![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
Got in yesterday, had a tough time getting over this pneumonia like pattern of coughing and bronchial congestion - feeling better today.
Back on April 22nd, I arrived out at the site of the explosion via crew boat late at night, and took this blurry image of the rig burning in the distance.
These are iphone images since my nice camera would've been too revealing to management. Project supervisors have an eagle eye on workers for these things as BP doesn't want unregulated information being disseminated to the public. It was explained to me that people would take photo's and worker comments out of context; due to ignorance or the desire to spin anti-BP commentary to the activists, without a BP representative to explain what a photo was showing - right.
The first two days I filmed with my video camera, but was caught by the crewman and told that it wasn't allowed - I would sneak video from time to time regardless. (When my wife gets done eating crawfish I'll post some video, I'll upload the video's to utube - have to do it on her laptop)
The vessel I was on was a (I will leave out the company name) 300 ton ship designed to skim oil and store a 4000 barrel capacity. There are multiple barges out there that skimming boats offload too when full. We carry a 660' boom (a long snake like series of air filled bladders) with a heavy weighted chain, 6' in vertical height, and all of which is pulled by a smaller boat called the "Monson." The Monson pulls the boom around the starboard side (the vessels right side) into a J shape configuration. This directs the oil towards the back of the boom where it forms a pocket that the transwreck - skimmer - sucks up the oil into the storage tanks. A industrial hygienist takes frequent readings for H2S gas, VOC's, and benzene - on multiple occasions the levels were at dangerous levels, but were modified to skew the results so respirators weren't worn when they should've been. VOC's of 60 and 120 ppm. There were times you'd come out from inside the ship and the fumes coming off the ocean would give you a headache. I tried to stay inside for the most part as my duty was to be available if a oil worker became sick or injured. I was the lead medic in the spill zone.
(Boom rolled up on the ships spool - it would take about an hour to unroll)
(Monson boat stored on deck up under the helo deck)
- Night operations weren't allowed due to safety, and the boat had to be pulled back on deck each evening.
(My onboard clinic)
(Boom deployed)
(Me in the clinic - no time to smile while surrounded by oil)
(Rib boat, response boat that is used to scout out the slick)
(Oil in boom)
(Oil in the pocket)
After a day of skimming there is a decon zone setup between the back part of the deck and where workers come back into the ship. They wear tyvex suits that are shredded when coming back through decon, a bucket of diesel fuel is used to remove oil and then soaps to scrub off the the rest. The whole deck is frequently covered in sea water and oil. Very messy, very smelly.
(Decon area)
A bird, covered in oil on the lower half, showed up on the second day to take a moment of respite on the deck. It would later die.
No environment rescue boats are allowed in the zone - fuckers
. BP has the policy that all workers are to have a "hands off" view of all birds and marine life. We did rescue a brown pelican covered in oil on the last day out since it was caught in the boom zone, but the crew members took their time about it. The poor bird covered in oil sat in a box for 6 hrs plus time on a crew boat - they refused a helicopter (despite the fact there is a helicopter that flies over every 2 mins in the area at all times). 
I have no clue where it was sent or how it fared. Hopefully they sent it to Venice where several groups are there to clean birds.
There were frequent migratory birds from South America that showed up on the decks covered in oil or were overcome with the petrol fumes. Their corpses popped up all over the place.
Marine life, like a pod of dolphins, were swiming in and out of the oil, lots of jelly fish covered in oil. The extent of the damage there goes unseen due to the nature of the sea - a hidden locker full of mystery.
Now going out to the oil spill I expected images of what I remembered back when the Exxon Valdez spilled those millions up in Alaska decades ago. What I found out was that oil has multiple characteristics as it becomes aged by sea, wind, and air - and not all of it skimmable. Mitigation efforts have ranged the gambit of skimming, burning, and spraying these damn dispersant's. While dispersant's may remove the visible aspect of a oil spill they cause oil to miscilize - rather than simply disappearing - and sink further down into the water column. It doesn't make it go away, it's still in the marine environment, but they would rather have there than wash up on the beaches. What's out there is a mix of traditional black "honey" oil that floats on the surface in a traditional slick, to a reddish goo, small chunks that look like diarrhea, or a rainbow colored sheen. Skimming boats want the kind that floats, the honey oil (I think they get money for every barrel they recover), but the other kind of oil - the vast majority - is not really skimmable since it doesn't congeal in the boom pocket to skim up. That oil will eventually sink to the sea floor or wash up on the beaches.
(Honey oil)
Once the oil filled up our holding tanks, 4000 barrels, we would head over to the barge (usually at night) to offload.
Before filling up our tanks we would periodically decant the oil - to remove the oil - and get a better product mix. This would involve bilging the water that's usually below the oil to pump off the ship and back in the ocean. Most of the 10 big skimming ships were sent to the incident site, near the leak, to get the good skimmable oil while the coast guard worked the spill further out with dispersant's and occasionally burning it. We were putting away about 24,000 barrels each day (I don't have the exact figures) and still not keeping up with the oil (from what I could tell) - so that should tell you something about what's being released.
Often other skimming boats, much smaller than us, would come over and unload their oil to our boat.
Meanwhile, there were large ships at the incident site that were constantly sending down ROV's, a large platform was towed to the site where the dome boxes were lowered to the leak - and would later fail.
Most of the skimming operations have to shutdown in seas over 4', so all ten of the 300T vessels head into the Mississippi everytime the weather is bad. This leaves the oil pumping out for days at a time without any mitigation.
OK, I could ramble on, but I would rather field some questions. Especially since I'm dealing with another issue at the moment.
Push for BP to Halt Dividends Hits Resistance in Britain
By JULIA WERDIGIER
Published: June 10, 2010
BP’s shares, which are widely held by pension funds here, dropped 7 percent in London on Thursday because of concerns about the costs for the oil cleanup. The shares have fallen more than 40 percent since the fatal explosion at the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in April, wiping more than £50 billion, or $73 billion, from the company’s market value.
Shares, however, were 11.9 percent higher Thursday in New York trading after falling 15.8 percent on Wednesday. The drop came after lawmakers in Washington called on BP to suspend its dividend and advertising campaign to pay for the cleanup, and a senior official said the Justice Department was “planning to take action.”
Investors in Britain were particularly furious about the suggestions that BP should not pay a dividend until it cleaned up the oil spill. BP’s dividend payment accounted for about £1 of every £8 handed out by British companies last year, according to FairPensions, a London-based charity.
