Lister Engine Forum

Alternative fuels => Bio-diesel Fuel => Topic started by: biobill on April 21, 2007, 10:08:07 PM

Title: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: biobill on April 21, 2007, 10:08:07 PM
 Another shinning example of corporate America's values.

 http://nbb.grassroots.com/EPA_AskTheAdministrator_Details/?lk=5253840-5253840-0-26468-j7-Ia3j3/ugoRq4rf3J/jr9-fu94F1zI

                                         Bill
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: SCOTT on April 22, 2007, 02:54:25 AM
Bill
What exactly is the problem you see here?  What is it htat you find offensive?  I as an owner of various public companies (and anyone who has a pension or 401K) expect that these public companies do everything in their power to maximize returns for shareholders (you and me).  That is their fiduciary duty, and nothing less than their best efforts is acceptable.  If this goes to the next level and the courts find that they do not qualify for the blending incentive then they do not get them. 

Personally I do not think they should get the credits, but as a shareholder I expect them they try.

Scott
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: biobill on April 22, 2007, 01:57:26 PM
Quote from: SCOTT
  What is it htat you find offensive?  I as an owner of various public companies (and anyone who has a pension or 401K) expect that these public companies do everything in their power to maximize returns for shareholders (you and me)
 
 No, not me. I won't be a part of it.  What you said is exactly what I find so offensive. "everything in their power to maximize returns". Nothing matters but the almighty dollar and anything in the way is expendable. People, communities, countries, social responsibility, ecosystems,  environments, fairness, truth, are all secondary to the persuit of money. We were all a bit smug back in 91 when the Soviet Union fell apart. Capitalism triumphs over Communism! Didn't really notice that it was doing a number on Democracy too.

 So here we have two huge corporations trying to "get the money" that was intended to help the fledgling biodiesel industry. And thats OK?
                                                      Bill   
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: SCOTT on April 22, 2007, 02:39:25 PM
Bill

If you have a pension, 401K, mutual fund, etc you are likely invested in public companies.  It is the OBLIGATION of these public companies to maximize profits for shareholders.  It is also their obligation to work within the law to do so, this is assumed but let me state it another way:  one should expect any public company to do everything in their power to legally maximize returns.  By the way I don’t believe anyone has suggested Conoco or Tyson is doing anything illegal or underhanded.  They submitted a plan for producer credits that was (after review) approved. 

So what is the problem here, a big company has teamed up with another big company and developed a new process?  Would the objection be so loud if it were a little company from your home state that teamed up with Tyson?  The fact is that in order for these processes to make economical sense you need scale, scale with inputs which Tyson offers and scale with production capacity which Conoco offers.  Without the scale each offers to the other the project would not be worth the effort. Conoco is using production assets and technology it already had, this is not something a startup is going to have available.

What is the downside to this project?  A new use for slaughter house waste is found and more fuel is supplied to the country?

Quote
Nothing matters but the almighty dollar and anything in the way is expendable. People, communities, countries, social responsibility, ecosystems,  environments, fairness, truth, are all secondary to the persuit of money.

The upside is that new jobs are created for people in the community,  Conoco and Tyson are acting as socially responsible corporate citizens, the ecosystem is bettered by removing waste from the waste stream, environmentalists should be happy waste is reduced. In terms of fairness any other company large or small could have embarked on this type of project, but none did, Conoco and Tyson were the ones willing to take the risk as such they should reap the reward.  I would be willing to bet that this project yeilds a lower ROI than the vast majority of those Conoco works on.  In that respect they are infact doing their part to help the enviornment, and without the credits it probably not happen because it would cost too much.  Please understand they are not doing this because there is a huge amount of money in it, they can make more in a day pumping oil than his project will make all year.

The worst case scenario is that every gallon the Conoco/ Tyson project produces displaces one gallon of oil from a country hostile to the United states!

Scott
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: wldhoss on April 22, 2007, 04:48:00 PM
YEP, You can trust your car to the man who wears the star.  Big oil is your friend, Bull Shit!
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rmchambers on April 22, 2007, 05:19:36 PM
Sure, and we all knew that once biodiesel and the like became even more than a minor irritant to big oil that they'd jump on it and turn around and claim they were being green.  What this proves is that the middle class is now paying big oil (with their record profits) $1/gallon extra for this to be made.  And the sad thing is, it's not biodiesel, it's heat cracked animal fat.

Short of a popular revolution  I don't know what will turn this country around.

RC
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: haganes on April 23, 2007, 07:38:41 AM
 
 No, not me. I won't be a part of it.  What you said is exactly what I find so offensive. "everything in their power to maximize returns". Nothing matters but the almighty dollar and anything in the way is expendable. People, communities, countries, social responsibility, ecosystems,  environments, fairness, truth, are all secondary to the persuit of money. We were all a bit smug back in 91 when the Soviet Union fell apart. Capitalism triumphs over Communism! Didn't really notice that it was doing a number on Democracy too.


you have every right to be skeptical about motives and potential consequences.  but just because the devil is doing it does not make it wrong.  people, companies, and governments doom themselves when they make wrong decisions.  things must be analyzed on its own merits.

captain steven
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: okiezeke on April 23, 2007, 08:40:54 AM
Bio What??
Its really kind of an underhanded compliment that the BIG boys are jumping on the bandwagon.  Even tho they are not doing it to help the environment, They ARE going to take a waste product and turn it into fuel.  These big bad boys certainly do not need any (more) federal money, but with big oil running the country, it's not the surprise of the year.  We voted the bastards in, we can vote them out.  Hopefully there will still be some federal support for the grass roots folks.  Like it or not, we live in a country that provides freedom for everybody who can afford it.  Our elected representatives are bought and paid for by the likes of Tyson/Conoco.  Still don't know anywhere else I want to live.
Zeke
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: biobill on April 24, 2007, 01:54:45 AM


Quote from: Scott

If you have a pension, 401K, mutual fund, etc you are likely invested in public companies.
Not guilty
Quote
It is the OBLIGATION of these public companies to maximize profits for shareholders.
This is what makes me so crazy, the fact that we have a system that encourages the exploitation of people and the depletion resources so the next quarterly report looks good. Does humanity as a whole benefit? Living conditions improve? Are we ensuring a better life for our children - Better bank the maximized returns, the kids will need it to buy water!
Quote
  It is also their obligation to work within the law to do so,
Or to rework the law to do so if they have enough clout. I'm reminded of the agribusiness effort a few years back to neuter the organic standards on food  so consumers would be unable to tell the difference between industriorganic and true organic. But no matter if they can't get convenient  laws, They'll just move to another country where the laws are more accomidating. Sorry about the jobs, but the shareholders expect maximum returns
Quote
this is assumed but let me state it another way:  one should expect any public company to do everything in their power to legally maximize returns.  By the way I don’t believe anyone has suggested Conoco or Tyson is doing anything illegal or underhanded.  They submitted a plan for producer credits that was (after review) approved.
I may be a bit cynical, but with the current administration I'll bet they weren't sweating the approval. The way I understand it, Conoco/Phillips already has  refining capabilities in place and Tyson has a byproduct with a negative value. Doesn't seem like they really need the taxpayer support does it? With their deep pockets? (but then there's the shareholders  and the executive's salaries and bonuses to consider) The incentives were intended to help start up's like Brian Appel who's doing virtually the same process but from the ground up, and biodiesel producers also starting from nothing. Not as more corporate welfare.
Quote
So what is the problem here, a big company has teamed up with another big company and developed a new process?
Seems like Brian has done most of the development work.
Quote
Would the objection be so loud if it were a little company from your home state that teamed up with Tyson?
Absolutely not. If a small start up from any state made a deal to haul Tyson's or any other meatpacker's garbage to turn into fuel  I'd be all for it. And if they're investing in production equipment, then the incentives would be justified in my opinion.
Quote
The fact is that in order for these processes to make economical sense you need scale, scale with inputs which Tyson offers and scale with production capacity which Conoco offers.  Without the scale each offers to the other the project would not be worth the effort. Conoco is using production assets and technology it already had, this is not something a startup is going to have available.
Agreed. At this time, with my limited knowledge of the process and it's environmental implications, I'm all for it. Just not the money grab. Wonder why they're just starting now?
Quote

What is the downside to this project?  A new use for slaughter house waste is found and more fuel is supplied to the country?
well there is the national debt and the use of public funds to further enrich the already wealthy but that aside I'm all for it.

Quote
Nothing matters but the almighty dollar and anything in the way is expendable. People, communities, countries, social responsibility, ecosystems,  environments, fairness, truth, are all secondary to the pursuit of money.
Quote
The upside is that new jobs are created for people in the community,
though far fewer than by start ups IMHO
Quote
  Conoco and Tyson are acting as socially responsible corporate citizens,
I'm sorry, Tyson and "socially responsible" do not belong in  the same sentence
Quote
the ecosystem is bettered by removing waste from the waste stream, environmentalists should be happy waste is reduced.
agreed
Quote
In terms of fairness any other company large or small could have embarked on this type of project, but none did,
well, actually they did.
Quote
Conoco and Tyson were the ones willing to take the risk as such they should reap the reward.
and they will I'm sure. I suppose Conoco will use the stuff to meet the renewable fuel mandates with minimal investment and a dollar a gallon from the taxpayers. Wonder what they'll call the blend? I hope that they're required to label it accurately. Might make vegetarians avoid biodiesel if the named are similar ;D
Quote
  I would be willing to bet that this project yeilds a lower ROI than the vast majority of those Conoco works on.
I'll take that bet for a dollar. How do we find out?
Quote
  In that respect they are infact doing their part to help the enviornment, and without the credits it probably not happen because it would cost too much.
So by embarking on a venture that may yield a lower ROI (and I'm not conceeding that it will) than what they are accustomed to, even though still profitable, they become good stewards or the environment? Lets face it, the CEO and the board make an OBSCENE amount of money. Do you think ever discuss cutting back to a simply huge salary and put the savings toward some humanitarian purpose.
Quote
  Please understand they are not doing this because there is a huge amount of money in it, they can make more in a day pumping oil than his project will make all year.
Agreed, this takes care of that annoying renewable mandate so they can get back to making real money. I can hear the bonuses adding up.
Quote


The worst case scenario is that every gallon the Conoco/ Tyson project produces displaces one gallon of oil from a country hostile to the United states!
And that is good. Wonder why those guys don't like us?

  This issue is a real hot button for me. Not my intention to offend anyone.   Bill
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on April 24, 2007, 02:42:54 AM
I want to build a plug in hi brid charcoal powered "Dougy bugy". Just so I can snear at gas stations and plug it in a work and stick it to that ma as well lol.

Doug
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: SCOTT on April 24, 2007, 03:16:33 AM
Biobill

Wow you have some strong opinions, and a rather obvious dislike for “Corporate America.”

For you to associate a Pension, 401K, and ownership of a mutual fund with the word “guilty” leaves me all but speechless.  I suppose one could rely on the pathetic returns of social security for retirement?

It seems that you prefer a system where people just put in their time at work with and the State decided what is "fair" and how to allocate the collective wealth.

The reason this country is so great and so many want to come here is because every citizen is guaranteed the same opportunity.  The outcome is up to the individual.

Please don’t begrudge those that have put forth the effort and have done well.

……….And now back to the regularly scheduled program…..Old style compression ignition engines!!


Scott
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on April 25, 2007, 12:21:20 AM
Quote:

"The reason this country is so great and so many want to come here is because every citizen is guaranteed the same opportunity.  The outcome is up to the individual."

Your country is a house of cards with a wind storm in the mail. So is mine......

You and I mean nothing to the money men and I learned this in places like soup kitchens and picket lines.

Doug
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: SCOTT on April 25, 2007, 12:51:51 AM
...and the beat goes on

Quote
Your country is a house of cards with a wind storm in the mail. So is mine......

You and I mean nothing to the money men and I learned this in places like soup kitchens and picket lines.

More of the same "us vs. them" attitude which in the end will get you (the collective you) nowhere.  For those who allow others to determine their success I can see problems on the horizon.  For those who take responsibility for their place in society and life in general, things have a way of working out.  People spend way too much time bitching about "the man" and the ceo and his large payouts.  Perhaps if these same people reallocated that time to building their own business, they would view the subject in a different light. 

I am in an industry where the top earners make over $1 billion a year.  In 2006 the best in the industry earned $1.7 billion dollars, his name is James Simons, he is a hedge fund manager and he makes a bundle for his clients.  These people make this kind of money because that is what the market deems they are worth.  I know managers who have the ivy league education yet struggle to gather assets.  On the other hand I know a few who have just an average education but their results are well above average and they have no problem gathering assets.  Not many in my industry complain about the other guy making too much money, it is more a source of inspiration. 

The outcome is up to the individual, your worth is determined by what value you bring to the table.  If you just show up you will be paid accordingly.

Scott
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rmchambers on April 25, 2007, 04:26:36 AM
There has to be some responsibility.  You can't justify acting like some of these outfits do by putting it all down to "they owe their share holders a return on the investment".  If the playing field is level that's ok, if companies (industries) need a leg up on the competition they fill the pockets of politicians and lobbyists to get a law changed or an exemption created and that's pretty shitty too.  "well everyone does it"  that's not an excuse either.

I blame the hedge fund assholes for why my electricity bill has just about tripled.  Thanks to Jeff Skillings blowing smoke up the CT state legislatures arses we got de-regulated electricity now.. competition will lower prices.. well the only snag there is there is NO competition, we are going down the same road that California went down when they deregulated.  Now the suppliers buy power on the open market and the hedge fund people and the power futures people manage to make their money as part of the transaction path between generator and my meter.. the bottom line is they are sycophants on my power supply and it's costing me 3 times what it did before they were in the picture to get the same power.

I won't be able to generate my own power cheaper than it's being supplied, but I am working towards not having to suffer blackouts/brownouts like California does/did when their grid turned into the shambles it did.

Ah well, ranting won't do any good.. just gotta work towards my eventual goal.

RC
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: LowGear on April 25, 2007, 09:38:34 AM
What a tremendous relief.  Big business can still get rules changed while you and I can't import a 6.5 hp hobby engine.  I wonder how many of those $175,000,000 will be reinvested in the form of election campaign contributions?

Say what you will about Social Secruity, it's the best thing going for over half of the post 65 population.  If it weren't for this income just think how many couldn't afford to get to their part time jobs at Walmart and other God Bless America Corporations.

Cheers,
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: biobill on April 25, 2007, 12:35:34 PM
RC
 A similar thing happened here in NY when National Grid, a British consortium, bought out Niagara Mohawk. I'm told they "negotiated" a hands off agreement with the Public Utilities Commission. A lineman friend of mine told me that they concentrate on large transmission lines as they are the most profitable and largely ignore distribution. Most of the company linemen and equipment are gone. As a result, blackouts are more frequent and last much, much longer. And, naturally, those who purchase their services are paying more. It's interesting to see the local impact of foriegn investment.  But....Home Depot is selling lots of stand by generators and I've noticed more interest in solar electric systems, so it's all good, right? ;D
                                                        Bill
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: biobill on April 25, 2007, 01:12:03 PM

Scott,
  To my way of thinking, making a billion dollars without actually producing anything useful is inheriently  wrong.  I know,  I know, the money. But it's not production, it's manipulation. And believe me, I'm not  innocent. I was a broker years ago. Produced lots of paper and numbers in columns but nothing of value. I was able to convince myself that I was a facilitator for a time but  the reality was that I was a leech. Profiting on the labors and investments of others because of my connections. Just couldn't do it any more. Still have friends and family in the business, makes for great beer drinking conversation.
  Couldn't quite decipher the comment about government control but that's not where I'm at at all. My vision for a sustainable future is community sized enterprises that would reduce transportation costs and be more responsive to local needs. Not so many zeros on the ends of the numbers to be sure, but a more realistic system than the one we have IMHO.
                                                      Bill 
                                                         
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: SCOTT on April 25, 2007, 03:32:19 PM
Rmchambers

I too live in CT and have seen the rates go up pretty fast. 

I view this as an opportunity, not a problem, any time there is a change from the norm there is opportunity.  To take a wide angle view, renewable energy and conservation are now mainstream, and new businesses are created daily to take advantage of this.  At the risk of sounding grandiose, this trend is MUCH bigger than the internet revolution, everything we touch and activity we engage in requires energy.  If rates were low people would not think twice about conservation.  Now that electric rates are high and gas prices are high everyone and their brother is concerned about being green and using less energy.  CF light bulbs are now being produced in large enough quantities that the prices are coming down, this would not be the case if electric rates were low.  Energy is a scarce resource and as it is depleted the price goes up.

The state (ct and many others) are actively encouraging distributed generation with grants and low interest loans.  If you take the time to learn the system it is possible for you to get a near free solar installation at your home.  The state (ct) will pay $5 per watt of solar installed; there is also a federal credit of up to $2000.  Take the system below:

http://www.affordable-solar.com/zia.5kw.solar.home.htm

The equipment cost is about $5.26 per watt, after the state rebate you pay .26 per watt which is .07 per watt above what I pay now.  These have a 20+ year life span, it will not take a long time to make back your investment and still be ahead of the game, even assuming no increase in rates.  Your total out of pocket cost will be the cost of installation + .26/watt.  The way the rebates work is that the installer gets the rebate from the state, so you do not even have to pay him up front for the total cost of the system.
If you are concerned about cash flow, you can apply for a low interest rate loan.  The savings in electric costs more than pay for the principal and interest of the loan. 

As far as the political discussion goes, everyone is entitled to their view, no mater how wrong  :)

Scott
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rmchambers on April 25, 2007, 04:10:15 PM
Thanks for the link Scott, I'll check into it.

I know you're not too far from me, I still have to swing by sometime and see your setup, so much stuff going on at the moment (including replacing a car that was flooded by the Byram river in Greenwich last weekend - argh).

I think long term that distributed generation is the only way we are going to minimize grid outage type losses of power.  Lots of small options be they solar/wind/water or Listeroid burning renewable resources.

RC
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on April 25, 2007, 04:12:23 PM
Scott I work for A company that makes over a Billion a quarter and can't find holes deap enough or fast enough to hide the money.....

They manipulate prices and markets.

I mean nothing, I am a cost.

They will screw me in the end, hopefuly I can return the favour.

Its not that people in power are evil, its just the capitalist system. Greed make the world go around.

Doug
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: SCOTT on April 25, 2007, 05:38:28 PM
Doug

Quote
I mean nothing, I am a cost.
I bet the work you do is worth at least $500k per year to your employer, probably more.  I am assuming you are responsible for keeping their electrical components in good working order.  A shutdown of the mine of any significant length of time would cost them many times what they pay you in lost production. 

Quote
They will screw me in the end, hopefuly I can return the favour.
Come on Doug you only live once, why be so jaded?  I am sure your company does not spend time thinking of how they can screw you. 


Quote
Its not that people in power are evil, its just the capitalist system. Greed make the world go around.
Greed by its definition is not good.  Capitalism relies on ambition to succeed, and there is nothing wrong with wanting to do well.  Granted some do get caught up and exhibit greedy tendencies but I think by in large most people do not.


Quote
They manipulate prices and markets.
As far as your company manipulating prices/the market, I find that highly unlikely.  In a commodity market there are simply too many competing interests for one player to influence the markets in any meaningful way. 
What is it that you mine there?

Scott
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on April 26, 2007, 12:26:15 AM
Yes in a perfect world I would be an asset, but production makes money, I produce nothing and am a cost.
Sadly this is exactly how my employer shows me job on a graph....

One lost shift is more than 500 K.....

