The stip mining is not good, but if you look at the THAI technology in the link, no strip mining in necessary. It appears to be clean and relatively uninvasive.
Toe-to-Heel Air Injection (THAI) sounds good in theory. but many questions remain.
How resource-intensive is this process, especially in terms of water? I do see a waste stream chart, but I am not sure of the size of the project it is related to.
Speaking of waste, the analysis of pollution generated seems to focus on storing contaminated water from doing the THAI process. I do wonder what additional effects the process will have that are presently unknown or simply not convenient to talk about.
As with most enthusiastic releases of partial information about new technologies, I see no real breakdown of project costs and benefits. The all-important issue of externalities is also left undiscussed.
It is swell to be enthusiastic about new technology, but in addition to questions of real costs and benefits, one might also ask whether or not the whole project of expending so much of our current resources on extracting even more stuff to burn in cars is really the best focus.
Of course the Free Market knows all, so not to worry. The Free Market is God, as we all know. Does God exist? Or if God exists, must God be the Devil?
The "market forces" driving this development are predicated on completely false models of reality, are they not?
Smart people in the neighborhoods I work in maintain careful suppression of such questions about the way in which our rather fragile coccoon requires destruction of our larger and real ecological economy.
Whether doctor, banker, lawyer, or engineer working on biofuels, few are yet willing to acknowledge -- let alone critically examine -- the human cultural dimensions which are the core response our ecological predicament calls for.
THAI seems to me to be another tool in the toolbox for maintaining intentional ignorance about our ecological economic predicament, which is far more serious than any financial economic predicaments we can imagine.
Used in a limited way, THAI might be helpful -- but also not economical in terms of our current understanding of economics
Used in a conventionally economical way -- if that does work out -- THAI will be integrated into a system that has already mortally wounded our habitat, demands ignorance of this fact, and refuses to countenance critical examination of our human predicament in order to allow for poitive strategies of healing to emerge.
E. O. Wilson put it best:
"The human hammer having fallen, the sixth massextinction has begun. This spasm of permanent loss is expected, if it is not abated, to reach the end-ofMesozoic level by the end of the century. We will then enter what poets and scientists alike may choose to call the Eromozoic Era -- the Age of Loneliness. We will have done it all on our own, and conscious of what was happening. God's will is not to blame."
(From "The Creation" Chapter 10, "End Game," page 91)
I do discuss THAI, briefly, in part two, coming out next week. But I don't regard it as being terribly significant because it's nowhere near commercial deployment in volume yet.
The Oil Junkie's Last Fix, indeed. That phrase pretty much says it all.
Superb article. I do think that the maps and photos help to understand the huge investment we have in continuing the status quo.
I question why we put so much into "developing the oil sands" rather than in examining our human relationship to energy and other resources and our habitat in general.
This relates back to questions regarding the Iron Triangle and also to the strange combinations of characteristics our species possesses at this time with regard to our inability to act in favor of our own survival.
Homo sapiens occupies a small niche in a large, complex shared habitat. Our self interest is best served by preserving the habitat of our planet for the great variety of species with which we share it. Our conventional strategies for survival actually kill off other species by destroying their habitat with increasing fury.
So the oil sands seem like another chapter in the biography which chronicles the self-destructive behaviour of a junky gone mad for another fix.
More people should pay attention to archeology, and cultural anthropology. The world is filled with examples of earlier civilizations that went extinct because they used up their resources, or succumbed to some natural catastrophe. All you need is a shovel. I'm sure those civilizations had the same kind of discussions and such that we are having today.
"More people should pay attention to archeology, and cultural anthropology. The world is filled with examples of earlier civilizations that went extinct because they used up their resources, or succumbed to some natural catastrophe."
(oh boy, time for a little rant)
What point does that make? They would have never been civilizations at all if they hadn't got off their stuupid azz and tried to do something, so we would not be able to use them for examples of anything could we?
The one sure way never to make a mistake is to never do anything.
Now, having said that, I have said from the start I felt that the Tar Sands were a dead end, for purely economical reasons and becuase of the waste of natural gas in producing it. Do I feel it will in fact be produced?
Probably so, but not as a commercial fuel. The tar sands and the North American oil shale can provide the U.S. military establishment with all the fuel it will need to remain a great world power for at least the next two or three centuries, if nuclear is used to extract it.
Hidious thought you say? Maybe. But the military establishments of the world do not have the terror of nuclear power the civilians do. The still live within yards of working reactors everyday (on subs and aircraft carriers)
Plus, they are already up to their azz in nuclear waste to deal with anyway, what's a few more tons going to matter if it extracts high quality liquid fuel for the most modern military machine in the world.
So, they wait for the civilians to fall on their face and agree to come and "rescue" the industry for national security purposes.
See, the problem is that the folks at TOD think that a phrase such as "our lifestyle is non-negotiable" is a freakin' joke.
It''s NOT. We have soldiars suffering and dying everyday in the deserts of Iraq and the hills of Afghanistan. Do you think the security systems will balk from the fear of a little bit of nuclear activity out in the middle of the arctic outback?
These people aren't foolin around. They are their supporters will die to avoid having themselves and their children going back and livng like a bunch of fvckin' apes in the trees whose biggest earthly accomplishment is pickin' the ticks out of their azz. Some may dream of that. Let them go do it.
