"Cheneyburton" flees the country

Halliburton, probably guilty of embezzlement of BILLIONS of taxpayer
dollars in the Iraq "war for oil" disaster that is now imploding,
announced Friday that it has decided to move to...where else...Dubai,
that Texan-friendly, Republican-friendly emirate in the Middle East.
Remember, it was Dubai that tried to take control of US port
operations last year and Democratic hopefuls exposed the deal, sending
the Bushies running for cover.

Reason for the move? To try to protect our "vice" president, Dickhead
Cheney, from nosey committee hearings and possible prosecution. Also,
regarding hiding offsho Why has Bush Bird bought a huge ranch in
Paraguay? Anyone look at the fact that Paraguay has NO extradition
treaty with the US?

The Republican reign of terror is collapsing, and the rats are running
for safe harbor around the world.

On Mar 12, 11:49 am, DeserTBoB wrote:
Halliburton, probably guilty of embezzlement of BILLIONS of taxpayer
dollars in the Iraq "war for oil" disaster that is now imploding,
announced Friday that it has decided to move to...where else...Dubai,
that Texan-friendly, Republican-friendly emirate in the Middle East.
Remember, it was Dubai that tried to take control of US port
operations last year and Democratic hopefuls exposed the deal, sending
the Bushies running for cover.

Reason for the move? To try to protect our "vice" president, Dickhead
Cheney, from nosey committee hearings and possible prosecution. Also,
regarding hiding offsho Why has Bush Bird bought a huge ranch in
Paraguay? Anyone look at the fact that Paraguay has NO extradition
treaty with the US?

The Republican reign of terror is collapsing, and the rats are running
for safe harbor around the world.


The recent price spike in gas, is due to refineries being down for
refit/modernization. And Feb. was the month from hell for heating
costs.

Otherwise, hopefully they will bring back all this oil, if this really
is a "war for oil" as you say. It would drive the price down, by
increasing the supply.

On 12 Mar 2007 16:12:44 -0700, "duty-honor-country"
wrote:


Otherwise, hopefully they will bring back all this oil, if this really
is a "war for oil" as you say. It would drive the price down, by
increasing the supply. snip

No such fantasy exists, stunod. The major papers today are predicting
$4/gal gasoline this summer. We'll never see $2/gal again. It's over
for gasoline-powered/mechanical drive cars.

It's over for GM, too, since other smaller, more nimble companies are
developing the lithium ion and "megacapacitor" energy storage systems,
while GM sat on their fat asses, trying to yet again kill electric
drive vehicles. They're as big a bunch of stunods as you, Noodles!

On Mar 12, 8:34 pm, DeserTBoB wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 16:12:44 -0700, "duty-honor-country"

wrote:
Otherwise, hopefully they will bring back all this oil, if this really
is a "war for oil" as you say. It would drive the price down, by
increasing the supply. snip

No such fantasy exists, stunod. The major papers today are predicting
$4/gal gasoline this summer. We'll never see $2/gal again. It's over
for gasoline-powered/mechanical drive cars.

It's over for GM, too, since other smaller, more nimble companies are
developing the lithium ion and "megacapacitor" energy storage systems,
while GM sat on their fat asses, trying to yet again kill electric
drive vehicles. They're as big a bunch of stunods as you, Noodles!


no one wants an electric car with less power, that costs more- you
think the Elcaset was a flop, the electric car makes Elcaset look
successful !

put your money where your mouth is- are you going to buy a Prius for
$24 grand ?

do you realize how much the replacement batteries cost ?

take one on a trip- do you realize how LONG the recharge time is ?

"honey, let's pull over for the night- we have to recharge the
batteries"...

yeh, that's gonna sell..

coal synth is our ace in the hole- 3 billion barrels a year
indefinitely !

that's not counting the 100 year supply that BP is sitting on in South
America...

On Mar 12, 8:34 pm, DeserTBoB wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 16:12:44 -0700, "duty-honor-country"

wrote:
Otherwise, hopefully they will bring back all this oil, if this really
is a "war for oil" as you say. It would drive the price down, by
increasing the supply. snip

No such fantasy exists, stunod. The major papers today are predicting
$4/gal gasoline this summer. We'll never see $2/gal again. It's over
for gasoline-powered/mechanical drive cars.

