Iran playing with fire?

A318 · Post by **A318** » 08 Aug 2005, 21:43

Just saw the news today and was actualy shocked by the news that Iran just starts uranium procuction again.
Again pressure between the middle east and the west.
Is this going to affect aviation again by (even) higher oil prices then we already have?
Do we get more security now since for sure the 'political' pressure will get higher?
I wished this thing was over some day, back to normal again, normal aviation and normal oil prices

B744skipper · Post by **B744skipper** » 09 Aug 2005, 09:23

On RTLZ they just report that oil-experts think that oil-prices off $68-$70 could be reached within a few weeks, and on the long term oil-prices that are 70 to 100 times as high as we have now. 8O
The problem is that oil-production can't keep up with the oil demand, this means that we need more oil-processing plants in order to speed things up (and get prices down again).
I think it is worth mentioning that Canada also has very large oil-reserves, but there need to be new ways of gaining that oil, and also new ways to process it. But this also comes with a price, and it takes times to develop all this new methods, something oil-companies have neglected for years.

Iran playing with fire?

No, Iran knows that the European Union is to weak (military as politically) to take any serious action against the country, and the US is engaged in Iraq so they do also not pose a imminent treath (although I think they should send some B-2/F-117's over to secure the western world).

ryanvsnow · Post by **ryanvsnow** » 09 Aug 2005, 16:49

B744skipper wrote:
The problem is that oil-production can't keep up with the oil demand, this means that we need more oil-processing plants in order to speed things up (and get prices down again).

You are quite correct sir. What some don't realize is that over time the oil stations that we used in the 60's and 70's have naturally replenished them selves. The US has a good bit of these but won't use them. Now before you go to blame Bush for this let me inform you that when Bush took office, he proposed to congress an energy plan that would utilise these old wells. The US Congress voted it down because they felt it would destroy the wildlife areas that have been form around these areas that have not been in use for some time. They also stated that it would take 4 to 6 years to even see a change in oil prices. Well its been 5 since the plan was proposed, if it wasn't for those idiots we could be seeing lower oil prices here in the US. I know that the oil in the US would solve the problem but it could help.

Sabena_690 · Post by **Sabena_690** » 09 Aug 2005, 21:13

b744skipper wrote:The problem is that oil-production can't keep up with the oil demand, this means that we need more oil-processing plants in order to speed things up

You can also look at it from the other side: reduce the number of energy you need by investing in energy-friendly technologies.

The real problem at the moment is China and India, where the economy is booming. The sad thing is, however, that they don't know or don't want to invest in our energy-friendly technologies. So we can talk about a serious waste of oil and resources in those countries.

About Iran: looking at their current 'government', I don't predict a good evolution. Nuclear weapons have to stay out of their hands, and I hope for positive evolutions in the talks between the EU-US and Iran.

Frederic

TCAS_climb · Post by **TCAS_climb** » 09 Aug 2005, 22:33

Make no mistake, the building blocks for an attack in Iran are beginning to be put into place. Dubbya hasn't made up his mind yet but his generals are busy preparing the battle plans.

ryanvsnow · Post by **ryanvsnow** » 10 Aug 2005, 23:24

Here is an idea:
Alot of your homes energy is wasted through windows. That is why there are so many energy efficient windows out today. If you want to save on enery just wall-up your windows. What do you need them for? If you want fresh air go out side. This would greatly reduse your personal energy costs.

av8or_guy · Post by **av8or_guy** » 11 Aug 2005, 00:10

ryanvsnow? what the hell does that mean? close your windows and use more electricity? id say make larger windows to minimize the use of lights till sundown.
and about china and india not doing much about energy?
what the hell are you talking about?
india has just agreed to build the largest oil refinery and reactort in the world as well as another nuclear power plant for elctricity
just my 2 cents

av8or_guy

A318 · Post by **A318** » 11 Aug 2005, 22:07

As I can see we are looking at some problems now. Today oil prices raised again to (for a moment) over the $60 a barrel, you can probably see this tommorow on your gas price

Do you know what my problem is, I am willing to buy a car on LPG (Liquid Propane Gas) to lower my costs and to avoid driving 50.000 km a year in my diesel. I got this car 6 months and will lose a huge amount of money, who is going to pay all this.........................me

So I have to keep on driving for two more years before I will buy another car. Why is the governement not supporting people that want to stop driving diesel and give them some kind of discount on the LPG car? That would make a huge difference in the smog hanging in our skies.
I will keep on dreaming I guess

About Iran, just solve the problem with talking this time to avoid a huge mess between the west and the middle east.
Howver I have to say I am not so positive minded about the Iranian president right now.

