Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Condor who wrote (47184)	3/9/2004 9:08:09 PM
From: tom pope	Respond to of 74559

I guess I'm in a what goes around comes around mood these days - Aramco is a a contraction of Arabian-American Oil Company. China and Saudi Arabia’s state-owned Aramco formed a $3 billion petroleum chemical joint venture. All these moves make the U.S. uneasy

To: Condor who wrote (47184)	3/9/2004 9:08:24 PM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

Hi Condor, Energy costs as a percentage of GDP will continue to increase across the board for all developed countries. The only, and I'll repeat, the only short term solution available to significantly reduce the world's growing dependence on fossil fuels is to convert as much as possible to nuclear energy, despite the known risks of using nuclear power. The world is quickly running out of time to develop alternative fuels. So I expect a resurgence in nuclear power stations over the next 20 or so years. I'll hazard a guess that we may soon see commercial airliners that run on nuclear power. The high energy costs of the current jet fuels make this change viable. Oil not going into jet fuel can be diverted to another industry where there is no substitute for oil. Yes, there are enormous risks to having flying nuclear reactors across the global skies, but there simply aren't any other available viable choices in the short term. Automobiles, trucks, cycles and other forms of transportation (all large users of oil) will have to either reduce the amount of oil used, or convert to a different fuel (say hydrogen). I suspect that we'll see some fuel "blends" at first, say half oil and half something else, but eventually everything will go to a different fuel form that doesn't require the use of oil. I'm sure that there's many other instances that people can think of as well. Mind you, I'm not proposing using nuclear energy for any of these functions. I'm merely stating that I think it will come to pass in time... KJC

To: Condor who wrote (47184)	3/10/2004 2:49:13 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 74559

Crisis means friend: Message 19833987 Brazil will end up become rich just providing the world ethanol, iron ore, beef and chicken. Lets hope these Asians develop as fast they possibly can!!!!

To: Condor who wrote (47184)	3/10/2004 10:11:12 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Condor, <<< Global Energy War Looms in>>> June Park and others who conjecture such incendiary scenarios are idiots. In the US, if need be, we could mandate manufacturers to provide more fuel efficient products and we could each cut in half our consumption of fossil fuel and probably not have much lower standards of living. In other words, we have a huge margins for error. I don't think it will ever come to that. When the time comes, we could always get energy from oil shale, wind, sun, and water. The world is not going to come to an end because we have too many mouths to feed or that we run out of energy to sustain our standards of living. If the world does come to an end, it will be caused by something totally unexpected. Something that we could not have imagined. In the meantime, have a life. Do no harm and be as productive as possible. Tend to your own little garden. Mary

To: Condor who wrote (47184)	3/10/2004 8:38:11 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

OIL FACTS: Condor, June Park seems to be very far off the mark with his/her oil consumption figures for China: In 2002, on average, China consumed 19.7 million barrels daily. Apart from its daily production of 7.69 million barrels, if China consumes all of Saudi Arabia’s average daily production of 10.15 million barrels via a direct pipeline, it won’t meet the Chinese daily demand for oil. These are the figures for the U.S.'s consumption and production. Not China's. In 2002, China was consuming something like 4.9 MMbpd. Sources: energypulse.net thirdworldtraveler.com