What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

23 Replies to “What Could Possibly Go Wrong?”

1. When Obama bows to a king/dictator of ‘Allah extraction’, is he really bowing or bending over?
   With Ackmadinnerjacket now at the OPEC helm I think I know my answer.

2. OPEC is also committed to encouraging dialogue between OPEC and non-OPEC producers, as well as with consumers.
   Whew! And I thought this could problematic.

3. “be”

4. If Iran were to lead OPEC to significantly cut oil production China would be far more concerned than it was when Jimmy Carter was President.

5. We all know it’s inclusiveness that makes the world go around,so, I suggest Iran should be further welcomed into the world community by being appointed to head the IAEA,as rumour has it they’re interested in atomic energy also.

6. Good Grief ! What’s next a Nobel Peace Prize ?
   ,

7. At least Iran knows what pay’s the bills; OIL. Dispite all their saber ratlling, they need the west to keep buying their oil/gas and if not the west it needs to be the west’s supplier of cheap goods.
   I’d be more worried if Hugo and his boys where in charge, they seem to forget that their socialist utopia is funded by American SUV’s.
   The Saudi’s know it best, their wealth comes from a healthy west, they may not like it. But the tribalism of the reason would quickly take over and the House of Saud would be overrun pretty quickly after the military / police paycheques started bouncing.

8. But we should definitely not pursue alternative sources of (preferably renewable) energy and/or reduce energy consumption where reasonable.

9. Davenport, I’d like you to name one (1) source of “alternative”, “renewable” energy which is plug-in ready for the grid.
   Please, go ahead. We can wait.

10. The Phantom: “Davenport, I’d like you to name one (1) source of “alternative”, “renewable” energy which is plug-in ready for the grid.”
    At this stage, none that would allow for a significant immediate shift away from non-renewables. Should we then not pursue their development?
    What were coal industry supporters saying about the nascent petroleum industry in the early 1800s?
    How much in state subsidies has the modern petroleum industry receive in the 150+ years that it’s been in existence?
    You might not need no stinking giant fans, but do you think your future great-grandchildren might?

11. The US gets 70% of it’s oil domestically.
    16% comes from the ME…easily replaced from other sources.
    Most of US petroleum/gas imports originate in Canada and Mexico.
    China/India rely heavily on ME petroleum….hence their ready participation in suppressing Somali piracy by deploying naval units.
    Iran has been involved in getting a strangle hold on ME oil exports. The anticipated nuclear weapons threaten Gulf states more than Isreal.
    The Iranian support of islamists in Yemen are targeted to gain command of the Bab al Mandab(Gate of Tears) the narrow chock point where the Red Sea mets the Gulf of Aden.
    They already threaten the Straits of Hormuz with their naval base at Bandar Abbas….
    Iran has recently supplied Venezuela with ballistic missiles….
    Iran though has a little problem….Bandar Abbas is a paper tiger lacking the naval/land assets/infrastructure to be relevant….one good air-strike and it’s history.
    Iran despite it’s Petroleum reserves lacks refinnery capacity and must import gasoline, etc.
    Recent transportation disruption from striking truckers and ferry operators has frozen Bandar Abbas. Iran ended it’s subsidies for refined fuel. Domestic attacks on what refineries it has has resulted in shortages…the end of subsidies adds to the price…..fuel prices going nuts….hence the strikes.
    Big trouble in doggy land……

12. sasquatch: “The US gets 70% of it’s oil domestically…”
    Not so. The US imports anywhere between 51% and almost 70% of its oil from foreign sources, depending on who’s doing the estimating.
    – eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp#foreign_oil
    – americanprogress.org/issues/2009/08/pdf/energy_security.pdf

13. D
    Nobodies saying not to develop alternatives. We object to government intervening and trying to force feed such a market. I’ve heard your ‘we subsidies oil’ argument and I’ll accept your premise for this point and say that I’d accept similar subsidies if a) there is an already established demand and viable industry; and b) if we can afford such a subsidy without it being detrimental to the existing industries. No robbing Peter to pay Paul so to speak.
    So, my largest objection to what I believe you would support is…I don’t want my government trying to artificially create demand for a product, or create an industry for the sake of doing so. Surely you’ll admit that very recent history has shown the viability of these artificially induced industries is volatile at best.JMO

14. Eskimo is totally gay for Obama. Duffman has no idea that there is a WORLD MARKET for oil. If one country will not buy it another will.Even IRAN is willing to buy refined oil products from Venezuela.The recent missile for oil swap is just one example.

15. Hey davenport ,
    I cannot prove it to you via fact sheet or net link and for that i appologize but i have with my own eyes read article written by american and canadian petrolium producers and sellers and purchasers who have openly and easily stated that the u.s. import oil at no less than 70% from canada and in other articles i have read it to be higher at around 85% from canada.
    Hence the out rage from the eco fascists in the u.s. and canada about the oil sands . because america get’s so much of it’s oil from us.

