelines and terminals), or pseudo-land (i.e. oil rigs and transfer  
stations) as opposed to on the water, and especially the Straits. War on water  is 
not urban warfare, targets stand free and clear, the Iranians would  be dead 
meat.  A supportable claim made within the Navy is that "we  (the US) own the 
seas". You may not recall the last time there was an Iraqi  insurgency problem on 
the water - there is a compelling reason that is the  case.  IMO the Iraqi 
experience on the water will map into Iran in a  heartbeat, we can handle the 
Straits of Hormuz and the rest.
 
2. Your point regarding oil production: My point, that I tried to make in  my 
prior post, is your data are dated.  Use 2006 shipping data (i.e. the  
Bloomberg article that is posted to you).  All of the data you have cited  is 2 or 3 
years old - it does not apply to the current situation.  In fact,  if you 
just track the data you posted by year you will see there has been a  consistent 
and marked fall off in oil transiting the Straits of Hormuz - maybe  there’s a 
war on.  I’ve cited and sourced specific shipment information in  a story 
dated 2006, the number was 20%.  What is your specific shipment  data for 2006 
and what is your credible source for shipments - not reserves,  shipments?
 
IMO your discussion regarding reserves is off subject.  The subject  was the 
impact of an Iranian effort to disrupt the oil supply (i.e. shipments),  not 
oil reserves.  Their reserves, our reserves, the world’s reserves, it  just 
doesn’t matter.  The Iranian issue is now and the near future, they’ve  
threatened to disrupt shipments, not reserves.
 
3. Tar Sands: Interesting that you have a lot of issues with tar  sands.  The 
Canadians are investing a humongous amount of $ into tar  sands.  Also, I 
believe pipelines are being built to transport the  product.  But these guys don’
t know anything, right?  My info is that  if oil stays above $43/bbl tar sands 
are cost competitive.  But my info and  your opinions don’t matter, what 
matters is the reality of substantial companies  investing billions of $ to bring 
the tar sands resource on line, it’s  happening.  To verify the above, track 
down SU and CNQ (stock symbols)  they and other companies are involved with 
developing Canadian tar sands in  a big way with real money.
 
Regarding the environmental impact of tar sand production, you may or may  
not be right.  But the Canadians are no slouches when it comes to the  
environment, they’ll work it out.  If the environmental impacts were half  as bad as you
’ve described, I don’t think the projects would have been  permitted.
 
4. Re nuclear power: Again, your info is dated.  For roughly 30 years  the 
environmental mafia has stopped further development of nuclear power in  the US, 
the grossly harmful effects of coal emissions notwithstanding.  Now  the 
environmental mafia have moved on to global warming and it’s occurred  to them 
that nuclear is perhaps the single best answer to that problem.   They are no 
longer opposing nuclear.  For example, South Texas Power(STP)  is adding 2 
nuclear generating facilities (See _www.nei.org_ (http://www.nei.org)  and scroll 
down.  Note, I am  sourcing my statement.).  Nuclear is back.
 
5. Re your statement “Lets say nukes are bad and coal is good.”, it’s got  
nothing to do with any prior post, nor is it correct.
 
6. Re farming and farm policy: Your initial point on this matter was that  
subsidies were a big bad deal.  We’ve worked the numbers on this board -  your 
numbers show it’s not a big deal from a national perspective.  I  believe your 
corrected numbers.  So your point that subsidies as  presently structured are 
not optimal and need to be tweaked is on target, but as  per your own numbers, 
any claim that it’s a big deal on a national scale is  wrong.
 
7. Regarding “We couldn’t replace our current crude consumption if we  
planted every square inch of farm ground in the US.”  Could we have some  credible 
numbers and analyses to support that claim?  
 
There is a helluva lot of farmland in the US.  Moreover, the ethanol  
substitution program is just getting started.  There may be better crops  than corn, 
there may be better varieties of corn, there may be better  distillation 
processes, there may be a lot of things.  We are at t=0 in  this game, after years 
of denying it could work at all.
 
Just a few years ago public dogma was the ethanol couldn’t work, it was  
simply and substantially cost ineffective, it was energy ineffective, it’ll  
destroy your engine, etc.  Since then Brazil has made it work.  So now  the claim 
is “oh, but they’re different, they have special beets.”  Maybe  Brazil is 
different, and maybe its not, but what’s constant is the opposition  that would 
rather dance to some arab sheiks tune than try to do something about  energy 
independence.  
 