Many will fight it to the last blow. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
If you don't want the oil sands and the nukes and the shale, or at least just want to stay the helll away from it, you best be helping come up with better alternatives instead of laughing at all attempts.
(end of rant...and all names were omitted to protect the guil.....opps, the innocent! :-)
You missed my point entirely. I've mentioned in other threads that we will fight over the table scraps. But history can teach us some useful lessons if we are smart enough to listen.
As for the military, please don't presume to lecture me. I spent 20 years in the USMC to preserve your's and every other citizens right to bitch about whatever blows your skirts up. I swore an oath to protect and defend this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I've never gone back on it. Have a nice day, and go a little easy on the drugs and alky.
And just so you do not misunderstand, even not knowing your history, I was in no way attempting to lecture you. If it was taken in that way, you have my apology.
On the military issue, first, let me do the right thing: Thank you for your service in what is a hard and under rewarding profession. I live next to a military base that my father worked at for over 30 years, have uncles and great uncles who have served thier life in the military. I have not served myself, and due to that great peacetime run we had after Vietnam, I was never called to.
And to make my point clear, it was that the efforts of the American government and military should indicate to anyone that we do in fact intend to continue on a modern state and a world power. Some may differ with those goals. That is their right. But those are the facts on the ground.
The "cost structure" and goals are a bit different when it is a security issue. No one really argues about the exact retail price of an F-18 or an aircraft carrier if it is percieved that is what needed to survive and prevail.
On history, that is a bit closer to an area I have dealt with than the military.
I absolutely agree that study of history in our current situation is vital to assist understanding of paths taken. However, it is easy to misinterpret history. Caution must be taken. G.W. Bush for example used history as an example, and cast Saddam as Hitler, all who questioned the Iraq war as Chamberlian in 1938 England and himself as the Churchill. Was that a correct use of the lessons of history? You be the judge. But it silenced all opposition at the time.
To America's ememies I beg you...do not underestimate the resolve of this government and this nation to survive. Please do not. The human suffering has already been great in making that error. Bin Laden and the gangs who desire our destruction (and despite the knee jerk anti-Americanism we often see, they are very real) can get a few of us. But they did not bring a big enough dog to the fight to win their stated prize of our destruction. Instead, they have assisted in bringing real horror on the whole of the Middle East.
Was that their goal? Educated Muslims and Arabs should ask themselves that question.
Back to point.....nuclear devices in the tar sand and the oil shale regions to extact millions of barrels of usable oil? They'll do it. The Canadians will do it, because they, like us, will in the end refuse to be carved up by our mutual enemies.
And if that sounds fueled by "drugs and alky" you go back over it and let me know where you proved me wrong. All lessons will be taken as a gift thank you.
al Queda & friends whipped the Russians soundly - they bled them and bled them, no matter what was thrown at them. The Soviet Union, as we'll recall, crashed and burned after spending themselves in Aghanistan.
Now the United States is caught in the same trap. 150,000 troops pinned in Iraq, a half a trillion dollar crater in our national balance sheet, another division's worth of troops in Afghanistan not getting near the beating we're taking in Iraq, but Pakistan(nukes!) is sliding into chaos, with Waziristan breaking free, and the British abandoning their position in Iraq so their troops can face real threats in Afghanistan.
The military we've constructed to defeat the Soviet Union in an organized land battle in Europe is not quite useless in a low intensity conflict in Iraq. Should We, The People decide to conduct a genocidal war in Iraq in order to control their oil it may again be effective. This strikes me as madness, but I look at our neocon assclowns (industry term - diplomacy) and I think that this will be the case.
There is some debate as to what caused The Soviet Union to collapse. As I understand it, there is some consensus here that it was caused by Saudi Arabia (on orders from America) flooding the world oil market with cheap oil. Russian oil revenue quickly shriveled, and then did their empire.
The United States is not in the same trap as The Soviet Union. We still control Saudi Arabia, which is to say, we still control the world oil market. Russia never did.
We still control Saudi Arabia
“I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply. Use the capital that my administration will earn, with the Kuwaitis or the Saudis, and convince them to open up the spigot.” http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/More_George_W__Bush_Energy_+_Oil.htm
The articles in Foreign Affairs indicate we've flat burned that relationship by our stupid, unipolar actions in Iraq. Yeah, we're the big dog, but we're half blind, toothless, and peeing on the carpet ... the Saudis, the Syrians, the Turks, and the Iranians are all delighted(NOT) by our antics. History is full of examples of what happens to empires that overreach in the face of no opposition ... the smaller players gather round and form a thwarting party.
bmcnett,
Are you sure you don't have the control relationship reversed, "white slave" ?
The Saudis didn't open the tap to destroy the Russians, they did it because Jimmy Carter's energy policies were working, an demand destruction from high prices. Go look again at the charts of world consumption and price history, and read what they said at the time. Attributing anything to Reagan except White House naps is on awfully shaky ground.
Bob Ebersole
Perhaps I was a bit harsh. This (misunderstandings) is the primary reason I dislike controversial discussions conducted on the internet. It's far too easy for everyone concerned to get their dander up. 'nuf said. Perhaps we can start over on a more amicable note.
