Diesel prices

[Cranfield]

I partly agree with snotty.

 

When you look at how much our International liabilities cost us (as we are a major World power ) from overseas aid, through military expenditure and being a money tit for every foreign immigrant to suck on, it does make you think that we should pull in our horns somewhat.

 

When things are right in the UK, then perhaps we can afford to throw our cash around the World, but until then we should consider the adage "Charity begins at home".

 

So as not to be accused of complete derailment, I would add that if we reduced our International money wasting profile, we would not need to raise taxes to their current obscene level.

We could also reduce the risks of terrorism at a stroke.

[Steve Walker]

UK governments of any colour by and large do not hypotheticate taxes.

 

By and large, true, apart from rod tax. They don't like the idea of hypothecation because it makes it just a little bit too transparent how much is spent on what.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

I partly agree with snotty.

 

When you look at how much our International liabilities cost us (as we are a major World power ) from overseas aid, through military expenditure and being a money tit for every foreign immigrant to suck on, it does make you think that we should pull in our horns somewhat.

 

When things are right in the UK, then perhaps we can afford to throw our cash around the World, but until then we should consider the adage "Charity begins at home".

 

So as not to be accused of complete derailment, I would add that if we reduced our International money wasting profile, we would not need to raise taxes to their current obscene level.

We could also reduce the risks of terrorism at a stroke.

 

I agree with this post apart from the last line

We could also reduce the risks of terrorism at a stroke.

 

They have an agenda and they will use every excuse they can lay their grubby hands on to justify their actions.

 

Yes we could save billions by drawing in our horns but it won't stop idiots taking a pop at us.

[Vagabond]

1. The general consensus since using satellite technology is that all but a tea spoon full of oil reserves are well known.

"General consensus" It was the "general consensus" in Wales that you needed a Welsh Assembly - I refer you to your recent post on that subject.

 

Its a good job you don't have to earn your living as an exploration geologist, or you would have talked yourself out of a job. My daughter is a structural geologist at the cutting edge of oil exploration. Whilst satellite views give you a good general idea as to where potential oil deposits might be, the devil is in the detail, for which you need a geological and geophysical team on the ground. At present she is concerned with discovering and mapping as yet unexploited oil traps in difficult limestone mountain country - and that is only one example. As Corydoras pointed out in another thread, there are huge untapped reserves under the Siberian taiga, and vast reserves still in Venezuela. There is still much to be explored in detail in Arctic and Antarctic regions - satellite imagery or no.

 

2. They have already gone that route and we are currently using many methods of extraction with were deemed as uneconomical twenty years ago

. That is very true, but it is an arrogant assumption that we now know all there is to know about oil extraction. As you say, "they have gone that route". However,they will continue to go that route. In another twenty years we will be using many methods of extraction deemed uneconomical at present. The deposits in the limestone I refer to above are a case in point. There is a team working on devising an economically feasible extraction method as I type. That is just one example of what is happening globally.

 

3. There is much to done in improving current oil consuming engines, however that will only ever tread water, we need to move away from oil all together and given the need I am sure we will.

 

Whatever "new" fuel you devise, it won't come cheap -

firstly, you can't get energy for nothing and the energy to produce the fuel must come from SOMEWHERE at both a financial and environmental cost.

 

...and secondly because governments will have to tax the new fuel to make up the shortfall from reducing oil revenues.

 

This world will run out of food long before it runs out of energy. Its an unpleasant fact of life that governments put affluence before subsistence. Think about biofuels - agricultural land converted from growing food to producing fuel.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Vagabond

[Ken Davison South Wales]

"General consensus" It was the "general consensus" in Wales that you needed a Welsh Assembly - I refer you to your recent post on that subject.

 

Its a good job you don't have to earn your living as an exploration geologist, or you would have talked yourself out of a job. My daughter is a structural geologist at the cutting edge of oil exploration. Whilst satellite views give you a good general idea as to where potential oil deposits might be, the devil is in the detail, for which you need a geological and geophysical team on the ground. At present she is concerned with discovering and mapping as yet unexploited oil traps in difficult limestone mountain country - and that is only one example. As Corydoras pointed out in another thread, there are huge untapped reserves under the Siberian taiga, and vast reserves still in Venezuela. There is still much to be explored in detail in Arctic and Antarctic regions - satellite imagery or no.

 

. That is very true, but it is an arrogant assumption that we now know all there is to know about oil extraction. As you say, "they have gone that route". However,they will continue to go that route. In another twenty years we will be using many methods of extraction deemed uneconomical at present. The deposits in the limestone I refer to above are a case in point. There is a team working on devising an economically feasible extraction method as I type. That is just one example of what is happening globally.

Whatever "new" fuel you devise, it won't come cheap -

firstly, you can't get energy for nothing and the energy to produce the fuel must come from SOMEWHERE at both a financial and environmental cost.

 

...and secondly because governments will have to tax the new fuel to make up the shortfall from reducing oil revenues.

 

This world will run out of food long before it runs out of energy. Its an unpleasant fact of life that governments put affluence before subsistence. Think about biofuels - agricultural land converted from growing food to producing fuel.

 

Dave you have all but echoed what I said in my reply apart from the

It was the "general consensus" in Wales that you needed a Welsh Assembly - I refer you to your recent post on that subject.

 

I realise fully that we require teams on the ground to do the final ground work, I worked in close contact with some of the very best in the early seventies. My point is these teams are now sharpening up what we already know rather than finding new supplies.