It's over for GM, too, since other smaller, more nimble companies are
developing the lithium ion and "megacapacitor" energy storage systems,
while GM sat on their fat asses, trying to yet again kill electric
drive vehicles. They're as big a bunch of stunods as you, Noodles!

what a piece of **** !

http://www.toyota.com/prius/

I'll be driving my V-8 American musclecars for my lifetime, and so
will my descendants- and unfortunately, you will be stuck with your
rotted, aging Honda, for the rest of your life. And you have no
descendants to pass that rotted Honda on to- lucky for them !

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...rnatives_x.htm


Before the oil runs out: The search for alternatives
By John Dillin, The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON - When Adolf Hitler sparked World War II, the German war
machine faced a daunting challenge: It had almost no petroleum.

Despite the shortage - which some considered fatal - a powerful Nazi
blitzkrieg quickly rolled back the armies of Poland, France, the Low
Countries, and Britain, and it thrust far into the Soviet Union.
Hundreds of German bombers pounded Britain, and swarms of German
fighter planes fought off Allied attackers.

How did Hitler do it? With coal.

Operating 25 synthetic fuel plants, Germans converted their country's
brown coal into high-quality diesel fuel and gasoline. Coal provided
over 92% of Germany's aviation fuel and half of all its petroleum
needs.

What worked in wartime Germany could hold lessons for the United
States. With only 2% of the world's proven oil reserves all but
teeming with coal, the U.S. could turn its carbon bounty into
synthetic fuels. If they're cheap enough, synfuels could power
America's autos, trucks, trains, tractors, and aircraft far into the
future and cut the nation's reliance on Middle East oil. The U.S.
already relies on coal, natural gas, hydropower, and even windmills to
heat and provide electricity for homes, offices, and factories. But
for transportation - a linchpin of modern economies and national
security - synfuels from coal, tar sands, and other ancient fossil
deposits represent one of the few alternatives to oil.

"Only fossil fuels provide energy on a large enough scale and with
sufficient versatility to meet the world's growing demand for energy,"
concluded a recent study by ExxonMobil.

Oil and Gas Journal seems to concur. Even as conventional oil supplies
begin to play out in the U.S., the North Sea, and some other major
production areas like Venezuela, the Journal says that the most
"realistic" replacements would be other "hydrocarbon resources [such
as] oil shale, tar sand, extra heavy oil, and possibly coal liquids."

Only hydrocarbon sources like tar sands and coal liquids are in great
enough supply to supplement regular oil, the Journal says.

Until now, energy companies have by and large bypassed hydrocarbon
alternatives to conventional oil because of cost. Producing oil from
something like Canada's vast tar-sand deposits was just too expensive
at $30 or $40 a barrel when Saudi Arabia could pump and deliver
conventional oil for about $4 a barrel.

Current tight markets and rising prices for oil have changed that
equation. Today, there are already a few places with limited but
growing production of synfuels. South Africa, for example, has two
firms that together produce 200,000 barrels a day of synfuel, mostly
from coal, but more recently from natural gas.

Even more ambitious projects are underway in Canada, where private
firms such as Royal Dutch Shell are mining and refining tar sands into
synfuel that competes directly with conventional oil. Shell plans to
more than triple its output from Canadian tar sands to 500,000 barrels
a day by 2015, Malcolm Brinded, the company's executive director for
exploration and production, said this month.

This is only one of Shell's several efforts to expand oil output from
unconventional sources. Mr. Brinded says the company also recently set
up a joint venture with a Chinese partner "to explore the
possibilities for developing oil-shale resources in Jilin Province."

Among the top candidates to replace conventional oil a

·Tar sands. The world's largest deposits of this bitumen are in
Canada. After billions of dollars of investment by private oil
companies, output from the Alberta tar sands has reached 1 million
barrels of synthetic oil a day. That should rise to 2 million barrels
a day by 2010, and 3 million by 2020. A recent report indicates that
costs of producing the oil have declined to $18 a barrel - making tar-
sands oil comfortably profitable in today's market.