Most shareholders rejected concerns that the costs of a cleanup and possible damages could force BP into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and said the drop in the share price is not justified by the value of BP’s assets.
“BP has many problems in the U.S.,” Justin Urquhart Stewart, co-founder of Seven Investment Management in London, said. “One of them is that it has the word British in its title.”
In a statement on Thursday, the company reiterated that stopping the oil leak, cleaning up the spill and dealing with damage claims remained its top priority, and that it had a “significant capacity and flexibility in dealing with the cost of responding to the incident, the environmental remediation and the payment of legitimate claims.”
Regarding its recent drop in the stock markets, BP said it “is not aware of any reason which justifies this share price movement.”
BP earned more than $16 billion last year. In the first quarter of 2010 its profit more than doubled to $6.08 billion from $2.56 billion a year earlier on higher oil prices, the company said in April.
BP has said it would decide next month whether to keep the quarterly dividend at 14 cents a share for the second quarter. Last year, the company paid about $10.5 billion in dividends.
The cost of the response to the oil spill has reached about $1.43 billion, BP said Thursday, adding it was “too earlier to quantify other potential costs and liabilities associated with the incident.”
The company told investors last week that it had $5 billion cash on hand and that it was generating “significant additional cash flow” as the price of oil remains above $60 a barrel. BP had 18 billion barrels of proved reserves and 63 billion barrels of resources at the end of last year, it said.
Iain Armstrong, an analyst at investment manager Brewin Dolphin in London agreed with BP that the company has enough money to pay for the cleanup efforts and also rejected any potential concern that the company might not be able to pay for its debt.
“It’s gotten completely out of hand,” Mr. Armstrong said. “It’s a totally overpoliticized situation. There is a disconnect between reality and BP being totally lambasted.”
“Ironically, by being extremely strong financially, BP has become a target here,” he said. Mr. Armstrong said that President Obama should not forget that 40 percent of BP shares are owned by United States shareholders. “So he’s not doing them any favors either,” he said.
Peter Hitchens, a research analyst at Panmure Gordon in London, said most analysts and investors in Britain are “more relaxed” about the future of BP than their American counterparts partly because of the geographic distance. “We don’t have all the press coverage that’s over there and we’re further away from U.S. politics,” he said. “We have a more rational view.”
Indeed some investors said they see the recent decline in BP’s share price as a buying opportunity. But as oil continues to spew into the Gulf of Mexico they also acknowledge that while BP would probably be able to pay for the cleanup costs, the real question is whether it would be able to weather the political storm.
In a report Thursday, the International Energy Agency said the ongoing oil spill could prove to be a “game changer” because it could restrict future undersea oil development and limit supply.
“Emotion is understandably running high, and the way deepwater hydrocarbon developments are approved, operated and regulated will of course be thoroughly examined and potentially amended,” the agency said in its monthly oil market report.
Mr. Hitchens said the situations has now “gone beyond what’s rational” and some investors might start to fear that BP could be kicked out of the United States.
London’s mayor, Boris Johnson, said Thursday that the drop in BP’s shares was slowly becoming a political issue in Britain.
“When you consider the huge exposure of British pension funds to BP and the BP share price and the vital importance of BP then I do think it starts to become a matter of national concern if a great British company is being continually beaten up on international airwaves,” he told BBC Radio Thursday.
“What people forget is that if anyone breaks a pipeline, you’d thank god that it was a company that can actually pay for it,” Mr. Urquhart Stewart said.
Some business leaders on Thursday urged the British government to come to BP’s defense.
But Reuters quoted Prime Minister David Cameron as saying, “This is an environmental catastrophe. BP needs to do everything it can to deal with the situation, and the U.K. government stands ready to help. I completely understand the U.S. government’s frustration.”
Earlier, a spokeswoman for Mr. Cameron said the prime minister would be discussing the issue with President Obama in a weekend telephone call.
David Jolly contributed reporting from Paris.
Drums PA
June 10th, 2010
Wayne County Commission to sell notes to cover bills
Emergency $60-million bond deal necessary, some say
BY KATHLEEN GRAY • FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER • August 7, 2009
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Newsvine
Facing payless paydays, the Wayne County Commission voted Thursday to sell $60 million in tax anticipation notes to cover its bills until Sept. 30.
The 14-1 vote came despite concerns from commissioners that they weren't alerted to the problem of the possible cash shortfall until Wednesday. Comissioner Jewel Ware, D-Detroit, voted against the bonding request.
"This is a crisis," said Commissioner Bernard Parker, D-Detroit. "We cannot just have business as usual. Some adjustments need to be made right now."
For the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano needs to resolve a $105-million deficit and has asked employees to take 12 unpaid furlough days and contribute 5% more for health care premiums.
The county also needs to resolve a $37-million cash shortfall by Sept. 30. Wayne County Chief Financial Officer Carla Sledge asked commissioners to approve the $60-million bond for the current fiscal year and $100 million for next year.
The commission declined to support the $100-million bonding request.
Sledge disputed that the county was facing payless paydays, but said cash flow was "really tight."
J.P. Morgan Chase is to hold the $60-million notes for 120 days, when the county expects it will be able to repay the money from property tax due in mid-September.
"We could probably squeak by," Sledge said. "We're just taking precautionary measures."
The county is to pay J.P. Morgan Chase $60,000 to handle the tax anticipation notes, which also are to carry a 3% interest rate, costing the county $1.8 million.
Contact KATHLEEN GRAY: 313-223-4407
or kgray99@freepress.comwww.freep.com/article/20090807/NEWS06/90
I am all for downsizing government as a way to balance the budget. It is horrible to have to spend 1.8 million in order to bridge a gap that is ever widening anyway. There are many facets to government that could share the weight of an across the board 10% cut. If we could see the stupid money being squandered, we would completely freak out! Tighten it up! 10% can't hurt that bad if everyone shares, and a little wisdom applied to purchases... or better yet, a moratorium on all new purchases until some real vision of the future can be restored and changes implemented.
Unless you prefer a straightforward crash.
America itself is really and truly bankrupt, unless belt tightening happens everywhere, and immediately. This isn't round one for everyone, some folks have seen this train coming for a while.
There isn't going to be more money, tax revenues have begun to plummet, with no real end in sight yet. Come 2011-2012, we will be living in a new America! There begins to be no need for any government at it's present levels, particularly when they can never get it right. I don't mean radical, instantaneous change, that would be chaotic and lead to anarchy. And of course we NEED our military. But just as we have over grown, we now need to pull in our tent stakes, make a smaller footprint, have fewer children, take loving care of all that we now have, and return to governing selflessly. Public service of any kind in American tradition has its roots in selfless service. When did ego take the upper hand over humility? Who is there amongst us who governs with a right attitude?
