Oil: Economic Opportunity? Or Poison?

[Nobel Hobos]

If we discovered some way of getting unlimited cheap electricity (burning seawater?) the oil majors would still be selling oil.

And not just for plastics or fertilizers. If it got cheap enough, we'd be eating the stuff.

As you said, fertilizers, we already eat petrol products all the time.

Not if you eat organic. Then you're eating cow dung. *nod*

[Lackadaisical2]

Yes, I'd say the right now is important, thats pretty obvious. You probably can't afford to research the rest without the fossil fuel based economy.

True, but investment isn't about the now, because the popular thing now is already high. The goal of the wise investor is to buy low, sell high, and as such, you need to consider the future when making a wise investment.

Again, I never advocated not considering the future, but you seem intent on trying to dismiss the realities of today, its not possible.

As for the farts, I wasn't saying they weren't SOURCES. I was just pointing out that they weren't EFFICIENT sources (even the highly generous article you linked to pointed out that biogas can only power about 17% of a car. Even the bloom box runs circles around that laughable source).

Not good for a car perhaps, but natural gas could be an efficient fuel for a purpose made generator or home heating.

[Lackadaisical2]

If we discovered some way of getting unlimited cheap electricity (burning seawater?) the oil majors would still be selling oil.

And not just for plastics or fertilizers. If it got cheap enough, we'd be eating the stuff.

As you said, fertilizers, we already eat petrol products all the time.

Not if you eat organic. Then you're eating cow dung. *nod*

'Organic', at least in the states often isn't any different than the rest you'd get off the shelf, well besides the nice markups.

[Nobel Hobos]

Farts do.

Well, farts are nothing but methane, right? Isn't that a gas? As far as I'm aware, gas is also an energy alternative.

We could still drink milk and eat beef. But every cow would have to have a little power station strapped to its rump.

Not a far fetched idea, Hobos. If it's a question of searching for alternate energy resources, that could very well work.

The wires keep getting tangled up. And so far, I've had no success in teaching the cows to skip rope.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Farts do.

Well, farts are nothing but methane, right? Isn't that a gas? As far as I'm aware, gas is also an energy alternative.

We could still drink milk and eat beef. But every cow would have to have a little power station strapped to its rump.

Not a far fetched idea, Hobos. If it's a question of searching for alternate energy resources, that could very well work.

The wires keep getting tangled up. And so far, I've had no success in teaching the cows to skip rope.

Well, you know how cows are. Nothing gets them riled up.

[Soviet Engineers]

Not good for a car perhaps, but natural gas could be an efficient fuel for a purpose made generator or home heating.

Better home design is an even MORE efficient route. Just make the home so insulated that it's unbearable during hot seasons, than use push/pull fans (powered by any centralized grid or nongrid system, such as fission or a bloom box), terazzo floors, and a series of underground tunnels to cool the house in warm seasons. That would be way more efficient than trying to heat a house with biofuels. While I'm sure they're far superior to central heating, one must think integrally for maximum systemwide efficiency.

[Nobel Hobos]

According to Wikipedia ...

... yes, that's right, I've been reading the Wikipedia page on farting ...

In 1998, Chester "Buck" Weimer of Pueblo, Colorado received a patent for the first undergarment that contained a replaceable charcoal filter. The undergarments are air-tight and provide a pocketed escape hole in which a charcoal filter can be inserted.[14] In 2001 Mr Weimer received the Ig Nobel Prize for Biology for his invention.

but also, disappointingly:

Flatulence is often blamed as a significant source of greenhouse gases, owing to the erroneous belief that the methane released by livestock is in the flatus.[18] While livestock account for around 20% of global methane emissions,[19] 90-95% of that is released by exhaling or burping.[20]

... making Cow Power far more technically challenging. Oh well.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

According to Wikipedia ...

... yes, that's right, I've been reading the Wikipedia page on farting ...

In 1998, Chester "Buck" Weimer of Pueblo, Colorado received a patent for the first undergarment that contained a replaceable charcoal filter. The undergarments are air-tight and provide a pocketed escape hole in which a charcoal filter can be inserted.[14] In 2001 Mr Weimer received the Ig Nobel Prize for Biology for his invention.

but also, disappointingly:

Flatulence is often blamed as a significant source of greenhouse gases, owing to the erroneous belief that the methane released by livestock is in the flatus.[18] While livestock account for around 20% of global methane emissions,[19] 90-95% of that is released by exhaling or burping.[20]

... making Cow Power far more technically challenging. Oh well.

