HM Re: [extropy-chat] Re: US right to invade say Iraqis

spike spike66 at comcast.net
Mon Dec 19 06:44:43 UTC 2005



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Davis
> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 3:21 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: RE: HM Re: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis
> 
> --- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
...
> > I call it the start of the fourth
> > Iraqi war,
> 
> The bit about "There'll be a horrible civil war if we
> leave!" is just another lie brought to you by the same
> folks who brought you the WMDs and the Al-Quaida
> connections...

Jeff, I'm with you on that partially.  I expect a
continued low level war in the Arab nations, but 
not a horrible civil war.  After seeing the participation
level in last week's election, I am much more optimistic
about that, if the news reports can be trusted.  I am
inclined to believe them, for anything good that happens
in Iraq is bad for the yankee press.  They downplay it
if at all possible.

It is easy to imagine the fourth Iraq war continuing much 
as it is now, with the elected Iraqi government struggling
with insurgents blowing up police stations and government
buildings occasionally, causing an average of perhaps a 
dozen to twenty casualties a week.  That kind of war
could go on indefinitely, but the nation itself will
survive it.

Seeing nightclubs explode in random places around the
globe is something we will likely have with us for
longer than you and I are likely to live, and there 
is nothing we can do about that.  I doubt we are going
to give up our alcohol or blasphemy, or start making
women cover themselves.  Suggestions welcome.

> > But if he did say these things,
> > it's likely only a matter of time before Iran gets
> > into a shooting war with the EU.
> 
> Not a chance.  The Europeans are working their tails
> off just trying to keep the US an/or Israel from
> attacking Iran and setting off a war stretching from
> the Meditterranean to Kashmir...

Oh I don't doubt for a minute the Europeans are
working their tails off to prevent a war that
would be tragic beyond imagination, but Iran
is looking more hostile every day.  If they
keep picking a fight, eventually Europe will
be forced to give them one.  President 
Ahmadinejad seems to be intentionally
provoking European ire.

> They prefer oil at fifty rather than five hundred
> dollars a barrel.

Jeff, this is an important point: oil cannot go
to 500 dollars a barrel.  It is at the point now
to where alternatives are attractive.  The reason
the alternatives are slow to take off is that
we have no protection against sweet crude returning
to 15 bucks, which would ruin investors who dumped
capital into coal conversion for instance.  

Coal can be converted to diesel oil for an equivalent 
of about 35 bucks a barrel, but the conversion plant is 
expensive.  This source says 7.5 billion USD for
a 150,000 barrel a day unit.

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/08/02/bui
ld/state/25-coal-fuel.inc

The camel jockey oilmen know this, and will play the
game just so to keep these kinds of investments
from being attractive.  The fact that all that sweet
crude is there, and comes out of the ground on its
own is a persistent threat to the investment community
who would otherwise develop oil alternatives. these
alternatives are ones we already know how to do.  We 
are not waiting for new technology, no new research.  We 
are only waiting for the supply of cheap sweet crude to 
be used up.  Then we can invest in coal conversion and 
other attractive alternatives that will keep energy no 
more expensive than it is today.

With oil futures at 55 bucks and holding, I expect to 
see these kinds of plants coming online gradually but
steadily in the next several years.  The pace could accelerate
dramatically if anything can protect us against oil
falling to 15 dollars again.

spike






More information about the extropy-chat mailing list