The worst thing for us is that all of the world oil is controlled by folks that are hostile to the US. All of it in the ME iscontrolled by Arabs (overtly hostile to US). The oil in Russia, China, Mexico and South America is controlled by socialists or communists who are also hostile the the US.
And the oil here in the US and just offshore is controlled by environmetalist idiots who may be the most hostile of the bunch.
Mad, are you being serious or sarcastic? Biodiesel does make sense, a lot more sense than hydrogen and some other ideas that are a long way from coming to market, and California is getting on the biodiesel bandwagon as we speak.
“Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), an energy consultancy, has scrutinised all of the oil projects now under way around the world. Though noting rising costs, the firm concludes that the world’s oil-production capacity could increase by as much as 15m barrels per day (bpd) between 2005 and 2010â€â€?equivalent to almost 18% of today’s output and the biggest surge in history. Since most of these projects are already budgeted and in development, there is no geological reason why this wave of supply will not become available (though politics or civil strife can always disrupt output).”
Strangely enough, steve Forbes and other top financial pundits are recommending dumping oil stocks and moving to airlines. Many of them feel that the price of crude is going to collapse in the next 6 months to between $30 and $40 a barrel.
Just to be technical, as I’m me, “All of it in the ME iscontrolled by Arabs (overtly hostile to US)” is, of course, obviously not true. Last I checked, Israel was in the mideast, not controlled by Arabs, and not overtly hostile to the US.
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
April 27th, 2006 at 3:46:20 pm
Just more incentive to come up with alternatives.
April 27th, 2006 at 3:47:28 pm
“A good piece from Reason”
The definition of oxymoron.
April 27th, 2006 at 4:16:59 pm
The worst thing for us is that all of the world oil is controlled by folks that are hostile to the US. All of it in the ME iscontrolled by Arabs (overtly hostile to US). The oil in Russia, China, Mexico and South America is controlled by socialists or communists who are also hostile the the US.
And the oil here in the US and just offshore is controlled by environmetalist idiots who may be the most hostile of the bunch.
April 27th, 2006 at 4:27:14 pm
Oooh David’s gonna make you pay for that comment1
April 27th, 2006 at 4:28:26 pm
Texican-
Don’t forget Canada, where the U.S. gets most of its oil. Those fucking Canucks and their communist healthcare system!
Crap! Vivier’s Law strikes again.
April 27th, 2006 at 4:37:35 pm
A&A,
Actually the canadiens are socialists. There hostility towards the US I think is attributed more to penis envy than sheer hatred.
April 27th, 2006 at 4:43:58 pm
It’s true, America’s penis (Florida) is longer than Canada’s penis (southern Ontario).
April 27th, 2006 at 5:10:12 pm
10 points to the best Florida old people penis joke involving. Top contenders will use some form of “shriveled”.
April 27th, 2006 at 5:13:12 pm
“There hostility towards the US I think is attributed more to penis envy than sheer hatred.”
So THAT’s what they mean by Canadian Bacon.
April 27th, 2006 at 5:46:55 pm
Oooh David’s gonna make you pay for that comment1
Huh? Getting drunk a little early these days Randy?
April 27th, 2006 at 6:21:59 pm
Randy - I was sceptical, too ! (grin)
April 27th, 2006 at 7:31:44 pm
Reynolds links to this excellent article on oil alternatives as well.
April 27th, 2006 at 7:44:23 pm
My namesake had the right idea in the 80s. Pig-powered methane.
April 27th, 2006 at 7:48:10 pm
So it looks like BioDiesel makes the most sense. Let’s do it. Who’s with me?
April 27th, 2006 at 11:00:33 pm
Mad, are you being serious or sarcastic? Biodiesel does make sense, a lot more sense than hydrogen and some other ideas that are a long way from coming to market, and California is getting on the biodiesel bandwagon as we speak.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:10:36 am
Maybe not quite yet; from The Economist:
“Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), an energy consultancy, has scrutinised all of the oil projects now under way around the world. Though noting rising costs, the firm concludes that the world’s oil-production capacity could increase by as much as 15m barrels per day (bpd) between 2005 and 2010â€â€?equivalent to almost 18% of today’s output and the biggest surge in history. Since most of these projects are already budgeted and in development, there is no geological reason why this wave of supply will not become available (though politics or civil strife can always disrupt output).”
April 28th, 2006 at 11:54:37 am
Actually, there are several articles on oil in this week’s Economist that sack of potatoes sites.
April 28th, 2006 at 2:10:13 pm
Strangely enough, steve Forbes and other top financial pundits are recommending dumping oil stocks and moving to airlines. Many of them feel that the price of crude is going to collapse in the next 6 months to between $30 and $40 a barrel.
April 28th, 2006 at 2:33:04 pm
Steve Forbes also thought he was going to be President. Shows how smart he is.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:40:14 pm
Steve Forbes didn’t become President - doesn’t that *confirm* that he’s smart ?
April 28th, 2006 at 10:42:40 pm
Just to be technical, as I’m me, “All of it in the ME iscontrolled by Arabs (overtly hostile to US)” is, of course, obviously not true. Last I checked, Israel was in the mideast, not controlled by Arabs, and not overtly hostile to the US.