|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1115
Location: Nice, France
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:52 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
a sustained attack on Iran.
where will you get the troops ?
we all know that it is planned for June, but I can only assume that a terror type incident is planned (in Britain is my guess).
problem is if nobody believes that it was the Muslims.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it's entirely possible that, in the event that bombs start falling on Damascus, Tehran, and Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon, those 5 million odd barrels I mentioned could disappear fast.
But it may not even take an attack on Iran. With the US increasingly making more demands after another and threatening war if it doesn't get what it wants, it would not shock me if representatives from a group of "potential target nations" were already meeting secretly, noticing that "If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately." Iran's government has already pledged to help Syria, though these kinds of pledges are fairly regular and as an outside observer, I'm not sure I'd trust such a pledge.
On the other hand, the Iranians might indeed mean it. Meaning that a Franco-American attack on Syria and Lebanon (I fully expect Jacques Chirac to be on board this time as "another cowboy") could trigger an Iranian response.
And crude oil prices would spiral out of control. Personally, I think $80 for NYMEX light, sweet crude would be cheap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1663
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I understand it, Americans have historicaly paid less at the pump than have Europeans. While all the reasons for this aren't known to me -- I would guess that, at one time, at least, it reflected the fact that we had our own source -- the result has been that, while we've been able to take cheap gas for granted, which encouraged us to use it freely, others have had to think harder about conservation, fuel-efficiency, and priorities.
I also believe that other nations were willing to tax their use of petroleum fuels more highly (perhaps recognizing more acutely the valuable nature of the commodity), using the funds generated for other socially-desirable ends.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1115
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The threatened nations (or those that perceive themselves to be threatened) have been talking, and acting, for some time.
The lists of countries threatened and demands have become almost laughable. I can only presume that this performance was for the benefit of an American audience.
Syria is trying to cooperate and is headed by a Westernized and reasonable man. To attack Syria would be an act of malice and I cannot see why Chirac would be involved - the knowledge of the Lebanese civil war is too great here.
If, however, this is a re-run of the ravings against Iraq, merely a prelude to a pre-decided attack, then we shall see if the rumours of who is behind Syria are true (and it aint Iran).
Yes, many countries tax petrol very heavily (the majority of the price is tax).
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The biggest reason is that we have 200 million vehicles running around on our highways today...far surpassing any other nations needed demands.
However, there are reports floating around that Iran wants to start a Euro-denominated futures bourse. How likely this is, I do not know. And how successful such a thing would be if given a chance, I have no idea. Some OPEC members, especially Iran, have talked for a long time about pricing crude oil in other currencies or pegging the price of oil to a basket of currencies, but Saudi Arabia (and to a lesser extent the UAE) has always protected the dollar price, even when it means sacrificing the terms of trade. But it adds an extra dimension.
I find Hugo Chavez fascinating, and assuming he doesn't die a mysterious or gun-fire filled untimely early death, he's going to be a man to watch for the next few years. What his government would do in the event of a US attack on Iran, or an Iranian response to a US attack on Syria (which would almost certainly merit some kind of military response), is anyone's guess. He could very easily decide not to sell any more oil to the United States for the duration, depriving his country of much needed income but clearly depriving the US of its fourth most important source of imported crude.
Possibly even enough, if the storm comes together right, to get us to the magic 5.5 million barrel per day mark, triggering a release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
I would expect a massive increase in gasoline prices across the US. Long lines at gas stations. Possibly even rationing. Possibly even "unrest" meriting some kind of pre-emptive "state of emergency." My advice remains as always: buy a bicycle. It could be very, very useful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1663
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do we really NEED 200 million full-capacity internal-combustion-powered vehicles on our streets?
One reason historically stated for the large American car is the long distances some Americans (in the midwest, specifically) typically drive every day. Those same cars have always appeared ludicrous in little towns in Europe, yet are taken for granted in little towns on the east coast, where probably 90% of them have been sold.
It's surprisingly easy to become accustomed to luxuries, and to take them, eventually, as necessities. This is the story of American consumerism, on every level, for the past five decades, at least. Who could think, objectively, that this was sustainable? And who can honestly argue that another way of living would somehow not be "American" or wouldn't have been as "profitable"? Profitable for whom?
America's landfills tell the story, as well as anything could. And the excess fuel we consume just "goes up in smoke."
Get it?
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1663
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I consider myself extremely fortunate to be an American, Donald, as I'm sure you do. That does not blind me, however, to the ways in which our blessed country needs to be so much better.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1086
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It might be interesting to see a graph of average non-commercial vehicle gross weight to passengers-and-cargo weight over the last 100 years, along with gas mileage figures over the same period.
The 1939 2 1/2 ton GMC flatbed I used to drive a few years back seemed to get pretty darn good mileage - 20mpg range - with its modestly sized straight-six engine, low gearing, and zero power-robbing accessories - whether or not it was hauling steel, lumber, concrete rubble, the odd car from time to time, or just me and some tools...
In addition to the total number of private vehicles in the U.S., a huge factor in itself, we're probably also way behind on average mileage-per-vehicle.