·Oil shale. Extensive deposits - perhaps 2 trillion barrels of
hydrocarbons - lie in America's Rocky Mountain West, mostly in
Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. Difficulties in extracting and refining
the hydrocarbon have frustrated earlier efforts. But if oil prices
remain at recent levels, oil-shale deposits will become more
attractive as conventional deposits in North America play out.
Already, the U.S. government has begun to get "expressions of
interest" from oil companies about oil-shale deposits on public lands,
according to congressional testimony in April by Tom Lonnie, an
official with the U.S. Department of the Interior.

·Extra heavy oil. Located in deposits around the world, extra heavy
oil, like tar sands, is costly to process, but it could eventually
become an important resource. There are hundreds of billions of
barrels that could be produced.

·Coal. East and West, the U.S. has plentiful supplies of coal that
meet about 20% of US energy needs, primarily to generate electricity.
Coal is rich in carbon, which provides lots of energy, but it gives
off a greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, that many researchers argue is
causing global warming.

All these alternatives to conventional petroleum have serious
problems. The hydrocarbons in extra heavy oil and tar sands have been
compared to what is left of crude oil after the valuable elements like
gasoline and diesel fuel are removed. Heavy oils and tar sands are
thought to have once been conventional oils from which the lighter,
more valuable elements either evaporated or were washed away by water.

Heavy hydrocarbons are thick, black, and full of contaminants. To make
them usable as transportation fuels, they must be cleaned (by removing
sulfur, heavy metals, and carbon) and enriched with inputs of hydrogen
from another source, such as natural gas. Yet after processing, they
make a quality product.

All these alternative hydrocarbons also have a problem with excessive
carbon content. Considerable federal research is underway to keep the
carbon, which becomes CO2 after it is burned, from reaching the
atmosphere. One way is to inject it into the ground, either into oil
wells, which increases output of petroleum, or into huge underground
formations where it can be stored indefinitely and not damage the
environment.

Skeptics abound, especially in places like Parachute, Colo., which saw
the 1970s boom in alternative fuels go bust during the 1980s. The
small community lost 2,500 jobs after Exxon closed its oil-shale
project there in 1982. Today's energy boom is "organized chaos," the
town's mayor, John Loschke, told the Associated Press. But "we're
better prepared. It's 25 years later and we've got infrastructure."

Environmentalists and conservationists are also wary, because they
would prefer greater efforts on renewable sources of energy. But the
best-known alternatives, such as wind energy and solar power, are
difficult to incorporate into a car or plane and still be commercially
feasible.

Nevertheless, inventors and some companies are hard at work on
everything from plug-in hybrid cars to engines that run on hydrogen or
saw grass. It's not clear which of these technologies, if any, will
win out.

What looks clear, experts say, is that the continuing growth of demand
for gasoline will not come from the West but from developing nations,
especially China and India. In fact, oil demand in the U.S. and Europe
should begin to decline well before 2030, according to the ExxonMobil
study, even while global demand continues to rise about 1.5% a year
during the same period.

This suggests that developed nations, which inaugurated the oil era
150 years ago and kept it going with imported oil, will pioneer the
alternatives as oil begins to run out.

"We have in the pipeline, in 10 to 15 years, a portfolio of [coal]
technologies with near-zero emissions," says Scott Klara, deputy
director of coal-based projects for the U.S. Department of Energy. "We
don't know when oil [output] will peak, but it will peak, and when
that time comes, more people than ever will be looking at coal."

we're way ahead of you Boob- you're going to be driving an aging Honda
for a long, long time...they are using nuclear to cook down the coal
to oil. I love technology, and so does my American V-8 !


http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/letter.html

The United States spends more money protecting Middle East oil and
fighting terrorism than it would cost to develop new energy technology
that would obsolete oil as a source of energy. The connection between
terrorism and Middle East oil wealth can no longer be ignored.

It is time for America to lead the development of new energy
technology that would end the need for oil as a source of energy.
Freeing America, and all other industrial countries, from the need to
use fossil oil as a source of energy will cut-off the flow of oil
money to the Middle East and put an end to the financial support of
militant Islam.

With the help of new technology, America's energy needs can be
obtained from sources other than fossil oil.

American technology has put a man on the moon, mapped the human
genome, and successfully landed robotic exploration vehicles on Mars.
It seems reasonable to believe that American scientists and engineers
could also develop environmentally safe alternative energy technology
to free America from dependence on fossil oil.