My name is Gene. I'm in my '60's, on my 3rd career (avocation rather than a "job"), married for 36 years, reasonably comfortable in life, and expect to be around for another 20 years or so if family history is any guide. Pleased to meet you.
Just as a point of technical interest, you ( and others )may or may not be aware of an organization called DARPA. If not, I'd recommend visiting their website. In particular, this http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrusts/physci/index.htm may be a good starting point to see what sort of basic science is being done that will likely have civilian as well as military applications for energy interests. You won't get a lot of detail, but the site is quite extensive, and extraordinarily interesting and informative.
And if you have a potential solution applicable to one of their thrust areas, they will be glad to throw some money your way.
For anyone who wishes to harm this nation, and who might be reading this, they would also do well to review this site. It may change their minds. Keep in mind that this is all public information, so one can infer that "more interesting" work is also being done. :)
These are the folks who actually did invent the internet by the way.
I'm glad you found The Oil Drum and are sticking around and commenting. Your service is your best credential, it shows your sincerity and sense of honor. The best part of being a Marine is your loyalty to each other and to the rest of us in this country.
I suspect we disagree a lot politicly, and I was one of the immature assholes that couldn't appreciate the true patriotism of men who saw their duty and no matter what, did the deal. These days I can see how wrong I was then, and I'd like to thank you for your service to the country and the rest of us, even when we are wrong. Semper Fi sums it up.
I'm glad you found The Oil Drum and are sticking around and commenting. Your service is your best credential, it shows your sincerity and sense of honor. The best part of being a Marine is your loyalty to each other and to the rest of us in this country.
I suspect we disagree a lot politicly, and I was one of the immature assholes that couldn't appreciate the true patriotism of men who saw their duty and no matter what, did the deal. These days I can see how wrong I was then, and I'd like to thank you for your service to the country and the rest of us, even when we are wrong. Semper Fi sums it up.
Maybe not so much (re: political views). Career military folks have a somewhat more long term view of things than this or any former occupant of the White House or Congress. Many people misunderstand from the getgo where the militaries loyalties truly are. It's not with any individual. It's to the Nation as a whole, regardless of who happens to be in office at the moment. Politicians of whatever persuasion sometimes forget that, and need to be gently reminded from time to time. Even the Commander-In-Chief.
It also works in the other direction, at some degradation in efficiency but it's worth the cost. There is a reason the US Military does not have a single service, but rather several "branches" with some overlapping functions and cooperative tasks, but with separate chains of command (USAF,Army, Navy, Marines, etc.). It is to preclude one branch from having too much power, thereby avoiding the kind of military dictatorships that consume many other countries. Periodically someone will propose that the services merge for the sake of cost efficiency, etc. Bad idea, and never goes very far for the reason stated above.
Do you think that Bush has cultivated personal loyalty within the military, or perhaps I should say loyalty to dominionist sensibilities above service to the nation?
I think this, a former girlfriend who is a reserve captain shares that view, and an airforce major I dated before her had done the academy thing and while she wasn't forward about her beliefs I think she was in favor of that whole Christian Embassy thing ...
I'm curious to hear the views of someone who served prior to the Bush administration's poisoning of every single institution we have.
:) "I'm curious to hear the views of someone who served prior to the Bush administration's poisoning of every single institution we have."
I have to smile a little at that. I've heard this nearly identical statement more than once in the past 40 years or so applied to every President since Eisenhower. "Poisoning of institutions" ( such as the military for example ) isn't quite as easy as you seem to think. In general terms, every elected leader since G. Washington has tried to "cultivate personal loyalty" to a greater or lesser extent. Usually unsuccessfully, since we have a thing called "Term Limits" - at least for the Presidency - so career people know they will be around long after that individual has departed. Lends a different perspective. As has been said: "Patience grasshopper, this too shall pass." :)
In any case I think my personal political views of Pres. Bush are mine. I don't mean to sound uncooperative, but I don't discuss personal politics, religion, personal finances, and several other subjects with anyone, let alone complete strangers. Sorry.
Gene
I spent most of last year in El Paso, and the motels I were at were full of career Army, Army Reserve and contractors that were retired military. I got to be friends with some of them, and was very impressed.
One thing I'd like to note in particular-the Reserve kids were truly fine young men and women. They'd mostly joined as a way to work their way through college without crippling debt, they represent the best kids in our country, they have a great work effort and a sense of duty and service. And, the administration has horribly abused them by putting them in this war.
The retired military and professional military were first rate too. The retired guys were a little more vocal, but it was easy to tell they didn't support the war, but, they'd taken the money and they were going to follow through with their duty, it was both a personal sense of honor and loyalty to their fellow servicemen.
So it was a real eye-opener to me. I began to see that we all need to see our common heritage as Americans and celebrate the things that we all hold in common-we all love this country and do what we do out of the same motives, we want the best for the country and the world. Sure, there's some nut and sociopaths that would rather divide us because they see manipulation as their personal path to power and wealth. Unfortunately, way too many of them are in politics and the media.