Well, it was fun to theorize. Right?

[Nobel Hobos]

Not good for a car perhaps, but natural gas could be an efficient fuel for a purpose made generator or home heating.

Better home design is an even MORE efficient route. Just make the home so insulated that it's unbearable during hot seasons, than use push/pull fans (powered by any centralized grid or nongrid system, such as fission or a bloom box), terazzo floors, and a series of underground tunnels to cool the house in warm seasons. That would be way more efficient than trying to heat a house with biofuels. While I'm sure they're far superior to central heating, one must think integrally for maximum systemwide efficiency.

This is true. If I ever build a house at least half of it will be underground (for refuge from bushfires as much as for cool in the summer, both major issues in the kind of remote area I'd want to live) and the upstairs will use passive solar heating for the winter months. Won't ever happen unless I find some way of getting rich without working. I should probably forget that and get to work on the solar hot-water heat well for the chook-house. Seriously.

Unfortunately, for most people a new house means buying from a company which churns out inefficient boxes. Labour prices being such a significant factor, prefabricating as much as possible in a factory and slapping it up quick is the cheapest way. But as more people build those solar efficient houses they get cheaper too.

I've got a mate who built his own house, he payed four figures and did a labour-swap with a guy who'd built that way before. They sourced a lot of local sandstone, mud brick, second hand glass and yes, those subterranean pipes. It's a lovely house and cost less than a box half the size ... all because he knew someone who knew how.

[Soviet Engineers]

Not good for a car perhaps, but natural gas could be an efficient fuel for a purpose made generator or home heating.

Better home design is an even MORE efficient route. Just make the home so insulated that it's unbearable during hot seasons, than use push/pull fans (powered by any centralized grid or nongrid system, such as fission or a bloom box), terazzo floors, and a series of underground tunnels to cool the house in warm seasons. That would be way more efficient than trying to heat a house with biofuels. While I'm sure they're far superior to central heating, one must think integrally for maximum systemwide efficiency.

This is true. If I ever build a house at least half of it will be underground (for refuge from bushfires as much as for cool in the summer, both major issues in the kind of remote area I'd want to live) and the upstairs will use passive solar heating for the winter months. Won't ever happen unless I find some way of getting rich without working. I should probably forget that and get to work on the solar hot-water heat well for the chook-house. Seriously.

Unfortunately, for most people a new house means buying from a company which churns out inefficient boxes. Labour prices being such a significant factor, prefabricating as much as possible in a factory and slapping it up quick is the cheapest way. But as more people build those solar efficient houses they get cheaper too.

I've got a mate who built his own house, he payed four figures and did a labour-swap with a guy who'd built that way before. They sourced a lot of local sandstone, mud brick, second hand glass and yes, those subterranean pipes. It's a lovely house and cost less than a box half the size ... all because he knew someone who knew how.

I'm very jealous of your friend. Believe me, I'm sweating my ass off here in florida right now as we speak, with no real recourse except to run floor fans against the terazzo; it lowers the temperature some, but it's not nearly as effective. And I have to pay for all of the hot water, too. Kudus to your friend for opting for real efficiency instead of doing the easy thing and being a needless energy consumer.

[Nobel Hobos]

Not good for a car perhaps, but natural gas could be an efficient fuel for a purpose made generator or home heating.

Better home design is an even MORE efficient route. Just make the home so insulated that it's unbearable during hot seasons, than use push/pull fans (powered by any centralized grid or nongrid system, such as fission or a bloom box), terazzo floors, and a series of underground tunnels to cool the house in warm seasons. That would be way more efficient than trying to heat a house with biofuels. While I'm sure they're far superior to central heating, one must think integrally for maximum systemwide efficiency.

This is true. If I ever build a house at least half of it will be underground (for refuge from bushfires as much as for cool in the summer, both major issues in the kind of remote area I'd want to live) and the upstairs will use passive solar heating for the winter months. Won't ever happen unless I find some way of getting rich without working. I should probably forget that and get to work on the solar hot-water heat well for the chook-house. Seriously.

Unfortunately, for most people a new house means buying from a company which churns out inefficient boxes. Labour prices being such a significant factor, prefabricating as much as possible in a factory and slapping it up quick is the cheapest way. But as more people build those solar efficient houses they get cheaper too.

