Monday, 22 September 2008
Tuesday, 16 September 2008
click on to drill or not to drill
I'm not a fan of the interviewer's technique and opinionated ranting about opec members, he's fuelling the masses-using his position to properganda proportions
a mile...
The measurement known as a mile is a vestige of the Roman Empire's rule over Britain. At this time, the Romans had a measurement known as mille pasuum (ME-lay PA-soo-em), or a thousand paces. A pace comprised five, possibly sandal shod, Roman feet. Using a simple mathematical calculation, we arrive at 5,000 feet per mile.
The demise of the Roman Empire left the Britons in a quandary. They now had a mile, consisting of 5,000 feet, and their own agricultural measurement, the furlong, used to measure the farmers' fields for the purpose of property deeds, etc. Instead of using the Roman foot in calculating the measure of a furlong, they used the distance a horse could pull a plow, in a linear fashion, before the nag needed a nap. They agreed that this measurement consisted 660 feet.
Now came the dilemma. The British wished to marry the furlong to the mile, but, as they wanted a mile to comprise eight furlongs, totaling 5,280 feet, instead of the Roman 5,000 feet per mile, they had no choice but to select one of the two. Not surprisingly, they chose their measurement over the Roman measurement because, as property deeds at the time were measured in furlongs, or 660 feet, a change to the Roman measurement would short the farmer or landowner.
from http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/mile.asp
in response to alleged deep wells in russia
What is the diameter of the earth?
The diameter of the earth at the equator is 7,926.41 miles (12,756.32 kilometers).But, if you measure the earth through the poles the diameter is a bit shorter - 7,901 miles (12,715.43 km). Thus the earth is a tad wider (25 miles / 41 km) than it is tall, giving it a slight bulge at the equator. This shape is known as an ellipsoid or more properly, geoid (earth-like).
Sunday, 31 August 2008
from listening to a man in a field to....
Obama, that bloke hoping to be a president of the USof A made an acceptance speech. I couldn't be arsed to stay up and watch it, so I let some very nice people edit it and screen it for me via the news the following day. Within their edit they included the bit that Obama said
"
And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: in 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
"
The day before Ob's speech I'd watched A Crude Awakening. Within it were references to the US of A's fule usage. I thought, how the hell is Ob proposing to do this seemingly impossible thing. He continued after the quoted line to say
"
Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last 30 years, and John McCain has been there for 26 of them. In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.
Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.
As president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies retool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest $150bn over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.
"
Ob has hit upon something that is dicussed within the Peak Oil discussion.
My issue with the 10 year clain is that he'll only possibly be in office for 8 years and he'll need to purseude the good ol american people to use less petroleum.
The notion of Peak Oil began in the US of A in 1956, it was not taken seriously and ignored for 20 years. With time, it's possible to look back and say, "hell that professor bloke was right."
I can't be arsed with American politics, coz it's just like the UK, just bigger and even worse.
What the West needs is some strong leadership that does something about the situation, rather than reacting to soemthing already going on.
I believe that Peak Oil is real enough to need to take seriously now. If we don't, there will be a hell of a shock sometime in the future where we are told there are only a few years of crude oil left.
Thursday, 3 July 2008
found on MSN website today...
Darling says oil price "real problem"
© REUTERS2008
LONDON (Reuters) - The oil price is a real problem and production needs to rise, Chancellor Alistair Darling said on Thursday.
In a radio interview with the BBC, Darling said high oil prices were feeding inflationary pressures not just in Britain but around the world.
"Oil was yesterday over $140 a barrel. When you consider that a year ago it was half that, this is a real problem for us," he said.
"We have got to ensure two things I think. One is that we can increase production of oil in the short term but also in the longer term we have got to reduce our dependency, particularly for our country, on imported levels of oil and gas."
(Reporting by Sumeet Desai and Jeremy Lovell; editing by Mike Peacock)
Thursday, 19 June 2008
some 'mainstream media people' put their bit in about ANWR
"as long as we depend on oil, we'll depend on foreign governements for oil" some woman from the telly.
peak oil, some "informed" debate
ANWR is the northern part of Alaska