Doug

Hey it doesn't bother me, and I am not jaded. They get what they pay for and I squeeze them for every dollar so we're even (cept for the strike of 03 they still owe me 10 grand for that when they tried to take the drug plan for me and the pensioners among other claw backs).

Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rpg52 on April 26, 2007, 01:03:32 AM
 This give me a chance to air my own pet peeve about "Corporate America".

Ostensibly corporations are individuals in the eyes of the law.  (As a result of an action by the California Supreme Court regarding a difference of opinion between Contra Costa County and Southern Pacific railroad in the 1880's.)  Fine, except that corporations never die (Southern Pacific has metamorphosed into Sprint, the phone company.)  If corporations possess all the rights of an individual, (freedom of speech, etc.) but cannot be put to death for their actions, the People (in caps on purpose) should possess the right to revolk their corporate charter if they are found to be conducting business in an unethical manner. 

Where is the responsibility to the People (and the rest of the natural world) if a corporation can pay off politicians, dump their garbage for the rest of us to clean up, break unions and then walk away?  Yeah, we can sue them, who do you think can afford the best lawyers?  Life isn't fair, but any group of people that can rig elections with a pile of money has an unfair advantage IMHO.  Down off the soapbox now.  Ahh, I feel better already.   ;)

Ray
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rmchambers on April 26, 2007, 01:19:30 AM
Yes in a perfect world I would be an asset, but production makes money, I produce nothing and am a cost.
Sadly this is exactly how my employer shows me job on a graph....

One lost shift is more than 500 K.....

Doug

Hey it doesn't bother me, and I am not jaded. They get what they pay for and I squeeze them for every dollar so we're even (cept for the strike of 03 they still owe me 10 grand for that when they tried to take the drug plan for me and the pensioners among other claw backs).



That's true for a lot of occupations (like mine).  I'm in IT, computer networks specifically.. and unless you work for a network type carrier (verizon, at&T etc) then running a network isn't your core business.  I work for a company that bottles and sells spring water.  That's the core business.  So the whole IT department I'm a small cog in are viewed upon as a necessary evil needed to support the core business.  That is until something breaks down and then they realize how the IT department makes their lives much easier.

What I do like though is that my job is the same no matter which company I go to.. I'm like a generic Rajkot flywheel, I can run on anyones Listeroid that needs my type of expertise.  I do like to think of my contribution as a tad more refined than a Rajkot flywheel though  ;D

RC
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on April 26, 2007, 02:16:51 AM
I like to tell people I'm the shift plumber and I don't know a damb thing about electricity.....

Doug
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: okiezeke on April 26, 2007, 03:21:06 AM
One of the really great things about American capitalism is that you can buy into it as much as you want.  If you want to make a billion a year you can live in NYC and hedge funds,  and work 120 hr weeks.  Blue collar jobs for those who are happy punching a timeclock for 40hrs a week and nobody bothers you on your day off.  Get a skill that's in demand and you can name your hours, and to some extant your pay.  I've pretty much worked part time and spent most of my life doing things I enjoy.  I work to pay the bills and buy toys.  This system is not perfect, but I really dont care what the CEO is making.  He doesn't have a life, only a job.
Zeke
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: haganes on April 26, 2007, 06:52:52 AM
corporations have no heart and no soul.  they do not hate, they are not vindictive.  good and bad things are done in the process of making money.  most officers who run companies understand the law and do not break it themselves but allow underlings with purposeful lack of oversight to do the dirtywork. 

corporate rules are made by governments.  all share the common failures of vested interests, greed, and corruption.

having said this, i can know of no better system which works.

captain steven
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: biobill on April 30, 2007, 02:41:59 PM
Quote from: SCOTT
  If rates were low people would not think twice about conservation.

  Ain't it the truth. You might think that a highly evolved species like the human race, the developed nations especially, would have the fore sight to recognize that their civilization/lifestyle is utterly dependent on a diminishing resource and would be making a concerted effort to implement alternatives. To date we've managed the earth's "energy inheritance" in much the same way a crack head would manage Grandma's loot.  But I suppose in time the market will prevail. Seems so silly though, as a citizen of the worlds biggest debtor nation, to be  spending  hundreds of billions and countless lives fighting over oil when that money could be invested in things that have a far better long term return.   

Quote from: SCOTT
As far as the political discussion goes, everyone is entitled to their view, no mater how wrong  Smiley

Well dang Scott, that's two things we agree on ;) We'll have you marching in the streets and banging on the gates before you know it. ;D
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on April 30, 2007, 07:08:49 PM
Better system? Ummm,well, depends what's of value to a fella. There are examples. People in Cuba have lower infant mortality and live longer that 'murkinz, so....   "That won't last" you say? Maybe not, but exponential growth in a closed finite system is an oxymoron, and it can't last. And the past is often prologue - so Cuba, whether it lasts or not, may well presage the period after the coming difficulties. Consider it an echo from the future. What's obvious is that humanity is heading fast into a train-wreck. Nothing much to be done about it 'cept to enjoy the show by living through it. If one puts matters into their true form and looks hard then it is visibly logical that corporate and junta-based criminal gangs ought to steal whatever they can as fast as they can, while the stealing is good, so to speak. The Bushcheney junta trying desperately to prop up a moribund system, however briefly, is also logical - it prolongs the period of opportunity for them. However, one does tend to speculate on what value money, which is apparently their "god", will do 'em after the wreck.

Phaedrus
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on May 01, 2007, 01:14:45 AM
Right now Cuba has one of the fastest growing ecconomies in the Americas. I believe its above 7%....

Largest trading partners China and Vensuala ( butcher the spelling of that, and I don't care lol ). Trade with China doubled last year.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: okiezeke on May 01, 2007, 03:05:13 PM
Cuba,
One of the stupidest things our govt. has done lately is all this Cuba embargo BS.  We should be down there with both feet....making money!
Zeke
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: SCOTT on May 01, 2007, 04:48:50 PM
not so fast.
Quote
One of the stupidest things our govt. has done lately is all this Cuba embargo BS.  We should be down there with both feet....making money!

US companies would run the same risk that they have to face in Venezula, where Chavez changes the rules of the game after huge investments have been made.  Chavez allowed US companies to invest billions in oil infrastructure and now is demanding  they surrender 60% control to the state.  If they dont they will be forced to leave and the Chinese will be invited in.  Without oil Venezula's economy is in trouble and so is the power base of Chavez. 

So what we have now is a game of chicken between Chavez who has control of the oil and the US companies who have the technology to extract and refine it.  If the US companies give in to this extortion it sets a very dangerous precedent similar to negotiating with terrorists.  I hope they stand their ground and refuse to give in. 
Only time will tell

Scott
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rmchambers on May 01, 2007, 05:31:39 PM
Putin is doing the same thing in Russia.  In some ways you can see "why" they are doing it.  "It's our resource under the ground we should have control over it" but the multinationals that spend tons of money getting the infrastructure set up in the hopes of gorging on the profits once the oil flows are understandably upset that they are going to get their time at the trough curtailed.

Interesting times are ahead for us I am well sure of that.

Robert
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rpg52 on May 01, 2007, 06:40:41 PM
Likely part of incentive for Chavez (and other nations) is the $10 billion Exxon/Mobil reported for their first quarter profits.  Personally I don't have anything against profits, but $40 billion/year for one company?  Pretty juicy target it would seem.  I would hope that at least some of that cash is reinvested in some local projects that actually benefit the people who own the resource(s).
Ray
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 01, 2007, 08:55:50 PM
Doug makes a good point, yes the Cuban economy is growing at this time. This does not refute, however, the example - it points out an error of omission I made in the interests of brevity. I'll correct the error - when the Soviets pulled out of Cuba they also pulled out their economic and material support. Logical for them, but bringing about sudden "negative growth" for Cuba. Cuba dealt with these problems, particularly with the oil shortages and economic depression, in effective ways that prevented serious social and health injury. They were able to do that and prevent civil conflict. The Cuban economy was not predicated on unlimited growth. One is inclined to doubt whether or not an economic engine, such as the US economy, which is predicated upon permanent unlimited growth, would be able to do that.

The "game of chicken" which Scott posits is, I think, an illusion. The Chinese found the oil for Castro (yep, undersea, off the Cuban coast - and quite a bit of it) and they will simply buy the US oil expertise if they can't develop it themselves fast enough for Hugo.

Newfound wealth, the cheap wealth of oil, this may undo the Cuban revolution. Poverty didn't do that, but cheap wealth may... I agree that the embargo bs was/is stupid. But it has been a godsend for Castro and also, probably, for ordinary Cubans. Without the embargo could their revolution have lasted so long?  I have real doubts. It's easy to share when everybody's poor - and their revolution depended on sharing. Their discovery of oil offshore will, I think, present them with a new and very grave problem.

Absent a serious decline in the number of humans on the planet we are heading into a train wreck. How we deal with that can broadly be divided into two strategies: One is various attempts to prolong the status quo (which is wildly accelerating growth). Current US policy provides numerous examples, Iraq for one. The other is to adapt to new conditions. Cuba's adaptations to the sudden withdrawal of Soviet support is a good example, so is the German policy of subsidized solar-power that aims to provide 20 to 30% of German electric power by, I think, 2012. (The krauts are ahead of schedule, by the way.)

Currently available solar systems covering, for example, 6% of New Mexico would provide electric power equivalent to the entire US electrical load. That's not my opinion - it's a fact, and pretty easy to calculate. I got it from a physicist. If, rather than trying to grab the oil (and spending $2,000,000,000.00 per week in what seems to be a failed effort to do that), the US was to spend that kind of money on solar... And, of course, synthetic fuels from coal are simple chemistry... The US having great coal deposits...

It remains to be seen which tactic the US will eventually follow, but adapt or die has always been the rule, so I hope we change tactics. And, many would say, this forum and the members experimenting with these beautiful engines, represent attempts to adapt, don't they? That's a hopeful sign.

Phaedrus
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rmchambers on May 02, 2007, 12:54:43 AM
Thanks Phaedrus,
   I am heartened to know that there are people thinking about the future rather than the here and now.

The comment about New Mexico and solar power is interesting, granted solar panels aren't that sexy but for the next million or so years it's an unlimited source of power free for the taking.  If everyone stopped using unnecessary energy consuming devices, incandescents, etc etc you probably wouldn't need the 6% of NM  to do the trick.

Transportation of that much power would require some investment in infrastructure.

I wonder what it will take to get a project like that into the works and done.  It usually takes some horrific disaster to wake the masses up, I hope it's not too terrible.

Robert
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: haganes on May 02, 2007, 07:42:29 AM
Currently available solar systems covering, for example, 6% of New Mexico would provide electric power equivalent to the entire US electrical load. That's not my opinion - it's a fact, and pretty easy to calculate. I got it from a physicist.

i am not sure where you got this information but it is not what i learned when i worked in the energy field.   i have tried to google a site which supports this statement but all i am getting is responses such as:

The solar energy released by the sun may seem like the best source of energy for the world. It has many benefits: it is free, it does not pollute, is very reliable when the sun is shining, and it is very safe. With all of these benefits, it may seem odd that there are extremely few solar power plants on earth. The reasons that solar power plants do not power the world are summed up in two reasons: cost and reliability. Solar plants made of solar cells are extremely expensive to build. Thousands of square feet of solar cells are required to generate enough power for even a very small town. A large city simply doesn’t have enough room for a solar plant, or enough money. The second main reason is the unreliability of the plants. If the plant has a few cloudy days, there will be no electricity for the town. This is not an option for many towns or cities. In the modern age of today, we need to have power 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, not only on sunny days, sometimes at night. (http://library.thinkquest.org/C004471/tep/en/traditional_energy/solar_power.html)

i vaguely remember this 6% new mexico figure as the theoretical potential of the sun, but it did not take into consideration clouds or nights - and dealt only with the five hours of midday sun.

another good link describing this potential was http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/solarenergy.html

captain steven
 
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rmchambers on May 02, 2007, 02:54:52 PM
Captain,
   That last web link has got some really interesting reading.. thanks for that - didn't get any work done but hey, I'm learning about how to save the world. -that ought to count for something.

I'm liking the idea of a 50% efficient solar PV panel.  If that comes to fruition it wouldn't be too hard to generate all your power needs via solar and some storage (even in the Northeast).

Robert
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 02, 2007, 08:33:04 PM
Hi Cap!

The 6 percent figure is from a series of 10 lectures in the physics of climate presented by Professor Richard Wolfson, Middlebury College. His professional opinion seems to be supported on wiki, ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power At the wiki site there are maps showing the area necessary. You can buy audio tape of the lecture series by calling The Teaching Company at 1-800-832 2412. The wiki site gives also the figures in watts for insolation - useful for rough calculations.

Allow me to quote you, in part, to address your post: "...The reasons that solar power plants do not power the world are summed up in two reasons: cost and reliability. Solar plants made of solar cells are extremely expensive to build. Thousands of square feet of solar cells are required to generate enough power for even a very small town. A large city simply doesn't’t have enough room for a solar plant, or enough money. The second main reason is the unreliability of the plants. If the plant has a few cloudy days, there will be no electricity for the town..."

Solar-thermal power plants cost roughly 1.5 times the cost of modern combined cycle GT-HRSG-ST plants. Because comparison demands it, allow me a word here about these modern combined cycle plants, which I have built. GT-HRSG-ST means gas turbine - heat recovery steam generator - steam turbine. For sound engineering and environmental reasons these are almost always operated on NG, though if they were able to run them on coal they would be more efficient, as coal oxidizes to CO2, which does not undergo a phase change in the process and has a fairly low latent heat compared to the CH4 oxidation, which, obviously, produces H2O and CO2. The dry gas flow of a coal burning plant having therefore a greater efficiency as the same chemical energy produces higher a temperature. The "delta-T" is higher in a straight carbon burning boiler or engine. (By the way, the experimental original diesel, which attempted to achieve a near carnot cycle, burned coal for that reason. It had a compression ratio of about 80:1. It failed rather dramatically when it exploded!) Anyway, the point is that NG costs, drilling, exploration, pumping, pipelines, etc, are not added to the price of a NG power plant. Contrawise, in the case of a solar-thermal plant, the "fuel" costs are part of the capital investment. One would be inclined to regard, therefore, the Solar Thermal plant as cheaper, not more expensive. It is true that these plants take up considerable space, but the areas devoted to NG extraction and associated support of a NG plant also takes up considerable space. One would be inclined to regard the overall space requirement as roughly equivalent. Current engineering in solar thermal permits operation 24-7 by means of heat storage. Take a look at:  http://www.solardev.com/SEIA-makingelec.php A further note regarding reliability - any nut with a high-power rifle can shut down a NG plant, and not just at the plant! There are many nuts, it only takes one. Even worse, NG fields by nature give very little warning of depletion and are therefore by nature unreliable. Importing NG as LNG also is an expense and dangerous liability, as well as an efficiency killer.

Solar voltaic power generation is, by nature, a distributed power system, and thus takes up space that is, generally, unused. Rooftops, above parkinglots, along highways, and so forth. Therefore the space requirement for SV systems does not generally argue against the approach. SV systems are expensive. However one knows the cost of the system up front, both the capital cost and the operating cost, unlike the case with an oil, coal, or NG plant. The Germans are paying the cost of SV by a utility tax - about 16%, as I recall. SV systems are very reliable, more so than any other method of power generation, there are no moving parts and system life is often estimated at about 40 years of operation. The German SV goal is 20 % of domestic load by 2012, I think, and they're ahead of schedule and it looks like they'll make 30% by then. The cost of manufacturing SV elements, the PV panels, is forecast to drop by a factor of 5 (ref: http://www.solaicx.com/  The technical guy there is a distant cousin of mine, by the way.) so the cost of SV may be expected to become fairly minor, absent price gouging.

Your point about unreliability due to clouds would be easier to understand if there were no electrical grid. As things stand today, at least in the industrialized countries, all cities and towns are, as everybody knows, interconnected. A cloudy day is therefore irrelevant so far as keeping the power on in an Nth spot.

As many people do not know the history of solar power systems, it is understandable that they misunderstand the reason why solar plants do not (yet?) power the world. In fact the reasons are primarily two. One is that Britain "won" WW1, the other is that they then found vast amounts of easy to get oil in what had been the Ottoman Empire. Churchill had made the decision to convert the navy to oil, against those who argued for "energy independant" coal. Therefore Britain needed the oil from the Middle East, and they developed those wells. In this context it is interesting to note that American inventors had built and were selling, in California, solar-powered water-pumping systems early in the century, before the Great War. These pumps were on the order of 2500 gallons per minute, serious engines. British engineering expertise combined with the American know-how actually resulted in a solar power plant being installed at Cairo and in operation by 1912. When the war came German saboteurs destroyed the plant. The plant had produced electrical power cheaper than its competition - a coal powered plant. If the Ottomans had not allied themselves with Germany - if they'd stayed out of the war... well, we can only speculate. But it's fair to say that the American Army might not today be in Iraq.

Addressing costs again, let's look at some approximate figures: two thousand million dollars per week spent on the Iraq adventure, which can only be about oil. That could buy something like 200 million solar panels per year for each of the 5 years the business has gone on. If one assumes that each panel works 12 hours per day and makes 100 watts, then the money spent to date would have paid for something like 100,000 megawatts of daily domestic power, speaking very roughly. That's about 100 full-sized power plants, but distributed all over, so that no cadre of "evildoers" could do any material damage at all. As things stand, however, even a small group could "wrench" just about any plant - if they knew what to shoot at. Thank goodness they haven't!

It is true that solar plants are not very efficient. It is also true that efficiency is only really significant when you have to pay for or carry the fuel or have to stuff a great deal of powerplant into a small space. With regard to solar power these considerations generally are minimal. Efficiency is therefore in this context a distraction.

My own tiny plant mimics the real world situation, the political-geography-induced reality. Oil's still cheap so we have the lister type engine, and chose it because of its potential for using waste and vegitable oils. We add solar pannels each year as a "tax" on ourselves. I assure you that the listeroid is loads more trouble than the solar system is. I fully expect the "'loid" to become more and more a silent icon resting in a tomb-like power-house. As that state developes we will add reliability with additional batteries.

Best,  Phaedrus
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: haganes on May 03, 2007, 06:41:10 AM
thank you Phaedrus for the additional information.

with your additional information, i was able to read about SoCal Edison and San Diego Electric & Gas' new solar projects which will be coming on line within one or two years.  this does indeed tend to support the 6% of New Mexico coverage (my calculation is closer to 8% but more than close enough for this discussion).  and this type of liquid salt storage allows electric production over a 24 hour day - and not just when the sun is overhead.  of course electric production has not been proven on this scale.....but i too would be optimistic about the potential - even if the real output is off by 50% or more.

i am less than thrilled at energy solutions - such as photovoltaic solar panels as it only reduces the consumption of fuels in conventional plants while the sun is up..........and there still is the need (and the cost outlay) to build conventional plants. 

but whatever energy solutions we develop, we need to continue to go down several paths.  we never will fully understand the potential dangers in any solution (such are carbon or sodium based cooling when expanded to large scale production).  and i hope we are smart enough to make educated decisions void of political dogma.

regards,
captain steven
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 03, 2007, 03:01:26 PM
I think that you've touched the heart of the real problem with power production solutions - the political aspect. The engineering is merely expensive, the political process, rife with the distortions and rhetoric of "interests" is often what kills good sound projects, either by introducing the unexpected (like the British getting hold of the oil), or by regulations which make political but not social, economic, or engineering sense.