But, my father was a marine in WWII and Korea. My grandfather was an Army Medic serving with the Marines at St. Michael, the Argonne and Belleau Woods. I was born at Quantico, but Viet Nam kept me from being a Marine, and I'm not sorry about that. As I said, thanks for your service!Bob Ebersole
Bob, I appreciate your comments and your views as well as those of others. I really do. But, I fear this subthread may stir up peoples feelings on one side or the other of past or present disputes, or dredge up ancient history, or digress into areas that will likely only end up in acrimonious and pointless arguement. So, if you're agreeable, I'd just as soon end it here.
What point does that make? They would have never been civilizations at all if they hadn't got off their stuupid azz and tried to do something, so we would not be able to use them for examples of anything could we?
You presume that civilization is a good thing. Civilization is, in fact, a kind of fire that burns away the natural world, until cheap fuel runs out, when it collapses, destroying those who supported it.
The Inuit (Eskimo) and Kalahari Bushmen have no civilization, but peak oil won't be any problem for them. They won't even notice.
I refer you to Jared Diamond's article for "Discover Magazine," "The Worst Mistake In the History of the Human Race."
The Inuit (Eskimo) and Kalahari Bushmen have no civilization, but peak oil won't be any problem for them. They won't even notice.
This seems to me to be a really bizzare thing to suggest. Both the Innu and San cultures have been deeply changed by the dominant societies that have surrounded them.
It would be way "off thread" to detail this but please let me suggest that you do some basic research into current conditions.
A few links however...
Archbishop Tutus appeal to the Gov't of Botswana and others to refrain from further efforts to destroy the San people (they want the lands for diamond mining and "eco-tourism", and now AIDS is getting a foothold there):
Of course these people have been deeply affected by agriculturalists and fossil-fuel-using cultures. I never said otherwise. What I said: if gasoline were to spike to $10 a gallon tomorrow, it would not affect the daily life of traditionalist Inuit and Bushmen.
if gasoline were to spike to $10 a gallon tomorrow, it would not affect the daily life of traditionalist Inuit and Bushmen.
O.K. lets see if we can bridge this gap here...
If I'm a present day "traditionalist Inuit" in the north I'm living in a house heated with oil, who's electricity is produced with a desiel generator. The people and goods that come into and leave my community move on a gasoline powered aircraft and / or an oil powered supply ship.
When I go out on the land for part of the year to hunt and fish I'm using a gasoline powered outboard motor, skidoo, or quad-runner.
How am I immune to increases in fuel costs?
If I'm a "traditionalist" San chances are I'm in a forced "resettelment camp" due to a policy of ethnocide on the part of the national government to clear the way for mining development. I suppose you could say that the price of gasoline is the least of my worries at this point...
We would argue over your definition of "traditionalist." There do exist hunter-gatherers today who use no fossil fuel at all. Some are Inuit, some are Bushmen.
I don't get out much, but I've seen Inuit on TV in 2007 whose primary transportation is sled dogs. They may have grown dependent on cheap guns, but that problem could be solved.
As for the "San" hard times indeed. Similar problems for the indigenous peoples of the Amazon, who are now succumbing to mass industrial destruction of their land.
The true traditionalists - the ones who reject all fossil fuels - will not be hurt very much by $20 gasoline. There are vey few such people, but they do exist.
Not saying your wrong, just that I can't find data, so could you tell me what you base your assertion on that there are still some Inuit living totally "fossil free" i.e. more or less pre european contact lifestyle in the north?
I do agree that there are still primary culture hunter gatherers elsewhere on the planet...
Oh Boy! a Rant! Thanks, that gives me the opportunity for a counterRant.
What point does that make? They would have never been civilizations at all if they hadn't got off their stuupid azz and tried to do something, so we would not be able to use them for examples of anything could we?
You carpetbaggers (american and canadian) think that civilization is the accumulation of more and/or new goodies and the head is for gobbling them whether they are Big Boy candy bars of Game Boy computor games or just more stuff. I doubt that we have had a civilized life since we used to sit on our azzes and picked ticks out of them. A lot of hubris and little ideation. (ideation doesn't reallly fit it, we think with our heads instead of deep down where we live, we think like we are out of our trees, we think in narrow little bands of expertise.)
See, the problem is that the folks at TOD think that a phrase such as "our lifestyle is non-negotiable" is a freakin' joke.
Thatsit, I don't see that as a joke but as something that might at least save the planet. I have begun to feel that mitigation of the approaching catastrophe will merely feed the beast, We are hell bent on destruction and throwing in more new energy and so called energy saving devices does nothing to reduce what is already being used it will only extend the period it will happen in. The population increases, energy use increases, energy inputs increase energy outputs decrease, markets wobble and are propped up by temporary and inflationary measures while the electric grid throws sparks and brownouts and all the while ma nature does a tap dance on our vacuous heads
Your military needs more than oil to run on, it needs a working US infrastructure which is running on empty now. The guys that penned and used that phrase are not looking for any false salvation by mitigation they are just going to run till the tank is empty, just faster than us clever people would do it, thats all.
Antidoomer...
What's your upbeat assessment of the strip mining photo...
Any ideas on who gets to finance the clean-up?
The stip mining is not good, but if you look at the THAI technology in the link, no strip mining in necessary. It appears to be clean and relatively uninvasive.
Antidoomer,
What's THAI technology? Any good links?
Toe-to-Heel Air Injection (THAI) sounds good in theory. but many questions remain.