I've got a mate who built his own house, he payed four figures and did a labour-swap with a guy who'd built that way before. They sourced a lot of local sandstone, mud brick, second hand glass and yes, those subterranean pipes. It's a lovely house and cost less than a box half the size ... all because he knew someone who knew how.

I'm very jealous of your friend. Believe me, I'm sweating my ass off here in florida right now as we speak, with no real recourse except to run floor fans against the terazzo; it lowers the temperature some, but it's not nearly as effective. And I have to pay for all of the hot water, too. Kudus to your friend for opting for real efficiency instead of doing the easy thing and being a needless energy consumer.

He tried to make it off-grid, but his wife wouldn't do without the dishwasher etc and he couldn't afford that kind of solar power. He is off the sewer though (composting toilet -- works but it likes a nice steady supply, not so great for parties etc) and most of his water is rainwater, catches it off the glass side as well as the solid side of the roof.

I think he'd have a lot more trouble getting approval from some councils, than out where he is. Anything unorthodox can be a real pain to get through some councils, the builder/co-builder he knew handled that by showing them approvals for very similar buildings elsewhere, and they're a greenie council.

As for me, just now I'm in a basement (2 walls underground, steep slope) and it's bearable. I am however wearing thermal underwear, jumper and jacket. Outside it's 12ºC, way too cold for me. This isn't ideal, but it's worth it to be cool in the summer.

[Nobel Hobos]

According to Wikipedia ...

... yes, that's right, I've been reading the Wikipedia page on farting ...

In 1998, Chester "Buck" Weimer of Pueblo, Colorado received a patent for the first undergarment that contained a replaceable charcoal filter. The undergarments are air-tight and provide a pocketed escape hole in which a charcoal filter can be inserted.[14] In 2001 Mr Weimer received the Ig Nobel Prize for Biology for his invention.

but also, disappointingly:

Flatulence is often blamed as a significant source of greenhouse gases, owing to the erroneous belief that the methane released by livestock is in the flatus.[18] While livestock account for around 20% of global methane emissions,[19] 90-95% of that is released by exhaling or burping.[20]

... making Cow Power far more technically challenging. Oh well.

Well, it was fun to theorize. Right?

Mebe we could genetically engineer cows to store their gas in an inflatable hump and they could be deflated while being milked.

As for beef cattle, well dairy cows come to the milking shed to be milked. Maybe beefers could be given a similar incentive to come to the de-gassing truck, with some nerves hooked up connecting their ... er ... spigot to the pleasure centres.

Hell, we could make them chronically happy while we're at it, quell the objections of those pesky animal rights folks.

[Sibirsky]

It's both, but it's not a horrible poison, it's not like these spills are majorly affecting anything. So it's mainly a win situation.

*Cough* *Cough* *Wheeze*

The loss of fish and marine life is sad, but it is not as if it will not come back: after the Exxon Valdez disaster, the fishing was better than ever in just one year.

While the loss of the marine life is the main reason I'm upset at this disaster, it is by far not the only loss. According to Time magazine,

But with the oil making landfall in Louisiana — and set to reach the Mississippi, Alabama and Florida coasts by Monday — the impact is already being felt. Louisiana fishermen in Venice docked their boats this afternoon, knowing waters could be closed for a long, long time. Lawsuits have already been filed by seafood companies against BP and Transocean, the rig's operator. Analysts estimate that the Louisiana fishing industry could sustain $2.5 billion in losses, while Florida could lose $3 billion in tourism income.

This is a huge portion of the local economy. If the fisheries and the ocean quality go down the drain, so to speak, then there are going to be a large population of people out of work in an already poor region.

All this tells me is the biggest victims are the families of the killed workers. And BP. Any reason why BP should win those cases? I don't see how in this day and age it's possible. Feel sorry for BP.

[Yootopia]

Is the drilling of Oil really worth it?

Yes.

[Nobel Hobos]

Feel sorry for BP.

Why? It interferes with their right to make a profit despite destroying the commons?

[Nobel Hobos]

And a thought: isn't this disaster a poor example of the environmental impact of drilling ...

but rather of deep-water offshore drilling ? This is exactly the sort of "entrepreneurial" activity whose rewards come with risks. One of those risks is becoming liable for massive environmental damage.

BP, Transocean and Halliburton should pay the FULL costs of their mistake. Just as Sibirsky said the failed banks should pay for their mistakes.

[Sibirsky]

Feel sorry for BP.

Why? It interferes with their right to make a profit despite destroying the commons?