Be the solution! Go local! Love your neighbor!
Sue
(What do we really have anyway? We will not be here forever. Let it go. It really isn't yours.)
Warning: Oil supplies are running out fast
Catastrophic shortfalls threaten economic recovery, says world's top energy economist
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Mixx
Independent Minds
The world is heading for a catastrophic energy crunch that could cripple a global economic recovery because most of the major oil fields in the world have passed their peak production, a leading energy economist has warned.
Higher oil prices brought on by a rapid increase in demand and a stagnation, or even decline, in supply could blow any recovery off course, said Dr Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the respected International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris, which is charged with the task of assessing future energy supplies by OECD countries.
Related articles
- Jeremy Leggett: Another crunch is coming – but will the world act?
- US regulators plan to curb speculators
- Leading article: Wind power – a cautionary word
- Watchdogs clash over blame for oil price spikes
- Shell's profits fall 70% after oil price slump
- Lower oil price takes more than half out of BP's profits
- Robert Fisk: Gulf War legacy flares as 'stingy' Kuwait puts the squeeze on Iraq
- Robert Fisk: Why does life in the Middle East remain rooted in the Middle Ages?
In an interview with The Independent, Dr Birol said that the public and many governments appeared to be oblivious to the fact that the oil on which modern civilisation depends is running out far faster than previously predicted and that global production is likely to peak in about 10 years – at least a decade earlier than most governments had estimated.
But the first detailed assessment of more than 800 oil fields in the world, covering three quarters of global reserves, has found that most of the biggest fields have already peaked and that the rate of decline in oil production is now running at nearly twice the pace as calculated just two years ago. On top of this, there is a problem of chronic under-investment by oil-producing countries, a feature that is set to result in an "oil crunch" within the next five years which will jeopardise any hope of a recovery from the present global economic recession, he said.
In a stark warning to Britain and the other Western powers, Dr Birol said that the market power of the very few oil-producing countries that hold substantial reserves of oil – mostly in the Middle East – would increase rapidly as the oil crisis begins to grip after 2010.
"One day we will run out of oil, it is not today or tomorrow, but one day we will run out of oil and we have to leave oil before oil leaves us, and we have to prepare ourselves for that day," Dr Birol said. "The earlier we start, the better, because all of our economic and social system is based on oil, so to change from that will take a lot of time and a lot of money and we should take this issue very seriously," he said.
"The market power of the very few oil-producing countries, mainly in the Middle East, will increase very quickly. They already have about 40 per cent share of the oil market and this will increase much more strongly in the future," he said.
There is now a real risk of a crunch in the oil supply after next year when demand picks up because not enough is being done to build up new supplies of oil to compensate for the rapid decline in existing fields.
The IEA estimates that the decline in oil production in existing fields is now running at 6.7 per cent a year compared to the 3.7 per cent decline it had estimated in 2007, which it now acknowledges to be wrong.
"If we see a tightness of the markets, people in the street will see it in terms of higher prices, much higher than we see now. It will have an impact on the economy, definitely, especially if we see this tightness in the markets in the next few years," Dr Birol said.
"It will be especially important because the global economy will still be very fragile, very vulnerable. Many people think there will be a recovery in a few years' time but it will be a slow recovery and a fragile recovery and we will have the risk that the recovery will be strangled with higher oil prices," he told The Independent.
In its first-ever assessment of the world's major oil fields, the IEA concluded that the global energy system was at a crossroads and that consumption of oil was "patently unsustainable", with expected demand far outstripping supply.
Oil production has already peaked in non-Opec countries and the era of cheap oil has come to an end, it warned.
In most fields, oil production has now peaked, which means that other sources of supply have to be found to meet existing demand.
Even if demand remained steady, the world would have to find the equivalent of four Saudi Arabias to maintain production, and six Saudi Arabias if it is to keep up with the expected increase in demand between now and 2030, Dr Birol said.
"It's a big challenge in terms of the geology, in terms of the investment and in terms of the geopolitics. So this is a big risk and it's mainly because of the rates of the declining oil fields," he said.
"Many governments now are more and more aware that at least the day of cheap and easy oil is over... [however] I'm not very optimistic about governments being aware of the difficulties we may face in the oil supply," he said.
Environmentalists fear that as supplies of conventional oil run out, governments will be forced to exploit even dirtier alternatives, such as the massive reserves of tar sands in Alberta, Canada, which would be immensely damaging to the environment because of the amount of energy needed to recover a barrel of tar-sand oil compared to the energy needed to collect the same amount of crude oil.
"Just because oil is running out faster than we have collectively assumed, does not mean the pressure is off on climate change," said Jeremy Leggett, a former oil-industry consultant and now a green entrepreneur with Solar Century.
"Shell and others want to turn to tar, and extract oil from coal. But these are very carbon-intensive processes, and will deepen the climate problem," Dr Leggett said.
"What we need to do is accelerate the mobilisation of renewables, energy efficiency and alternative transport.
"We have to do this for global warming reasons anyway, but the imminent energy crisis redoubles the imperative," he said.
Oil: An unclear future
*Why is oil so important as an energy source?
Crude oil has been critical for economic development and the smooth functioning of almost every aspect of society. Agriculture and food production is heavily dependent on oil for fuel and fertilisers. In the US, for instance, it takes the direct and indirect use of about six barrels of oil to raise one beef steer. It is the basis of most transport systems. Oil is also crucial to the drugs and chemicals industries and is a strategic asset for the military.
*How are oil reserves estimated?
The amount of oil recoverable is always going to be an assessment subject to the vagaries of economics – which determines the price of the oil and whether it is worth the costs of pumping it out –and technology, which determines how easy it is to discover and recover. Probable reserves have a better than 50 per cent chance of getting oil out. Possible reserves have less than 50 per cent chance.
*Why is there such disagreement over oil reserves?
All numbers tend to be informed estimates. Different experts make different assumptions so it is under- standable that they can come to different conclusions. Some countries see the size of their oilfields as a national security issue and do not want to provide accurate information. Another problem concerns how fast oil production is declining in fields that are past their peak production. The rate of decline can vary from field to field and this affects calculations on the size of the reserves. A further factor is the expected size of future demand for oil.
*What is "peak oil" and when will it be reached?