How resource-intensive is this process, especially in terms of water? I do see a waste stream chart, but I am not sure of the size of the project it is related to.
Speaking of waste, the analysis of pollution generated seems to focus on storing contaminated water from doing the THAI process. I do wonder what additional effects the process will have that are presently unknown or simply not convenient to talk about.
As with most enthusiastic releases of partial information about new technologies, I see no real breakdown of project costs and benefits. The all-important issue of externalities is also left undiscussed.
It is swell to be enthusiastic about new technology, but in addition to questions of real costs and benefits, one might also ask whether or not the whole project of expending so much of our current resources on extracting even more stuff to burn in cars is really the best focus.
Of course the Free Market knows all, so not to worry. The Free Market is God, as we all know. Does God exist? Or if God exists, must God be the Devil?
The "market forces" driving this development are predicated on completely false models of reality, are they not?
Smart people in the neighborhoods I work in maintain careful suppression of such questions about the way in which our rather fragile coccoon requires destruction of our larger and real ecological economy.
Whether doctor, banker, lawyer, or engineer working on biofuels, few are yet willing to acknowledge -- let alone critically examine -- the human cultural dimensions which are the core response our ecological predicament calls for.
THAI seems to me to be another tool in the toolbox for maintaining intentional ignorance about our ecological economic predicament, which is far more serious than any financial economic predicaments we can imagine.
Used in a limited way, THAI might be helpful -- but also not economical in terms of our current understanding of economics
Used in a conventionally economical way -- if that does work out -- THAI will be integrated into a system that has already mortally wounded our habitat, demands ignorance of this fact, and refuses to countenance critical examination of our human predicament in order to allow for poitive strategies of healing to emerge.
E. O. Wilson put it best:
"The human hammer having fallen, the sixth massextinction has begun. This spasm of permanent loss is expected, if it is not abated, to reach the end-ofMesozoic level by the end of the century. We will then enter what poets and scientists alike may choose to call the Eromozoic Era -- the Age of Loneliness. We will have done it all on our own, and conscious of what was happening. God's will is not to blame."
(From "The Creation" Chapter 10, "End Game," page 91)
I do discuss THAI, briefly, in part two, coming out next week. But I don't regard it as being terribly significant because it's nowhere near commercial deployment in volume yet.
--Chris
Energy consultant, writer, blogger www.getreallist.com
The Oil Junkie's Last Fix, indeed. That phrase pretty much says it all.
Superb article. I do think that the maps and photos help to understand the huge investment we have in continuing the status quo.
I question why we put so much into "developing the oil sands" rather than in examining our human relationship to energy and other resources and our habitat in general.
This relates back to questions regarding the Iron Triangle and also to the strange combinations of characteristics our species possesses at this time with regard to our inability to act in favor of our own survival.
Homo sapiens occupies a small niche in a large, complex shared habitat. Our self interest is best served by preserving the habitat of our planet for the great variety of species with which we share it. Our conventional strategies for survival actually kill off other species by destroying their habitat with increasing fury.
So the oil sands seem like another chapter in the biography which chronicles the self-destructive behaviour of a junky gone mad for another fix.
A bit of culture change is long overdue.
More people should pay attention to archeology, and cultural anthropology. The world is filled with examples of earlier civilizations that went extinct because they used up their resources, or succumbed to some natural catastrophe. All you need is a shovel. I'm sure those civilizations had the same kind of discussions and such that we are having today.
"More people should pay attention to archeology, and cultural anthropology. The world is filled with examples of earlier civilizations that went extinct because they used up their resources, or succumbed to some natural catastrophe."
(oh boy, time for a little rant)
What point does that make? They would have never been civilizations at all if they hadn't got off their stuupid azz and tried to do something, so we would not be able to use them for examples of anything could we?
The one sure way never to make a mistake is to never do anything.
Now, having said that, I have said from the start I felt that the Tar Sands were a dead end, for purely economical reasons and becuase of the waste of natural gas in producing it. Do I feel it will in fact be produced?
Probably so, but not as a commercial fuel. The tar sands and the North American oil shale can provide the U.S. military establishment with all the fuel it will need to remain a great world power for at least the next two or three centuries, if nuclear is used to extract it.
Hidious thought you say? Maybe. But the military establishments of the world do not have the terror of nuclear power the civilians do. The still live within yards of working reactors everyday (on subs and aircraft carriers)
Plus, they are already up to their azz in nuclear waste to deal with anyway, what's a few more tons going to matter if it extracts high quality liquid fuel for the most modern military machine in the world.
So, they wait for the civilians to fall on their face and agree to come and "rescue" the industry for national security purposes.
See, the problem is that the folks at TOD think that a phrase such as "our lifestyle is non-negotiable" is a freakin' joke.
It''s NOT. We have soldiars suffering and dying everyday in the deserts of Iraq and the hills of Afghanistan. Do you think the security systems will balk from the fear of a little bit of nuclear activity out in the middle of the arctic outback?
These people aren't foolin around. They are their supporters will die to avoid having themselves and their children going back and livng like a bunch of fvckin' apes in the trees whose biggest earthly accomplishment is pickin' the ticks out of their azz. Some may dream of that. Let them go do it.