Erwin

B744skipper · Post by **B744skipper** » 12 Aug 2005, 10:20

A318 wrote:So I have to keep on driving for two more years before I will buy another car. Why is the government not supporting people that want to stop driving diesel and give them some kind of discount on the LPG car? That would make a huge difference in the smog hanging in our skies. I will keep on dreaming I guess

Whahaha, are you really that naive? Our Dutch government is making huge sums of money everyday with the taxes on diesel and gasolin. And when people would be switching to LPG instead this cash-flow would dry up. I've wondered this also myself more often, but "they" are just after our cash.

A318 wrote:About Iran, just solve the problem with talking this time to avoid a huge mess between the west and the Middle East.
However I have to say I am not so positive minded about the Iranian president right now.

Apart from the fact that I always was convinced that our western governments do not negotiate with terrorists (because Iran and N-Korea are blackmailing the west with their nuclear weapons, in order to get benefits).

I think we should not make the same mistake again (Munich 1938, does it ring a bell?, Europe’s finest hour

), we all know that we can't trust totalitarian regimes:

Democracy in Europe at it's darkest hour.

Signed treaties with those countries are worth nothing, like with the weak democratic countries in Europe during the 30's, Iran also breached the contract that it had with European countries (by starting up their nuclear-facilities again). We all know where these blind trusts of dictators have led to.

"Ze stonden erbij en keken ernaar" (they stood with it and looked at it).

Don't mistake me, I do not advocate a war, but I do advocate that the western countries show force against Iran so that the message in the world will be understood that we won't let us be blackmailed by countries that think they can frighten us with their nukes (the only reason why N-Korea and Iran are doing nukes, is because they know that they can extort aid from the west by it, thus we are helping keeping their regimes in power).

regi · Post by **regi** » 07 Sep 2005, 00:06

as far as I know, Iran doesn't ask for help. The only reason a country would develop nuclear weapons these days is to protect itself against the only nation which used nuclear weapons against civilians.
Why did we not see military intervention in India or Pakiastan or Israël?
Iran is not at war with a western nation. There is not 1 conflict going on with that nation. Why do we feel as westerners threatened by Iran?
now some facts to stirr up the conversation again:

we get on the wrong track again.
facts:
there is only 1 nation that used nuclear arms, also called weapons of mass destruction, against civilians. And this nation is still proud about that fact today.
there is only 1 nation which threatened several times to use again nuclear weapons against other nations even if that other nation was not threatening that nation with nuclear arms. Iraq was the latest example. During the second gulf war and the beginning of the anihilation of the iraqi civilians the military said bluntly during public communiqés that they would use any means of retaliation if Saddam would use nuclear, biological or nuclear arms. History has shown he didn't have those anymore.
there is a nation that calls itself the only super power but doesn't succeed to give its own citizens the very basics of life such as water, food, shelter.
If we look at one of the main basics of that nation,democracy, we have to consider the fact that their president was appointed by a judge and not by elections after fraudulous elections, in which All Gore had more votes by the way.
the general life expactancy in the totalitarian state of Cuba is higher than in that nation that proclaims to be a democracy. If we look at the kind of language that its inhabitants speak , we may conclude that the inhabitans of this only super power have a literacy rate which is also miles below that of Cuba.
other facts?
It is the nation which suddenly made a special law restricting passenger planes carrying more than 600 passengers. Strangely enough this law came into action after Airbus decided to go ahead with the A380.
It is the nation which went to kill deliberately several millions of innoscent civilans after an incident at the Tonkin Bay, which turned out to be a complete hoax. Not one of its killers or responsables was brought to an international tribunal. Its soldiers who suffered from Agent Orange were awarded damages. But the civilians who suffered the same damages were rejected 1 penny, during a trial just some months ago.
It is the nation which invaded 2 american nations: Grenada and Panama. Since those invasions the general statistics as income pro capita, literacy rate, life expectancy have gone down in those countries.
Dear members, these are just some facts. Before we start to glorify one or other nation, we have to think about the facts.
Before you call me a commie , do your homework and try to find 1 fact I mentioned which is doubtful.