You may recall the fiasco of El Paso Natural Gas and the 6 LNG tankers that had to be scrapped... Many people don't know about it, but one of those ships grounded near Algeciras when they lost power because of a problem with boiler feedwater and level that (some people have said) the engine dept knew about and had concealed. They punched a hole through the hull and came very close to punching a cargo tank. Cyro hoses were flown by charter and they lightered off, then towed to dry-dock. The weather cooperated. My point here is that if the worst case had occurred (and it might well have) what would be the effect on the political process? TMI is another example, as is Chernobyl, the Valdez spill, etc...

And, for example, I've been building, expanding, a cannery. They use vast amounts of electricity and NG for steam, even though their operating season coincides with (a very hot cloudless) summer and they could generate almost all of their own power and steam with solar thermal - lots of room out there! They don't even correct for power factor! (In fact they don't even understand the need and advantage.) Their solution to high (and rising) costs is to spend less on people, to employ so-called "undocumented immigrants" and run off union contractors or play 'em against scabs. We wouldn't be there at all if we didn't have a corner on the necessary skills, and there are daily arguments about money between the union contractor and so-called management...none of which would be the case if they had made, or been able to make, sound decisions about power supplies and power usage.

I'd add, regarding unexpected consequences that whatever our feelings may be about the present business in Iraq, the cold-blooded reality may be that the long-term overall effect of the adventure is to hand control to the "locals", which, if history is a guide, means that there'll be a fight between "Iran" and Israel over who's going to dominate the region. Persia has often dominated the entire region in history... Thus, it seems to me, a "failure" in "Iraq" (these "countries" are all artificial constructs, results of the Ottoman defeat and British "victory" in WW1) may well force the US to change and adapt, and to make better choices about power, choices more closely related to sound and responsible engineering. The unintended result of the oil grab may be to make the US accept the pain and cost of change.

(So, how did we arrive here when we started talking about rendered animal fat going to biofuel? I forget!)

Best! Be safe out there on your very nifty M/V, Cap!

Phaedrus
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on May 04, 2007, 01:44:22 AM
I have nothing of value to add but on the streets in Havana you can buy all maner or real good fried pork products like we eat mystery meat sausage and burgers.....

Long live the revolution!

Its a hell of a country with potential you Americans wouldn't believe and I have considered more than once aplying to Sherrit and working there based purely on how nice the Cuban people are.
And for some strange reason, the seem to speak good enough french to get the ideas across

Doug
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: okiezeke on May 04, 2007, 03:15:13 AM
Right on,
Everyone I've met who has been to Cuba agrees that the people are the nicest anywhere.  The government less so. (but surely no worse than Uncle Sugar)
Zeke
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on May 05, 2007, 02:10:31 AM
Actualy spoke with a Cop while trying to find my way back to the resort. That man was layed back! And for thw cost of a ball point pen he stopped a bus and got me a ride lol.

Doug
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 05, 2007, 09:58:21 PM
Fidel, el comandante supremo, has been writing about the politics of bio-fuels. He has some thoughtful things to add to the topic.

http://www.granma.cu/INGLES/2007/mayo/mar1/reflexiones-i.html

The classic experts at conflict, Sun Tsu and many since, advise the indirect method. Direct methods, such as we see applied in Iraq, carry with them indirect effects, which often outweigh the effect of the direct effort. The direct oil grab has the effect of upsetting the natives, for example. Similarly, the direct production of fuel from food has the indirect effect of creating hunger and poverty. El Supremo is, I think, acting to leverage this heavy indirect effect toward his goals with respect to his country and his revolution. Smart guy. ('Course dear leader makes it so easy...)

Phaedrus
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rmchambers on May 06, 2007, 01:38:51 PM
Not sure this is relevant but not worth a thread of its own.  I heat my house and hot water with oil fired burners.  I have a woodstove too but I only burn that until my woodpile is gone (it helps).

My oil tank is down to 1/8 (out of 275 gallons) so I called my oil company.  I asked them "do you have biofuel?" and the guy was very happy to tell me all about it - turns out I wound up telling HIM more about it than he did me but I digress.

My oil company sells what they call B5  - 5% Biofuel mixed with 95% regular heating oil.  Not a huge amount but it's a start.  At least it's something that can be produced on this countries soil.  He did tell me that my filters might clog up as the biofuel tends to dislodge and dissolve sludge which we all know from biodiesel conversion stories.

I just figured it was kind of cool that biofuel is getting to be mainstream.  He said as it gains wider acceptance they will up the percentages to 10% and as high as 20%.  He said beyond that they worry about seals getting softened.  In due course I'm sure all the replacement seals will by vyton and impervious to biofuels.

The nice thing is it's the same price as straight heating oil.

Robert
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: villageidjit on May 07, 2007, 10:19:34 AM
This has to be one of the hotest and coldest conversations I have ever tried to follow!
I see no issue with big business trying to get better deals, we all try to get the better end of the deal (at least, most of the time).
I think the problem is not just corporate greed but government sell out to big business!

Sure, we elected 'em Zeke and we can remove them - but I think we will see freeze warnings from the opening gates to the very center of hell first!

As Ross Perot used to say "I find it very interesting" that big oil claims lack of refinery capacity but has suddenly found that processing "normaly waste" products in the existing refineries will do ANYTHING to help the consumer in an way shape or form!  (Ross' saying in quotes only, not the entire sentence)

Why do dogs lick themselves? 'cause they can!

Low speed diesel engines........ Our glorious leaders have so graciously protected us from the evils of diesel engines - - - - -'cause they can!

They tax us nearly out of existance - 'cause they can!

There must NOT be a reasonably priced version of a low speed small diesel that meets our wonderful EPA requirements or we would be seeing advertisements for them!
Why are NO companies jumping on the low speed ci engine development and manufacturing bandwagon?

My reply here is not intended to hurt feelings nor to anger - just remember the truth sometimes hurts (and sometimes it hurts terribly!)

Vic
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 07, 2007, 04:14:24 PM
"Getting a better deal"? Nice name for it.  And conflating a corporation with an individual - Vic, you know better! This weakens your position. If a fella cuts out the middle man and steals they call 'im a crook. But when big oil "has metering problems" or "forgets" to pay for oil it gets from the people, that own the oil - that's forgiven. First ya pass a "law" that makes it legal to do this, of course. Rather like some German gentlemen of the 1930's and first half of the 1940's....all or mostly pretty "legal" What was it Dylan said, about robbing ya with a pen? They do, 'cause we let 'em. Only practical way to deal with this reality is to avoid playing the game as much as ya can, the alternative leads to being called a bad word..."commie", "evildoer", or "turrust" or whatever...

'lections consist of a "choice" between two individuals who are both beholding to approximately the same special interests - not a dimes' worth of difference most of the time. That's "democracy"? Some people might call it something else...
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: okiezeke on May 08, 2007, 01:22:46 AM
Democracy,
Your durn right!  We get to pick which low down skunk, liar, cheat, thief, we want.  No honest man would be in politics anyway.  Even if he was honest(Carter?), the rest of the crooks in washington wouldnt let him do anything different.  Soon the arab terrorists will have the bomb, and we'll get to start over.  Will we do any better the second time?  Probably not.  "The masses are asses" H.L. Mencken.
Zeke
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: villageidjit on May 08, 2007, 06:17:07 AM
"Getting a better deal"? Nice name for it.  And conflating a corporation with an individual - Vic, you know better! This weakens your position. If a fella cuts out the middle man and steals they call 'im a crook. But when big oil "has metering problems" or "forgets" to pay for oil it gets from the people, that own the oil - that's forgiven. First ya pass a "law" that makes it legal to do this, of course. Rather like some German gentlemen of the 1930's and first half of the 1940's....all or mostly pretty "legal" What was it Dylan said, about robbing ya with a pen? They do, 'cause we let 'em. Only practical way to deal with this reality is to avoid playing the game as much as ya can, the alternative leads to being called a bad word..."commie", "evildoer", or "turrust" or whatever...

'lections consist of a "choice" between two individuals who are both beholding to approximately the same special interests - not a dimes' worth of difference most of the time. That's "democracy"? Some people might call it something else...

Wow, Phaedrus,
My position cannot be modified nor weakened just because of my lack of oration skills.

Big business has nearly ALWAYS taken advantage of any and all laws, loopholes, legal and physical powers!  We have seen the enemy and it is us!

Shakespeare said "first, kill all the lawers!" He was not very wrong!  You, I, or anyone else are not able to live a single day without breaking some law.

Most all politicians (at least at Federal level) are attorneys and they are taught how to bypass the law.

A true democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what is for dinner!

Our political system is in shambles and it is mostly OUR fault.  The problem being discussed in this thread is political, not business morality.  After reaching a certain size, business has absolutely no morality.  I could describe many examples but we all know (in my dimwitted opinion) that politics and our allowance of the misbehaviour of our representives (elected and otherwise) is rampant.  Until each and every one of us is able to vote our heart and/or conscience, there will be no change - except maybe by revolt.

The very best of us has a certain amount of selfishness, why should big business or politicians be assumed to be any different?  How could we believe that the corporate board meetings address the "fairness" or "morality" of ANY business descision?

Off my soapbox for now, it seems to me that this thread is becoming non-productive.

I have the utmost respect for each of the members contributing to this thread in spite of the fact that I see the evil that exists in politics and see no human way to fix the problem.

Phaedrus, I do not think your response to me was an indication that you had "slipped the hammer thong off of your Colt", I think it was more of a frustrated "knee-jerk" on your part.

Thanks for listening to my rambling.

Vic
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 08, 2007, 04:41:14 PM
Hey Vic, I intended no personal offense and, actually, was satisfied that I had not made one when I pointed out that conflating a legalistic fiction (the corporation) with individual people did, as a logical error, undermine your position. You yourself pointed out some of the important differences. Skill in oration does not seem to be involved, corporations are not people. People are moral creatures that can and often do make moral choices and, as you point out, corporate decisions do not involve morality. The two "creatures" are therefore not the same, so we agree. Please don't take offense, none intended.

I like your example of democracy...   Leo Szilard made a similar example in "The Voice of the Dolphins" when he said that in America two idiots out-vote one genius. Even idiots can often make good choices, however, if there is honest media.

The corporate system has, as one product, a heavy hand in the political process and the creation of self-serving laws. In the law this is recognized in a sort of backhanded way, as "mala prohibita" law and "mala in se" law. One prohibits acts "because we say so" and the other prohibits acts because they are "inherently wrong". Getting EPA to prohibit l'oids is an example of the former kind of law, so are so-called "gun laws" and the silly motorcycle helmet laws and so on. Anyway, it is corporate power that vets candidates for office and keeps 'em there, often by means of media they control. This is because they have control of so much money, the ready fuel of politics. As they take advantage of and create the opportunities to make profitable fuel out of biological materials they raise the price of food. Poor people then get less to eat. When people object to this victimization they tend to run afoul of "the law". Absent the amoral corporation it seems doubtful that so neat an arrangement would occur.

Without corporate expansionism and dominance of government one is inclined to wonder - would control of the cheap oil of the Middle East be a "foreign policy" goal? Would the US have invaded and occupied a foreign country if this was not a corporate agenda? Would, absent corporate co-option, government on the grand scale of "ours" not be more interested in developing solar resources and synthetic oil from coal than in foreign imperialism?

The only practical defense at this time, and this is defense in degree only, it is not a cure-all, is to use the lawyers and the political system ourselves, so far as we can. When I consider the alternative to having lawyers I think I prefer the ability I have at present - the ability to go into court with the toughest lawyer I can hire. But when I consider the alternative to having corporations as they presently exist - well, that does seem interesting. Following the developing revolutionary change in the way people live, following the train-wreck of peak oil and climate change, it may be possible to re-gain political and legal control of the corporate beasts. To harness 'em to genuine common interest goals. It may occur. That would be interesting to watch. Meanwhile, on the local level, the political process does seem to me to work fairly well. This is, however, a local view in a small rural county. We have a good sensible sheriff, an easygoing building department and a pretty nice jail, a nitwitted game warden (only one!), good fire department, and the county has no intention of paving any more roads. We ran the crank labs out of the county and there's still some industry so ordinary people can make a living. There seems to me to be more danger from bears and lions hereabouts than from people, unless a fella is a thief.

If one reads the history of the Republican Party one will see the struggle there between popular control of the party (the progressive movement) and corporate control. It seems that this struggle occurred with that party because their progressive liberal agenda tended to reduce corporate profits. The squeaky wheel got the grease, or maybe the shaft...thus leaving the liberal and progressive agenda to the Democratic Party - which waves that flag and spouts that talk while it follows the corporate money, not that they don't throw us a bone now and then... The presently ongoing self-destruction of that party seems to me to promise some hope of a more liberal future, important in order to adapt to the onrushing waves of change.

And change is blasting towards us all. As Zeke points out, the arabs will soon enough have the gadget, (if they don't already). And Carter? Recall that he had a fuel policy to develop domestic solutions - which ray-gun axed, just as he busted unions. So, let us bring this back to the point - what will the political effects of corporate bio-fuel agendas be inside the US when they set one off? How can bio-fuel engineering be perverted to loot the common (american) man and crises developes?

Best,

Phaedrus
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: CD in BC on May 08, 2007, 06:20:42 PM
This is without a doubt the most erudite and informative thread I've seen on this forum.

My own small contribution...

No system can be designed to work with people who are lazy, corrupt, selfish and short-sighted, and every society fails when those moral failures reach a certain critical mass. 

The 'managerial class' in North America has reached a point of amorality and greed which if it proves nothing else, proves that they have little or no confidence in our collective future and intend to grab as much as they can, as fast as they can.   When CEO's leaving for poor performance get $200. Million dollar 'golden parachutes', you wonder if they know something about the landing area the rest of us don't.

The second Iraq war was primarily about preserving the US dollar as the 'petro-dollar'.  If OPEC begins to trade oil in Euros or some other currency to any significant degree, the US balance of payments system will collapse, causing a depression like nothing ever seen before.  http://www.energybulletin.net/2455.html

How we got into this mess is explained here: http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/2222/Is_America_Going_Broke and here, http://www.amazon.com/Dollar-Crisis-Causes-Consequences-Cures/dp/0470821027

How do we get out of it?  We probably won't. 

Will democracy survive the collapse?  It may well not.

"Iceberg dead ahead."

Human history is a jagged graph, not a smooth upward continuum. 
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: okiezeke on May 08, 2007, 10:14:14 PM
Downward??
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rbodell on May 08, 2007, 10:46:42 PM
Bill
What exactly is the problem you see here?  What is it htat you find offensive?  I as an owner of various public companies (and anyone who has a pension or 401K) expect that these public companies do everything in their power to maximize returns for shareholders (you and me).  That is their fiduciary duty, and nothing less than their best efforts is acceptable.  If this goes to the next level and the courts find that they do not qualify for the blending incentive then they do not get them. 

Personally I do not think they should get the credits, but as a shareholder I expect them they try.

Scott


I don't see anything wrong with it either, we all complain about not enough being done to make alternative and bio fuels part of the norm, but who is better equiped both monitarily and financialy to do it? Big oil of course. Lets face it, if everybody in the group put every dime we had together, how big of a dent could we make in bringing alternative energy into being?

Everybody acuses them of holding back on the alternative energy market, but good lord man, they are doing what they do to MAKE MONEY, nothing else.

I guess I am not going to make any brownie points here, but I am one of the very few that is not unhappy with what I pay in taxes.I get one heck of a deal man, for the pittence I pay in taxes i get to live in the biggest, strongest and nicest countries in the world and I have the biggest strongest militaries here to keep me safe. I have a police department, fire departments, clean water and electricity if I choose to uise it. Last year I sold a piece of Florida property I paid 2500 dollars for when I was a teen ager for enough that I will never have to work again as long as I live. My acountant doesn't play games, she goes by the book. My land and home are paid for and all I have to do is spend my intrest check before the next one comes. I give a vet a free place to live. His electric bill for one month is more than my taxes were for the entire year last year and I don't even claim homestead exemption. Heck I even sent the IRS an extra 500 dollars this year to go to nasa.

Now then, I don't believe in giving the oil companies exemptions. I don't think they should pay any taxes at all. Man I can hear the teeth knashing over that one lOL. Hay. they are into making money. The more money the make the more research they will be doing to make more money. he more research they do and the more they expand the more people they hire. The more they research the more alternative energy they produce and the more oil they find. They build proceessing plants. they hire local people to build them. They bring in people to an area. Those people need homes and stores to shop at. They need scientists and floor sweepers. They need doctors and lawyers.

We know government is not going to use that tax money as good as the oil companies and big buisines will. Governments are a great waste of money. heck, nasa is the only government entity that actualy shows a profit with their money, a big profit. For every dollar they get, they put 7 into the economy.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: okiezeke on May 09, 2007, 12:49:45 AM
Rbo,
There's a lot of truth in your comments, but you're looking in the present.  Now I'll be the first to admit that what we old farts do best is sit around and complain that the younger generation has gont to hell in a handbasket.  But.  There are some really disturbing trends.  Even with all the tooth gnashing, the common message is   " be prepared."  Don't panic.  Dont run amok.  Enjoy life in the best country on the planet.  Give money to NASA(I would if I had any).  BUT.  Be prepared.

I'm happy your land deal worked out well for you.  Is all your money in a NYC bank?  The arab(and/or persian)  America haters are genuinely crazy.    The only reason they havent nuked us yet is lack of ability.  Will your wealth disappear with NYC? I hope it never happens, but a glance at history shows some pretty grim trends of world powers and their fall.  It's easy to have something to fall back on just in case.  Am I a somewhat paranoid survivalist?  I guess so.  Everyone needs a hobby.
Zeke
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 09, 2007, 06:47:22 AM
rbodell raises matters which incline me to believe that he is deeply and emotionally involved with, committed to, a set of popular concepts. Humans live by their myths. They're important. These myths can also mislead.

I myself see these concepts as a mythology that has the net overall effect of creating inaccurate reasoning based on false assumptions, but in the interests of avoiding conflict I think it best to limit criticism to a few specific ideas he has put forth, claims, really, which I think are clearly unsupported. So a few questions for all - How is it that this military keeps anybody safe? What is the legal duty of the military? How is it good that a $2500 investment should allow a man to avoid working for the rest of his life? If making money is the sole duty of a corporation why should they obey the law? If making money is the sole responsibility of an oil company why should they fail to take advantage of monopoly positions and, instead, produce more and therefore cheaper oil? If oil companies ought not to pay taxes why should he? Why should anybody? How is it that the government that he finds so wasteful, a "waste of money", provides the military that he finds so comforting? How is it that this supremely powerful military force is defeated by a ragtag militia with little more (and maybe less) than the Chinese People's Army had when they defeated their opponents, or than the NVA had in 'Nam? And finally, for the list seems very long already, does the US military demonstrate an understanding of violence? Of guerrilla war?

I ask that we all consider and question his claims, both implicit and explicit, and learn from them.

Moving forward, Okiezeke remarked that the arab terrorists will soon enough get the bomb. I try to avoid that term, "terrorist" but sadly, I think, he's right. Szilard thought of the bomb back in 1932, and I can show you the patent he took out. 1932, September the 12th. He was waiting for a traffic light on a London street. It seems to me that it was at that exact moment when, poof! the idea came into existence, that the modern military state ended. What? Yep! Here's how: The state and the citizen have a deal, a contract. The citizen gives up his right to violence and even his right to life itself in exchange for the promise the state makes to protect him and allow him to make a living and to live. People who violate this deal are called criminal, or worse, and the deal worked after a fashion for some time. There was slaughter, for example the millions killed in the Great War, but the states survived, as did most of the people. But when Szilard thought of the bomb it became impossible for the state to keep the bargain. The history of states, since that moment, has been denouement. How can this "powerful" military stop one man on a donkey? Setting aside mythology, the fact is that there is only one "nuclear secret". That's where's the "poot". The remaining engineering data and practical skills necessary are within the grasp of a gifted individual or a small cadre of skilled amateurs. That's Ted Taylor's opinion - and he used to make 'em. No military force, and no state, can prevent really determined people, people like the ones so very motivated in Iraq, or Saudi, from doing real damage and worse, demonstrating the true nature of states for the credulous masses.