Anybody know of some good online references along these lines? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
donald pretty much said it...
the US wants the most, so the US gets the best price... it demonstrates the relationship b/w consumer and provider perfectly...they are mutually dependant upon the other... if the consumer is gone the provider has nothing and if the provider is gone the consumer has nothing...
which is all very funny when you consider that OPEC is a cartel and they really do a very poor job at living up to the definition...they have rarely been able to take the power they have and really apply it b/c they know if they push too hard one way at the end of the day they can't eat oil...
richard, now you are siting the fact that the US doesn't have enough troops for a sustained attack on iran? haven't you been the one saying throughout this entire thread that we are going to attack iran? so i'm assuming you now believe it will just be some sort of lightning strike aimed only at taking out the nuclear sites?
i'm certain you have talked about the US invading iran or at least seeking regime change...2 things that wouldn't very likely happen by simply bombing them over a short period of time...
and now we are even talking about attacking syria? where did that come from, i don't think anyone has seriously mentioned this possibility b/c it is even more unlikely than attacking iran... next you guys are going to be saying we will be attacking egypt next simply b/c bush made some tough statements towards them...
just b/c bush mentions a country's name in a speech in which he doesn't speak glowingly about them, doesn't mean we plan to attack that country, come on.
as for chavez in venezuala, that could be an entire thread in and of itself... everyone before 9/11 saw colombia as the next scene for a major US military action, but now the main 'target' in latin america is venezuala partly b/c they have had sour relationships with their neighbors as of late and due to chavez's vision of a 'socialist state of the 21st century'
and of course he is rapidly militarizing ordering a slew of russian made military equipment...i loved the statement from a defense department official though when asked about venezuala purchasing MiG fighter jets from russia...
"MiGs?... we shoot down MiG's" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1663
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In re Venezuela/Chavez:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?templ=story&u=/afp/20050308/pl_afp?venezuelaus
This would be the "run-up" get-them-ready-for-it Press Release?
As for oil/gasoline -- it wasn't I who wished to conflate American "bargain gasoline with a "preferred price" at the OPEC Pump. The chief differential, as Kivin avers, has been the amount of tax paid by different populations. . .
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1663
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Darn. While I was typing, Yahoo rotated their headline stories. The Story was: "Us Warns Venezuela of Possible Attempt on Chavez"
Next! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well i know before the recent move up to the $2 mark that the taxes on gas in new york state were right around 30-40% of the price...and i'm sure you SDR know the impact of taxes on gas prices in california, it is a very significant amount...
i imagine the 'lack' of taxes on US gasoline has alot to do with where those taxes go... i'm pretty sure that money is intended to pay for roads and maintainence and such transportation related things which are also heavily supported by tolls, registration fees, licensing fees, ect ect and federal money...
so the simple answer might just be that there is enough money to pay for infrastructure and such withou adding taxes to gasoline that would be politically unpopular...
that is the best way i can reason it out on a first try??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1663
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that's the basic construct. . .the operative word being "politically unpopular". . .which I guess translates as "don't suggest we pay what it costs, or we'll fire you and hire somebody else to represent us. . ."
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gas prices are on the way up. Look for over two bucks a gallon for most of your Spring and Summer driving. The problem here is not that the world's supply of oil is running short. The problem is that the supply is undependable. Every time - dumb slur - blow up an oil pipeline in Iraq you see a spike in oil prices. Add the terrorism problem to the fact that we don't have enough refining capacity .. and you have expensive gas.
http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgas_index.asp
How many years has it been since an oil refinery was built in the United States? I think that it's been over 25 years. Can't you imagine that this is having some affect on getting gas to the pumps for your Summer driving? And then there's all those special blends. We have about 55 different blends for different parts of the country .. all demanded by the eco-whacko crowd. The refineries can't keep up.
Who's to blame? How about environmentalists? Any plan to build a new refinery is immediately met by a tidal wave of opposition from so-called "environmental" groups. Ditto for any suggestion that we start retrieving the supplies of crude oil and natural gas from the Gulf shore of Florida and the Pacific coast. No can do, the environmentalists don't like it. Then, of course, there's ANWR. On its best days ANWR looks like a vacant urban lot. Most of the time it looks like an iced-over K-Mart parking lot. There's oil there, but we can't get to it. Again .. blame the environmentalists.
What about nuclear power plants? Environmentalists again.
Remember, for many of the so-called environmentalists, the goal isn't protecting the environment. The real goal is weakening America. The environmental movement became the refuge-of-choice for socialists and communists who had nowhere else to go after the fall of the Soviet Union and the worldwide communist movement. Here they found a movement they could use to further their goals of weakening capitalism and the American economy ... and anyone who dares to challenge them is branded as a wicked capitalist who wants dirty air and water.
When you fill up your tanks for your trip to grandmas, remember to thank your friendly local environmentalist groups for their help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1663
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
The price -- to a conscientious American -- is well worth it. To others. . .well, maybe they think, since it come out of the ground, it should be free to all, without charge?
But that's a different thread. This one is about the professional blatherers -- those who make their living by keeping their mouths moving until the camera turns away, whether there's anything meaningful coming out, or not.
Surely, Al Sharpton is only one example, from one segment of the panoply of offenders?
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