This is the point when the maximum rate at which oil is extracted reaches a peak because of technical and geological constraints, with global production going into decline from then on. The UK Government, along with many other governments, has believed that peak oil will not occur until well into the 21st Century, at least not until after 2030. The International Energy Agency believes peak oil will come perhaps by 2020. But it also believes that we are heading for an even earlier "oil crunch" because demand after 2010 is likely to exceed dwindling supplies.
*With global warming, why should we be worried about peak oil?
There are large reserves of non-conventional oil, such as the tar sands of Canada. But this oil is dirty and will produce vast amounts of carbon dioxide which will make a nonsense of any climate change agreement. Another problem concerns how fast oil production is declining in fields that are past their peak production. The rate of decline can vary from field to field and this affects calculations on the size of the reserves. If we are not adequately prepared for peak oil, global warming could become far worse than expected.
Steve Connor, Science Editor
This is my mother's new website. She is assembling a wonderful assortment of small appliances, gorgeous glasssware, glass lamps and a zillion other things. Take a look around, and if what you see pleases you, then tell a friend too!
- Location:Livonia, MI
- Mood:
chipper
Hopefully I will get a bigger card for my new camera, as it is prime picture taking time of year here, and then I will do a real post, with pictures and everything.
Until then, I hope you are well.
Love, Sue
http://www.solopassion.com/node/4895
Memo to Bleeding-Heart 'Libertarians': Grow the Fuck Up!
[Note from Linz—I've taken the liberty of lifting this post by Oirishman O'Cresswell from the More Accurate Badges thread as it deserves maximum prominence. It's a response to one of the Politically Correct bleeding hearts on that thread who presumed to be offended on behalf of all "right-minded" people" on the subject of Mordis, their gravy-train, their excuses and their inferior culture. If anyone reads it and is not offended, I apologise.]
"This post is deeply offensive - yes, offensive - and just plain wrong."
Oh yes, you're absolutely right.
Thank goodness that right-minded folk like yourself exist to ensure that none of use say anything inadvertently offensive. God Bless.
Perhaps you could help out we less enlightened folk by drawing up a charter to ensure readers are never inadvertently assailed -- nay, assaulted -- with bad thoughts, bad jokes, or actions likely to bring Objectivism/SOLO/Libz into disrepute -- especially since everyone here is speaking in the name of Objectivism/SOLO/Libz at all times. Can't be too careful. Might offend some right-thinking person at any moment.
Perhaps you two right thinking persons, Richard and Luke, could draw it up -- perhaps with a committee of other "right-thinking people" -- since you're both such obviously outstanding ethicists in their own right.
Perhaps Wikipedia will already have a list you can use?
By the way, what do you call a Welshman with a stick up his arse? Answer: A taffy apple.
Please tell me if that should that be banned because it's offensive? Would I be a wrong thinking person for laughing at it? Perhaps you can tell me when you get the stick out of your own arse.
I need to know, is that sort of joke too offensive, and just plain wrong? Because I'm only an ignorant cracker arsehole, and I just can't tell.
Or how about this ...
Q: Why can't Helen Keller drive?
A: Because she's a woman.
Or Irish jokes ...
Q: What's the difference between an Irish wedding and an Irish wake?
A: One less drunk.
Or Jewish jokes...
Two Jews walking down the street pass a pretty girl going the other way. "Boy," says one, "I'd like to lend her one."
Q: What's a Jewish dilemma?
A: Free ham.
Or German Jokes...
Q: How do you tell the Lufthansa planes at the airport?
A: They're the ones with hair under the wings.
Or French ...
Q: Describe the French national flag?
A: A white cross on a white background.
Or other jokes about Welshmen...
Q: What do you call safe sex in Wales?
A:Marking an 'X' on the sheep that kick.
Or Mexicans...
Q: How do you starve a mexican?
A: Hide his food stamps under his work boots.
Or Canadians...
Q: How do you break a Canadian's fingers?
A: Punch him in the nose.
Chinese...
Q: What do you use to blindfold a Chinaman?
A: Dental floss.
Q: How do Chinese name their babies?
A: When they're born they throw up all their cutlery in the air to celebrate. Baby is named by the noise the cutlery makes hitting the ground.
American...
Two families moved from Pakistan to America. When they arrived the two fathers made a bet - in a year's time whichever family had become more American would win. A year later they met again. The first man said, "My son is playing baseball, I had McDonalds for breakfast and I'm on my way to pick up a case of Bud, how about you?" The second man replied, "Fuck you, towel head."
Jokes about Australia ...
Q: Why wasn't Jesus born in Australia?
A: Couldn't find three wise men or a virgin.
Aussie chicks...
Q: What do Australians girls put behind their ears to make themselves attractive to men?
A: Their feet.
Chicks...
Q: Why did god invent alcohol?
A: So fat women can get laid too.
Q: Why did god create women?
A: Because dogs can't get beer out the fridge.
Q: What's the best thing about dating a homeless chick?
A: It doesn't matter where you drop her off.
Mothers in law...
Q. What's a mixed feeling?
A. When you see your mother-in-law backing off a cliff in your new car.
New Zealanders...
A kiwi walks into his bedroom with a sheep under his arm and says: "Darling, this is the pig I have sex with when you have a headache."
His girlfriend is lying in bed and replies, "I think you'll find that's a sheep, you idiot." The man says, "I think you'll find that I wasn't talking to you."
New Zealanders (again) ...
Q: What do you call a kiwi with a sheep under one arm, and a goat under the other?
A: A bisexual.
Q: Why are NZ sheepdogs such fast runners?
A; They've seen what happens to the fricken sheep.
Cripples.
Q: What's better than winning the para olympics?
A: Having legs that work.
Q: What do you say to a woman with no arms and no legs?
A: Nice tits!
Epileptics...
Q: What do you do if an epileptic has a fit in your bath?
A: Throw your clothes in.
Indians...
Q: How do you tell when an Indian boy becomes a man?
A: When the diaper goes from the bottom to the top.
Q: What do you say to a Paki at Xmas?
A: A pint of milk, a loaf of bread and 20 Benson & Hedges please.
Q: Why can't Indians play soccer?
A: 'Cos every time they get a corner they want to put a dairy on it.
2 Indian heroin addicts injected curry powder by mistake. Both in intensive care !!
One has a dodgy tikka, and the other one is in a korma.
Pakis ...
Q: What do you call 500 pakis running down the street
A: Hindi 500
Poms...
Q:What's emptier than the non-alcoholic beer aisle in an Irish store?
A: The toothpaste aisle in an English store.
Muslims...