Many will fight it to the last blow. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
If you don't want the oil sands and the nukes and the shale, or at least just want to stay the helll away from it, you best be helping come up with better alternatives instead of laughing at all attempts.
(end of rant...and all names were omitted to protect the guil.....opps, the innocent! :-)
RC
You missed my point entirely. I've mentioned in other threads that we will fight over the table scraps. But history can teach us some useful lessons if we are smart enough to listen.
As for the military, please don't presume to lecture me. I spent 20 years in the USMC to preserve your's and every other citizens right to bitch about whatever blows your skirts up. I swore an oath to protect and defend this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I've never gone back on it. Have a nice day, and go a little easy on the drugs and alky.
And just so you do not misunderstand, even not knowing your history, I was in no way attempting to lecture you. If it was taken in that way, you have my apology.
On the military issue, first, let me do the right thing: Thank you for your service in what is a hard and under rewarding profession. I live next to a military base that my father worked at for over 30 years, have uncles and great uncles who have served thier life in the military. I have not served myself, and due to that great peacetime run we had after Vietnam, I was never called to.
And to make my point clear, it was that the efforts of the American government and military should indicate to anyone that we do in fact intend to continue on a modern state and a world power. Some may differ with those goals. That is their right. But those are the facts on the ground.
The "cost structure" and goals are a bit different when it is a security issue. No one really argues about the exact retail price of an F-18 or an aircraft carrier if it is percieved that is what needed to survive and prevail.
On history, that is a bit closer to an area I have dealt with than the military.
I absolutely agree that study of history in our current situation is vital to assist understanding of paths taken. However, it is easy to misinterpret history. Caution must be taken. G.W. Bush for example used history as an example, and cast Saddam as Hitler, all who questioned the Iraq war as Chamberlian in 1938 England and himself as the Churchill. Was that a correct use of the lessons of history? You be the judge. But it silenced all opposition at the time.
To America's ememies I beg you...do not underestimate the resolve of this government and this nation to survive. Please do not. The human suffering has already been great in making that error. Bin Laden and the gangs who desire our destruction (and despite the knee jerk anti-Americanism we often see, they are very real) can get a few of us. But they did not bring a big enough dog to the fight to win their stated prize of our destruction. Instead, they have assisted in bringing real horror on the whole of the Middle East.
Was that their goal? Educated Muslims and Arabs should ask themselves that question.
Back to point.....nuclear devices in the tar sand and the oil shale regions to extact millions of barrels of usable oil? They'll do it. The Canadians will do it, because they, like us, will in the end refuse to be carved up by our mutual enemies.
And if that sounds fueled by "drugs and alky" you go back over it and let me know where you proved me wrong. All lessons will be taken as a gift thank you.
RC
al Queda & friends whipped the Russians soundly - they bled them and bled them, no matter what was thrown at them. The Soviet Union, as we'll recall, crashed and burned after spending themselves in Aghanistan.
Now the United States is caught in the same trap. 150,000 troops pinned in Iraq, a half a trillion dollar crater in our national balance sheet, another division's worth of troops in Afghanistan not getting near the beating we're taking in Iraq, but Pakistan(nukes!) is sliding into chaos, with Waziristan breaking free, and the British abandoning their position in Iraq so their troops can face real threats in Afghanistan.
The military we've constructed to defeat the Soviet Union in an organized land battle in Europe is not quite useless in a low intensity conflict in Iraq. Should We, The People decide to conduct a genocidal war in Iraq in order to control their oil it may again be effective. This strikes me as madness, but I look at our neocon assclowns (industry term - diplomacy) and I think that this will be the case.
There is some debate as to what caused The Soviet Union to collapse. As I understand it, there is some consensus here that it was caused by Saudi Arabia (on orders from America) flooding the world oil market with cheap oil. Russian oil revenue quickly shriveled, and then did their empire.
The United States is not in the same trap as The Soviet Union. We still control Saudi Arabia, which is to say, we still control the world oil market. Russia never did.
We still control Saudi Arabia
“I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply. Use the capital that my administration will earn, with the Kuwaitis or the Saudis, and convince them to open up the spigot.”
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/More_George_W__Bush_Energy_+_Oil.htm
I'm sure Bush understands, as we do, that there is no spigot to open. This is rhetoric. Next! :)
The articles in Foreign Affairs indicate we've flat burned that relationship by our stupid, unipolar actions in Iraq. Yeah, we're the big dog, but we're half blind, toothless, and peeing on the carpet ... the Saudis, the Syrians, the Turks, and the Iranians are all delighted(NOT) by our antics. History is full of examples of what happens to empires that overreach in the face of no opposition ... the smaller players gather round and form a thwarting party.
bmcnett,
Are you sure you don't have the control relationship reversed, "white slave" ?
The Saudis didn't open the tap to destroy the Russians, they did it because Jimmy Carter's energy policies were working, an demand destruction from high prices. Go look again at the charts of world consumption and price history, and read what they said at the time. Attributing anything to Reagan except White House naps is on awfully shaky ground.
Bob Ebersole
I will go give it a look, thanks Bob.
The control relationship is not as simple as "white slavery."
We need them because they have a lot of cheap oil, and we need to control who gets it and on what terms.
They need us, because without our weapons, their monarchy would collapse.
