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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (175602)	11/23/2005 12:56:00 PM
From: mistermj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

By 2040 oil production is predicted to fall to as little as 1/5 of present levels. 2-3 years ago very few accepted his. Today this is generally accepted. Utter nonsense. THE OIL RESERVE FALLACY: Proven reserves are not a measure of future supply Conclusion and Bibliography (Part VI) As we have seen, there is far more oil in the world than the oil reserve estimates given for the Middle East. If the Veneuelans are right, there is enough oil in Venezuela alone to power the world for 44 years (at 27.3 billion barrels of world consuption per year). Similar or greater reserves exist in the Athabasca tar sands and other unconventional reserves that push actual world reserve life well out into the 22nd century. These are not as cheap as Middle Eastern reserves, but they are not prohibitively expensive either >> it's going to be a long time before we run out of oil. There is plenty of it in Venezuela, Canada, Russia and other parts of the world. At current consumption rates, oil reserve life will be measured in centuries.<< radford.edu Very interesting article...I recommend the feature article and all the plus articles. Here are the first two: Why $5 Gas Is Good for America wired.com As Prices Rise, Technologies Emerge wired.com

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (175602)	11/23/2005 7:27:07 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

By the way, wind mills have a projected life of 30-40 years today. the 20 year figure is out of date-from the 80's. I own a part of 2 mills and they supply me with 14% after tax. Let me know if that estimate held true will you, in 30-40 years. Btw, I think it's a great idea, investment wise, if the figures you're telling are correct. You get your principle paid off within 10 years and then start drawing sheer profit. So why has wind power failed to become as popular as T-Bonds (or even Junk Bonds)?? You'd think people would be SCREAMING for those kinds of returns? Btw, don't you think taking 15% return is rather "economically exploitive" of the builders of that wind mill? Maybe you should have waited until they developed sufficient capital and skills to build it themselves rather than having to pay usurious rates of dividends to you.. ;0) Believe me.. mass transit makes economic and logistical sense, it will be used when $100 oil comes. Sure it will.. when you have the economic trigger.. Just like my putting 2000 packets of Sacharin per day in my coffee will probably give me cancer.. But right now, mass transit doesn't make sense. And all you accomplish is shifting economic resources from the production, maintenance, and fueling of automobiles to the production, maintenance, and fueling of mass transit systems.. ALL AT A GREATER ECONOMIC COST that reduces our productivity and prosperity. (Because we can't spend the difference on other activities.) As for CO2.. the majority of CO2 is locked in the Oceans. There is technology, inlcuding using pulverized Iron in minerally deficient portions of the ocean, to increase the growth of algae, which increases CO2 absorption. It ALSO has the side benefit of creating "blooms" of ocean life that increase the quantity of fish, creating an economic BOOM to fisherman and specie sustainment (all at a relatively small cost.. but difficulty making the benefitting fisherman pay for that cost). sd-commission.org.uk The "iron hypothesis" assumes that phytoplankton utilisation of the macro-nutrients nitrate, phosphate and silicate is effectively "capped" in the remote HNLC regions due to the limited supply of iron. Cessation of iron limitation in bottle experiments and three international mesoscale iron release experiments (IRONEX, IRONEX2, and SOIREE) in the three main HNLC regions (the Equatorial Pacific, the Sub-Arctic Pacific and the Southern Ocean) have confirmed the premise that iron is limiting phytoplankton production in these regions. These observations have stimulated debate as to whether the addition of iron to the surface waters of HNLC regions could enhance carbon export to the deep ocean and decrease atmospheric CO2. Hmm... could the decreasing level of Iron in the ocean be disrupting the natural ability of the ocean to maintain a balance of CO2 in the atmosphere?? Bottom line, there are NUMEROUS economically viable and positive methods to deal with global warming, especially when that nasty polluting "mother earth" takes to spewing megatons of sulphur and CO2 from her innards. And go forbid that MN should release her Methane Hydrates from the oceam depths via some tectonic trigger.. You think you have global warming now.. (despite historical records that the earth has had previous warming spells) You ain't seen nothing yet.. Maybe we should be mining all of those Hydrates and converting them to less harmful forms of gas? Maybe we could burn them, y'think?? Hawk