(Nations are another matter. Nations continue to have value, but I'll leave that for now.)

Seems to me that people are going to have to develop their own biofuel concepts, with little or no help from "big oil". This may not be so tough, but it'd be way easier if there were rational support from the government, as there was when Jimmy C got 'lected... Seems to me that the present course taken by Uncle and Big Oil, while motivated by a lust for a quick buck and a desire to prop up a moribund set of methods, is in reality (beware of unintended consiquences!) a prelude to revolution. Revolutions are a phenomon that occurs in perception, not in a physical reality. Revolution does not always involve violence. But revolution is often followed by violence as people attempt to gather power to themselves. It seems to me that this danger may interfere with peaceful and rational progress in fuel development. Me? I'm planting olive trees.

Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: sid on May 09, 2007, 12:50:24 PM
$2500 investe in several blue chip stock in 1970 will let up retire and not have to work again/but retiring too early is a bummer too,,,you can just collect some many engines ,etc..I retired 10 years early and the biggest problem  is boredom and keep your health//most people are less healthy because of the slow pace of live.not enough exercise...I finally started doing part time work for my co, and all it does is put me in a higher tax bracket//but on the good side I get to go to a lot of engine shows and not have too worry if i will have the time off,,also bed time is when you get sleepy and you get up when you wake up// that is the best thing about retirement , not having to set a clock/now it is the trip and not the destination..//sid/
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rpg52 on May 09, 2007, 03:22:21 PM
Not particularly related to this thread, but, I have a theory regarding money.  It seems to me that money, in excess, is toxic.  Only when one is hungry enough does one have the incentive to get out of bed and pursue the golden ring.  How many Hollywood millionaires are truely happy?  Does Bill Gates truely enjoy his billions?  Don't know the answer to either question, but it seems that most people are made ill (either mentally or physically) by too much money.  Speaking for myself, I've done my best to ignore it, making sure I have enough, but not so much that I don't feel the need to scrabble about a bit to get by.  In my case, other than volunteering, I try to grow much of my own food.  Maybe I just don't have sufficient shopping opportunities, but I can't buy food as good as what I grow.  Kind of like the song about home grown tomatoes, if you know it. 

The exact relationship between my philosophical meanderings and Tyson-Conoco/Phillips biodiesel politics I can't say.   :)
Ray
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rmchambers on May 09, 2007, 03:49:50 PM
It's somewhat related to the whole "fend for yourself" philosophy that I'd guess the majority of us on this forum aspire to.  We wouldn't be investigating and or producing our own power if we didn't.

Growing your own food is honest labor, you KNOW what's in the food because you grew it and tended it.  It may sound like an easy thing to grow your own food but which foods do you plant?  when do you plant them? how can you store/preserve them?  Important skills that our forefathers all knew but has been de-educated out of the mainstream collective knowledge.

Sure it tastes better, it's not been in a truck for a week getting to market, picked prior to ripening so it doesn't spoil enroute.  Plus since you grew it, the satisfaction factor makes it taste better.  The same way wood you cut/split/stacked yourself heats you up a lot better than a load of firewood you had delivered.

Robert
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 09, 2007, 08:39:13 PM
Tend your own garden - Voltair's lesson from Candide                          Yes, and we got some killer strawberries this year!

what do you do before enlightenment? chop wood carry water (and garden)

what do you do after enlightenment? chop wood carry water (and garden)

and, in our particular case, make olive (and other) oils, (or at least that's the plan)

working on the "enlightenment" aspect...

And have an idea about solvent extracting and then cracking urushiol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urushiol) with the goal of producing a semisynthethic fuel for the l'iod...  can't help thinking while ya carry water and chop wood...   Urushiol looks like it might make a base stock for some new plastics, too. made w/o petroleum, of course.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rmchambers on May 09, 2007, 09:18:49 PM
You have mucho bigger balls than me trying to make anything out of urushiol.  Isn't that the active ingredient in poison ivy/oak/sumac?   You'd need to either not be allergic to those plants or be very very careful and well protected.

Do you have a lot of that stuff growing where you live?  Seems like a lot of risk for not a whole lot of gain to me but I'd love to hear more.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rbodell on May 09, 2007, 11:18:35 PM
Okiezeke first, No actualy I have it in government bonds. For fear of what might explode here, I am probably one of the few people who has total faith in the American way. I beleive my government will do a good job no matter which party is elected. I also support whatever president no matter what partry he is because I beleive in the voting process. I honestly can not think of another country I would like to live in and it has done pretty good since columbus landed.

rbodell raises matters which incline me to believe that he is deeply and emotionally involved with, committed to, a set of popular concepts. Humans live by their myths. They're important. These myths can also mislead.

Actually very few people agree with everything I say. It would scare me if somebody did. Of course what I say is my opinion and like assholes everybody has one and nobody is going to to talk either one of us into exchanging either one. That is what makes America great, we can have our pinions and we can state them out loud. We can go to the poles and vote or sit back and let somebody decide for us. The very best thing is that if I decicde I don't like it here, I can leave and go someplace else. I know what it is like to have to escape from a country, it is not a good thing. 

I myself see these concepts as a mythology that has the net overall effect of creating inaccurate reasoning based on false assumptions, but in the interests of avoiding conflict I think it best to limit criticism to a few specific ideas he has put forth, claims, really, which I think are clearly unsupported. So a few questions for all - How is it that this military keeps anybody safe? What is the legal duty of the military? How is it good that a $2500 investment should allow a man to avoid working for the rest of his life?

How is not good? It is called free enterprise. I'd be a whole lot better off if I had baught $100 worth of McDonalds stock back then. Would you aprove of that? I could have done a whol lot of different things, but that is what I did and it paid off. Would you like to hear about the things I lost my ass on? There is a lot of them.

 If making money is the sole duty of a corporation why should they obey the law?

I didn't say it was the sole duty, I said it was the sole reason. Why do you go to work? My guess is to make money to buy things with. Why do you obey the law? Would staying out of jail be why?

If making money is the sole responsibility of an oil company why should they fail to take advantage of monopoly positions and, instead, produce more and therefore cheaper oil?

I also did not say thay money was the sole responsibility of an oil company. Please don't put words in my mouth. There are laws against monopolies and cheaper oil is good buisiness.

If oil companies ought not to pay taxes why should he?

If he is me, because I am not doing to bring buisines to my town, hiring people, raising the tax base etc.

Why should anybody?

For the same reason I do.

How is it that the government that he finds so wasteful, a "waste of money", provides the military that he finds so comforting?

Governments are inherently wastefull. I didnt say my government was a waste of money. I am sure it does waste4 a lot of money, but hay, it is a big organization. The bigger it is, the more room there is for people to come in and  take advantage of it by selling it 900 dollar hammers. There are also a lot of people who don't do their job and let the 900 dollar hammers slip through.

How is it that this supremely powerful military force is defeated by a ragtag militia with little more (and maybe less) than the Chinese People's Army had when they defeated their opponents, or than the NVA had in 'Nam? And finally, for the list seems very long already, does the US military demonstrate an understanding of violence? Of guerrilla war?

well personaly I would like to see us fight out enemies on their terms, but in considering out position in the wiorld, if we had put childrens heads on stakes in vietnam or purposly bombed school busses in Iraq, we would suffer a lot more in out position in the world. The down side is that we have people in congress telling the generals how to fight wars and that we can't shoot back.

I ask that we all consider and question his claims, both implicit and explicit, and learn from them.

Now see there, you could never take this attitude in the Sadam era Iraq. If you didn't support the government you would thrown into a shreder. Isn't America great.

Moving forward, Okiezeke remarked that the arab terrorists will soon enough get the bomb. I try to avoid that term, "terrorist" but sadly, I think, he's right. Szilard thought of the bomb back in 1932, and I can show you the patent he took out. 1932, September the 12th. He was waiting for a traffic light on a London street. It seems to me that it was at that exact moment when, poof! the idea came into existence, that the modern military state ended. What? Yep! Here's how: The state and the citizen have a deal, a contract. The citizen gives up his right to violence and even his right to life itself in exchange for the promise the state makes to protect him and allow him to make a living and to live. People who violate this deal are called criminal, or worse, and the deal worked after a fashion for some time. There was slaughter, for example the millions killed in the Great War, but the states survived, as did most of the people. But when Szilard thought of the bomb it became impossible for the state to keep the bargain. The history of states, since that moment, has been denouement. How can this "powerful" military stop one man on a donkey? Setting aside mythology, the fact is that there is only one "nuclear secret". That's where's the "poot". The remaining engineering data and practical skills necessary are within the grasp of a gifted individual or a small cadre of skilled amateurs. That's Ted Taylor's opinion - and he used to make 'em. No military force, and no state, can prevent really determined people, people like the ones so very motivated in Iraq, or Saudi, from doing real damage and worse, demonstrating the true nature of states for the credulous masses.

(Nations are another matter. Nations continue to have value, but I'll leave that for now.)

Seems to me that people are going to have to develop their own biofuel concepts, with little or no help from "big oil". This may not be so tough, but it'd be way easier if there were rational support from the government, as there was when Jimmy C got 'lected... Seems to me that the present course taken by Uncle and Big Oil, while motivated by a lust for a quick buck and a desire to prop up a moribund set of methods, is in reality (beware of unintended consiquences!) a prelude to revolution. Revolutions are a phenomon that occurs in perception, not in a physical reality. Revolution does not always involve violence. But revolution is often followed by violence as people attempt to gather power to themselves. It seems to me that this danger may interfere with peaceful and rational progress in fuel development. Me? I'm planting olive trees.


Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 10, 2007, 01:31:55 AM
I rest my case
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Quinnf on May 10, 2007, 02:36:43 AM
Pithy quote:

"It is a well known fact, that those people who most
want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the  summary:  anyone  who  is  capable  of  getting
themselves  made  President should on no account be allowed to do
the job."

-The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rpg52 on May 10, 2007, 07:28:42 AM
So, phaedrus, you are going to extract urushiol from poison oak and make Listeroid fuel.  I admire your gumption.  I'm not very allergic but would hesitate even thinking about it.  You must have some substantial stands of poison oak to even consider it.  Best of luck to you, you likely could patent the process if it works.   :-X
Ray
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 10, 2007, 04:21:00 PM
http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_5_10_07.htm

interesting book review and commentary that relates to the political conditions under which biofuel systems may develope.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: okiezeke on May 11, 2007, 02:48:54 AM
r bo,
Well, I do wholeheartedly agree that we had the great fortune to be born in the old USA.  Even with whatever problems, nowhere else I want to live.(Canada is OK too, folks)
You sound to me, to be determined to be happy.  Nothing wrong with that either.  Keep up the good work, brother.
Zeke
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rosietheriviter on May 11, 2007, 04:42:37 PM
This has to be one of the hotest and coldest conversations I have ever tried to follow!
I see no issue with big business trying to get better deals, we all try to get the better end of the deal (at least, most of the time).
I think the problem is not just corporate greed but government sell out to big business!
Sure, we elected 'em Zeke and we can remove them - but I think we will see freeze warnings from the opening gates to the very center of hell first!

As Ross Perot used to say "I find it very interesting" that big oil claims lack of refinery capacity but has suddenly found that processing "normaly waste" products in the existing refineries will do ANYTHING to help the consumer in an way shape or form!  (Ross' saying in quotes only, not the entire sentence)

Why do dogs lick themselves? 'cause they can!
Low speed diesel engines........ Our glorious leaders have so graciously protected us from the evils of diesel engines - - - - -'cause they can!
They tax us nearly out of existance - 'cause they can!
There must NOT be a reasonably priced version of a low speed small diesel that meets our wonderful EPA requirements or we would be seeing advertisements for them!
Why are NO companies jumping on the low speed ci engine development and manufacturing bandwagon?
My reply here is not intended to hurt feelings nor to anger - just remember the truth sometimes hurts (and sometimes it hurts terribly!)
Vic

Vic,
It seems that you are or were a fan of Ross Perot.  I was very swayed by his first run at presidency.  It didn't take too long for me to realize that although he had a firm grip on the existance of problems, he seemed to have very little grasp on the possible solutions to the problems.
Having said that, what exactly are you trying to say in your message?

Rose is Rose
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: okiezeke on May 12, 2007, 09:14:16 AM
rbodell,
Will olive trees survive in east central oklahoma?  I'd like to try them as a fuel source, but always assumed I was too far north.  Arrow makes a super slow speed diesel work engine, fully EPA compliant.  They start at around $10k.  Oilfield stuff. Runs  forever.
Zeke
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rbodell on May 12, 2007, 04:11:37 PM
Your previous post:
Yes I am pretty determined to be happy. I can't see any benefit from not being happy. I do not have to disregard my toughts or feelings to keep my job any more. Dying is not something I fear, I don't need to associate with anybody I don't want to, I could care less what people think of me or if they even like me. Life is pretty darned good rite now and I am not going to let anything get in the way of that.

Now then, Olive trees? I am afraid I can't answer that one. Might be an interesting experiment though. They live in the middle east. Inimagine the temperature range would be the most important thing. It certainly would be a fun experiment and hay, if you like olive soup, olive stew and olive omlets, you got it made LOL.


rbodell,
Will olive trees survive in east central oklahoma?  I'd like to try them as a fuel source, but always assumed I was too far north.  Arrow makes a super slow speed diesel work engine, fully EPA compliant.  They start at around $10k.  Oilfield stuff. Runs  forever.
Zeke
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rbodell on May 12, 2007, 04:28:28 PM
here is some info on olive trees http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/olive.html

here are two ways to extract the oil http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/filelibrary/1271/24013.pdf

Here is how to build an olive press http://www.justfruitsandexotics.com/JF%20Olives.pdf

more on making olive oil http://members.iinet.net.au/~kookie/olives.html
.


rbodell,
Will olive trees survive in east central oklahoma?  I'd like to try them as a fuel source, but always assumed I was too far north.  Arrow makes a super slow speed diesel work engine, fully EPA compliant.  They start at around $10k.  Oilfield stuff. Runs  forever.
Zeke
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 13, 2007, 01:26:24 AM
Another point of view and some interesting remarks at http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=554173 .  The better one is able to set aside the mythological filter of American exceptionalism the more interesting the idea are, whatever we may think of the writer himself...
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rosietheriviter on May 13, 2007, 08:34:57 AM
Hey Vic, I intended no personal offense and, actually, was satisfied that I had not made one when I pointed out that conflating a legalistic fiction (the corporation) with individual people did, as a logical error, undermine your position. You yourself pointed out some of the important differences. Skill in oration does not seem to be involved, corporations are not people. People are moral creatures that can and often do make moral choices and, as you point out, corporate decisions do not involve morality. The two "creatures" are therefore not the same, so we agree. Please don't take offense, none intended.

Hi Phaedrus,
This argument is getting very hard to follow.  I was an aerospace worker for twenty-two odd years, started on Voyager and ended up working on Endeavor.  I can assure you that our union, the united aerospace workers, rank and file never ever voted to lower our demands for moral or altruistic reasons and I'm pretty certain that JPL and Rockwell never discussed the moral or humane concept of higher wages or better benefits.  I think Vic is right in saying that corporations look at the bottom line $$$$ only.  I suppose they have no real choice.
Were I "Tyson-Conoco/Phillips" I would jump at the offer of $175,000,000 from the U.S.Government - or any other source for that matter.  The terrible truth is that the government made or honored the offer!  I hope I did >not< understand anyone to say that T-C/P was dishonest in applying for and or for accepting the $$?
My beef is with the government, not with T-C/P.

Looking for a solution? investigate the "free state project" www.freeme.org (http://www.freeme.org)
Politics as we know it will not supply a solution.

Rose is Rose
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 13, 2007, 04:10:26 PM
Hi Rosie!

"argument"? Naw, "discussion"? Yep. 

I suppose it's our structure of knowing, our tao, that we value according to a monetary structure. Nevertheless I have some doubt that union agendas and corporate agendas are so closely aligned. For example, my local and, more generally, the Northern California Carpenters, spend considerable money on the apprenticeship program and on continuing education for membership - we are looking to the future, not the next quarterly statement. Is this altruism? I suppose not, Is it responsible? I think so. Of course, unlike corporate structures and unlike "government" our union leadership is directly elected, and there are no phoney electronic gizmos involved, only paper ballots!

Meantime, has anybody read "comrade comandante" (url above) on the matter of food price increases attendant to the bio-fuel agenda?

He makes a logical argument and supports it with facts and figures. His argument looks pretty solid to me, but of course, bio-fuel will go ahead. This, then, leaves a very interesting matter. Given that the bio fuel program will go ahead and assuming that it does create increased poverty and hunger, especially in the South, what demographic and/or political results are likely to occur? Actions have consequences. What may be expected?

Phaedrus
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 13, 2007, 10:05:35 PM
More politics re conoco  http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-1475--12-12--.html

Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: okiezeke on May 14, 2007, 09:11:23 AM
Thought Chavez had more sense than that.  500 million is small change for Conoco.
Zeke
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rmchambers on May 14, 2007, 01:33:03 PM
I think the hefty tax bill is just the start though.  Seems like Chavez (and Putin in Russia) is forcing all "foreign" oil companies operating on their turf to accept a minor share operating agreement instead of running the whole show.

If Conoco decides not to accept minority stakeholder then I'm sure Hugo will up the ante.  Unfortunately for conoco there's only so much they can do.  They are considering international arbitration but that only works if the other side plays by the same set of rules.

Should be interesting anyway.

Robert
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: haganes on May 15, 2007, 06:33:46 AM
i remember reading somewhere that today almost 90% of the worlds oil reserves are controlled by national oil companies - and not by the big oil companies.  i have no problem with venezuela or any other country wanting to control its own national assets.  they do, however, have an obligation to pay compensation for the losses to the oil companies (you notice i did not mention loss of profit) caused by this change of direction.

captain steven
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 15, 2007, 02:32:32 PM
Well said!  However I would point out that internal domestic political necessity may override that obligation in some cases. Further, past behavior of an Nth oil company in an Nth nation, for example bribes and kickbacks, may offset whatever compensation the company might otherwise be due. This then raises the matter of State vs Nation - for example Iraq is a State, it is not a nation. There are at least 3 nations within Iraq. If, for example, the Kurds wish to nationalize their oil who should pay, Iraq or the Kurds? Similarly, the the Navajo Tribe was to nationalize...

(happy to see the theme return to politics)
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: aqmxv on May 15, 2007, 08:48:04 PM
First:  Great discussion!  Sorry I've missed out on so much of this...

If we accept the number from Haganes of 90% of oil reserves owned by national oil companies as a given, I don't think this does much more than confirm that oil is likely to be a commodity market for the forseeable future.

Why?  Simple:  Oil is found in quantity in many different places in the world.  While there are definite application preferences for different kinds of crude, you can pretty much make any petrochemical out of any crude oil.

If commercial entities owned all the oil, they'd probably consolidate into a few megacorps (which the oil companies pretty much already have) and would then oligarchically agree to set the price for oil at so much a barrel.