Perhaps I was a bit harsh. This (misunderstandings) is the primary reason I dislike controversial discussions conducted on the internet. It's far too easy for everyone concerned to get their dander up. 'nuf said. Perhaps we can start over on a more amicable note.
My name is Gene. I'm in my '60's, on my 3rd career (avocation rather than a "job"), married for 36 years, reasonably comfortable in life, and expect to be around for another 20 years or so if family history is any guide. Pleased to meet you.
Just as a point of technical interest, you ( and others )may or may not be aware of an organization called DARPA. If not, I'd recommend visiting their website. In particular, this http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrusts/physci/index.htm may be a good starting point to see what sort of basic science is being done that will likely have civilian as well as military applications for energy interests. You won't get a lot of detail, but the site is quite extensive, and extraordinarily interesting and informative.
And if you have a potential solution applicable to one of their thrust areas, they will be glad to throw some money your way.
For anyone who wishes to harm this nation, and who might be reading this, they would also do well to review this site. It may change their minds. Keep in mind that this is all public information, so one can infer that "more interesting" work is also being done. :)
These are the folks who actually did invent the internet by the way.
Gene,
I'm glad you found The Oil Drum and are sticking around and commenting. Your service is your best credential, it shows your sincerity and sense of honor. The best part of being a Marine is your loyalty to each other and to the rest of us in this country.
I suspect we disagree a lot politicly, and I was one of the immature assholes that couldn't appreciate the true patriotism of men who saw their duty and no matter what, did the deal. These days I can see how wrong I was then, and I'd like to thank you for your service to the country and the rest of us, even when we are wrong. Semper Fi sums it up.
Bob Ebersole
Gene,
I'm glad you found The Oil Drum and are sticking around and commenting. Your service is your best credential, it shows your sincerity and sense of honor. The best part of being a Marine is your loyalty to each other and to the rest of us in this country.
I suspect we disagree a lot politicly, and I was one of the immature assholes that couldn't appreciate the true patriotism of men who saw their duty and no matter what, did the deal. These days I can see how wrong I was then, and I'd like to thank you for your service to the country and the rest of us, even when we are wrong. Semper Fi sums it up.
Bob Ebersole
Maybe not so much (re: political views). Career military folks have a somewhat more long term view of things than this or any former occupant of the White House or Congress. Many people misunderstand from the getgo where the militaries loyalties truly are. It's not with any individual. It's to the Nation as a whole, regardless of who happens to be in office at the moment. Politicians of whatever persuasion sometimes forget that, and need to be gently reminded from time to time. Even the Commander-In-Chief.
It also works in the other direction, at some degradation in efficiency but it's worth the cost. There is a reason the US Military does not have a single service, but rather several "branches" with some overlapping functions and cooperative tasks, but with separate chains of command (USAF,Army, Navy, Marines, etc.). It is to preclude one branch from having too much power, thereby avoiding the kind of military dictatorships that consume many other countries. Periodically someone will propose that the services merge for the sake of cost efficiency, etc. Bad idea, and never goes very far for the reason stated above.
Do you think that Bush has cultivated personal loyalty within the military, or perhaps I should say loyalty to dominionist sensibilities above service to the nation?
I think this, a former girlfriend who is a reserve captain shares that view, and an airforce major I dated before her had done the academy thing and while she wasn't forward about her beliefs I think she was in favor of that whole Christian Embassy thing ...
I'm curious to hear the views of someone who served prior to the Bush administration's poisoning of every single institution we have.
:) "I'm curious to hear the views of someone who served prior to the Bush administration's poisoning of every single institution we have."
I have to smile a little at that. I've heard this nearly identical statement more than once in the past 40 years or so applied to every President since Eisenhower. "Poisoning of institutions" ( such as the military for example ) isn't quite as easy as you seem to think. In general terms, every elected leader since G. Washington has tried to "cultivate personal loyalty" to a greater or lesser extent. Usually unsuccessfully, since we have a thing called "Term Limits" - at least for the Presidency - so career people know they will be around long after that individual has departed. Lends a different perspective. As has been said: "Patience grasshopper, this too shall pass." :)
In any case I think my personal political views of Pres. Bush are mine. I don't mean to sound uncooperative, but I don't discuss personal politics, religion, personal finances, and several other subjects with anyone, let alone complete strangers. Sorry.
Gene
I spent most of last year in El Paso, and the motels I were at were full of career Army, Army Reserve and contractors that were retired military. I got to be friends with some of them, and was very impressed.
One thing I'd like to note in particular-the Reserve kids were truly fine young men and women. They'd mostly joined as a way to work their way through college without crippling debt, they represent the best kids in our country, they have a great work effort and a sense of duty and service. And, the administration has horribly abused them by putting them in this war.
The retired military and professional military were first rate too. The retired guys were a little more vocal, but it was easy to tell they didn't support the war, but, they'd taken the money and they were going to follow through with their duty, it was both a personal sense of honor and loyalty to their fellow servicemen.
So it was a real eye-opener to me. I began to see that we all need to see our common heritage as Americans and celebrate the things that we all hold in common-we all love this country and do what we do out of the same motives, we want the best for the country and the world. Sure, there's some nut and sociopaths that would rather divide us because they see manipulation as their personal path to power and wealth. Unfortunately, way too many of them are in politics and the media.
