Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [climatechangedebate] Saudi Prince: ‘We Don’ t Want The West To Go Find Alternatives’ To Oil

Expand Messages
  • Albert Masetti
    Good post, Bob. I ve already reposted it to two other forums. OPEC and various hostile regimes control 95% of the world s oil. The United States has in the
    Message 1 of 19 , Jun 1, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Good post, Bob.

      I've already reposted it to two other forums.

      OPEC and various hostile regimes control 95% of the world's oil.

      The United States has in the past two years discovered how to unlock VAST amounts of natural gas [and oil] from shale rock. 

      And many other countries have also, from Poland to Israel.

      Natural gas is 99% methane. Methane can be converted relatively easily to methanol, which is a fraction of the price of ethanol.

      We and people in other countries can burn methanol in our automobiles far more cheaply and more easily than using oil imported from hostile regimes. 

      "Flex Fuel Cars" can burn ANY mixture of gasoline, ethanol and methanol. ANY. All it would take is for each governor to mandate that all new cars be equipped to burn Flex Fuel. Cost for the Flex Fuel option for a new car would be about $100. The fuel industry would take care of the rest. Could be any mix of gasoline and methanol, which is cheaper than ethanol ... ANY mix. Car computer would compensate automatically for mix changes. Can't drink methanol, but can't drink gasoline either.

      The additional cost would be for different materials for the fuel lines, gaskets, etc.

      No reason not to allow gas stations to sell straight gasoline as well as various mixes. Older cars and chain saws and lawn mowers and generators could use the straight gasoline.

      Need to get past the ethanol / corn lobby.

      Read up in articles here: www.energyvictory.net and here www.methanol.org

      - Al



      On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Robert Maginnis <bobmagi@...> wrote:
       

       
       

      Fox News Affiliated Saudi Prince: ‘We Don’t Want The West To Go Find Alternatives’ To Oil

      By Ben Armbruster posted from ThinkProgress Security on May 31, 2011 at 12:50 pm

      Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal

      Fareed Zakaria interviewed Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal on his CNN show last weekend and wondered what Saudi Arabia, whom Zakaria referred to as “the central banker of oil,” could do about the rising price of a barrel of oil. “If you don’t have increased demand, if you don’t have reduced supply, why did the price go up 30 — 40 percent?” Zakaria asked. While bin Talal blamed rising oil prices on “fear” and “speculation,” the Saudi Prince made a surprising admission:
      BIN TALAL: The stiff position of Saudi Arabia, we want the price to be between $70 and $80. Not only to help the West, but also to help ourselves. We don’t want the West to go and find alternatives, because, clearly, the higher the price oil goes, the more you have incentive to go and find alternatives. So, really, our interest coincides with American interest, to have the price for around $70, $80 which is a price good for consumers and producers.
       
       
      New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has been talking about this concept for a while, arguing that a gasoline tax “would trigger a shift in buying and investment” in clean energy here in the U.S. — a move that would provide a foundation for a reinvigorated economy and reduce Americans’ dependence on oil, particularly from foreign sources.
      But despite the fact that little is being done about it legislatively, the general consensus is that America’s dependence on oil also harms U.S. national security. “Bringing down consumption of imported oil is very much in the interest of national security,” noted retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton last month. And indeed, even the U.S. military is acknowledging this reality and taking action:
      Even as Congress has struggled unsuccessfully to pass an energy bill and many states have put renewable energy on hold because of the recession, the military this year has pushed rapidly forward. After a decade of waging wars in remote corners of the globe where fuel is not readily available, senior commanders have come to see overdependence on fossil fuel as a big liability, and renewable technologies — which have become more reliable and less expensive over the past few years — as providing a potential answer. These new types of renewable energy now account for only a small percentage of the power used by the armed forces, but military leaders plan to rapidly expand their use over the next decade.
      “There are a lot of profound reasons for doing this, but for us at the core it’s practical,” said Ray Mabus, the Navy secretary and a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
      Yet the Saudis have an obvious interest in keeping America — and the West — addicted to its oil supply. And luckily for them, their mouthpiece in the U.S. gets generous air time to make that case. And seeing that bin Talal is also one of Fox News’s largest shareholders, perhaps he’s rubbing off on some of the network’s most high profile employees. “I love that smell of emissions,” Sarah Palin said this weekend.
       