Nations, of course, are lousy team players (witness the entertaining internal politics of the EU as an example).  Nationalism doesn't mix well with oligarchism.  As long as Hugo Chavez, King Abdullah, Vladimir Putin, Fidel Castro, Olusegun Obasanjo, and Stephen Harper all have say about a certain large chunk of available crude oil, you can rest reasonably assured that they're not going to manage to agree to a price and stick to it.  Somebody will get greedy, or grandstand for political purposes and undercut the others by a nickel or $5 and start a price war, as often happened in OPEC over the decades.

That said, it's an irrational commodity market.  Prices are set more by buyer fear than by logic.  A reliable way to get more money out of a barrel of oil is to keep the perceived reliability of major oil suppliers (like Nigeria and Venezuela) low.  It could also be said that the current adventure in Iraq mostly has served the purpose of keeping Iraq's oil reserves off the world market for a number of years to come.

What does all this mean?  Well, it means that it's smart to either a) take the Roman approach and set up actual commercial colonies (which is currently unfashionable), or b) find a way to reduce the consumption footprint of your nation and yourself.  The less oil you need, the less you are likely to be bothered by the unpredictability of the market.

"The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil"
             --Sheikh Zaki Yamani
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rbodell on May 16, 2007, 12:17:15 AM

"The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil"
             --Sheikh Zaki Yamani


How true it is.

I don't know, maybe I am just stupid, but as far as I am concerned, onething is going to happen. Oil is going to get so expensive we can't aford it and will start to buy electric, hydrogen and alternative fueled vehicles and making their own fuel and electricity until the oil companies decide to switch over to something else to sell. They are already looking into hydrogen and wind, we are buying cheaper to operate vehicles and making our own fuel, so maybe the time is close or starting.

Everybody complains that the oil companies are in cahoots to raise the price of oil. I don't know of anybody who has their own buisiness that has planned to run themselves out of buisiness. people complain the not enough is being done to develope alternative energy and fuels. It is a fact that the higer fuel prices go, the more alternative energy is developed.

What gets me is when the same people pushing alternative energy also want lower fuel prices. I mean like let's be honest here. If we woke up one morning and gasoline was suddenly back to 30 cents a gallon, how many of us would be going out to collect the days take of waste cooking oil from neighyborhood restraunts?


I am going to be honest with you, I am into the listers because I thnk they are interesting and I am pissed at the power company. My house is party solar because it is cheaper than what the power company charges. If it wasn't for the power company pissing me off, I would probably go with this as long as the fuel was free. Otherwise I wouldn't. Now I am all for living cheaper. I don't mind putting in a little time and energy. As far as I am concerned. let oil go up to $500 a barrel and gas to $300 a gallon. The sooner the better.

Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: okiezeke on May 16, 2007, 01:03:36 AM
$300/gal,
Probably will, but I hope not this year.  $3.00/gal is really starting to get folks' attention.  Some good will come of it, but will take some time to get swithced over to something more sustainable.  Mabe we should have invaded Brasil instead of Iraq??  Probably shouldnt say that, some idiot in DC will take me literally and do it.
Zeke
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 16, 2007, 01:27:39 AM
No doubt the Easter Islander who cut down the last tree on his island had been propagandized by some chief to believe that they would find a substitute for wood.

Whether States control most of the oil, or it's controlled by trans-nationals, or by some incestuous combination of interests, there is no reason to build refineries to support a pumping rate that's not sustainable - hence the refinery difficulties at present. Longer term, the demand rate exceeds the pump rate. Ups and downs seem likely, but that's the trend and it is obviously going toward shortage and high prices.

Easter Island? Well, with no suitable fiber they could not fish anymore, and with no wood they couldn't build canoes anymore. They ate everything, including each other, and the few progeny that did not die out never recovered as a nation.

Obviously the timber, er, oil companies owe allegiance to money, to profit. Also obvious, States owe allegiance to their citizens. Given a declining oil supply these increasingly polar obligations come into conflict. Conflict between long-term and short term strategies. Conflict between corporations and the States that create the legal frame. Conflict between States and their peoples. Some States do a better job of serving the interests of their people than other States do - how else? Thus Chavez nationalizing the oil is a logical ploy - and permitting, for example, Conoco, to maximize profits comes at the expense of creating a somewhat nascent conflict between Conoco and various peoples.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rbodell on May 16, 2007, 01:58:35 AM
yeah until it become beneficial for Chavez to nationalize the oil industry as mexico did. Then conoco can come crawling back home.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: haganes on May 16, 2007, 07:23:21 AM
"The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil"
             --Sheikh Zaki Yamani

i worked for Sheikh Yamani in the late 70's.  he said many things - many were not printable.  but one thing i remember him saying is that everyone calculates the potential supply of oil based on the national oil companies' statements of reserves.  he told me that they were very incorrect singling out venzuela and mexico as two of the players drastically overstating their reserves.  on the other hand, the countries with the largest reserves significantly understated the reserves.  his point to me was that although the supply of oil was obviously limited, it was much bigger than the pundit's forecasts.

i believe sheik yamani was dismissed as the saudia oil minister because be was the sole voice demanding moderation of prices.  his position was that technology will find a way without oil - and the higher oil prices go, the more money will be used to find alternatives.

although we are centering on the issue of oil, we all should be reminded that all commodities work in the same way as oil.  each commodity is "controlled" by either a cartel or something else.  most commodities do not have any elasticity of supply.  they can only be produced within a narrow range of output.  this creates price spikes.

finally, WATER is the commodity which is almost free but may be the closest commodity to a real shortage due to pollution, climate change, and population densities.

regards,
captain steven
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: biobill on May 16, 2007, 01:53:31 PM
My understanding was that the OPEC countries typically overstated their reserves because that is what the production quotas (limits) are based on. The more reserves you have the more you can sell per year. Is this incorrect?

Living where I do it's hard to imagine water as a scarce resource but things are much different elsewhere I suppose. The first time I saw bottled water I was shocked - more expensive than cheap beer - but it sells.

It sure doesn't look like the answers to Peak Oil are going to come from the top, at least in the USA. If "the American lifestyle is not negotiable" and is not sustainable either, then how does it end. Like a wino with an empty bottle? We need a serious 12 step program. Cuting consumption and waste has been equated with being "poor" by the marketing forces in this country. That needs to change to where efficiency is "smart and cool".

My compliments to the posters on this thread. A lot of well spoken, deep thinkers out there.      Bill
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on May 16, 2007, 06:08:50 PM
$300/gal,
  Mabe we should have invaded Brasil instead of Iraq??  Probably shouldnt say that, some idiot in DC will take me literally and do it.
Zeke

Too little too late, I already work for those greasy Brazilian SOBs. Lovely thing free markets, they let THEM in to make you a servant in your own home.

Those who control the resources in the new century are new Super powers.

Yes I am a very bitter little man.......
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 17, 2007, 02:15:04 PM
BBC has been doing reports on bio-fuel, with attention to political and economic changes and tensions that bio-fuel may be expected to create. Several video reports are at  http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&tab=av&edition=d&q=biofuels

The May 13 one is particularly interesting.

 More interesting is a report by cooperative insurance society Ltd, aka "CIS". They were kind enough to email me a copy of their report, 48 pages. They are about to publish the report as hard copy - I got the 'lectronic version. This report, they said, is confidential and not to be copied or shared. (Why they were willing to send it to me is an open question...)  I'll read it tonight and see if anything particularly pithy is to be found.. Later,

Pahedrus
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: LowGear on May 17, 2007, 06:41:31 PM
It seems all those BCC links are "403 Forbidden"???
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 17, 2007, 08:33:55 PM
 I just clicked on the url and got there- no trouble. Meantime I have read the report I posted about, from CIS, it deals primarily with the danger of irresponsible and/or non-logical bio fuel development and the advantage of sound engineering in the bio fuel arena. Anyway, here's the titles:

Beta Version The BBC Audio & Video search is a new service. More content will be added in the future.

 Caution urged over biofuels
The drive to switch over to biofuels could lead to rising food prices and deforestation, a report warns.

13 May 2007 Virgin orders 'green' Boeings
Sir Richard Branson talks about Virgin's order for 15 fuel-efficient jets and plans for a new biofuel.

24 Apr 2007 Denmark looks to biofuels
Denmark is a keen user of biofuels as part of its effort to tackle global warming.

21 Apr 2007
 Biofuel pushes food prices up
Corn prices are rising steadily as biofuel manufacturers buy increasing amounts of maize to use in their refineries.

23 Mar 2007 US and Brazil in bio-fuel deal
The United States and Brazil have signed an agreement to develop alternative fuel sources.

9 Mar 2007 Corn price at 10-year high
Increasing demand for products such as bio-fuels means the price of corn is at a 10-year high.

19 Jan 2007
 Bioenergy policy under fire
A group of MPs has criticised the government for not promoting organic energy sources.

18 Sep 2006 Biofuel pumps arrive in supermarkets
A new green fuel made from wheat and sugarbeet, goes on sale to motorists in the UK on Wednesday.

15 Mar 2006 French 'oil barons' embrace biofuels
The European Union is keen for member states to encourage the use of cars that run on biofuels.

17 Feb 2006
 Wheat-based fuel developed in UK
Five percent of petrol sold in the UK will have to come from renewable sources by 2010, under government targets.

5 Jan 2006 Bio-fuels help tackle climate change
Cleaner fuels made from agricultural products could become a common sight on petrol station forecourts.

1 Nov 2005 Scientists explore petrol alternatives
As motorists face rising oil fuel prices, alternative ways of powering a car are being examined.






 
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rbodell on May 17, 2007, 09:58:45 PM
$300/gal,
  Mabe we should have invaded Brasil instead of Iraq??  Probably shouldnt say that, some idiot in DC will take me literally and do it.
Zeke

Too little too late, I already work for those greasy Brazilian SOBs. Lovely thing free markets, they let THEM in to make you a servant in your own home.

I don't remember if you already have a generator yet or if you are still in the planning stage, But aren't you prouder of he fact that you are taking steps to counter that than you are pissed at it happening?

Like I said my reason id being pissed at the electric company, but when mine is going, I am just going here http://www.opec.org/home/contact/contact.aspx and sending a a link to pictures of my setup. I am going to rub it in a little too about using waste oil as fuel and how their prices are driving a lot of people to taking the same steps. Anybody else out there got a webage about their lister? send them a link and grin while you do it. 


Those who control the resources in the new century are new Super powers.

It probably is that now, just that mobody has tried to take advanyage of it. What if the Arabs all of a sudden shut off the oil?

Yes I am a very bitter little man.......
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: villageidjit on May 18, 2007, 01:44:20 PM
I just copied this from the infopop biodiesel forum - - -

NBB Praises Bill to Close Tax Loophole in U.S. Energy Policy
Rep. Doggett introduces bill to properly define “renewable diesel”

WASHINGTON, D.C.– The National Biodiesel Board (NBB) praised bipartisan legislation introduced today by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) to prevent large integrated oil companies from exploiting a federal tax incentive designed to stimulate biodiesel and renewable diesel production.

The bill, entitled the Responsible Renewable Energy Tax Credit Act of 2007, would prevent oil companies from claiming a one dollar-per-gallon tax credit when using small amounts of biomass as an ingredient in making diesel fuel. Under the Doggett legislation, producers making renewable diesel solely from renewable sources, and as it was originally defined, would continue to be eligible for the credit.

“Unless the abuse of this tax credit is prohibited, it will have the exact opposite effect of what Congress intended - it will discourage the creation of real renewable diesel fuel - and all on the taxpayer's dime,” said Congressman Doggett, a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee. “Green energy initiatives must not be converted into public boondoggles.”

In April, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) approved a request to expand the definition of “renewable diesel” in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to include the act of adding biomass to conventional refinery processes.

“The recent IRS ruling could lead to unintended recipients taking advantage of the renewable diesel credit,” said Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-MO), an original cosponsor of the bill and longtime champion of biodiesel. “This bill fixes that problem. We should take every available step to encourage the use of renewable, homegrown fuels like biodiesel. This bill is designed to protect and encourage that potential.”

Joe Jobe, NBB CEO, noted that the bill has 50 cosponsors, many on the Ways and Means Committee.

“This is a question about what makes sound energy policy: do you take limited taxpayer dollars and invest them in new energy companies and technologies built from the ground up, or do you take those same dollars and give them to already large, mature, highly profitable oil companies? It is very encouraging to see Rep. Doggett and so many others recognize the flawed policy that has resulted here, and try to correct it,” Jobe said.

“Sustainable biofuels are essential to breaking our dangerous oil addiction and solving global warming,” said Jim Presswood, an energy policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Jobe noted that Congress recognized the need to reduce dependence on foreign oil when it enacted the biodiesel and renewable diesel tax incentives. As a result, the country now has a domestic biodiesel industry with 105 small biodiesel plants capable of producing 864 million gallons of fuel.

“This capacity and the future growth of the industry represents new capacity of environmentally friendly biodiesel and renewable diesel. Economic analysis shows that biodiesel production will create at least 40,000 new jobs and will add $24 billion to the U.S. economy,” Jobe said. “By contrast, subsidizing the existing operations of oil refineries accomplishes none of these goals, and in fact, could endanger free-standing biodiesel and renewable diesel producers by artificially inflating feedstock costs.”

The NBB is the national trade association of the biodiesel industry and is the coordinating body for biodiesel research and development in the U.S.

NBB’s membership is comprised of state, national, and international feedstock and feedstock processor organizations, biodiesel suppliers, fuel marketers and distributors, and technology providers.

Readers can learn more about biodiesel by visiting www.biodiesel.org.


This is more like the solution I had in mind!
Vic
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rmchambers on May 18, 2007, 04:47:29 PM
A little common sense out of D.C.  surprising but better than a corporate give-away.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rbodell on May 18, 2007, 09:47:34 PM
A little common sense out of D.C.  surprising but better than a corporate give-away.

I had to think on that one for a minute. On one side the oil industry starts to wean itself away from oil and on the other side is the oil companies buying the waste cooking oil at a price thet the home biodiesel producer not being able to get the waste cooking oil.

I did a search on biodiesel prices here in texas and found this place where they sell biodiesel at $3.50 a gallon http://www.houstonbiodiesel.com/buy.htm . I find it hard to beleive they stay in buisiness knowing what it costs to make it. They say they even have short lines at times. I might have to rethink my opinion thaty people go for alternative energy because it is cheaper. Granted it does help, but 3.50 a gallon? That is amazing.

My guess is that they pay restaurants for the waste oil, and a pretty good price too. I wonder of anybody here is from Houston that uses waste cooking oil who would coment on how hard it is to find?
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: biobill on May 23, 2007, 11:33:26 AM
rbodel,
  Not from Houston but in my area, upstate NY, the eateries were paying $58 a barrel to get rid of it two years ago. I started picking up for free and most places were happy to see me. The waste oil company wasn't too thrilled though - they sent sales teams around saying that what I was doing was illegal and generally pissed people off. They now pick up for free too.
  I see Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) has introduced a bill to make oil company price gouging a federal crime. Think we'll see any CEO's in jail?
                                            Bill
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rbodell on May 23, 2007, 04:24:53 PM
rbodel,
  Not from Houston but in my area, upstate NY, the eateries were paying $58 a barrel to get rid of it two years ago. I started picking up for free and most places were happy to see me. The waste oil company wasn't too thrilled though - they sent sales teams around saying that what I was doing was illegal and generally pissed people off. They now pick up for free too.

Congratulations, I bet a lot of restraunt owners love you.

Funny thing, A lot of biodiesel places charge as much or more than gasoline. These people were also getting that $58 a barrel on top of that. Heck they could have given it away and made money.

Is it any wonde that biodiesel is not as popular as it should be?


  I see Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) has introduced a bill to make oil company price gouging a federal crime. Think we'll see any CEO's in jail?
                                            Bill
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 23, 2007, 04:35:46 PM
I finished reading the CIS full report. What it sums up to is that while there is indeed a small place in the overall fuel stream for biologically derived fuels, expanding this in absolute terms comes at a “risk” to species, including man, primarily due to habitat destruction. They go on to say that this “risk” can be mitigated by proper regulation. Maybe so, in countries with responsible governments. Being realistic though, it looks like another example of a give-away of money to special interests, at least when it is of large scale – as in the us corn-ethanol racket.

Given the current wild-west atmosphere and ethical shortcomings of government and capital it seems obvious that the actually adopted bio-fuel policies are, in terms of realpolitic, going to increase political instability, especially in the undeveloped countries.

Based on the CIS report it looks like Castro is approximately correct – making fuel from food, as a policy, is going to create increased poverty and political stress.

Looking in focused detail I ask myself – what does it hurt if I make 500 gallons per year on my place? Carefully done such a project seems more or less harmless, not so many acorns for the critters – not so many oaks either, but this is because the project is so small and isolated. The only food grown on that acreage is mice, rabbit and venison – most of which is eaten by coyotes and mountain lions. The damage would be, in that case anyway, real, but minor. Political instability in the coyotes and lions is ok with me. (Don't know 'bout a pissed off bear though - might have to shoot 'em.)

Looking at the idea even more carefully it looks to me like a better way to spend my money is on PV panels. The actual cash outlay is similar, and the PV’s don’t require any serious work, especially not ongoing work.

In order to avoid guerrilla conflicts, which we have seen are unsustainable by developed states, a significant turn to bio-fuel is going to require fundamental changes to the present human economy and way of knowing. Since this does not seem to be in the offing, bio-fuels are going to create guerrilla conflicts – and undermine those states that engage those forces.

This is not to say that farmers are not in a position to grow some tractor fuel. Just as they used to set aside pasture-land for the mule, they can just as well make some fuel. Just not very much. Similarly the used grease from the fryer - but it's a tiny fraction overall.
 
Some people might be inclined to disagree with CIS and with Castro. They should read the report and also what “El Supremo” has written on the subject.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: mkdutchman on May 23, 2007, 06:05:21 PM
I finished reading the CIS full report. What it sums up to is that while there is indeed a small place in the overall fuel stream for biologically derived fuels, expanding this in absolute terms comes at a “risk” to species, including man, primarily due to habitat destruction. They go on to say that this “risk” can be mitigated by proper regulation. Maybe so, in countries with responsible governments. Being realistic though, it looks like another example of a give-away of money to special interests, at least when it is of large scale – as in the us corn-ethanol racket.

Given the current wild-west atmosphere and ethical shortcomings of government and capital it seems obvious that the actually adopted bio-fuel policies are, in terms of realpolitic, going to increase political instability, especially in the undeveloped countries.

Based on the CIS report it looks like Castro is approximately correct – making fuel from food, as a policy, is going to create increased poverty and political stress.

Looking in focused detail I ask myself – what does it hurt if I make 500 gallons per year on my place? Carefully done such a project seems more or less harmless, not so many acorns for the critters – not so many oaks either, but this is because the project is so small and isolated. The only food grown on that acreage is mice, rabbit and venison – most of which is eaten by coyotes and mountain lions. The damage would be, in that case anyway, real, but minor. Political instability in the coyotes and lions is ok with me. (Don't know 'bout a pissed off bear though - might have to shoot 'em.)

Looking at the idea even more carefully it looks to me like a better way to spend my money is on PV panels. The actual cash outlay is similar, and the PV’s don’t require any serious work, especially not ongoing work.

In order to avoid guerrilla conflicts, which we have seen are unsustainable by developed states, a significant turn to bio-fuel is going to require fundamental changes to the present human economy and way of knowing. Since this does not seem to be in the offing, bio-fuels are going to create guerrilla conflicts – and undermine those states that engage those forces.

This is not to say that farmers are not in a position to grow some tractor fuel. Just as they used to set aside pasture-land for the mule, they can just as well make some fuel. Just not very much. Similarly the used grease from the fryer - but it's a tiny fraction overall.
 