 

I certainly would not presume to state we know all there is to know about oil extraction.

 

However I would be as bold as to state that we now know that once our current drill and extract system is depleted we will be left with extremely expensive alternatives which will reflect dramatically on our daily lives. The lime stone deposits have been on the table for at least three decades to my limited knowledge, however your statement

There is a team working on devising an economically feasible extraction method as I type.

does not mean that the so called economical cost will bring the price of crude down, all it means is it will be extracted as cheaply as possible.

 

I would agree 100% with the below statement providing we have not blown ourselves out of existence arguing over oil deposits.

This world will run out of food long before it runs out of energy. Its an unpleasant fact of life that governments put affluence before subsistence. Think about biofuels - agricultural land converted from growing food to producing fuel.

 

Last but not least

 

Whatever "new" fuel you devise, it won't come cheap -

firstly, you can't get energy for nothing and the energy to produce the fuel must come from SOMEWHERE at both a financial and environmental cost.

I do not agree 100% with the above, as an example, I don't see wave machines or tidal turbines as being environmentally damaging when compared to other current methods of producing power. Yes they have an initial construction cost and maintenance cost but with the increasing cost of crude and gas they will very soon be looked upon as a very cheap option.

 

Then we have the solar hydrogen cells which have been developed which will produce fuel very cheaply when oil companies and government allows.

 

I would hazard a guess that there are many more ways to produce energy that have yet to be discovered and abused.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Ken Davison South Wales

[n4lly]

I just bought a BMW 730i

[peterpikefisher]

I just bought a BMW 730i

 

 

congratulations but can you afford to pay for the fuel to drive the 120 yards to the corner shop

[Vagabond]

I realise fully that we require teams on the ground to do the final ground work,

 

I certainly would not presume to state we know all there is to know about oil extraction.

Well, I'm glad you have got that far - that's an improvement on your original response.

I don't see wave machines or tidal turbines as being environmentally damaging

Well you might see the results of energy being absorbed by the wave machines when you lose your local bass beach. Each beach is a result of an interaction of the land with the sea, involving, amongst other things, the energy of incoming waves. Change the energy (by absorbing it with wave machines) and you will change the beach.

Wave machines also have an unfortunate tendency to be overwhelmed by the first Force 10 storm that hits them and will be expensive to replace frequently, given the current long-term weather outlook.

Tidal turbines - isn't there a current (pun inevitable) debate on the proposed Severn barrage concerning escalating cost estimations and concerns over long-term environmental damage?

 

Then we have the solar hydrogen cells which have been developed which will produce fuel very cheaply when oil companies and government allows.

I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago. The new fuel may not cost much to produce (oil is equally "cheap" to produce in that sense) but it will be subject to similar price cartels as oil, and taxed at the same rate as oil is taxed.

 

There are NO easy options - but all the time we can afford to eat and to go fishing I recommend we do so

[Ken Davison South Wales]

I have just reread my original statement Dave and in truth I cannot see that any of it was stated in slabs of granite.

1. The general consensus since using satellite technology is that all but a tea spoon full of oil reserves are well known.

 

2. They have already gone that route and we are currently using many methods of extraction which were deemed as uneconomical twenty years ago.

 

3. There is much to done in improving current oil consuming engines, however that will only ever tread water, we need to move away from oil all together and given the need I am sure we will.

 

Peak Oil as previously stated is related only in part to oil reserves, it is production of products combined with rising demand and ever increasing extraction cost combined which give rise to the term Peak Oil.

 

It ain't a case of crying wolf any more, hell it is written in letters a mile high, airlines going bust right left and centre, pump prices going up even for the poor old yanks, transport and other oil users up in arms and getting no where.

 

Time to stop blaming governments of the day and time to start evaluating our own life styles.

 

I am no saint, went fishing yesterday, including collection of bait total mileage one hundred and twenty eight just to keep me happy.

 

Hell I came up with that one without thinking, just imagine the list if you really started to consider things like bananas and other produce from around the world we eat, clothes made in China as against the Midlands.

 

Over the last fifty years we have grown into a society of rampant consumers and the whole world is now following on.

 

Diesel pump prices are just the tip of the iceberg, wait tell the rest pops it's head up.

 

 

 

Well, I'm glad you have got that far - that's an improvement on your original response.

 

Well you might see the results of energy being absorbed by the wave machines when you lose your local bass beach. Each beach is a result of an interaction of the land with the sea, involving, amongst other things, the energy of incoming waves. Change the energy (by absorbing it with wave machines) and you will change the beach.

Wave machines also have an unfortunate tendency to be overwhelmed by the first Force 10 storm that hits them and will be expensive to replace frequently, given the current long-term weather outlook.

Tidal turbines - isn't there a current (pun inevitable) debate on the proposed Severn barrage concerning escalating cost estimations and concerns over long-term environmental damage?

I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago. The new fuel may not cost much to produce (oil is equally "cheap" to produce in that sense) but it will be subject to similar price cartels as oil, and taxed at the same rate as oil is taxed.

 

There are NO easy options - but all the time we can afford to eat and to go fishing I recommend we do so

 

I will go with that 100%

Edited June 14, 2008 by Ken Davison South Wales

[maidstonemike]

Can't see the point of a Hydrogen cell car, it requires a tank of Hydrogen, and to produce the Hydrogen creates a carbon footprint as big as a petrol car. Not very green.