regi · Post by **regi** » 07 Sep 2005, 00:30

to make it short: yes, Iran is playing with fire. No doubt about it that they will be bombarded to the Stone Age, as Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq.

russianboy · Post by **russianboy** » 07 Sep 2005, 04:25

dont forget hirosima!

chunk · Post by **chunk** » 07 Sep 2005, 05:29

ryanvsnow wrote:
B744skipper wrote:
The problem is that oil-production can't keep up with the oil demand, this means that we need more oil-processing plants in order to speed things up (and get prices down again).

You are quite correct sir. What some don't realize is that over time the oil stations that we used in the 60's and 70's have naturally replenished them selves. The US has a good bit of these but won't use them. Now before you go to blame Bush for this let me inform you that when Bush took office, he proposed to congress an energy plan that would utilise these old wells. The US Congress voted it down because they felt it would destroy the wildlife areas that have been form around these areas that have not been in use for some time. They also stated that it would take 4 to 6 years to even see a change in oil prices. Well its been 5 since the plan was proposed, if it wasn't for those idiots we could be seeing lower oil prices here in the US. I know that the oil in the US would solve the problem but it could help.

With an oil well, you are seriously mistaken if you think they have 'replenished themselves'. That may happen in about 1,000,000 years or so but not in 30 years! What is more likely is that exploration or possibly even old production wells that have been plugged for not being commercially viable (due to low production rates and smaller reservoirs) with an oil price of $15 per barrel are suddenly viable again for oil companies at $70 per barrel. I know at the moment one of the largest global oil majors (sorry - it is a customer of mine so cant say who) will not consider a project if it costs more than $25 per barrel to get out of the ground - hence if the price was $15 they wouldn't be exploiting it. That said you can see who is cleaning up at the moment. The US government has no interest in bringing oil prices down as far as they can as they have too much potential revenue to lose (in some cases personally) but at the same time has to balance that with an inevitable slowdown in the economy due to high prices. In other words they need to keep the demand for cars and energy in general high in order to keep the economy moving.

As for those pesky environmentalists.....how dare they right. I mean fancy wanting to protect wildlife and the environment and at least attempt to slow down global warming. Even the oil companies acknowledge its importance - Katrina just emphasised the point. The real problems could be helped by making sure vehicles such as Hummers and other such things are not economically viable. For that matter things like DC9's, 732's, DC-10's or other equally inefficent machines should be taken out ofthe sky. That would more or less shut down one major US airline and hurt another one mind you. Still if airline companies in Europe had to remove them from the fleet for noise reasons, replace them and still be profitable then there is no reason that shouldnt happen to the US right? Even for cargo - these gas guzzling monsters should go. I am in Texas at the moment and folk want sympathy that their fuel is $3 a gallon?!!! Try $8 lads and then we can talk. Even if congress had passed the drilling plan you would not be seeing any difference to the situation at present - it would take at least 3 years for the wells to come on stream and even then production would increase slowly. Remember that the current price is driven by China, India and Katrina.

I happen to think that we are just seeing things get to the price they should be. Yes demand from India and China is driving it but is this not the free market we are supposed to subscribe to? Supply and demand and all that? Actually production is not the problem - refining capacity is and Katrina took out 10% of the US refining capacity - hence oil market jitters. Even in the oil rich UAE the price of fuel went up 20% last week - it was heavily subsidised and probably still is. Fuel should NOT be subsidised - food isn't generally so why fuel? Spend the money looking for alternatives 'cos its going to be required sooner rather than later.

As for Iran....Regi hit the nail on the head - I dont need to repeat him. The only addition would be what kind of countries should have nuclear arms? How come its ok for Israel to have them and not anyone else? Wierd eh? You can;t even use the argument that they are a country less likely to use them than Iran because as Regi points out only one ever has....doesn;t really lead to a convincing case for the prosecution does it. You know - i suspect if that ridiculous sanction shite was removed then this problem would go away...but one is a stubborn as the other. Sanctions have never been an effective tool 'cos they punish the public - not the decision makers and problem creators.