Some people might be inclined to disagree with CIS and with Castro. They should read the report and also what “El Supremo” has written on the subject.


What exactly are you trying to say? ???
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 23, 2007, 07:23:56 PM
Hi MK, I'm sorry, it does not seem to be in any way unclear. It simply says what it says.

It may be that you have not read all the relevant prior posts and that this is the reason that it does not seem to you to be clear.

CIS is an investment company based, I believe, in UK. Their report is mentioned in previous posts. Fidel has also written on this matter recently and is particularly of interest as he calls up the work of several experts. They're also worth reading. He too is mentioned in prior posts. Castro is attempting, I think, to make political hay out of a developing problem. For a man is his 80's that's impressive. He must be pretty sure of himself.

My personal opinions regarding biofuel-politics are logically irrelevant to these sources. Nevertheless the implications of the experts views are obvious - significantly large bio-fuel policies in the "developed world" are probably going to cause asymmetrical violence. If this is an acceptable cost then those policies will go ahead. My opinion is that the universal availability of atomic "options", in the context of violence, makes the cost too high. Violence has an effect on all parties, man does not fight alone. This opinion is based on expert views on nuclear technology, Ted Taylor and others. The observation that the developed states cannot sustain (or prevail) against a guerrilla force simply states the obvious - they haven't.( CIS sees this as a risk that can, maybe, be avoided. I don't.)

The idea that PV is, especially on the scale involved, a better investment strategy, is based on the true-cost. This true- cost is necessarily subjective. Others will, if history is our guide, hold that violence is an acceptable cost. This may be particularly true if they themselves do not have to do the dying. 

Of course others may come to different views. But since this relates to the CIS report and to Castro's written statements, those who would like to criticize these should read those reports first. I had no trouble getting this data - and neither should anybody else. URLs are, I believe, included with the prior posts, but a thoughtful internet search would reveal these and much more, I should think.

Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: mkdutchman on May 23, 2007, 07:42:17 PM
Hi MK, I'm sorry, it does not seem to be in any way unclear. It simply says what it says.

It may be that you have not read all the relevant prior posts and that this is the reason that it does not seem to you to be clear.

CIS is an investment company based, I believe, in UK. Their report is mentioned in previous posts. Fidel has also written on this matter recently and is particularly of interest as he calls up the work of several experts. They're also worth reading. He too is mentioned in prior posts. Castro is attempting, I think, to make political hay out of a developing problem. For a man is his 80's that's impressive. He must be pretty sure of himself.

My personal opinions regarding biofuel-politics are logically irrelevant to these sources. Nevertheless the implications of the experts views are obvious - significantly large bio-fuel policies in the "developed world" are probably going to cause asymmetrical violence. If this is an acceptable cost then those policies will go ahead. My opinion is that the universal availability of atomic "options", in the context of violence, makes the cost too high. Violence has an effect on all parties, man does not fight alone. This opinion is based on expert views on nuclear technology, Ted Taylor and others. The observation that the developed states cannot sustain (or prevail) against a guerrilla force simply states the obvious - they haven't.( CIS sees this as a risk that can, maybe, be avoided. I don't.)

The idea that PV is, especially on the scale involved, a better investment strategy, is based on the true-cost. This true- cost is necessarily subjective. Others will, if history is our guide, hold that violence is an acceptable cost. This may be particularly true if they themselves do not have to do the dying.

Of course others may come to different views. But since this relates to the CIS report and to Castro's written statements, those who would like to criticize these should read those reports first. I had no trouble getting this data - and neither should anybody else. URLs are, I believe, included with the prior posts, but a thoughtful internet search would reveal these and much more, I should think.



Hmmm, after due deliberation I think I'd stick with biofuel ;D
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 23, 2007, 09:47:25 PM
I applaud your bravery and hope that it turns out that the promise of bio-fuels comes without too high a price.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: mkdutchman on May 23, 2007, 10:23:27 PM
I'll take that chance ;D
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: okiezeke on May 24, 2007, 04:15:18 AM
Biofuel,
What ever became of algae.  Supposed to be 80% oil and grow on any pond.  Seems like about any hillbilly could grow pond scum.  Could even harvest it naked to make all natural.  Never heard of anyone actually making any.  Could be an urban legend. 
Zeke
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 24, 2007, 04:54:40 AM
well said oz.

google "algae + biofuel" and there's quite a bit. http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html and so forth.

The implication I think I see is the there's not necessarily a connection, a competition, between growing food and growing fuel. This aspect is what CIS would have their investors exploit as an ethical approach to bio-fuel production.

It may be technically viable and ethical. The wiki article( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture) says: "...(algae-oil) may be the only viable method by which to produce enough automotive fuel to replace current world gasoline usage."


I suspect that it is politically inconsistent with past and present practice, and thus, while it could, maybe, work, at least in the short-term food will remain and increase as a fuel feedstock. Seems to be a political matter, not an engineering problem. The history of western civilization has often been that when poor people have something that powerful people want, the poor people either give it up or fight, and then give it up. There are exceptions though - the poor do not always lose the fight. The lack of funding for research in this area seems to imply the political agenda does not include algae derived fuels. Contra-wise, considerable funding (and blood)  has gone into the control of petroleum. This continues.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: haganes on May 24, 2007, 08:05:25 AM
what i like about this discussion is that it forces me to read up on outside references such as Ted Taylor.  Some of my knowledge is from the petrified 70's.

the problem with discussing these issues is that we use logic to put across our points.  there is no logic in the real world.  we have people who have seen so much death and distruction that they have no problem ending their lives as well as many other people's lives.  we have most world leaders who have philosophical beliefs at odds with pragmatic solutions.

since we are not aware of all the obstacles ahead, we should not limit our options until it becomes indisputably clear that a particular option is bad.  the opinions of bush or castro on whether a particular energy option is good or bad may be interesting to contemplate, but i would rather hear the opinons of people who have no axe to grind.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 24, 2007, 04:19:43 PM

Hi Cap!

Yes, it does not take much trauma to put a person into an emotional irrational state. Pity!

The point you make about logic raises the idea of what seems to me to be a fundamental problem for humankind. Here we are, cunning clever little chimps, victims of our necessary emotions, superstitions, and myths. Now that we have made the technology necessary for destruction on a vast scale available to all, and, in terms of environmental damage, are accelerating processes that even increase the rate of destruction, the fundamental human conflict seems both proximately dangerous and unresolved. (Einstein wrote about this a bit, I think.) I would characterize the problem as a conflict between logic and evil. ("logic", as used here is has a bit broader meaning than usual.) William Sloane Coffin wrote all 'round this notion. Of course, it is a fundamental in his logos.

This juxtaposition is nothing new. At( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos ) the Greek, Jewish, and Christian tradition of logos is sketched out, with the implication that opposite "the Christ" or "God" or "creative principle" (aka logos) lies a "dark side". This contrast is discussed in Genesis where the Hebrew word "timshel" is used - meaning "thou mayest" (prevail over evil).( http://timshel.org/timshel.php ) The best, perhaps the only, arena for resolving conflicts between these two aspects of humanity is, imho, politics. This usage should be understood in a very broad sense.

Thus it seems to me that, while we obviously ought not to believe, for example, Fidel, we ought to listen to these voices and reason why they say what they do. (in Fidel's case, over 80, it seems to me that he has identified a genuine trend and seeks to use it as a lever - it's what Fidel does, and he's good at it). By the way, some contextual background for "El Supremo" that informs my ideas here is Eduardo Galeano's "Open Veins of Latin America", Arundhati Roy's "An Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire" and Gott's "Cuba, a History". In Bush's case, for another example, if one assumes that everything he says is a lie, and then compares his actions with his words, very soon one can see a neat package that points descriptively toward true-goal and grand strategy. (This technique is not limited to our dear leader - it works pretty well with any disingenuous character.)
 
I know what you mean when you use the term "leaders", but I think it's generally a misleading term, a deception, and that when we use it we tend to deceive ourselves. Most so-called leaders actually seem to try to prevent or minimize change, shaping it only when they must. Real leadership seems to come from the general population. This often places "leaders" in opposition to "their" people'(s), as we see everyday. A basic tool "leaders" use is naming a thing. Through naming conceptualization is framed and limited, and the array of options is limited. (And the first thing they name is themselves!) This notion then leads to a comparision of the terms "authority" and "power". It seems to me that "leaders" have power, guns, lawyers, money - but they generally have only whatever authority is temporarily loaned to them by people. This smaller relationship seems to parallel the relationship between logos and evil.

Moving to a focus here on the matter of bio-fuel politics it occurs me that fuel, in the contemporary world, conveys political and economic power, it is at least an amplifier of power. It does not convey authority - this remains in the individual hands of the general population. Because of peak oil supply constraints the natural evolution of the relationship between fuel and power is becoming asymmetrical - presenting "leaders" with what they see as political opportunity. This, in turn, tends to increase the already strained divergent interests between them and "their people". This is to say that the best interests of a "leader" is to control fuel, while the best interests of the people is to control it themselves. Two paths then open to the individual - obey and accept what is offered, or not. By implication a significant self-sufficiency in fuel would then be seen as a threat or danger to power. Numerous examples abound in petroleum, Iraq, Saudi, and so forth. And, to drive the nail in, it looks to me like there are emerging examples of this in the developing bio-fuel systems. Castro is "naming" the process - a basic first step. More generally, dear leader has named those who do not obey - "terrorists".

From this I think I can see that extracting bio-fuels from foreign peoples would tend to focus power in an Nth "leader", while developing a well engineered and ethical domestic system would tend to undermine an Nth "leader". It looks to me as though the interests of the ordinary people are generally and increasingly at odds with the interests of "leaders". That seems to be a setting fertile for sudden change. I wish I was young - an exciting revolutionary time just around the corner. Actually though I worry about the stability of things and my pension...

Smooth Sailing,

Phaedrus
 
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: okiezeke on May 24, 2007, 11:32:35 PM
OK, right, yeah,
Try to be prepared for WTSHTF?
Zeke
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on May 25, 2007, 02:36:32 AM
Phaedrus says some interesting things.....

The history of western civilization has often been that when poor people have something that powerful people want, the poor people either give it up or fight, and then give it up. There are exceptions though - the poor do not always lose the fight.

The dear leader comment also made me chuckle and next time I see Bush on TV I will be closely looking at him from that commic POV. But there is nothing funny about the man and his agenda, and don't kid yourself everyone has an agenda.

V.I.L sleeps in his glass box and no one has the nerve to finaly put the man to rest. I believe its a sign and symbol that unkle Joe never concieved when he was stuffed and mounted. " This is all far from over " is what I think he says from his glass box.
Maybe Trotsky will get his moment in the sun next....
Che will always be a hero to some....

Politics....

Remember that capitalism and socialsm are not politics they are methods for organizing economic output and we may be forced to rethink them.

 
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: okiezeke on May 25, 2007, 03:20:00 AM
Thought for the day'''
The republicians with their evangelical bastardization of american conservatism, may in fact be no worse than the democratic goal of having the most inefficient socialist state on the planet.//////////is there a third choice?  Vladimir putin in 08!????  Steven colbert isnt kidding, you know.
Zeke
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 26, 2007, 03:18:06 AM
A bit off topic, not tied to bio-fuels but looking at the politics alone, my reasoning, analysis, of the Republicans and particularly the "junta" (what else to call it?), not so much what they say but their actions and implied policies (agendas), and their so-called opposition too (is there a dime's worth of difference?), leads me to believe that they all fail to appreciate what seems to me to be a fundamental of the metaphysics of conflict. This fundamental is stated as a principle: "The indirect consequences of a direct action always exceed the direct consequences." The product of this dynamic is that, over time, their policies will fail to produce the results that they desire. They will certainly produce results - but not the desired results. As this process goes forward it tends to deconstruct the popular mythology which is essential to their possession of authority - again "loaned" by the general population. We have seen what happens when authority is withdrawn. It's primarily a matter of perceptions being driven by actions. One astonishing implication, speaking of Trotsky, Doug, is that in effect dear leader is a Trotskyite! He has set out to create a revolution, he says, (I doubt his sincerity in this), and it looks as though he will have got what he said he wanted (but won't like the shape of it). By the way, the stated principle is one I derived - but it also has a parallel in engineering. In the metaphysics it is an hypothesis, unproved, but it seems to work. In operation this principle means a set of positive feedback loops generates an acceleration of violence until the primary actors exit the scene and are replaced by competent people who understand politics. Opinion, yes, but considered over a long time, and tested some too. This is dangerous because the outcomes of violence cannot be predicted. "Shit happens."

I like the distinction Doug made about the nature of capitalism and socialism not being political systems. It reminds me of an FDR quote. I can only paraphrase it from memory - but it seems that Franklin was being praised for his (socialist) WPA CCC (somewhat) pro-union, etc policies. He replied something like, "I did not make America safe for the working class, I made it safe for big business." Naturally enough, in Marxist theory, for it would seem that his fundamental agenda was to represent his class and prevent "revolution" by accommodating controlled and moderate change - "throwing a bone to labor". This story illustrates the effectiveness of the indirect approach in conflict. It is, I think, by no means certain which way a "revolution" would have gone in the US of that period, imho, so Franklin may simply have been being humane and practical, not wanting either a communist or fascist future. (Marxist theory having some defects). (I put revolution in quotes 'cause I think revolution occurs in a moment, a matter of sudden change in perceptions, the conflicts that follow, often violent, are not the actual revolution, they are attempts by competing parties to gather and consolidate power and get "loaned" authority.)

Zeke, I hope there is a third way - 'cause it looks like we're headed into a turbulent period of rapid changes. If so, speaking of VIL, "power may (then) be lying in the street". I'd give a nickel for another FDR right now... I bet old V.I. is having a good laugh...maybe he's having a drink with Franklin too, who knows?
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: haganes on May 26, 2007, 08:20:51 AM
phaedrus

fdr like churchill was the right man at the right time - so was generals patton and macarthur.  my feeling is that none of these people are right for the issues today.  how about genghis khan?

regards,
captain steven
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: okiezeke on May 26, 2007, 08:57:49 AM
genghis kahn,
we have him ,unfortunately he's on the other side and named bin laden.  Very smart ,totally committed, totally without principle, and dedicated to the death of every american on the planet.  Even in death he will live on in thousands of zealots ready to take his place.  What we have here is genocide.  Ours or theirs.  Why are we too stupid to see it?  Radical islam canot be controlled with American Values.  Teddy Roosevelt, where are you?
Zeke
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 26, 2007, 06:20:06 PM
Gentlemen, what I had in mind regarding "an FDR" was a person who could de-fuze revolution, the revolution that, I think, is being developed by the present people, both through their failure to deal effectively with peak-oil and sudden climate change, and also through a very inept policy in the gulf region.

Zeke, I agree that Radical Islam can't be contained (or defeated) with American values. I think that's because we value direct action. Direct action only strengthens the forces against which it is used. It seems to me that, if we are to prevail over RI we shall have to change ourselves a bit, and come to value and understand, as RI does, indirect action.

I saw a good discussion of this approach in a film - "The Battle of Algiers". Richard Clark and Michael Sheehan, experts, are close to stating the principle and seem to understand the strategies necessary. I don't think they see things in terms of metaphysics, but they have a practical understanding.

The Algerian RI was defeated - all killed or jailed and isolated. That was not enough - it came back 2 years later, stronger than ever. The methods the French used in the first round were very bad, and hurt the French while strengthening the RI in Algeria. When the second generation came into action the French were seen to have been defeated, the revolution was long over. The French methods were direct action...

I think that present-day RI can be defeated, not overnight, but defeated by conditions, by themselves. If, for example, the US took the indirect action against them of developing a proper, sustainable, and ethical domestic energy policy that established the country as approximately oil-neutral self-sufficient and exited the gulf, RI would burn itself out - I think. I think that  genocide as a strategy would, if the US did it, ruin us. I don't know if it would ruin them to do it, but I bet it would. At any rate it's not feasible to control a thing like that, and it might not work anyway, people would hide their religion and political ideas, who would you kill and where would you stop?. Again, the indirect effects would outweigh the direct effects.

This, the failure of direct actions, was the Brit experience in Iraq (in mandate Iraq, 1920's + they lost 40,000 soldiers) and also in Afghan late in the 19th century. (The Brits used airborne gas attacks on the Iraqis, by the way, and lost about 92,000 men in the Mesopotamian Campaign - the effort during the World War) In both cases RI was the result, not the cause, of the fighting and foreign presence - direct actions. The Ottoman Empire ruled the whole area for about 300 years, and avoided, mostly, serious problems with RI. It can be, and has been, done.  One of the best ways to de-fuse conflict is to create the perception of distance. As Mao said, "man cannot fight alone." Of course leaving all that crude alone is a tough thing to do and would require the US to change its ways of knowing. To paraphrase Sun Tsu, "Winning a conflict first requires that one's own nation is put into proper order."

Regards, P
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on May 27, 2007, 05:01:12 AM
phaedrus
" I'd give a nickel for another FDR right now... "
I'll be honest with you and say I don't know much about American history or politics or FDR aproach to the 30's.

I do know Bennit died a lonely old man in England ( good thing too I'd make a point of going to Ottawa to piss on his grave along with Diefenbaker ).....
The cradle of Canadian  Socialism has twice seen mounties open fire on crowds. God forbid the strikers get what they wanted, or the trains make it to Sudbury....
Revolution can be stopped by a jack boot.

Maybe its part of the Canadian experience, but I recall Soviet life on the bookshelf next to "Popular mechanics" and "Time" in high school along with a lot of books like Capital and volumes of Official "Soviet ecconomic data". This seemed normal.... I also remember the stories of Mounty spies in the mine mill union ( growing up in mining town of Cold war stratigic importance ). And Tomy Douglas, the only Politician in my lifetime that still stands out as a man of his word.

Oh ya Tomy's " Mouse land " speach, still speaks to me.....
I'm not aware of any American politician or political movements that went as far or earned such respect.

I can't draw any parralels between Bush and any historical figuers of any importance like Trotsky.

I don't know anything about Sun Tsu, but Mao said a lot of things and he had some great speak writers words and deeds are two different things. Possibly my favourite still belongs to Uncle Joe " One cannot build socialism wearing white cotton gloves ", better blood stained in his mind me thinks.

What does the future hold?
I dunno I'm an electrician not a magician........

Doug

OK I had to come back one last time and post a link to the Mouse Land speach

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-851-4958/politics_economy/tommy_douglas/clip4

Oh ya maybe one more thing Phaedrus, do you like Shostakovich?
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: haganes on May 27, 2007, 07:48:22 AM
phaedrus et al..........

RI (radical islam) or RC (radical christianity) or RJ (radical judaism) is all the same to me so could we use RR (radical religion).

i agree that western military action in the middle east will never be a solution, and will make the situation a lot worse.

but even without our involvement, these theories being tossed around do not begin to explain the taliban or khomeini.

the problem with americans is that they think the world thinks like they do - and that is the fundamental problem. 

as spiderman's father said 'with power comes responsibility', and i am afraid we are irresponsible.

regards,
captain steven
 
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on May 28, 2007, 01:25:05 AM
Lots of people in other countries lie to beat up on America.
Your goverment does a lot of heavy handed and sometimes dumb things.
But there's no debate Americans open up their wallets and try and help when there are disaters around the world.