      Bob


    • Robert Maginnis
      Al,   We are all ready to chuck the ethanol / corn lobby, but methanol still has to produced efficienctly and in massive quantities, which will require
      Message 2 of 19 , Jun 1, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Al,
         
        We are all ready to chuck the 'ethanol / corn lobby,' but methanol still has to produced efficienctly and in massive quantities, which will require doubling or tripling our NG production to replace 100% petroleum, less of course to replace OPEC oil.   I could only find one reference to energy loss from conversion from NG to methanol, something like 35%.   Car gas tanks will have to be twice as big for the same miles driven, because methanol is low energy per volume. 

        Here is a diagram to start from, when considering replacing one form of energy with another:

        U.S. Primary Energy Consumption by Source and Sector, 2009 (Quadrillion Btu)

        For example, because 72% of petroleum (oil) is used in the transportation sector, where it provides 94% of the total energy used, policies to reduce oil consumption have tended to focus on the transportation sector. These policies usually seek to increase fuel efficiency or promote alternative fuels. Ninety-three percent of coal, but only 1% of oil, is used to generate electricity, suggesting that policies affecting electricity generation are likely to have a much larger impact on coal use than oil use.
         
         
        Bob

        --- On Wed, 6/1/11, Albert Masetti <almasetti@...> wrote:

        From: Albert Masetti <almasetti@...>
        Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Saudi Prince: ‘We Don’t Want The West To Go Find Alternatives’ To Oil
        To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Wednesday, June 1, 2011, 2:48 AM

         
        Good post, Bob.

        I've already reposted it to two other forums.

        OPEC and various hostile regimes control 95% of the world's oil.

        The United States has in the past two years discovered how to unlock VAST amounts of natural gas [and oil] from shale rock. 

        And many other countries have also, from Poland to Israel.

        Natural gas is 99% methane. Methane can be converted relatively easily to methanol, which is a fraction of the price of ethanol.

        We and people in other countries can burn methanol in our automobiles far more cheaply and more easily than using oil imported from hostile regimes. 

        "Flex Fuel Cars" can burn ANY mixture of gasoline, ethanol and methanol. ANY. All it would take is for each governor to mandate that all new cars be equipped to burn Flex Fuel. Cost for the Flex Fuel option for a new car would be about $100. The fuel industry would take care of the rest. Could be any mix of gasoline and methanol, which is cheaper than ethanol ... ANY mix. Car computer would compensate automatically for mix changes. Can't drink methanol, but can't drink gasoline either.

        The additional cost would be for different materials for the fuel lines, gaskets, etc.

        No reason not to allow gas stations to sell straight gasoline as well as various mixes. Older cars and chain saws and lawn mowers and generators could use the straight gasoline.

        Need to get past the ethanol / corn lobby.

        Read up in articles here: www.energyvictory.net and here www.methanol.org

        - Al



        On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Robert Maginnis <bobmagi@...> wrote:
         
         
         

        Fox News Affiliated Saudi Prince: ‘We Don’t Want The West To Go Find Alternatives’ To Oil

        By Ben Armbruster posted from ThinkProgress Security on May 31, 2011 at 12:50 pm
        Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal
        Fareed Zakaria interviewed Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal on his CNN show last weekend and wondered what Saudi Arabia, whom Zakaria referred to as “the central banker of oil,” could do about the rising price of a barrel of oil. “If you don’t have increased demand, if you don’t have reduced supply, why did the price go up 30 — 40 percent?” Zakaria asked. While bin Talal blamed rising oil prices on “fear” and “speculation,” the Saudi Prince made a surprising admission:
        BIN TALAL: The stiff position of Saudi Arabia, we want the price to be between $70 and $80. Not only to help the West, but also to help ourselves. We don’t want the West to go and find alternatives, because, clearly, the higher the price oil goes, the more you have incentive to go and find alternatives. So, really, our interest coincides with American interest, to have the price for around $70, $80 which is a price good for consumers and producers.
         