Thats my oil econ lesson over for tonight.

A318 · Post by **A318** » 07 Sep 2005, 21:04

regi wrote:
there is only 1 nation that used nuclear arms, also called weapons of mass destruction, against civilians. And this nation is still proud about that fact today.

It ended the 2nd world war which made it possible for us to be born and comment that act now!!!!

there is a nation that calls itself the only super power but doesn't succeed to give its own citizens the very basics of life such as water, food, shelter.

This is mentioned also by some terrorist leaders which is way out of line!

Nobody ever expected this disaster to happen when Katrina came around.
I was there when it hit Florida as a category 1 hurricane and I can assure you that they are very much prepared when a hurricane comes around. This is all better organised then we could ever imagine, just go there in August/September to see what I mean.
By the way now you are talking about it, only 13% of the US citizens blame the Bush government for the late action, almost half of the US citizens says nobody is to blame for such a disaster, this is called nature.

chunk · Post by **chunk** » 07 Sep 2005, 23:54

Not wishing to get off topic but WW2 was pretty much over anyway when that nuke was dropped IIRC. Or at least the second one was unnecessary at any rate. Raed a book called the Prize - by Daniel Yergin to read how oil was instrumental in the end of WW2 - not nukes. Japan was so oil starved the war couldn;t have continued much longer anyway.

As for the dig about not being able to supply the goods to the victims as required.....

Ultimately those facts are true whether it is Regi or a terrorist group that says them. That is why the state and federal governments here are getting pulvarised by the people and the media (except fox news obviously!). I haved been with Republican voters in Texas this week that have been appalled by the lack of action. End of story. Just because a terrorist group is trying to make cheap capital out of the situation doesn't mean the situation isn't happening.

I am not sure where you get your figures from - 13% don't blame the bush government? TV networks here are indicating otherwise - and lets face it the US media isn't exactly quick to criticise this administration normally. No-one can do anything about a hurricane - so how come only 50% said that....strange no? This is not a 3rd world economy - rescue went to the tsunami victims in difficult 3rd world locations quicker than it did to Nw Orleans. Disgraceful. And nowt to do with Iran.

regi · Post by **regi** » 08 Sep 2005, 12:26

We Europeans do not have to be thankful to live because the USA dropped 2 A-bombs on Japan. The war in Europe was over months before.
It is frightening to read how citizens of the so called only super power have an absolute lack of historical knowledge.
About the fact that this super power nation cannot/doesn't want to help its citizens you come up with terrorists. It is plain simple: if all those guys of the national guard who were called up for a extra territorial dispute in Iraq would have been active in and around the disaster zone, there would not have died 30 people in an elderly home. The national guard is to protect the nation and its inhabitants, in peace or wartimes, in emergencies and natural disasters. It didn't do its job.
What we see happening now the latest days is that the state of emergency has been implemented in 8 other states , together with the shoot to kill policy. This smells like a military coup.

regi · Post by **regi** » 08 Sep 2005, 12:31

and it sickens me that police men and employees of agencies ask for mental help because they cannot cope with the situation. If it was to shoot looters, they would lock & load and say "let's get them" and go for a stampede accross the swamps. But to help people? No, that is too stressful.

A318 · Post by **A318** » 08 Sep 2005, 22:11

The 13% figure was mentioned on our dutch news (NOS) after a european held poll in the United States, so this was not coming from an American media source.
Believe me when I say the dutch media is not in favor of the Bush administration and would never make this public when it was for example mentioned by fox news.
But somehow we went completly off topic again.

regi · Post by **regi** » 10 Sep 2005, 00:59

Iran and aviation: it faces big problems because the only super power imposed sanctions against Iran many years ago. Many people don't even remember why the sanctions were imposed. Iran wanted to buy new Airbus planes. But because there is so much american technology build in an Airbus, the deal didn't get through.
I know people who flew Mahan Air and they were pretty happy about it.
read www.ciao.de
It is one of the few airlines where you are allowed as an economy passenger to use the business lounge during transit. This is not the case with Delta, NW, AA or another super power airline.