I went to a Muslim birthday party last night.
Fuck me if that wasn't the fastest game of Pass The Parcel I've ever seen!
I see police have released the names of 2 of the Glasgow car bombers:
Singe Majeep and Maheed Sonfayr.
New website to investigate. It's for muslim terrorists to get in touch with long-lost pals.
It's called Friends Re-Ignited.com.
The Metropolitan Police found a carbomb outside Finsbury Park mosque. Luckily, they managed to push it inside before it went off.
Aborigines...
Q: How do you make an Aborigine pregnant?
A: cum on her feet and let the flies do the rest.
Q: What do Aboringines use for birth control?
A: Fly spray.
And blacks...
Lad comes home from school and says to his mum "I've got the biggest knob in the third year, is it cos I'm black?". She says "No its because you're 19 you fucking retard".
Q: What do you call a black man with a BMW?
A: Defendant.
And white men...
Q: what's white, hard, and 9 inches long?
A: Nothing.
And blondes...
Q: How can you tell when a blonde is having a bad day?
A: When a tampon's behind her ear and she can't find her pencil.
And Jesus:
Q: Q: What's the difference between Jesus and a picture of Jesus?
A: It only takes 1 nail to hang the picture.
Sure Jesus loves you, but does he swallow?
And Mormons...
Q: How do you circumsize a Mormon?
A: Kick his sister in the chin!
And Catholics...
Q: What's the difference between a Catholic priest and acne?
A: Acne waits until you're 13 to come on your face.
And Michael Jackson...
Victoria Beckham has announced she had an affair with Micheal Jackson; Jacko's lawyer said its all lies as he was in Brooklyn at the time.
And Stevie Wonder ...
From 'Rolling Stone' magazines interview with Stevie Wonder: "Stevie, what's it like being blind?"
Stevie: "Could have been worse. I could've been black."
And Mike Tyson...
Q: Why does Mike Tyson cry during sex?
A: Mace will do that to you.
And the KKK...
Q: What's the KKK's favurite film?
A: 'Roots.' Played backwards.
And lepers...
Did you hear about the leper playing cards? He threw his hand in.
And old people...
Q: What's 60 feet long and stinks of piss?
A: A conga line in an old peoples home.
And South Auckland:
Q:Why do people in South Auckland go to garage sales?
A:To get their stuff back.
Ferrari's F1 team manager decided to employ some South Auckland teenagers as their new pit crew. This was because of their renowned skill when removing car wheels quickly. At the first practice session not only did they change all four wheels in 6 seconds but, within 12 seconds, they had re-sprayed, re-badged and re-sold the fucker to McClaren for 8 cans of Cody's, a bag of weed and an all-year pass at McDonald's.
And Arabs...
Q: Why do they call camels ships of the desert?
A: Because they're all full of Arab semen.
And lawyers...
New client asks lawyer how much he charges.
"Six hundred dollars for three questions," says the lawyer.
"Crikey, that's expensive, isn't it!?"
"Yes, it is. Now, What's your third question."
And rednecks...
Q: What's the last thing you usually hear before a redneck dies?
A: "Hey y'all... Watch this!"
Q: What does a redneck say when she loses her virginity?
A: "Gramps, you're crushin' my smokes."
Q: What's redneck definition of a virgin?
A: A girl who runs faster than her uncle.
Q: If a man and woman are married in West Virginia and move to California and get a divorce, are they still brother and sister?
And I have to presume there'd be no, abolutely no, under any circumstances, jokes like these about the sainted tangata whenua allowed ...
Q: What do you get when you cross a Scotsman and a Maori?
A: A pisshead who never pays for his drinks.
Q: What do you get when you cross a Maori and an octopus?
A: An shoplifter with eight hands.
Q: What does a Maori get for Christmas?
A: Your bike.
Q: Three Maoris and an Islander get into a car. Which one drives?
A: The police officer.
Scientist are trying to combat crime by combining the DNA of a Maori and a Samoan.
The are hoping to come up with a black arse too lazy to steal.
Q: In a race between a honky and a Maori through a tunnel, who would win?
A: The honky, because the Maori has to stop and write on the wall.
Q: What's black and white and rolls down a hill.?
A: A Maori and a seagull fighting over a fish head.
After complaints that there aren't enough Maoris on TV, TVNZ has vowed to solve the problem.
They are now going to show Crimewatch 7 nights a week.
Maori walks into an employment agency.
"Hi. I really really wanna job. Do you have anything?" he asks.
The woman behind the desk looks up and replies; "You're in luck! One just came in. A multi-billionaire needs a driver to drive him around. He's only here one week out of the year, the rest of the time the top-of-the-line-car is yours. But you do have to look after his twin, model, nymphomaniac daughters whilst he's away. And this job pays 300k a year. Interested?"
The Maori starts to smile. "Come on... you're bullshitting me right?"
The woman looks up and says "Well, you started it."
Here's just some of the new Maori television line-up for June:
The Young and the Jobless,
Unmarried with Children,
Little State House on the Prairie,
Black Eye for the White Guy, and
H*A*S*H.
All far, far, far too offensive for right-minded folks, I'm sure.
In fact, why not just give up humour altogether. Far safer. Let's not even think about laughing at jokes like this:
Q: Why did Hitler commit suicide?
A: He opened his gas bill.
But even if you don't laugh you can still be in trouble. "It's great being a Jewish comedian," says Jewish comedian Josh Howie. "If people don't laugh it's not because you're not funny, it's because they're Nazis."
That's Howie's Hitler joke above, by the way. Did you laugh? Bloody Nazi. And also by the way ...
Q: What's the definition of a bigot?
A: Anyone who disagrees with a liberal.
So, point made?
Perhaps we could all simply listen to the wise advice of Hugh Laurie's former comedic partner Stephen Fry:
'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?'
Or Bill Hicks:
"And I've got something else to say to those people who say, 'I'm offended', like some five-year-old child throwing a tantrum. Ready? There are a lot of things in life that are offensive, life itself can be offensive, I myself have a large list of things that offend me...So what!? Grow the **** up! We now live in the 'Age of being offended.' Get over it. Perhaps a little open-mindedness, tolerance, and acceptance may be the antidote to what ails you. Try it and see if your load isn't lifted just a bit. See if your pinched face of fear doesn't relax a tad. Why don't you exercise a little of the faith you say you believe in so much etc etc....you're offended by this material? Well you offend me, where can I send my letters? Huh!?"
In other words, grow the fuck up.