         
        New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has been talking about this concept for a while, arguing that a gasoline tax “would trigger a shift in buying and investment” in clean energy here in the U.S. — a move that would provide a foundation for a reinvigorated economy and reduce Americans’ dependence on oil, particularly from foreign sources.
        But despite the fact that little is being done about it legislatively, the general consensus is that America’s dependence on oil also harms U.S. national security. “Bringing down consumption of imported oil is very much in the interest of national security,” noted retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton last month. And indeed, even the U.S. military is acknowledging this reality and taking action:
        Even as Congress has struggled unsuccessfully to pass an energy bill and many states have put renewable energy on hold because of the recession, the military this year has pushed rapidly forward. After a decade of waging wars in remote corners of the globe where fuel is not readily available, senior commanders have come to see overdependence on fossil fuel as a big liability, and renewable technologies — which have become more reliable and less expensive over the past few years — as providing a potential answer. These new types of renewable energy now account for only a small percentage of the power used by the armed forces, but military leaders plan to rapidly expand their use over the next decade.
        “There are a lot of profound reasons for doing this, but for us at the core it’s practical,” said Ray Mabus, the Navy secretary and a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
        Yet the Saudis have an obvious interest in keeping America — and the West — addicted to its oil supply. And luckily for them, their mouthpiece in the U.S. gets generous air time to make that case. And seeing that bin Talal is also one of Fox News’s largest shareholders, perhaps he’s rubbing off on some of the network’s most high profile employees. “I love that smell of emissions,” Sarah Palin said this weekend.
         
        Bob

      • Bruce Richardson
        Bob, the Saudi Prince is just stating the obvious--what we already know. As the price of crude increases, it opens up the market for alternatives. The shale
        Message 3 of 19 , Jun 1, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment

          Bob, the Saudi Prince is just stating the obvious--what we already know. As the price of crude increases, it opens up the market for alternatives. The shale oil that we get from Canada wouldn’t be competitive if the price of crude had not reached a certain price point. There are vast shale oil deposits in the United States and there is now technology that will presumably allow us to recover it without making a big mess. At some point, as recovering the crude is more and more expensive, other alternatives will become cost effective and come on line. I don’t think that government will have to cause it to happen. It will happen because the numbers work out. It may have to happen in spite of government rather than because of it. The government may be pushing certain alternatives because of political rather than economic considerations.  Ethanol and windmills are good examples of that.

          Palin was joking about loving the smell of the emissions. She was surrounded by hundreds of “Rolling Thunder” motorcycles when she said that. The video is here: 

           

          http://www.theblaze.com/stories/i-love-that-smell-of-the-emissions-palin-mounts-motorcycle-to-kick-start-bus-tour/

           

          Oil is a commodity just like food. We are not addicted to oil any more than we are addicted to food.

           

          Bruce

           

          C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
          Houston, Texas

           


          From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
          Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 11:50 PM
          To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [climatechangedebate] Saudi Prince: ‘We Don’t Want The West To Go Find Alternatives’ To Oil

           

          Fox News Affiliated Saudi Prince: ‘We Don’t Want The West To Go Find Alternatives’ To Oil

          By Ben Armbruster posted from ThinkProgress Security on May 31, 2011 at 12:50 pm

          Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal

          Fareed Zakaria interviewed Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal on his CNN show last weekend and wondered what Saudi Arabia, whom Zakaria referred to as “the central banker of oil,” could do about the rising price of a barrel of oil. “If you don’t have increased demand, if you don’t have reduced supply, why did the price go up 30 — 40 percent?” Zakaria asked. While bin Talal blamed rising oil prices on “fear” and “speculation,” the Saudi Prince made a surprising admission:

          BIN TALAL: The stiff position of Saudi Arabia, we want the price to be between $70 and $80. Not only to help the West, but also to help ourselves. We don’t want the West to go and find alternatives, because, clearly, the higher the price oil goes, the more you have incentive to go and find alternatives. So, really, our interest coincides with American interest, to have the price for around $70, $80 which is a price good for consumers and producers.

           

           

          New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has been talking about this concept for a while, arguing that a gasoline tax “would trigger a shift in buying and investment” in clean energy here in the U.S. — a move that would provide a foundation for a reinvigorated economy and reduce Americans’ dependence on oil, particularly from foreign sources.

          But despite the fact that little is being done about it legislatively, the general consensus is that America’s dependence on oil also harms U.S. national security. “Bringing down consumption of imported oil is very much in the interest of national security,” noted retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton last month. And indeed, even the U.S. military is acknowledging this reality and taking action:

          Even as Congress has struggled unsuccessfully to pass an energy bill and many states have put renewable energy on hold because of the recession, the military this year has pushed rapidly forward. After a decade of waging wars in remote corners of the globe where fuel is not readily available, senior commanders have come to see overdependence on fossil fuel as a big liability, and renewable technologies — which have become more reliable and less expensive over the past few years — as providing a potential answer. These new types of renewable energy now account for only a small percentage of the power used by the armed forces, but military leaders plan to rapidly expand their use over the next decade.

