GM offers big price cut on Chevy Volt

[happyslug]

78. Palestinains Celebrated 9/11???

Annette Krüger Spitta of the ARD's (German public broadcasting) TV magazine Panorama states that footage not aired shows that the street surrounding the celebration in Jerusalem is quiet. Furthermore, she states that a man in a white T-shirt incited the children and gathered people together for the shot. The Panorama report, dated September 20, 2001, quotes Communications Professor Martin Löffelholz explaining that in the images one sees jubilant Palestinian children and several adults but there is no indication that their pleasure is related to the attack. The woman seen cheering (Nawal Abdel Fatah) stated afterwards that she was offered cake if she celebrated on camera, and was frightened when she saw the pictures on television afterward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_September_11_attacks#cite_note-33

Now Wikipedia then goes on and says 65% of Palestinians supported the attacks and site a report from Israel. THAT report actual shows 65% support for Al Queda attacks on the US AND EUROPE not just 9-11. That is not the same. Al Queda, beside 9-11, has attack US Warships (The USS Cole) and US Embassies and that survey would report support for such attacks as also support for 9-11, when the people actually being polled may NOT connect the two. It is an example of "Figures don't lie, but Liars Figure".

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/95535#.UgF2DtLMCEZ

As to Oil Supplies, Mexico oil production is in steep decline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Mexico
http://peak-oil.org/2013/04/reasons-mexicos-oil-production-has-stagnated/
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0412/The-decline-of-the-world-s-major-oil-fields
http://www.peakoil.net/files/Cantarell%20Is%20Not%20Mexico%E2%80%99s%20Only%20Oil%20Production%20Problem.pdf
http://www.businessinsider.com/declining-oil-production-mexico-canada-2011-1

Mexcio is NOT the only oil field in decline:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/13/peak-oil-isnt-dead-an-interview-with-chris-nelder/

Within the next couple of years, production in Mexico will exceed consumption, i.e. Mexico will become a net oil IMPORTER, as has Britain and Indonesia.

Now, Shale Oil is claimed to have eliminated Peak Oil. The problem is "Shale Oil" (or more accurately called "Tight Oil&quot are very small fields with a production life of less then five years. Such fields tend to peak in about 18 months after put into production, then go into rapid decline. Present Calculation of Tight oil production would make the US the #1 oil producer in the world by 2017, then the US oil production will go into rapid decline, by 2020 US Oil production will be the same as in 2012.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jun/21/shale-gas-peak-oil-economic-crisis
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-davis/domestic-oil_b_2898256.html

Remember no one is really planning for peak oil, when it comes up the solutions are unpleasant to the elite (i.e. the top 10% of the economy). The bottom 90% can survive the drastic changes needed at that point, but it means massive disruption to the ruling 10%. i.e. how can you still live in New York City and collect your rents from tenants in Ohio? The answer is by moving back to Ohio OR giving up what ever ownership right you have to those rents because they is no way to collect them economically.

http://www.oildecline.com/steps.htm

Please note, oil production in the Soviet Union peaked in 1985 and one of the reason the Soviet Union collapsed was due to loss of western money due to having less oil to export. Since Putin became the leader of Russia, oil production INCREASED but is expected to peak soon. at a much LOWER rate then its previous peak in 1985. Most of the increase production is unconventional oils, which like Tight Oil in America has short production lives:.

http://blogs.platts.com/2013/06/06/russia-output/

Now, Russia has "Tight oil"but if it is anything like the "Tight Gas" in Poland, contains to much impurities to burn (and the energy needed to remove the impurities exceed the energy in the gas produced). Please note "Tight Oil" and "Tight Gas" are coming from similar fields and as such have similar production history,. Here is some information on "Tight Gas" production that clearly shows the problem if we rely on "Tight Oil" and "Tight Gas":

Polish Tight Gas has 50% nitrogen content:
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2012/05/shale-gas-view-from-russia.html

Now, the various oil and gas companies that entered Poland blamed government red tape for the reason they were pulling out, but it appears that is an excuse. Polish Shale/Tight Gas is even deeper then Tight Gas in the US and with 50% nitrogen content not profitable.

Shale Gas in Europe has been more bust then boom, One exploratory well in Poland was found to produce natural gas with a 50% nitrogen content, it just would NOT burn.

http://peakoil.com/production/orlov-shale-gas-the-view-from-russia/

http://www.oilandgaseurasia.com/articles/p/156/article/1754/

Let me quote a paragraph:
The best-developed shale gas basin is Barnett in Texas, responsible for 70% of all shale gas produced to date. By “developed” I mean drilled and drilled and drilled, and then drilled some more: just in 2006 there were about as many wells drilled into Barnett shale as are currently producing in all of Russia. This is because the average Barnett well yields only around 6.35 million m3 of gas, over its entire lifetime, which corresponds to the average monthly yield of a typical Russian well that continues to produce over a 15-20 year period, meaning that the yield of a typical shale gas well is at least 200 times smaller. This hectic activity cannot stop once a well has been drilled: in order to continue yielding even these meager quantities, the wells have to be regularly subjected to hydraulic fracturing, or “fracked”: to produce each thousand m3 of gas, 100 kg of sand and 2 tonnes of water, combined with a proprietary chemical cocktail, have to be pumped into the well at high pressure. Half the water comes back up and has to be processed to remove the chemicals. Yearly fracking requirements for the Barnett basin run around 7.1 million tonnes of sand and 47.2 million tonnes of water, but the real numbers are probably lower, as many wells spend much of the time standing idle.

The following rha rha natural gas site, even points out the rapid decline in production of these wells, 80% reduction in the first year:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/358311-making-sense-of-north-america-s-shale-oil-and-gas-future

Notice, I am ignoring the financial and environmental problems with Fracking, just to show how expensive this process is. Shale gas and oil is more bluff then real. something even the Federal Government is slowly coming to accept.

ASPO (Association to study Peak Oil) has always maintained that given the nature of Natural gas (That oil is converted to Natural Gas whenever it drops below 20,000 feet) it is much harder to predict when Natural Gas will peak and decline. Unlike an oil well, which builds up slowly, then peaks and then go into a steady decline, Natural Gas wells produce at peak almost from the first day of production, continues that peak till it empties out. Thus Natural Gas wells can produce for years, then one day stop production. On the Marcellus Shale level it appears to be about a year between the start of production and the end of production. That is NOT a good sign but most people are ignoring that unpleasant idea, preferring the idea that all we have to do is drill more wells faster.
http://endofcrudeoil.blogspot.com/2012/02/shale-gas-development-in-united-states.html

Thus the more I get into Shale Natural Gas production, it appears to be a heavy short production life, and given that most wells are drilled where it is expected to have the most gas, sooner or later I see a decline as it gets harder to find new places to drill.