And to paraphrase Johannes Brahms, If there is anyone here whom I have not yet offended, I beg his (or her) pardon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFYlhw3g4
You walk into the room With your pencil in your hand You see somebody naked And you say, "Who is that man?" You try so hard But you don't understand Just what you'll say When you get home Because something is happening here But you don't know what it is Do you, Mister Jones? You raise up your head And you ask, "Is this where it is?" And somebody points to you and says "It's his" And you say, "What's mine?" And somebody else says, "Where what is?" And you say, "Oh my God Am I here all alone?" Because something is happening here But you don't know what it is Do you, Mister Jones? You hand in your ticket And you go watch the geek Who immediately walks up to you When he hears you speak And says, "How does it feel To be such a freak?" And you say, "Impossible" As he hands you a bone Because something is happening here But you don't know what it is Do you, Mister Jones? You have many contacts Among the lumberjacks To get you facts When someone attacks your imagination But nobody has any respect Anyway they already expect you To just give a check To tax-deductible charity organizations You've been with the professors And they've all liked your looks With great lawyers you have Discussed lepers and crooks You've been through all of F. Scott Fitzgerald's books You're very well read It's well known Because something is happening here But you don't know what it is Do you, Mister Jones? Well, the sword swallower, he comes up to you And then he kneels He crosses himself And then he clicks his high heels And without further notice He asks you how it feels And he says, "Here is your throat back Thanks for the loan" Because something is happening here But you don't know what it is Do you, Mister Jones? Now you see this one-eyed midget Shouting the word "NOW" And you say, "For what reason?" And he says, "How?" And you say, "What does this mean?" And he screams back, "You're a cow Give me some milk Or else go home" Because something is happening here But you don't know what it is Do you, Mister Jones? Well, you walk into the room Like a camel and then you frown You put your eyes in your pocket And your nose on the ground There ought to be a law Against you comin' around You should be made To wear earphones Because something is happening here But you don't know what it is Do you, Mister Jones?  | ||
| Copyright © 1965; renewed 1993 Special Rider Music | ||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballad_of_a
- Mood:
thoughtful
12 Jun 2008
Fatih Birol Offers the World an Oil Health Check, and the prognosis isn’t good.
The International Energy Agency used to have the role of being the energy optimists, reassuring Governments and markets that there would be sufficient supplies to keep the world sufficiently fueled for the foreseeable future. Indeed, it is still one of their wildly outdated and wildly optimistic forecasts that still underpins the UK government’s absurb assertion that oil will cost $67 a barrel in 2020.
Every year the IEA publish their ‘World Economic Outlook’, which gives their assessment of where the world is in terms of oil and other energy supplies. Last year’s talked of a ’supply crunch’ in 2012. This years has been based on their going back to the data and reassessing the state of the world’s supply. What they have found has clearly shocked them, and already IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol, a man with the perfect hang-dog glum expression to be breaking this news, is doing the rounds preparing people for the forthcoming report.
What follows is an interview he gave recently in International Politik, the Journal of the German Council on foreign Relations. If ever there was an example of a man with bad news to break breaking it in the most straightforward way possible and not mincing his words, this is it. Essential reading.
The International Energy Agency gives the alarm: The world could run out of oil faster than expected - the danger of a supply shortage is rising.
Hunger for energy vs. energy shortage: While the demand for oil is on the rise, the production is decreasing - shortages, escalating prices and inflation are looming. When talking to energy politician Astrid Schneider, Faith Biro, chief economist of the IEA demands a change in policy from the member countries. His motto: leave oil before it leaves us. Astrid Schneider: Mr. Birol, in your “World Energy Outlook” which was published in November 2007 the IEA has warned for the first time that there could be a slump in oil production and escalating prices in the time from now to 2015. The reason you give is that there has been to little investment in oil production.
Fatih Birol: Indeed. There are three reasons why that is so. The first one is the increasing demand, mostly from China, India and the Middle Eastern countries themselves. These countries are the main reason for the increasing oil consumption. Even if there should be a recession in the USA, this would not slow those countries down much, because India and China have a strong internal economic growth, while high oil prices will help the economy in the Middle East. The demand for oil will therefore remain high.
Schneider: The second reason …?
Birol:
… is, that we see a sharp decline in production from the existing oil fields, especially in the North Sea, the USA and many non-OPEC countries. Even here money should be invested, to slow down that decline. The third reason why we expect a risk for overall production is, that we looked at all oil exploration projects around the world: 230 altogether, in Saudi-Arabia, Venezuela, the North-Sea, everywhere. Even if all those projects which are already funded will be implemented, the overall capacity they can bring for new oil production is too little.
Schneider: How much is missing?
Birol: Exactly 12.5 million barrel a day are still missing, about 15 % of the global oil demand (the current global oil consumption is 84 million barrel a day, note from the editor). This gap means that we could face a supply shortage and very high prices during the next years.
Schneider: Is there still a way to avoid this?
Birol: There are only three ways out of this dilemma: First of all we have to increase energy-efficiency drastically, we have to build more economical cars, trucks and airplanes, to slow down the incline in oil consumption. Secondly we have to use more alternative fuels in the traffic sector. If you take a look at how little governments are doing to help higher efficiency, though, I have little hope that there will be such a change of policy. The third thing is that we need many more oil production projects, especially in the key countries in the OPEC.
Schneider: You write that 5.4 trillion dollar have to be invested to meet the global oil demand. In which countries should this money be invested?
Birol: In the Middle Eastern countries with a large oil supply - but I am not sure that those countries and their oil corporations will invest as much as would be necessary. They might think that it is not in their own interest to raise the production that much, to keep the oil prices up. A further part of the investments has to go to the OPEC countries, to the USA and to the North-Sea, to prevent the decline of the oil production there.
Schneider: In the WEO 2007 it is mentioned that the rapid decline of oil production will be between 3.7 and 4.2 percent per year. Is that right?
Birol: Exactly-
Schneider: This decline is even steeper than the one predicted by the Energy Watch Group!
Birol: I can already tell you that in our “World Energy Outlook 2008″ which will be published in November we will deal in depth with the prospects of the oil and gas production. We will take a look at the 350 most important oil and gas fields and explore how much production rates are sinking and what that means.
Schneider: What do you mean by that?
Birol: As far as I know this will be the first profound public study in which we verify and revise our knowledge about how much oil and gas is going to the markets. Many people will come to new conclusions about this.
