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

[TN Rhodey]

Dave,

I don't know how you and Brand find the time for your posts. Well said! Brad 
is obviously a bright guy but I quit going to his links because they often 
did not support his view point. If you point it out he will give you three 
more web links. :-)

I know Warren Buffet is investing big money in Tar Sands. He seems to make 
some good choices every now and then. I will admit I don't know much about 
the details. They do have a process to clean up afterwards but again I do 
not know the details.

This country has such a hard time finding common ground and real solutions. 
We really need our leaders to focus on energy rather than policing the 
world. I think we wiould see a much better return on our efforts. We should 
be leading the world in new energy technology instead we are spending 
billions on a war that some say is over oil. What if we spent the same 
billions on alternative energy development?

We attacked Iraq to promote a stable Middle East. History shows this doesn't 
work out. We have propped up regimes in both Iran and Iraq previoulsy. They 
both hate us today. Why people think this time will be different is beyond 
me. Some very smart people seem to want to ignore hisory and don't seem to 
learn from past mistakes.

Wally


>From: DCLewis1 at aol.com
>Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
>Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Energy, Farming, High School Geopolitics
>Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 02:26:25 EDT
>
>
>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your are confabulating outdated “facts”, loose logic, and strawmen.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
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list