I'm not saying one ballances the other but you can't judge a people by their leaders.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: okiezeke on May 28, 2007, 09:49:47 AM
Doug,
Almost all Americans would agree with you that our government leaders are a pathetic bunch of self serving idiots.  They make national policy to enrich themselves and their cronies.  Our really hopeless problem is that one party is as corrupt as the other.  No honest man exists in American politics.  We've had Jimmy Carter, who was a good person trying to do the right thing.  The DC power brokers rebelled and rendered him impotent.  Jesse Ventura is as close as we've come to an honest politician lately, and he's given up in disgust.  The reason most elections here are decided with a 30% voter turnout is that we realize our choice is which crook we want to elect.  We will not last long as the world superpower the way we're going.  In 20 years we will be like France.  Third rate, dreaming of past glory, while Others shape world politics.  Our decline is well underway, clearly visible in world economic statistics.  We lost the war in Korea, Viet Nam, the Balkins, and now Iraq.  Like Rome in 400ad, we wonder what to do, and find no answers.  Radical change would be a blessing, but we have no leaders.........yet.
Zeke

ps I'm still happy to live in the US, mess though it is.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 28, 2007, 05:08:40 PM

Shostakovich? Not particularly, I like aspects of the art of the Soviet period, music included, but I would fail an exam on it - I have no passion for that material, just a liking.

I don't think Uncle Joe was being honest when he made the quoted remark about building socialism. I think he was making an excuse for his brutality and murders, mass and otherwise. I'm no expert on the Soviet period, but my inclination is to think that Joe destroyed socialism in the S.U. - one of the indirect effects of his frequent resorts to violence, to direct force.

"Soviet Life" sure was not on the shelf when I was a kid, but I did read it, from a collection. I thought, as I recall, that it was not credible. I might have been 19 or so. I spent a full day examining a stack of 'em. It's been years since I have thought about that...   In the US some of the present day "security" companies, Pinkerton and so forth, got their start murdering strikers. Turned machine guns on women and kids. And provocative set-ups were common, the most famous being the Haymarket business.

Doug, I have never before heard of this "Bennit". I did a look-see on wiki, but don't seem to connect with anything Canadian. Can you elaborate?

Mao did say a lot of things. Lies, truths, in-betweens. In this case I suspect the quote actually originated with Confucius and Mao just repeated it - just a suspicion. Anyway "man does not fight alone" seems objectively true and also it seems to have a double meaning - one is that it takes at least two people, or two minds, to have a fight. Another meaning is that effective fighting is an activity that requires cooperation, "gung ho" means something like "work together", I'm told.

Another Mao quote comes to mind: "Everyone has two hands and two feet. Everything of value comes from these. How is it then that the people who use these the least have the most things of value?" At first blush the question seems to imply that injustice accounts for the disparity in material wealth - and maybe that's what Mao wanted to make his audience think, I don't know. But upon reflection it seems to me to also imply that the mind that directs the hands and feet accounts for the disparity of wealth. If that's what Mao wished his masses to think, that the mind was the true engine, then it looks to me like an opening to explain the relationship between capital and labor, and to develop the idea that this coupled pair, in order to find stability, need to be tied together through the heart. (I heard Fritz Lang (director of numerous films- "M", Metropolis, etc.) say just that recently in a documentary.)

I agree that there is a large (and serious) disconnect between the American people and their (so-called) leaders. I think that's been made more extreme in recent years, and that the realization of this has become pretty well universal. That cynicism has always been around, but it's a view that seems to be held by just about everybody now - and that change is, of itself, a revolution. Nothing can be done, I think, to re-establish belief, the common faith in leaders and government. This, at least potentially, sets the stage for conflict between those two groups.

I have no idea what the "shape" of that conflict will be. It's still developing, imho. I hope it's not violent, but I think it will be.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on May 28, 2007, 06:27:44 PM
Shostakovich wrote some fantastic and moving music in my opinion like the 7th, later works are a mixture of canned stuff that the party wanted to hear and experimental works. All has deaper meanings some combinations of notes are codes I'm told to signify Lenin, Stalin and very subversive.

He spent many nights I read sitting nest to the elevator waiting for the KGB to take him to Siberia ( so they wouldn't wake his family ). He went from the hights influance in Soviet society to being an unperson at one point. There's also the misery of Satlin grad he lived threw....

How can you live threw that and not go nuts, plus create such beautiful music with depth and edge ( one of my favourites is the satirical "Buracrat polka" from his 1931 ballet "The Bolt" ). There were other composers, non realy interested me so I'd fail a test on them too, but I am facinated by the man as I am his music and thats probably why.

Bennit was Canada's PM durring the early part of the depression, a concervative so hated for things like relief camps where unemployed men we basicaly captive workers paid penuts and moved to places where they could stir trouble. He also ordered the Mounties to stop the on to Ottawa trek before they could reach Sudbury. The mounties open fire and killed, clubbed and arrested homeless jobless men. Historians debate here that if the trains of men made it here there was enough anger and unemployed people ready to join that they could not be stopped and would have forced some sort of show down in the capital with the Goverment.

Bennit is also famous for doign nothing for farmer hit by the dust bowl and cars towed by horses when the owners ran out of manoy were called "Bennit buggies".

He moved to England and died there after he lost the next election the man was truely hated. 

In hind sight I guess its odd all the soviet stuff around me growing up for example the Soviet space display I saw at Ontario place in the late 70's left as deap an impact as if not deaper than a later trip to Florida. I guess Its because the Russians got to me first lol.
 

I'm not a well educated man, or that well read ( Lenin would aprove since I am smart enough to read the propaganda but not educated to question too much lol ) and you obvioulsy are well read.
quote
"But upon reflection it seems to me to also imply that the mind that directs the hands and feet accounts for the disparity of wealth. If that's what Mao wished his masses to think, that the mind was the true engine, then it looks to me like an opening to explain the relationship between capital and labor, and to develop the idea that this coupled pair, in order to find stability, need to be tied together through the heart."

You've given me some things to think about and I probably need to read some more before I can realy comment I can comment to much on some of the stuff you've touched on. But I will share one more thought and opinion on something I did read enough I think to make an informed comment on. Marx seems to have been much better at discribing Capitalism than formualting a functioning alternative. That at least is the impact Das Capital  had on me. And the great Soviet experiment of corrupted Marxism teaches me two things. One you can build a command ecconomy, and two you can if you keep bellies full in the face of chaos most people will tollerate living under a jack boot ,at least up to a point.

Never thought I would have a conversation like this in the Lister forum lol.

Doug
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 28, 2007, 08:45:22 PM
Last for a few days - going away on essential business. Anyway going to give it a rest.

Shostakovich's 7th - that's the Leningrad siege thing, right? Astonishing music. Did not know about the codes.

I am not educated either, but have followed my nose in studying everything that catches my interest. They threw me out of school near the end of the 11th grade. I did go to college, off and on, but never graduated and really don't remember much about that experience. It seemed to be a trap - "do this, obey, and you may get tenure, a "good job" etc. Schools seem to me to be primarily structures dedicated to creating obedience and imparting knowledge so focused that it has the effect of ignorance or control. In those days the 'nam business was a challenge - but they believed me when I told 'em that the first person I'd shoot would be the lieutenant, that if they wanted somebody dead they'd have to do it themselves. (They seemed to miss the contradiction in that.) Though we were protestants there were considerable Quaker and Jewish influences in my youth - they stuck.

I've worked in the trades all my life. Steelworkers, Teamsters, etc. Now I'm a member of local 102 of the UBC millwrights. I've got about 8 1/2 years to go to collect my pension - and wonder if it'll be worth anything by then.

Thanks for the bit on Bennit. That was also the name used for the cowardly exec in Compass Rose, from the book and movie "The Cruel Sea". I wonder if there's a connection. We had Herbert Hover - similarly disliked, but sounds like your guy was worse!

My notions about revolution began with reading Eric Hoffer - he made the point that, rather than revolution producing change, it should be seen that change creates revolution. Taking that another step, which Hoffer does not, it is the perception of change, not the change itself, that creates revolution. This ties myth, the set of stories we tell ourselves as "truths", to the dynamic of change in perception. People cling to their myth, and when they abandon their faith in a myth structure they suddenly see things differently, the sequence is change, perception, revolution, and (often) violence as a final phase. They undergo a revolution when they let go of their myths. Of course they scramble around and adopt another set right away. When this happens in a large group or in a nation it pits the "leaders" against the people, at least for a moment. If a leader is skilled he can adapt and, often, feed a new myth to the people - if not he must decide to use force or to retire. The ordinary people of the middle east have found, I think, their myth set difficult to maintain in the face of cultural and economic changes wrought by Western and primarily American business. It looks to me like the "terrorist" leaders are feeding the need those people have to try to maintain their myth. Of course some people there have already developed new, revolutionary, views and myths, seldom pro western. Thus, naturally, they fight each other as well as the occupying forces. The 1897 experience the Brits had (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_the_Malakand_Field_Force ) in the Swat Valley strongly suggests to me that this difficulty with maintaining myth is at the heart of jehad and much other violence.

Now that I am no longer young and have a bit of time waiting for dispatches from the hiring hall (which I prefer to steady work) I am interested in the nature of conflict and trying to develop a metaphysics of conflict. Of course that ties into oil, bio-fuels and politics...and it's the basis of much of what I've said in this forum.

Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rbodell on May 29, 2007, 11:08:39 AM
Doug,
Almost all Americans would agree with you that our government leaders are a pathetic bunch of self serving idiots.  They make national policy to enrich themselves and their cronies.  Our really hopeless problem is that one party is as corrupt as the other.  No honest man exists in American politics. 

How true it is. What gets me is all the name calling and fighting between political parties. They spend more time trying to stop the other guys bills than trying to come up with a better solution. I wonder if they ever thought about setting down together and saying "ok how is the best way of doing this".

I guess I really can't complain. As voters we don't set a very good example with only 40% of the population actualy voting and 100% of us complaining about the outcome. A lot of us don't even vote for the best man, they just vote acording to the party.

I wonder what would happen if one election came and 100% of the people voted and everybody was able to set aside their political afiliation and their personal opinions and desires and vote with ONLY the good of the country in mind.  Of course that is what everybody says they do, but those same people are out there saying the republicans did this and the democrats did that.

That is pretty hard to do though. When it comes time to vote I realy have to think hard to decide if what I think is best for the country is being afected by what I want for myself. I have family memebers that think the government should give us a million dollars whenever we want it, we should have free medical care and we should not pay income taxes. As much as I would like to see that happen, I thank god every election day that he also thinks voting is a waste of time because his vote doesn't count.

Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: biobill on May 29, 2007, 12:37:07 PM
Quote from: rbodell

I wonder what would happen if one election came and 100% of the people voted and everybody was able to set aside their political afiliation and their personal opinions and desires and vote with ONLY the good of the country in mind.  Of course that is what everybody says they do, but those same people are out there saying the republicans did this and the democrats did that.

  An interesting thought, especially if the 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th party candidates were put on an equal footing with the big two. I don't think we can expect the Rep's or Dem's to offer up anyone that might upset the status quo (which is what's sorely needed IMHO).  The  presidential elections we see today are all fluff, no substance. If a candidate doesn't like the questions in a debate, let him stay home. Have it anyways with those who will answer the difficult questions.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rmchambers on May 29, 2007, 02:04:13 PM
Which country requires voter participation?  I read somewhere that there's a place where if you don't vote you get in trouble the same way as if you blow off jury duty.

Perhaps that's what the place needs.  I know the pol's in power won't want that because if you force everyone to vote the outcome would be quite different than it is now with just the 40% voting.

Pretty pathetic really, and if you don't vote you really don't have any right to complain.

Robert
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: okiezeke on May 29, 2007, 11:55:34 PM
We're the richest country on the planet by most measures.  We're also the only 1st world country on the planet that does not have universal health care.  We have basically the same system seen in poorer african nations, that is, you get all the health care you can afford.  Our own drug companies charge us 2-10 times more for drugs, and get the government to outlaw our purchase of drugs from other countries.  I know Canada's health system is far from perfect, but I pay almost 800.00 a month for health care insurance that covers less and less every year. The reason nothing is being done about this problem is that a lot of big companies are making a lot of money and can afford to buy and own enough of our elected leaders.  This cozy relationship insures that our system will continue to get worse indefinately.
Americans can (and do) fly to Caracas for health care as good as ours for half the price.  I predict that the next big industry to move to the third world will be US health care.  At least when our insurance companies require us to fly to Rajkot for our CABG operations, we can bring back spare parts in our checked luggage.
Zeke
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on May 30, 2007, 04:40:16 AM

Shostakovich's 7th - that's the Leningrad siege thing, right? Astonishing music. Did not know about the codes.

My notions about revolution began with reading Eric Hoffer - he made the point that, rather than revolution producing change, it should be seen that change creates revolution. Taking that another step, which Hoffer does not, it is the perception of change, not the change itself, that creates revolution. This ties myth, the set of stories we tell ourselves as "truths", to the dynamic of change in perception. People cling to their myth, and when they abandon their faith in a myth structure they suddenly see things differently, the sequence is change, perception, revolution, and (often) violence as a final phase. They undergo a revolution when they let go of their myths.

I also like the lighter stuff like Tea in Tahity and Jazz sweets 1 & 2.
Wow just by fluke I'm listening to that right now, and ironicaly when I cracked open the crank case on Gus the Petteroid ( named for a depressed polar bear in NY zoo that vets figuered knew his roar scared no one any more lol ). Its the Later works after 1949 I notice if you change the speed of the play back the tone goes from fluffy to realy dark. And the codes was something I read on a classical music forum, only then did I begine to notice things like in a peice of music composed to celebrate some aniversery for Lenin oin the 60's  ( not the revoltion I forget the details not realy important right now but I can look it up forward you the piece of list ) and repitions of commons sets of three notes in other simmilar sounding canned music he wrote. Mots of the dull stuff I never kept just because its not realy good, now I have to go back and look for hidden meanings......

I like the truth and myth concept you bring up.
I looked at it that way myself but more from the perspective of personal filters we have and wether or not we are even aware of them and able to move beyond them ( I don't think we can ever realy escape our filters and get a true picture of anything ).
The concept of faith in a something is also interesting to me as an athiest, becaus eI may not believe in God but I know I believe in something and I jelously guard that belief even in the face of truths I don't like to hear. I also try to be respectful of gods impact on people and if you strip that from many people ( if you could ) you probably destroy a persons center.
Faith in systems is also some something we don't want to give up.....

I'm a Steel worker too.....
And you type smart, you must have learned something in school lol.
I can't spell or type deslexia see ?

Doug 
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: haganes on May 30, 2007, 06:54:54 AM
there have been honest people in politics.....s i hayakawa and jimmy carter spring quickly to mind.  no second terms for either.

universal health care will be possible in the usa only when the insurance costs can be lowered - and insurance costs cannot be lowered until liability levels are reduced (eg do away with the lawyers....and that ain't goin' to happen).

regards,
captain steven
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: okiezeke on May 30, 2007, 09:15:05 PM
Who was it who said "first kill all the lawyers"  Famous quote. I should know, but don't.
Zeke
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rmchambers on May 30, 2007, 10:16:28 PM
Who was it who said "first kill all the lawyers"  Famous quote. I should know, but don't.
Zeke

William Shakespeare I believe.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rbodell on May 30, 2007, 10:33:15 PM
I think I would vote for a politician at least once if they ran on no other platform other than that they were only running to get their fingers in the till. At least they would probably be telling the truth and if he wanted to get re-elected, he would probably be most likely to pay attention to what the people say. But then, all politicians lie so who knows.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on May 30, 2007, 10:47:13 PM
Henry VI, act 4 scene two, Wm Shakespeare. The gang are planning coup or "revolution" and see that lawyers, tying ordinary people up in legalistic restraints, stand in their way. It's a humorous scene & fun to read.  It can be seen at least two ways – as an endorsement of the law and lawyers to the establishment, and also, to the poor and exploited, as a practical first step. The bard was speaking to both groups. Smart guy!

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/2henryvi/2henryvi.4.2.html

School? Not really. The 10th and 11 grades I used to ditch school after my first period class, which was ROTC with real rifles - I was on the rifle team and liked the free shooting - just .22 rifles, (through we drilled with M1s that were active rifles. (I'm told that the ROTC now drills with non fire-able M1s, a piece of steel blocking the bore!)) When I ditched I would spend the day at the library, reading. In those days they had truant officers - but the canon of ethics for librarians did and does prohibit them from calling the truant officer, and no truant officer would bother to look for kids at the library. I didn’t know that, but it seemed like a good strategy, and it worked. We took "all city" in rifle competition every year that I was on that team. Great commander, too, Sgt Raymond Rumm, bless his heart. He was the guy that explained to me what would happen if I went to 'nam, and in a back-handed way shattered my childish myths about violence. He was twice wounded in combat, WW2 and Korea, and he knew what he was talking about...I suppose he's long gone, but his blessed memory live on a bit in me. I would have you all know his name...

College? - just there for the girls and the party. They tossed me out because of bad grades and so forth, then I had to see the draftboard. I studdied all my life, just not at school, and my wife has been a great help too - she's an english major, a writer, and used to be an associate professor of english. Nice comfortable good sport of a confident tough hippy girl, and pretty too. Another blessing...

Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on June 08, 2007, 04:17:15 AM
Bio-fuels and Politics!  ref:   http://www.guardian.co.uk/colombia/story/0,,2095348,00.html
Story title: "massacres and paramilitary land seizures behind biofuel revolution"

summary:  Rapid growth in demand for palm oil as a source of biofuel has led to a humanitarian crisis in Columbia. Armed groups—mainly right-wing militias—are forcing farmers from their land and turning it over to palm oil producers. 200,000 cases a year are being reported. At the same time, coca production is up and 3 million Columbians have been displaced for various reasons. President Alvaro Uribe will be in Washington this week to discuss the situation.

Coke for oil???

Best, P
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rpg52 on June 09, 2007, 12:20:22 AM
Interestingly enough, I recently read a story about how biofuels are causing rainforest destruction on Borneo and other tropical places.  It seems the forests are being cleared for palm oil plantations, likely resulting in a net increase in carbon releases as the forests are burned.  The economy drives every thing in this globalized world of ours.
Ray
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rbodell on June 09, 2007, 02:31:16 PM
MMM maybe we could have, like gun control,  biofuel control. If we eliminate biofuel, we eliminate biofuel crimes. Aww Shuckens, Then all you'r going to hear is that if we have biofuel control, only criminals will have biofuel.

It doesn't matter what it is, if there is easy money, somebody will take advantage of the situation. Those are more exceptions, rather than the rule. I am sure somebody has comitted a crime with a fork, maybe we should outlaw them too. Lets concentrate on making biofuel and let governments concentrate on the coke problem in Columbia.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on June 09, 2007, 03:08:56 PM
The Guardian story says 200,000 examples. Not to take a moral position, but simply being objective about this tropics-belt phenomenon, it's fair to say that criminal big business is creating a large group of former small farmers, now un-invested in their previous activities. Is it realistic to expect these people to evaporate? The States of Latin America have lost control of their monopoly on violence and power, and these masses of displaced (robbed and P.O.'d) farmers are going to go someplace and do something. That's a political effect. Ten years from now how many will be in the US, and how many will be in narco-gangs? Our thirst for the oil drives this, as does, of course, the greed of criminals.

When I grow and press 500 gallons of olive oil it has no material effect on politics, but this commercial and lawless expansion in tropical areas would seem to promise to have a very material cost that may be as real as a bullet in the head from a narco-gang in Detroit. This suggests to me that bio-fuels ought to be local, and commercial import ought indeed to be prohibited.