          “There are a lot of profound reasons for doing this, but for us at the core it’s practical,” said Ray Mabus, the Navy secretary and a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

          Yet the Saudis have an obvious interest in keeping America — and the West — addicted to its oil supply. And luckily for them, their mouthpiece in the U.S. gets generous air time to make that case. And seeing that bin Talal is also one of Fox News’s largest shareholders, perhaps he’s rubbing off on some of the network’s most high profile employees. “I love that smell of emissions,” Sarah Palin said this weekend.

           

          Bob

        • famstaff@hal-pc.org
          Bob, I saw this same story (but with different names and prices) in the early 1970 s and in the 1980s. This is no surprise. It s why solar and wind will
          Message 4 of 19 , Jun 1, 2011
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Bob, I saw this same story (but with different names and prices) in
            the early 1970's and in the 1980s. This is no surprise. It's why
            solar and wind will always be 20 years away from profitability. (Yes,
            always.)

            Greg


            Quoting Robert Maginnis <bobmagi@...>:

            >  
            >  
            > Fox News Affiliated Saudi Prince: ‘We Don’t Want The West To Go Find
            > Alternatives’ To Oil
            > By Ben Armbruster posted from ThinkProgress Security on May 31, 2011
            > at 12:50 pm
            >
            >
            >
            > Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin TalalFareed Zakaria interviewed Saudi
            > Prince Alwaleed bin Talal on his CNN show last weekend and wondered
            > what Saudi Arabia, whom Zakaria referred to as “the central banker
            > of oil,” could do about the rising price of a barrel of oil. “If you
            > don’t have increased demand, if you don’t have reduced supply, why
            > did the price go up 30 — 40 percent?” Zakaria asked. While bin Talal
            > blamed rising oil prices on “fear” and “speculation,” the Saudi
            > Prince made a surprising admission:
            >
            >
            > BIN TALAL: The stiff position of Saudi Arabia, we want the price to
            > be between $70 and $80. Not only to help the West, but also to help
            > ourselves. We don’t want the West to go and find alternatives,
            > because, clearly, the higher the price oil goes, the more you have
            > incentive to go and find alternatives. So, really, our interest
            > coincides with American interest, to have the price for around $70,
            > $80 which is a price good for consumers and producers.
            >
            >  
            >  
            > New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has been talking about this
            > concept for a while, arguing that a gasoline tax “would trigger a
            > shift in buying and investment” in clean energy here in the U.S. — a
            > move that would provide a foundation for a reinvigorated economy and
            > reduce Americans’ dependence on oil, particularly from foreign
            > sources.
            > But despite the fact that little is being done about it
            > legislatively, the general consensus is that America’s dependence on
            > oil also harms U.S. national security. “Bringing down consumption of
            > imported oil is very much in the interest of national security,”
            > noted retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton last month. And indeed, even the
            > U.S. military is acknowledging this reality and taking action:
            >
            > Even as Congress has struggled unsuccessfully to pass an energy bill
            > and many states have put renewable energy on hold because of the
            > recession, the military this year has pushed rapidly forward. After
            > a decade of waging wars in remote corners of the globe where fuel is
            > not readily available, senior commanders have come to see
            > overdependence on fossil fuel as a big liability, and renewable
            > technologies — which have become more reliable and less expensive
            > over the past few years — as providing a potential answer. These new
            > types of renewable energy now account for only a small percentage of
            > the power used by the armed forces, but military leaders plan to
            > rapidly expand their use over the next decade.
            > “There are a lot of profound reasons for doing this, but for us at
            > the core it’s practical,” said Ray Mabus, the Navy secretary and a
            > former ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
            > Yet the Saudis have an obvious interest in keeping America — and the
            > West — addicted to its oil supply. And luckily for them, their
            > mouthpiece in the U.S. gets generous air time to make that case. And
            > seeing that bin Talal is also one of Fox News’s largest
            > shareholders, perhaps he’s rubbing off on some of the network’s most
            > high profile employees. “I love that smell of emissions,” Sarah
            > Palin said this weekend.
            > http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/05/31/231253/saudi-prince-alternatives-oil/
            >  
            > Bob



            ----------------------------------------------------------------
            This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.