I remember Pres Bush’s previous State Of  The Union address when he  
announced he was going to start a new initiative at the DoE to develop more  efficient 
cars and alternate fuels; he had earmarked $15M for that in his budget  - 
whoopee, a big big $15M dollars for energy independence.  I wouldn’t be  
surprised to find out that just this Rhodes22 board could come up with $15M if  we had 
a certifiably good project.  It’s been more than 30 years since the  OPEC 
embargo, maybe its time to get serious about sustainable energy, maybe it’s  time 
to make some investments and solve the problem.  
 
While we’ve been saying “we just can’t do it” when it comes to energy  
independence the Brazilians have done it with ethanol and their indigenous oil,  
and the South Africans have done it with coal/synfuels - and we still get a lot 
 of bogus numbers to show “its just not possible” (see the first sentence of 
this  numbered item).  There is a big lobby in these United States devoted to 
 figuring out just how high we can jump for the arabs, and why we shouldn't  
build efficient cars, and why any change to our egregiously dependent energy  
posture is a bad thing.  That lobby includes big oil and the automakers -  and 
I guess airline pilots.  It took the Japanese to give us hybrid cars,  it 
took the Europeans to give us high mileage diesels, the Brazilians shoved  
ethanol down the throats of our national naysayers, the South Africans   made 
coal/synfuel work - our unique national contribution has been to wring our  hands 
and complain that we just can’t do it, it doesn’t make any sense, and even  if 
we could we soo enjoy kissing the tail of some sheik of araby that we’re not  
even going to try anything, because it wouldn’t make sense.  Right?
 
Isn't it a little embarrassing that developing 3rd world countries have led  
the way in developing and implementing the technology for energy  
independence?  I mean, here we are allegedly the greatest and most advanced  
technologically based country on the planet, and all we can do is figure out 40  good 
reasons not to do anything constructive about the problem.  Brazil  solved it for 
Brazil.  South Africa solved it for South Africa.
 
8.  Regarding John Lennon and Iraq: The prospect of basing foreign  policy, 
and especially Iraq, on one of John Lennon’s random musical  musings is too 
preposterous for words.  If you are going to base your  foreign policy on the 
concept of “imagine” you are going to have an imaginary  foreign policy - and you
’re going to wind up in a lot of trouble.  Which,  come to think of it, 
pretty much describes the current situation.  
 
Explicitly regarding your imaginings for Iraq, there is no reason at all,  
under any circumstances whatsoever, to expect that Iraq is going to quickly  
evolve into a sane and rational democracy modeled after western democracys  - 
where sane and rational means “sees the world in our terms”.  They do not  have 
a democratic tradition, they are beset with deep cultural and religious  
differences, they hate each other, they hate us, there is not much that they  don’t 
hate and aren’t willing to kill - this is a good start right?  They  are a 
Muslim country, in a Muslim region of the world and they are going to  
spontaneously begin to see the “rightness of our cause” and the world on our  terms - 
I don’t think so.
 
You want a better solution for Iraq?  How about, get the hell  out?  Declare 
victory and leave.  I’ll quote another song writer,  Kenny Rogers;  remember 
the line “you’ve got to know when to hold ‘em, know  when to fold ‘em, know 
when to walk away, and know when to run”?  Maybe  it's time to fold 'em and 
walk away.  Our being in Iraq is a consequence of  a monumental intelligence 
failure compounded by a foolish and incompetent  Administration that did not 
remotely begin to properly assess, plan, or  execute any part of the effort other 
than the initial military invasion (and  it's consequent photo-opps).  There is 
no way Iraq is going to develop  along the lines you envisioned - it’s flatly 
unreasonable to expect that it  will.  Every Iraqi hates every other Iraqi, 
and has for a few thousand  years. IMO, a year after the last US soldier leaves 
Iraq the country will be  governed by a Shiite theocracy busy annihilating 
the Sunni minority (as per  allah's directions), and that the Kurds will have 
either seceded from Iraq or  will be fighting the Shiite theocracy.  
 
If you describe your John Lennon visions to an FAA rep, I suspect  he'll 
immediately want a urine specimen.  JMO.

Dave