Schneider: One of the statements of the WEO 2007 is that the complete additional oil production has to come from the OPEC countries and especially the Middle East. Salem el-Badri, the general secretary of the OPEC has announced on a conference regarding energy security in London last February, that the OPEC wants to invest 200 billion dollar until 2012 to create new production capacities of 5 million barrel (mb) a day. This is a sharp contrast to the WEO 2007 where you state that to the year 2020 we need 24 mb per day in new production capacity to satisfy the rising demand for oil. So de facto Salem el-Badri says that the OPEC will not be able to meet the expectations. Doesn’t that mean that we will run into serious problems?
Birol: Indeed. this is the reason that this year for the first time we announce a “supply crunch” situation. There is a gap between the global demand for oil and the amount which is or can be brought to the market from that region. We think that the oil producers have to increase their production output significantly, but we are not sure that they will do it or even can do it.
Schneider: Because they don’t want to?
Birol: Let’s look at the numbers: up to 2015 there will be a gap between what we expect and what the oil producers are willing or able to do to increase their capacity. This gap shows the real and serious picture of the oil market. It could mean a supply crunch and escalating prices.
Schneider: So the things I see in the WEO are more - if I may say so - a wishlist?
Birol: You could put it that way. I think we are entering a new world oil order. The new players, which decide how much oil is going to the markets, are mostly public oil companies. For many reasons things will not be as easy as they have been before.
Schneider: The Energy Watch Group has pointed out in its studies that the oil reserves in the Middle East are likely estimated 50 % too high. When you ask the Middle East countries today to increase their production capacities, how good is your knowledge on their oil reserves and on the amount those countries could produce if they wanted to?
Birol: We are talking about a very important issue here and the most important accomplishment I expect from the WEO 2008 is more transparency as far as the oil reserves of the national as well as the international oil corporations is concerned.
Schneider: Who are you hinting at?
Birol: Just remember that a very well known international oil company has recently run into trouble because it did not have enough transparency. Therefore the IEA would like to see more openness in accord to data about oil reserves - it might be the national good of the individual states, but the rest of the world, other economies, the common wellbeing of everyone are dependent on it. At the moment we are flying almost blindly and we desperately need more insight here.
Schneider: Does transparency alone help?
Birol: Even if the oil reserves of Saudi-Arabia should be estimated wrongly by 50 %, they could increase their production from 12 mb a day to 18 mb. But I don’t think they will raise production that much in the next 25 years. So there are mainly three different problems: geology, investment and policy of the main oil producers. Those three aspects taken together make the future of oil very difficult.
Schneider: If I look at all those countries, there are big problems with Russia and its restrictive policy against international and market oriented oil corporations like Yukos; Iran and Iraq are international crisis hot spots, Saudi-Arabia has a very reluctant policy and seems to be difficult to approach for western companies …
Birol: Indeed, but that is completely legitimate.
Schneider: … and last but not least Venezuela which has just stopped its oil exports to the energy corporation Exxon Mobil. These countries together hold 60 % of the world’s oil reserves. But de facto we have no access to them, neither politically nor economically.
Birol: That causes great strain on everyone and on our economic systems. When I look at the future, I see three strategic challenges in the energy sector: The first is oil and gas security. Just recently Russia has lowered its gas delivery to the Ukraine by 25 %. The second is climate change. And the third, and one has to admit we don’t much talk about this, is the connection between energy and poverty, for example in Africa. Today 1.6 billion people, that is 40 % of the global population, have no access to electric power.
Schneider: Will we be able to meet all three challenges?
Birol: If you look at the dimensions, I don’t think that the markets alone can solve those problems. We cannot leave everything to them. The national governments as well as international institutions have to help to define the rules and follow them. The issue is too important.
Schneider: You are not alone with your warnings about supply shortages - at the world economy summit in Davos Jeroen von der Veer, the Shell CEO, admitted for the first time that conventional oil and gas will not suffice to cover world demand from the year 2015 onwards. Will this not lead to a further decline in production?
Birol: Several people now think that the global oil and gas production will get into troubled waters soon, but this is not only due to resource depletion. The lack of investments are another problem, as well as the fact that some countries don’t want to increase production.
Schneider: For which we cannot blame them, can we?
Birol: No. Before I joined the IEA I worked for the OPEC in Vienna. And every oil person had the same thoughts: I don’t use up all the oil that I have today, but leave some for my children and grandchildren, so they will be able to make money from it as well. And I understand that. In many oil producing countries, oil is the sole or at least most important source of income.
Schneider: So what is your conclusion?
Birol: I would be very surprised if the oil productions would effortlessly increase during the next 20 to 25 years to meet, lets say, 120 mb a day without any problems. Even if the potential should be there, we will not get this oil to the markets. The conclusion is that we have to be prepared to see very turbulent, tight and high prices oil markets - this will not be good for the economy.
Schneider: Let’s assume the prices escalate - who will be hit first?
Birol: It will be about who can afford x dollar per barrel. Some will be able to, others won’t. The OECD countries will be among the lucky ones, but the developing countries will …
Schneider: … be the losers …
Birol: Exactly!
Schneider: If I understand you correctly, you say that the demand for oil could rise 3 % globally every year, while we have to expect a decrease of 4 % in oil production in the time from now until 2015. That would be 7 % each year which are missing.
Birol: The demand might increase a little slower. But there could be a large gap between what should be there and what actually will be there, especially if we do not put massive efforts into improving the efficiency of cars or change to other transportation systems. If we don’t take measures on the consumer side, the consumption will continue to grow. And if we have not invested enough into oil production, we will flounder.
Schneider: But when you think of the life cycle of goods, of the long investment cycles of machines, power stations or air conditioning systems: do you think an adjustment of the consumer side to a lower supply path could be done that fast?
Birol: No, but I don’t think that prices will go up that rapidly. We can see a gradual incline and that will give the people some time to adapt. But on the long run it has to be clear: if oil will be gone by 2030, or in 2040 or 2050 does not change much.
Schneider: You really say that?
Birol: Yes, one day it will definitely end. And I think we should leave oil before it leaves us. That should be our motto. So we should prepare for that day - through research and development on alternatives to oil, on which living standards we want to keep and what alternative ways we can find.
Schneider: How will the global economy react to a new oil crisis?
Birol: If there is a great gap between supply and demand, the economies will be hit hard - yet with large differences worldwide. The German economy will suffer less than that of the Sahel Zone countries. Nevertheless we expect less economic growth, rising inflation and more unemployment for the OECD countries as well.
Schneider: And the poor countries?