The United States has over 270 billion tons of proven coal reserves,
having the energy equivalent of four times the oil reserves of Saudi
Arabia and equal to all of the proven oil reserves in the world. If
the United States could use its coal reserves without destroying the
environment, foreign oil would not be needed.

Nuclear energy can produce the hydrogen and provide the intense heat
needed to make synthetic oil from coal.

Nuclear power is a proven emission-free energy source that can replace
gas and coal fired base-load electric power generation plants, and
enable the USA to develop a replacement for our oil based
transportation fuel. The replacement of coal power plants with nuclear
power plants would reduce America's atmospheric CO2 emissions by 30%.

The USA does not need to wait for a hydrogen economy; nuclear power
can begin to give America energy independence now, by providing the
process heat and hydrogen needed for the manufacture of synthetic oil
from coal. If nuclear heat and nuclear hydrogen are used in the
manufacture of synthetic oil from coal, then the yield of oil from
coal would be much higher than if coal was used to provide the needed
hydrogen and process heat.

Using synthetic gasoline and diesel made from coal, to provide
transportation fuel, would not reduce CO2 produced by cars and trucks
on the nation's highways, nor would it increase atmospheric CO2
because it would merely replace existing consumption of gasoline and
diesel. However, it is possible to have zero emission gasoline/diesel
cars and trucks. If technology is used to remove the CO2 tailpipe
emissions directly from the atmosphere after the CO2 is released from
the tailpipe. In other words, allow cars and trucks to release CO2 and
then clean the atmosphere using technology designed to remove CO2 from
the air. The collected CO2 can either be recycled or sequestered.

If coal power plants were replaced by nuclear power plants, for base-
load electricity, and coal is used to make synthetic gasoline and
diesel, then Americans who are dependent on the coal mining industry
for their incomes would support nuclear energy.

Modern Coal-to-oil technology can free America from dependence on
Middle East oil. One billion tons of coal per year, at 3 barrels of
oil per ton, would replace 65% of USA imported oil, and provide jobs
for people who depend on the coal industry. At 12 million imported
barrels per day, 65% is 7,800,000 barrels per day. Just over 20% of
oil imported into the USA today comes from Persian Gulf Nations, which
are also members of OPEC. Less than 45% of oil imported into the USA
today comes from OPEC.

Drilling for new petroleum might help in the short term, but in the
long term natural petroleum is not sustainable - we cannot depend upon
crude oil for our energy future. However, the development of
technology for the production of synthetic petroleum will create a
sustainable energy future. Synthetic hydrocarbon fuels such as
synthetic diesel and synthetic gasoline can be made from many
different sources of raw material, including renewable biomass.
America has an abundance of natural raw materials that can be used to
make synthetic petroleum.

A large-scale public investment in Gas-To-Liquids (GTL) technology
would bring the cost of the technology down so that the manufacture of
synthetic petroleum would be competitive with fossil oil production.
The current interest in Gas-To-Liquids technology is focused on
monetizing otherwise worthless remote natural gas deposits. However,
variations on the same technology can be used to make synthetic
petroleum from synthesis gas derived from coal, oil sands, oil shale,
biomass, or even recycled CO2 in combination with hydrogen extracted
from water.

Synthetic gasoline and synthetic diesel made from synthetic petroleum
can power existing cars and trucks without needing to modify the
engines or national fuel distribution infrastructure.

Details and links to more information about new energy technologies
can be found on the American Energy Independence web site.
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com

Congress needs to fund advanced research and development of new energy
technology. The United States needs to move forward with the
development of sustainable sources of energy, and do so with the
urgency of a national security mandate.

On Mar 12, 8:34 pm, DeserTBoB wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 16:12:44 -0700, "duty-honor-country"


No such fantasy exists, stunod.


oh, it exists...and it's awesome to behold- an entire industry
springing up, just to make gas for my 455 Firebird to guzzle...

just remember, many a dinosaur died, just so I can get 10 MPG...and
people like myself, will continue to enjoy powerful American V-8
engines, for at least the next 100 years on the coal supply alone-

or perhaps we'll bolt on an alcohol carburetor, and enjoy the added
octane benefit...