(We regulate guns, yes, though I do not see the connection, and the regulation seems pretty modest. The two matters seem to me to be unrelated. The political effects of the commercialization of bio-fuel by criminal gangs seems to me rather more similar to the commercialization of cocaine. The political effect of the commercialization of guns seems quite neglible to me.)
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: haganes on June 10, 2007, 05:55:11 AM
it is tragic that the rain forests of borneo are being destroyed, as well as the forests all around the world.  they are being replaced by various crops to make somebody money. 

i have travelled through the amazon seeing the forests area after area cut down by little farmers and big corporations.   in borneo and the indonesian islands, i live with the yearly burning which lasts for months.  for sure it is a crime.

but if you remove the need for biodiesel, the problem will still persist.  the world population is growing fast.....and it needs to eat, and the new people need to make money.  politicians and criminals (both should be used in the same sentence) put their short term greed in front of society.  the little person stakes out a piece of land and utilizes it for his survival. 

biofuels are not the problem.  corruption is.  lack of governmental control is.  having an exploding birth rate is. having a clear and indisputable global position on land use development is.

the enemy is us.

captain steven
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: haganes on June 10, 2007, 06:06:56 AM
sorry, one more point on palm oil.

according to the us state department, 80% of the indonesian production of palm oil goes for food.  they also say in part:

"Pointing to heightened concern around the world over trans-fatty acids (TFA) and the January 2006 U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirement that food labels include information about TFA, they argue that palm oil will begin to replace partially hydrogenated oils in American processed foods, thus increasing exports to the U.S."

you can read the entire text which talks about biofuels at:
                              http://www.usembassyjakarta.org/econ/Sumatera_palm_oil_dec05.html

regards,
captain steven
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on August 02, 2007, 05:32:44 AM
article in asiatimes:  http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/IH01Dj01.html  "the great biofuel fraud"

sorry to say that I think he's right, pity.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: biobill on August 02, 2007, 12:46:27 PM
  I've always felt that the ethanol program was a sham. But as an outlet for "surplus" grains I thought it would benefit the farmers. I'm thinking family type farms, not the corporate giants. Hadn't considered the global implications of corporate and misguided government involvement. Great article, thanks for opening my eyes
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on August 03, 2007, 03:54:31 AM
The family farm is under attack by the factory farm.

Time to elect a goverment that will put a stop to the madness and help the little guy keep the family farm running in a sustainable manner.

Burning food a crime!!!!
Ever been hungry?
Realy hungry....

I have, and F*** *** to any corperation that thinks profits come before empty bellies. Worst year of my life spent looking for quarters in the snow around parking meters.
The humilations of begging for any kind of work.
Getting thin....
Soup kitchen....
Food bank...
I am out of step now, but when enough money has been spent foolishly and enough bellies growl there will be another October revolution.

Not one step back....
I'll pick up bricks,a  tools, pointy sticks and what ever it takes to make sure my wife and son never live to know hunger and dispare.

But thats not enough because I know some place out there some other father is tearing himself up over empty stomachs. He might be a black fellow or Asian man, not that it matters money transcends colour.

A tank full of food makes me sick!!!!!!

Doug
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Andre Blanchard on August 06, 2007, 10:49:00 PM

A tank full of food makes me sick!!!!!!

Doug

What is the difference between growing beans for fuel and growing trees for fuel and lumber?
There is a lot of land in the US and Canada that is now growing trees that could just as well be growing food crops.

It is just an allocation of resources problem.

The real crime is how much food is allowed to rot while some guy on Wall Street is waiting for the price to go up.  I would guess that it is more then enough to feed the hungry in North America.

As far as other countries I stopped feeling sorry for them a long time ago, it is their choice to allow the population to exceed the carrying capacity of the land in which they live.  I have talked to more then one peace core volunteer who has returned after 20 or 30 years to the village where they helped setup school or library, only to find that the people destroyed the buildings shortly after the volunteers left.
You can't help people who will not help themselves, especially when there is some religion involved.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rcavictim on August 07, 2007, 01:08:17 AM

Quote

You can't help people who will not help themselves, especially when there is some religion involved.


All of Mankind`s problems, and the root cause of all of human suffering through the ages are herein explained, ....and also the solution.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on August 07, 2007, 03:46:56 AM
An injury to one is an injury to all. "What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground."

We all in this situation together. Notions of being in competition with one another are mere propaganda that rich and greedy people spew towards us for their own ends. It's the old "divide and conquer" routine.

And there's a practical aspect too. Does anyone honestly expect millions of starving people to just sit quietly to die? The old, the very young, perhaps, but the lean men of action, having been wronged by selfish dupes, will seek food and vengence. Wanna bet they won't? Paybacks are a bitch.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on August 08, 2007, 08:15:49 PM
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,498805,00.html

ethanol-corn driving land prices to levels that squeeze out small farmers...
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: biobill on August 09, 2007, 03:12:58 AM
  Wonder what happens if nobody buys the stuff?  I've seen one station in the neighboring town selling E-85, about $.50/ gal cheaper for a savings in the neighborhood of 17% per gallon, but probably more expensive per mile.  It's been my experience that very few consumers will pay extra for environmentally friendly products. (willingly, Federal subsidies are something else)  Might there be some good deals in the future on surplus ethanol by the drum?
   Big stink a few years back over the Federal subsidies of "high fructose corn syrup". Seems the latest corn$ version might do even more damage.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on August 09, 2007, 03:58:45 AM
I read some place when you factor inflation in the subsities on things like corn, wheat and beef have actualy decreased the net cost we pay for it today. However fruits and vegitables have increased in costs since they generaly do not get the same level of suport.

This is kind of sad when you think about the fact that so much of this food is wasted ( wheat dairy beef corn ect... ) and the healthier choices we should be making cost more. If you ask me this make no sence.

I used to plant a little garden because I like a fresh tomato in my lunch. Then I began to believe after the Port Colburn soil survey that here in the Nickle city ( where the ore that contaminated the other city ) might be worse. A century of industrial emissions, and the local survey that for some reason keeps getting put back for further study made me rethink my vegies.
A trip to Toronto and I see farm land turned into burbs because the land is worth more than it grows.

All these things bother me, Food wasted, Food spolied, land wasted instead of being used to grow food and all the time people are hungery not just in some african vilage but right here in Canada.
I watch a comercial today for habbitat for humanity that 1 million Canadians haver to chose between eating well and having a roof over head.

A tank full of food still makes me ill when you consider the amount of biomass that could be converted to energy from places you can't grow food, like right here.....

Doug
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on August 21, 2007, 03:35:49 PM
Hey Doug - This paper caught my eye and I throught that you might be interested in reading it, even though it's off topic just a bit...

http://www.ararcommission.ca/eng/2007-08-08-addendum.pdf
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on August 21, 2007, 11:53:57 PM
Thats just one more thing that makes my heart sink.
I can't tell whats going on and I know I can't believe everything I read.
I didn't read the transcript you posted. Skimmed it for a few minnuts and sunk back a little deaper in my seat.

I work with this nice Dutch fellow:
He came here as a kid...
Back in Holand after the war there was a lot of warm a fuzzy about Canada. Those nice people from across the pond who who fought threw the flooded dikes and brought all that food in........

Ed and his family came to Canada because is his words " this was a place to be " ....
Now Ed tells me this is not the place he came too, too many foolish rules ( like gun laws he hates ) foolish politicians and general crazyness he came here to avoid. He's not a Dutchman now, as Canadian as I am, but he has a perspective that I am beginning to get a flash of insight from ever now and then and in truth I am having a hard time finding my Canada sometimes now too...
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: phaedrus on August 22, 2007, 10:47:37 PM
Me too. Whither my country? Was I just a dupe? Was I imagining things the way they were? Is this America? (Is that Canada?) We used to joke about the nazis - about them demanding "your papers! Snell!". About political proscutions, and about the camps. Now it's us.

In highschool I took latin, the teacher, an Austrian lady, would tell us stories about living through the war there, and make us translate them into latin and write them down. Hard stories to hear. Writing them in latin burned them into the brain. That, of course, was her purpose.

The result? I know, and wish I didn't, what going on. And there's nothing I can do, nothing anybody can do. Just like it was for her, it is for us.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on August 23, 2007, 02:15:04 AM
Tossing a dead dog in creek for a couple of days then pull up the carcuss and fresh eeles for dinner.

Shot threw the hand whilst pissing from the turret of tank....

Laying in a bed, in a bunker deaf and blind for days after the tank was hit by a shell.

Pin monkey, first job in Canada....

I had fellow who told me a select few stories too. Miss that fellow, he also taught and spoke better english
than me ( and Lattin if memmory serves ).....

We still have it good here, but something is slipping away
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rpg52 on August 23, 2007, 02:36:48 AM
I still grow much of my own food, even though I know it is in the same soil where they grew Bartlett pears in the '50's, the DDT is certainly still there, I wonder occasionally when I eat a carrot.  Mercury in the creeks from gold mining 100 years ago.  I don't eat that much fish, ocean fish may be even worse, who knows?  The ozone blows in from the urban sprawl down the hill, what are you going to do?  This is in the one of the wealthiest states in the wealthiest nation on earth, how are those in third world situations doing?  I try to count my blessings, keep stress at a minimum.  Only one thing is certain, you aren't going to get out of here alive.   :P
Ray
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on August 23, 2007, 02:45:43 AM
And you know what the solution is, we all do....

We need to live like people did in the 40's and learn to be practical about stuff.
Not waste and plan ahead.

I read some place once that the diet people ate durring the war here actualy was healthier because of less fried food and meat and more vegitable from victory gardens and such.

People walked and took busses more so they were more fit and used less fuel.

If I could ride a tram to work instyead of drive I know I would save a lot of money.
If I had a garden I know I would spend more time weeding and eating straight from the plant.

But as you say we may have ruined a lot of soil and poluted a lot of water already and no one wants to give up the conviniece of the car for a tram....

Doug
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rmchambers on August 23, 2007, 04:18:40 AM
Well people would if there was a half decent public transportation system available.  I work 35 miles from the house and I take a 3 mile drive to the train station and a 3 mile shuttle from the far end station to the office and reverse the procedure to come home.

Hardly seems worth it to take a train for a short distance, but the highways I'd have to use are so choked up with traffic that going home would take at least 1 hour (35 miles) and has taken twice that!  At least on the train I can snooze, listen to music and it takes me an hour no matter what.

I also work out of the house 1 day a week which helps too, I've got a setup here that lets me do just about anything I can do in the office from the house (except upset people face to face  :D   ).

I really don't know how bad it's going to get here but I think we are seeing the tip of the iceberg at the moment.  Those that can take care of themselves will fare better than the people that want everything done for them.

RC
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: CD in BC on November 09, 2007, 06:49:50 AM
Another shinning example of corporate America's values.

 http://nbb.grassroots.com/EPA_AskTheAdministrator_Details/?lk=5253840-5253840-0-26468-j7-Ia3j3/ugoRq4rf3J/jr9-fu94F1zI

                                         Bill

You've got it all wrong. This process is a God-send.  Where would you rather have the 4.5 million tons of car shred waste generated every year, or the hospital wastes, or the BSE contaminated offal, sewage residues, old tires, unusable biomass etc. etc.?  Landfills is where they go now, or else they are incinerated at vast cost and no benefit.

I've posted links to the Discovery mag articles on this process before.  The response was underwhelming, just like the medias' response to the whole idea.  Now big oil has seen the chance and is going to run with it.  Well surprise, surprise.  If the governmental bodies of NA were too lazy, stupid or short-sighted to do so, I guess that's what happens.

We get the government we deserve they say.

As for the Biodiesel Council, much as I like biodiesel, they are just another industry body complaining about their competitors IMO.  Biodiesel is an industry like any other.  Their raw material is an agricultural product, not toxic waste that is otherwise unusable.

With all the spinning going on these days it's no wonder a lot of people are a bit dizzy.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: listerboy on January 02, 2008, 07:32:45 PM
Interesting article about bio-fuels causing the price of food to go up.

 http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1231/p13s01-wogi.html
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Reno Speedster on July 03, 2008, 06:36:35 AM
Wow, I missed out on this one when it came out.  I have not read all the posts (11 pages at the moment) but the first few pages were full of an attitude that just drives me nuts.  The whole "companies owe it to their stock holders to maximize profit" argument is a shining example of exactly what is wrong with this country.  Not only is it the corporate equivalent to "I was just following orders," a phrase which removed all personal responsibility for a generation of tyrants and their lackeys, but it shows just how screwed up our priorities have become.  The individual has been replaced by the corporation (and profit) in America's political and economic calculations. 

Now I am not saying that profit is bad, only that profit made from the destruction of the American economy, environment and citizenry is incredibly short sighted.  Our economy became great because workers made a wage large enough to buy American products.  With the rise of international corporations and the quest for profit above all else, the American economy is being mined for profits by closing American production, laying off workers and importing goods made over-seas.  Eventually, American's will no longer have any money to buy these goods anymore, then what will we do?  This is not a problem for international corporations, when Americans can no longer afford to buy foreign goods and the American economy is in the dumper, they will set up cheap manufacturing plants here to make goods to sell to the Chinese (or who ever else has all the money at that point). 

Personally, I don't see why anyone would be willing participate in this system.  It’s stealing from yourself for the sake of a relatively small profit (assuming that you are actually in the stock market).  Where are you going to live with all the money you make in the stock market when the American economy is in the dumper, when you cant drink the water or breathe the air?  WHo do you think is going to employ you?  What are you going to do when the middle class disappears and the newly poor majority actually get pissed and politically involved (or worse, abandon politics for more direct action).

What we need is the realization that maximizing profits alone is not a company’s sole duty.  They have a duty to their workers and to the communities they work in.  We need to stop thinking that companies have the same rights as people.  People are far more important than companies.  For example, why on god's green earth do we actually give tax breaks to companies who move American jobs and production overseas?  Under what possible logic is taking away American jobs and loosing the tax base a good idea for anyone but international corporations?  Why are we actually paying oil companies millions tax dollars when they are making record profits?    Do you actually think that they need your money to get along?  Yeah gads!   We need to start using a little enlightened self-interest here and make sure that we are voting and acting in our own interest, not acting as the ignorant lackeys of someone else’s profits.

Is profit the highest good?  If you think they are, you have some pretty screwed up priorities....or you work for Exxon or the like.

Rant over.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: biobill on July 11, 2008, 03:18:53 PM
Quote from: Reno Speedster
why on god's green earth do we actually give tax breaks to companies who move American jobs and production overseas?  Under what possible logic is taking away American jobs and loosing the tax base a good idea for anyone but international corporations?  Why are we actually paying oil companies millions tax dollars when they are making record profits?
Yea, why would we?  "We", being citizens and voters, wouldn't. But with the corporate control of  the Republican and Democratic parties, they simply give it to themselves. And with the corporate control of the mainstream media, third (fourth, fifth?) party candidates are simply invisible.  Sure would be nice to see Ralph Nader, Ron Paul and others on the debate platform with B.O. and J.M.  Perhaps the discussion might turn to things that really matter.
          Bill
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on July 11, 2008, 03:52:38 PM
Someday things will change when you the American people are realy mad ( and I think that day is near ).

All you nice American people need t do is finaly Vote for that Nader or Paul fellow on mass and the winds will blow and foundations and networks will crack and the entire political landscape will change forever.

The ball is entirely in your court
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: rmchambers on July 11, 2008, 05:28:29 PM
I'd have thought that the general populace would have been mad by now but while Rome burns all that the general public cares about is American Idol.

The desecration of the 4th amendment got passed yesterday with nary a whimper.  What will it take to make everyone mad enough to do something?  I really don't know but it had better happen soon while there's still something left.

It is in our court, but the problem is everyone is at the mall.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: mkdutchman on July 11, 2008, 06:02:42 PM
The desecration of the 4th amendment got passed yesterday with nary a whimper.  What will it take to make everyone mad enough to do something?  I really don't know but it had better happen soon while there's still something left

what bill is that? I was googling all over for it......
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: biobill on July 11, 2008, 06:49:01 PM
FISA.   
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/fisa.html

Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: mkdutchman on July 11, 2008, 08:44:08 PM
Someday things will change when you the American people are realy mad ( and I think that day is near ).

All you nice American people need t do is finaly Vote for that Nader or Paul fellow on mass and the winds will blow and foundations and networks will crack and the entire political landscape will change forever.

The ball is entirely in your court

I suspect that'll happen once bo gets in.......people will realize then how good they had it now
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: biobill on July 14, 2008, 05:57:21 AM
Quote from: mkdutchman
I suspect that'll happen once bo gets in.......people will realize then how good they had it now
Can't imagine remembering the last 8 yrs as the Good Old Days no matter who gets elected, but I don't blame that entirely on the Bush/Cheney regime. With very few individual exceptions, congress has been totally complicit. More likely I'll think back to the days when the Bill of Rights was intact, when the budget was balanced, when we weren't fighting wars for fabricated reasons, when torture was beneath us, and when we could count on the investigations of the press/media to keep the politicians somewhat honest.
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: mkdutchman on July 15, 2008, 11:57:12 AM
No, I can't remember the last 8 years being the "good ol days" either,  :) I meant more along the lines of "it'll get worse before it gets better"...............politics are depressing just now, but then again nothing last forever
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: mobile_bob on July 15, 2008, 06:52:03 PM
the good old days?

well some folks don't think of the last 8 as the good old days,
i remember the 8 years of the clintons as not being the good old days (at least to me)
the 4 years of bush one, wasn't without some issues of course
the 8 years of reagan (i will comment on that later)
jimmy carter? give me a break!

nixon, johnson, ?  i wouldn't put that block of time in the "good old days" catagory either.

so for the last 40 or 50 years, we only had reagans time in office as the good old days,
and yes they were good times indeed!

just remember folks, GW might not be perfect,, but things can be a hell of a lot worse
and probably will be in the next 4 years.

probably a good time to plant a bigger garden and put a few more holes in the old belt?

things are not going to be the same no matter what happens or who gets in office, this correction
is going to have deep and long repercussions that will last for the next several generations.

bob g
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: MacGyver on July 15, 2008, 06:58:40 PM

probably a good time to plant a bigger garden and put a few more holes in the old belt?

Yes,  think a belt with more holes in it sounds appropriate.

Something like this....

http://www.cabelas.com/hprod-1/0031435.shtml
Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: captfred on July 15, 2008, 10:55:13 PM
As bad as Carter was, ponder his proposed energy policy for America - April 1977 - Where would we be today if we had gone down this path 30 years ago.

"The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.

The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.

The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.

The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century."

here's a link to the whole speech http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html

Immediately after His inauguration, President Reagan removed the solar panels from the roof of the White House and changed the direction of our nation's energy policy down the path we followed to where we are today.

Of course, President Carter's weak response to Iran's attack on the US (hostages) has caused profound ,lasting  problems with middle eastern nations - thats a whole other can of worms. 

And even President  Reagan, through the Reagan Corollary followed the tenants of the Carter Doctrine; both the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Corollary  lead to our action in both Gulf War I and Gulf War II.

Never mind the politics - vilify where it is deserved but give credit where credit is due - we would live in a very different world if Carter's dream was pursued. (FWIW - I voted for Reagan).

Fred

Title: Re: Tyson- Conoco/Phillips Biodiesel politics
Post by: Doug on July 16, 2008, 01:54:01 AM
Peanut farmer was smart man but America wanted a man who could act like a president rather than think like one.

Don't feel bad we screwed over some smart men too ( Joe Who ? ) that had good ideas.

There are however smart men with good ideas who will never be leaders in the tradtional sence. SOme guy like that might have his ideas hijacked by the mainstream and never get elected leader in your country too ( T Douglas )