16. Indiana.
    Fair enough; I suppose we’ll never see eye-to-eye on the appropriate role of government subsidies. I’ll suggest only that gov’t subsidies seem most appropriate precisely where a nascent industry has both the established demand (energy needs are going nowhere but up) and the potential to generate significant economic gains as well as public good (as would be the case with renewable energies, in terms of national security, environmental sustainability, etc.) but whose economic viability is uncertain due primarily to current technological limitations.
    At the very least, directing subsidies along those lines are no less appropriate than continuing to offer subsidies to 100+ year-old oil companies that record annual profits in the tens of billions of dollars.

17. paul in calgary: “…the u.s. import oil at no less than 70% from canada and in other articles i have read it to be higher at around 85% from canada.”
    Sorry, not possible. The numbers simply don’t bear that out. See, e.g., eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html.
    Given that almost all of Canada’s oil production heads south, perhaps the numbers they quoted refer to “the % of Canadian oil exports going to the US,” rather than “the % of US oil imports coming from Canada.”

18. Davenport said: “At this stage, none that would allow for a significant immediate shift away from non-renewables.”
    Exactly.
    “Should we then not pursue their development?”
    What you mean “we”, white man? Public money used in energy research? Its a bad idea.
    “What were coal industry supporters saying about the nascent petroleum industry in the early 1800s?”
    Nothing. The petroleum industry has had almost zero ill effect on coal, we use more coal now than ever.
    “How much in state subsidies has the modern petroleum industry receive in the 150+ years that it’s been in existence?”
    I don’t know, Davenport. Who cares? Are state subsidies the thing keeping oil in use, or is it more that the entire installed industrial base of our civilization runs on it?
    “You might not need no stinking giant fans, but do you think your future great-grandchildren might?”
    I sincerely hope not. I expect my great-grand children (should such eventuality occur) will either be using electricity generated by hydrogen fusion, or uranium fission, or they’ll be BURNING STUFF the way we do. Most likely coal and petroleum. I fully expect they will be better at it that we are, as progress marches on. Either that or they’ll be living in mud huts because of listening to socialists like yourself.
    You must be an English major Davenport, because you really don’t get the whole “energy density”, “power/weight ratio” conversation regarding these “alternative” energy sources.
    Biofuels, windmills and solar cells are really and truly never ever EVER going to generate the kind of energy our society uses. The only real alternatives are fission, fusion and -maybe- a space-based solar collection system that beams power (or just heat) down from collectors in orbit. An outside possibility is shipping hydrocarbons in from the gas giants, but that could be pretty hard to make profitable. Better to ship helium3 and use it for fusion.
    Maybe there’s some undiscovered science fiction sources out there like zero-point energy, but the math currently doesn’t look encouraging. Wishing does not make it so.

19. Geothermal is an alternative energy source one doesn’t often hear mentioned.
    It sounds like the one of the best solutions if the technological challenges can be met.
    http://www.energy-consumers-edge.com/pros_and_cons_of_geothermal_energy.html
    There’s links to other pro and con pages of different energy sources, like wind, in the text at the link.

20. There won’t be a problem.
    OPEC members all defect from the cartel’s demands at will already, and with a global recession on, they’re already hurting.
    Iran could “demand” they all stop producing for whatever reason, and none of them would listen.
    (Oh, they might talk like they’re obeying, but the pumps will keep right on running.)
    Signaller: The solution (beyond oil/gas) is nuclear power; it really is as simple as that. Geothermal is a non-starter almost everywhere.

21. Signaller:
    Geo-thermal has had little success even in New Zealand and Iceland. The source geothermal energy depletes faster than an oil field and then there is the problem of corrossion.
    The heat must be put through a heat exchanger so that the expensive turbines are not exposed. The plumbing carrying the raw geothermal steam to the heat exchanger and the heat exchanger itself need replacing often. Even atainless steel is degrades rapidly…..
    Wind energy is perhaps older than hydro and unless somebody reinvents the wheel…it remains non viable if alternatives are available.
    We didn’t stop using wind because the wind dropped anymore than the stone-age ended because we ran out of rocks.
    The great age of sail occurred AFTER steam ships were adopted(latter 19th-early 20th century). Sailing ships with steel hulls, rigging and steam winches to set the sails(wind jammers) were cheap to operate compared to steam but were only viable for bulk cargo which could wait for favourable winds.

22. Geothermal is one more -amazingly-expensive- way to replace a coal fired boiler. Drilling a hole deep enough in most places is hugely expensive, then there’s the pumping, the tankage, the pipes, the super duper jet-engine style steam turbine…
    But the real killer is the environmental impact studies out the wazoo, seeing as how you’re introducing high pressure water/steam into rock strata where there currently isn’t any. [crack] kaboom! Could be an owie there.
    Getting something like that past the NIMBY/Greenie lawsuit artists out there holding up every little saw mill and micro-hydro project, good luck.

23. Can’t wait till we get our Nuclear reactor in Alberta.
    Of course its on hold, till we rid ourselves of Eddy the Red.