(laughter...)

knarly, isn't it...I love this country !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel

Synthetic fuel or synfuel is any liquid fuel obtained from coal,
natural gas, or biomass. It can sometimes refer to fuels derived from
other solids such as oil shale, tar sand, waste plastics, or from the
fermentation of biomatter. It can also (less often) refer to gaseous
fuels produced in a similar way.

The process of producing synfuels is often referred to as Coal-To-
Liquids (CTL), Gas-To-Liquids (GTL) or Biomass-To-Liquids (BTL),
depending on the initial feedstock. The best known synthesis process
is the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis which was used on a large scale in
Germany during World War II. Other processes include the Bergius
process, the Mobil process and the Karrick process. An intermediate
step in the production of synthetic fuel is often syngas, a
stoichiometric mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which is
sometimes directly used as an industrial fuel.

The leading company in the commercialization of synthetic fuel is
Sasol, a company based in South Africa. Sasol currently operates the
world's only commercial coal-to-liquids facility at Secunda, with a
capacity of 150,000 barrels a day [1]. Other companies that have
developed coal- or gas-to-liquids processes (at the pilot plant or
commercial stage) include Shell, Exxon, Statoil, Rentech, and
Syntroleum [2]. Worldwide commercial gas-to-liquids plant capacity is
60,000 barrels per day [3], including plants in South Africa
(Mossgas), Malaysia (Shell Bintulu) and New Zealand (Motor-fuel
production at the New Zealand Synfuel site has been shut down since
the mid nineties, although production of methanol for export continues
[4]. This site ran on the Mobil process converting gas to methanol and
methanol to gasoline).

Numerous US companies (TECO, Progress Energy, DTE, Marriott) have also
taken advantage of coal-based synfuel tax credits established in the
1970s, however many of the products qualifying for the subsidy (for
example slurries or briquettes) are not true synthetic fuels since
they are not the portable, convenient, end-user liquids that the
credit was established for. The coal industry currently uses the
credit to increase profits on coal-burning powerplants by introducing
a 'pre-treatment' process that satisfies the technical requirements,
then burns the result the same as it would burn coal. Sometimes the
amount gained in the tax credit is a major factor in the economic
operation of the plant. The synfuel tax credit has been used primarily
in this manner since the cheap gas prices of the 1980's killed any
major efforts to create a transportation fuel with the credit, and its
continuation is seen as a major 'pork project' win for coal industry
lobbyists, to the tune of $9 billion per annum.[1]The total production
of such synfuels in the US was an estimated 73 million tons in 2002.

The United States Department of Energy projects that domestic
consumption of synthetic fuel made from coal and natural gas will rise
to 3.7 million barrels per day in 2030 based on a price of $57 per
barrel of high sulfur crude (Annual Energy Outlook 2006, Table 14,
pg52). Synthetic fuels require a relatively high price of crude oil in
order to be competitive with petroleum-based fuels without subsidies.
However, they offer the potential to supplement or replace petroleum-
based fuels if oil prices continue to rise. Several factors make
synthetic fuels attractive relative to competing technologies such as
biofuels, ethanol/methanol or hydrogen:

The raw material (coal) is available in quantities sufficient to meet
current demand for centuries
It can produce gasoline, diesel or kerosene directly without the need
for additional steps such as reforming or cracking
There is no need to convert vehicle engines to use a different fuel
There is no need to build a new distribution network
While at present synthetic fuels are primarily produced because of
subsidies, they are a proven technology that offers the potential to
solve the energy crisis due to the depletion of oil (Hubbert peak), at
least for the next hundred years.

On 13 Mar 2007 04:37:36 -0700, "duty-honor-country"
wrote:


what a piece of **** !

http://i18.tinypic.com/2eycs5z.jpg

On 13 Mar 2007 05:01:41 -0700, "duty-honor-country"
wrote:

I'll be driving my V-8 American musclecars for my lifetime, and so
will my descendants- and unfortunately, you will be stuck with your
rotted, aging Honda, for the rest of your life. And you have no
descendants to pass that rotted Honda on to- lucky for them ! snip

My Honda has no "rot". It's never been to northeastern Pennsylvania,
where everything (including steel bridges) rusts to uselessness.

Another Cholly Noodlez da Stugot fantasy down in flames. Doesn't it
get irritation to be made to look like a bacciagaloup all the
time....Noodles?