But, my father was a marine in WWII and Korea. My grandfather was an Army Medic serving with the Marines at St. Michael, the Argonne and Belleau Woods. I was born at Quantico, but Viet Nam kept me from being a Marine, and I'm not sorry about that. As I said, thanks for your service!Bob Ebersole
Bob, I appreciate your comments and your views as well as those of others. I really do. But, I fear this subthread may stir up peoples feelings on one side or the other of past or present disputes, or dredge up ancient history, or digress into areas that will likely only end up in acrimonious and pointless arguement. So, if you're agreeable, I'd just as soon end it here.
I pretty much agree with the military aspect. This week's North American get together was probably more than Hi, how are you.
As for your thoughts on wind the other day,
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated"-Twain
I don't mean to be flippant, just that I think that wind has a long way to go, and will. Though perhaps not off Long Island.
"As for your thoughts on wind the other day,
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated"-Twain"
I hope your right.
RC
ThatsItImOut wrote:
You presume that civilization is a good thing. Civilization is, in fact, a kind of fire that burns away the natural world, until cheap fuel runs out, when it collapses, destroying those who supported it.
The Inuit (Eskimo) and Kalahari Bushmen have no civilization, but peak oil won't be any problem for them. They won't even notice.
I refer you to Jared Diamond's article for "Discover Magazine," "The Worst Mistake In the History of the Human Race."
http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html
bmcnett:
You said:
This seems to me to be a really bizzare thing to suggest. Both the Innu and San cultures have been deeply changed by the dominant societies that have surrounded them.
It would be way "off thread" to detail this but please let me suggest that you do some basic research into current conditions.
A few links however...
Archbishop Tutus appeal to the Gov't of Botswana and others to refrain from further efforts to destroy the San people (they want the lands for diamond mining and "eco-tourism", and now AIDS is getting a foothold there):
http://www.survival-international.org/news/2016
Wade Davis speaking at TED on the state of the "ethnosphere"
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/69
Of course these people have been deeply affected by agriculturalists and fossil-fuel-using cultures. I never said otherwise. What I said: if gasoline were to spike to $10 a gallon tomorrow, it would not affect the daily life of traditionalist Inuit and Bushmen.
if gasoline were to spike to $10 a gallon tomorrow, it would not affect the daily life of traditionalist Inuit and Bushmen.
O.K. lets see if we can bridge this gap here...
If I'm a present day "traditionalist Inuit" in the north I'm living in a house heated with oil, who's electricity is produced with a desiel generator. The people and goods that come into and leave my community move on a gasoline powered aircraft and / or an oil powered supply ship.
When I go out on the land for part of the year to hunt and fish I'm using a gasoline powered outboard motor, skidoo, or quad-runner.
How am I immune to increases in fuel costs?
If I'm a "traditionalist" San chances are I'm in a forced "resettelment camp" due to a policy of ethnocide on the part of the national government to clear the way for mining development. I suppose you could say that the price of gasoline is the least of my worries at this point...
http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=340419304
We would argue over your definition of "traditionalist." There do exist hunter-gatherers today who use no fossil fuel at all. Some are Inuit, some are Bushmen.
I don't get out much, but I've seen Inuit on TV in 2007 whose primary transportation is sled dogs. They may have grown dependent on cheap guns, but that problem could be solved.
As for the "San" hard times indeed. Similar problems for the indigenous peoples of the Amazon, who are now succumbing to mass industrial destruction of their land.
The true traditionalists - the ones who reject all fossil fuels - will not be hurt very much by $20 gasoline. There are vey few such people, but they do exist.
Not saying your wrong, just that I can't find data, so could you tell me what you base your assertion on that there are still some Inuit living totally "fossil free" i.e. more or less pre european contact lifestyle in the north?
I do agree that there are still primary culture hunter gatherers elsewhere on the planet...
Hi Thatsit,
Oh Boy! a Rant! Thanks, that gives me the opportunity for a counterRant.
You carpetbaggers (american and canadian) think that civilization is the accumulation of more and/or new goodies and the head is for gobbling them whether they are Big Boy candy bars of Game Boy computor games or just more stuff. I doubt that we have had a civilized life since we used to sit on our azzes and picked ticks out of them. A lot of hubris and little ideation. (ideation doesn't reallly fit it, we think with our heads instead of deep down where we live, we think like we are out of our trees, we think in narrow little bands of expertise.)
Thatsit, I don't see that as a joke but as something that might at least save the planet. I have begun to feel that mitigation of the approaching catastrophe will merely feed the beast, We are hell bent on destruction and throwing in more new energy and so called energy saving devices does nothing to reduce what is already being used it will only extend the period it will happen in. The population increases, energy use increases, energy inputs increase energy outputs decrease, markets wobble and are propped up by temporary and inflationary measures while the electric grid throws sparks and brownouts and all the while ma nature does a tap dance on our vacuous heads
Your military needs more than oil to run on, it needs a working US infrastructure which is running on empty now. The guys that penned and used that phrase are not looking for any false salvation by mitigation they are just going to run till the tank is empty, just faster than us clever people would do it, thats all.
I believe the link stated the water ratio was 2 barrels of water for one barrel of oil.