Birol: In the poor countries, most of all in Black Africa, in India and similar countries, the effects will be much more devastating. We have calculated for example that the oil importing countries in Black Africa have lost three percent of their economic growth due to rising oil prices. We should not forget that half the people in those countries live below the poverty line of one dollar a day.
Schneider: Do you see the danger of military conflicts between countries with high and low resources, caused by the tension on the world market?
Birol: In my official mandate I don’t often speak about wars and such. But what I can tell you is, that energy issues and geopolitics are interwoven too much. The energy supply is becoming less and less an economic enterprise, but instead an economic enterprise plus geopolitics! That’s bad news, and I don’t like that at all. We need a dialogue between the producers and consumers.
Schneider: You mentioned that we are at the eve of a new world energy order. Who are the new players?
Birol: On the consumer side clearly China and India. They used to be very small participants in the market and we did not see much of them in the energy game so far. They have been mere street players but now they are growing more and more into full sized protagonists.
Schneider: And on the producers’ side?
Birol: There it is the major oil producing countries: Saudi-Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Russia. All those countries have one thing in common: the oil production is regulated by public oil corporations instead of the free market. That changes the game setup. They are not only new players, but it is a completely new situation. The rich OECD countries become less and less relevant. They are still important, but they will play a lesser role when we look into the future.
Schneider: So the whole world economy depends on a few oil producing countries - and those countries you mentioned are not very democratic.
Birol: Every country has its own political system which it should have set for itself. What we would like to see, though, is the opening of the markets of those countries. The free flowing of capital will be very important, so that everyone is free to invest in what he wants. But in the end these countries are free. They can decide what energy policy and political system they want.
Schneider: What does that mean for us?
Birol: At least we have to realize, that our oil and gas will come from countries where public corporations decide about production in the future. That is different from the past when more market oriented corporations did supply us. That is an important change.
Schneider: The IEA has the mandate to keep watch over the oil market and to warn the OECD countries when there could be problems or shortages on the global oil market. How loud are your alarm bells ringing by now?
Birol: We are talking about two different functions here. The first is that we can put reserves to the market when there is physically not enough oil to meet the demand. We did that in 2005 for example when the hurricane Katrina hit the USA. The second task is, as you have mentioned, to “sound the alarm”. That’s what we have done last year.
Schneider: You already did ring the bell? When?
Birol: With the World Energy Outlook 2007. It was a clear signal to the governments of all our member countries. They take energy and oil security much more important than before, now. And when we present the WEO 2008 this November, I think it possible that the sirens will shrill even louder.
Schneider: But don’t you have a process to call together the heads of state or the ministers of economy to talk to them about an oil supply crisis?
Birol: We do have processes like that for a supply crisis. We call this an emergency situation and we can exchange information with the governments of all member countries in only a few hours time if that happens. We did that when Katrina hit.
Schneider: Don’t you see a difference there? On the one hand a crisis which is caused by a natural catastrophe which destroys some oil platforms and on the other hand something like a “longtime emergency”?
Birol: Yes - and that is the reason we asked our member countries to switch policies. Just recently the USA and Japan did pass new bench marks for cars to reduce the energy consumption. We desperately need new rules and standards here. Europe is trying to meet the same standards at the moment, but I know some countries will have their difficulties with them.
Schneider: Like for example Germany.
Birol: They are still reluctant to put them into effect. But I think we give them the clear message to do it. All these are examples on how we are ringing the alarm bells, and we are ringing them loudly. I can tell you that I am very pleased to see many ministers moving into the right direction now - but it is not enough. Especially if you set the new measures in perspective to the dimension of the problems we are facing.
Schneider: But isn’t it time to give a clear signal? Especially since a lot of money is wrongly invested by the OECD countries - for example for building new airports, even though there will not be enough oil to constantly increase air travel?
Birol: We do not only tell that to our member countries, but also to Peking or New Delhi. We explained to our Chinese and Indian colleagues how higher energy efficiency can help them, how public transport can change their life and where infrastructure investments should be put. But in the end it is up to the governments, how seriously they take our statements and warnings.
Schneider: In the face of the looming supply crisis, wouldn’t it be the right time now to call in a government conference on energy issues?
Birol: We are discussing and checking the situation regularly. The next important step will be the WEO 2008. In 2009 we will invite to a ministerial meeting and and I expect the energy security to be among the most important issues alongside climate change. But again: It is up to the governments to take actions now. We have warned them.
Schneider: So far we only talked about oil because it has the largest share in the global energy mix. The Energy Watch Group states that we cannot just double the amount of coal or uranium once oil starts to run out. Aside from climate issues, those energy sources are not unlimited either. What does the IEA say about this?
Birol: There is a difference between coal and uranium. Coal is a global resource, it can be found almost anywhere and we have large amounts. But the problem is - if we leave the climate change out of this for a moment - that it is becoming more and more difficult to transport the coal from the mines to the consumption centres. After having talked about oil prices already, let me tell you that the price for coal has more than doubled since the beginning of 2006. The coal prices, too, are rising because China has become an important importer while we don’t see a major increase in production anywhere.
Schneider: How do you judge the situation for uranium? Today only 60 % of the supply comes from the mines, the rest comes from storage reserves which will be used up soon.
Birol: For the uranium reserves we see no problem for the time after 2015 to 2020, as long as there are exploration efforts in key regions like Kazakhstan, Australia, South Africa and elsewhere. I don’t think the uranium supply is the main problem for the nuclear economy, it is more a question of public acceptance.
Schneider: In the light of the shortage and problems with oil, coal and gas, the OECD, the IEA and the United Nations have called for the building of more nuclear power stations to fight climate change. However, we would need three to four times as many nuclear power plants to be able to contribute enough power to make a difference.
Birol: To limit global warming to two degrees (Celsius I suspect, note from translator) we have to change our system of energy production. There are four ways to do that in a climate neutral way: Energy efficiency, renewable energies, CO2 deposition and nuclear energy. If you split the necessary CO2 reduction to those techniques evenly, we would have to build 30 new nuclear power plants worldwide every year. That is almost impossible. We are currently building 1.5 new nuclear power plants a year.
Schneider: So a renaissance of nuclear energy is out of the question as well?
Birol: Nuclear power should at least keep its current 15 % share of the energy mix. When people from my own country ask me, if they should build a nuclear power plant, I tell them about the advantages and disadvantages. But I also tell them that a nuclear reactor should not be built against the will of the people who have to live in its environment. It might be good for the global economy, good for energy security and good for climate protection, but when the local people have a problem with it, we should definitely consider that in the planning
- Mood: good