They are the biggest victim in this tragedy. After the courts, government, the environmentalists and the media are done with them over the next decade or so, it will cost them close to $100 billion.

[Sibirsky]

And a thought: isn't this disaster a poor example of the environmental impact of drilling ...

but rather of deep-water offshore drilling ? This is exactly the sort of "entrepreneurial" activity whose rewards come with risks. One of those risks is becoming liable for massive environmental damage.

BP, Transocean and Halliburton should pay the FULL costs of their mistake. Just as Sibirsky said the failed banks should pay for their mistakes.

The core economic issue concerning the environment is really about liability. In a world of private property, if you soil someone else's property, you bear the liability. But what about in a world in which government owns vast swaths, and the oceans are considered the commons of everyone? It becomes extremely difficult to assess damages to the environment at all.

"The liability for environmental damage should be 100% at least."
There is also a profound problem with federal government limits on liability. That is central planning gone mad. The liability for environmental damage should be 100% at least. Such a system would match a company's policies to the actual risk of doing damage. Lower limits would inspire companies to be less concerned about damage to others than they should be, in the same way that a company with a bailout guarantee faces a moral hazard to be less efficient than it would be in a free market.

But such a liability rule presumes ownership, so that owners themselves are in a position to enter into fair bargaining, and there can be some objective test. There is no objective test when the oceans are collectively owned and where huge amounts of territory are government owned.

And it is precisely the government and the Obama administration that gain from the incident. The regulators get yet another lease on life. They are already sending thousands of people to "save" the region. "Every American affected by this spill should know this: your government will do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to stop this crisis," Obama said.

Are we really supposed to believe that government is better able to deal with this disaster than private industry?

Meanwhile, the Obama administration must be thrilled to have an old-fashioned change of subject, so that we don't have to notice every single day that its economic stimulus has been an incredible flop, with unemployment higher today than a year ago and the depression still persisting.

[Sibirsky]

And a thought: isn't this disaster a poor example of the environmental impact of drilling ...

but rather of deep-water offshore drilling ? This is exactly the sort of "entrepreneurial" activity whose rewards come with risks. One of those risks is becoming liable for massive environmental damage.

BP, Transocean and Halliburton should pay the FULL costs of their mistake. Just as Sibirsky said the failed banks should pay for their mistakes.

Yeah, it's a deep-water offshore drilling disaster. Why were they even out there? Because the environmentalists first drove them off the land, and then away from the shores. Where it is cheaper and safer to drill.

[Xsyne]

Feel sorry for BP.

Why? It interferes with their right to make a profit despite destroying the commons?

They are the biggest victim in this tragedy. After the courts, government, the environmentalists and the media are done with them over the next decade or so, it will cost them close to $100 billion.

Someone who is responsible for a situation occurring cannot be the victim of the situation, even if they are harmed, by definition.

[Sibirsky]

Feel sorry for BP.

Why? It interferes with their right to make a profit despite destroying the commons?

They are the biggest victim in this tragedy. After the courts, government, the environmentalists and the media are done with them over the next decade or so, it will cost them close to $100 billion.

Someone who is responsible for a situation occurring cannot be the victim of the situation, even if they are harmed, by definition.

Unless they intentionally did it, they are a victim.

Victim: A person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a voluntary undertaking: You are a victim of your own scheming.

A corporation is simply a group of people.

[Geilinor]

Our society would literally shut down without oil, so we need to drill, regardless of what happens to the enviornment.

[Trippoli]

Our society would literally shut down without oil, so we need to drill, regardless of what happens to the enviornment.

See? It is not the drilling that pisses me off, it is the people who think they can destroy a huge portion of the Ecosystem and still think they will be alright. News Flash buddy, the environment is pretty fucking important.

[Romanar]

Our society would literally shut down without oil, so we need to drill, regardless of what happens to the enviornment.

See? It is not the drilling that pisses me off, it is the people who think they can destroy a huge portion of the Ecosystem and still think they will be alright. News Flash buddy, the environment is pretty fucking important.

So is my car/heat/electricity.

[Milks Empire]

Our society would literally shut down without oil, so we need to drill, regardless of what happens to the enviornment.

See? It is not the drilling that pisses me off, it is the people who think they can destroy a huge portion of the Ecosystem and still think they will be alright. News Flash buddy, the environment is pretty fucking important.

So is my car/heat/electricity.

None of those will matter if you can't breathe, eat, or drink. Think about that one, Buster.