More Hog Snozzle!!! was Re: [biofuel] Digest Number 1376

[Appal Energy]

And just specifically what is it Phil that makes you think that "perhaps [I]
am forgetting just exactly what Civil Disobedience is?????"

Quite the contrary. What is actually quite "plain to see" is that you are
not exactly familiar with the term, nor how or why it is implemented. No
different than Greg, civil disobedience is "okay," as long as no one is
"disobedient."

You state right up front that it "is a right guaranteed to all US citizens.
(Not quite sure where you get that chapter and verse, but it is a moral and
principle right of every person on the planet.)Yet you continue with
declaration that enacting that "right" is wrong, as well as the blatant
overly general implication that anyone who is civilly disobedient is pretty
well akin to an anarchist taking up molotovs and rocks.

Again, no different than Greg, you relay several of the exact same
disconnects, generalities, vagueries and pretty much flat out distortions as
a result of your all encompassing blanket approach. "Yessireee!!! If Joe
Donut has to waste the first breath on someone being civily disobedient, we
oughta' lock 'em up for contributin' to terrorism!!!"

Well Rosa Parks, save a seat for me on your side of the paddy wagon.

Hell, between civilly disobedient "supporters of terrorism," "commies,
pinkos and fags," there ain't no room for "honest, upstandin white folks"
anymore.

Frankly sir, you miss the point and purpose of civil disobedience entirely.
I can only hope that you are not in charge of any classroom where civics is
taught.

Todd Swearingen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Hartman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 2:43 AM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Digest Number 1376


> Todd S. ............
>       Civil Disobedience is a right guaranteed to all US citizens.    It
is
> one of the freedoms that many men and women have died for in the last 200+
> years.  Another right or freedom that we enjoy as Americans is the right
to
> go about our business, do our job, support our family, etc. as long as we
do
> not interfere with another citizens rights.   Perhaps you are forgetting
> just exactly what Civil Disobedience is?????    The US Constitution (and
the
> judicial systems interpretation)  gives you plenty of  freedom to express
> your opinions in many different ways on almost any subject you choose as
> long as you don't break the law in the process.  If you do something
illegal
> then you have infringed on another's right to freedom and it is no longer
> CIVIL Disobedience.  It is plain to see that you, and others, seem to
think
> that because you don't care to wait for the civilized process to work you
> feel that gives you the right to break the law!!
> You are entitled to work within the legal system to change the law if you
so
> choose.  You are NOT entitled to simply ignore (break) the law because you
> don't agree with it and don't want to take the time and make the effort to
> change it.  It is also plain to see that you, and others, have a great
> distrust for the US legal system and the US government.  I am also
concerned
> about our government and legal system.  I do not simply follow blindly
along
> thinking that whatever the government does is to my best interest and they
> must know better than I do!!!!!   Even though I share your disgust for
SOME
> of the actions taken by our government and legal system  I hold in high
> regard our democratic system.  We in the US live under laws that give us
> many freedoms that are not enjoyed by a lot of  people in other countries.
> If we, as individuals,  were to have the right to choose which laws we
would
> live by and which ones we would not we would no longer have a civilized
> society.   As citizens of the US we have choices.  We can choose to live
> here and abide by the law enjoying the freedom to change those same laws
if
> we choose.  We also have the choice of not abiding by the law and
excepting
> the consequences.
> A third choice is moving to another less civilized country.  Personally, I
> choose to stay in the US and try to make our country a better place to
live
> without compromising your freedoms in the process.  Assuming you are a
> resident citizen of the US, which choice do you make?????
>            Phil Hartman
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
> To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 1:59 PM
> Subject: [biofuel] Digest Number 1376
>
>
> > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> >
> > Biofuels list archives:
> > http://archive.nnytech.net/
> >
> > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > There are 25 messages in this issue.
> >
> > Topics in this digest:
> >
> >       1. Re: organic solar cells
> >            From: murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >       2. RE: Latest from my Pal
> >            From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >       3. Re: good oil crops for England
> >            From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >       4. RE: good oil crops for England
> >            From: "kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >       5. U.S. Special Operations Units Already in Iraq
> >            From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >       6. Re: We need Trolls. RE: Torture Tactics - Yes, in America was
Re:
> The oil in Iraq
> >            From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >       7. Re: Environment-friendly fuel for Indian railways
> >            From: kavitha palaniappan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >       8. Re: Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
> >            From: Gary Rempel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >       9. Re: good oil crops for England
> >            From: Neoteric Biofuels Inc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >      10. Re: Re: Hog Snot!!!
> >            From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >      11. Re: Environment-friendly fuel for Indian railways
> >            From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >      12. Re: Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
> >            From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >      13. Re: Environment-friendly fuel for Indian railways
> >            From: Ken Provost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >      14. Imperial
> >            From: Neoteric Biofuels Inc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >      15. Chokecherries
> >            From: Neoteric Biofuels Inc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >      16. Behind the Great Divide
> >            From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >      17. RE: Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
> >            From: "Martin Klingensmith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >      18.  PBS - The War Behind Closed Doors
> >            From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >      19. Re: Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
> >            From: "Steve Spence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >      20. Re: Chokecherries
> >            From: "Steve Spence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >      21. Re: Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
> >            From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >      22. Re: Behind the Great Divide
> >            From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >      23. Re: PBS - The War Behind Closed Doors
> >            From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >      24. FW: THE DOMESTIC SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2003/A PLAIN
> ANALYSIS
> >            From: "kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >      25. Re: FW: THE DOMESTIC SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2003/A PLAIN
> ANALYSIS
> >            From: murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 1
> >    Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 06:23:24 -0800
> >    From: murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: organic solar cells
> >
> > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:08:40 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storyprint.cfm?storyID=3101056
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the info.  I hope if works out for them.  Over the years I've
> heard
> > allusions to the energy intensity and waste-disposal problems of present
> forms
> > of PV manufacturing, so maybe this material (I think that's what it is)
> will be
> > better in those areas as well as having other potentials.
> >
> > The negotiations with the cell phone manufacturer sounded interesting.
> > Development of power solutions for small devices is an interesting
field.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 2
> >    Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:13:10 +0900
> >    From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: RE: Latest from my Pal
> >
> > >Cool, Yes I believe you are right.  Somewhere around 70%.
> >
> > I very much doubt it - more like a minority, maybe not even a very big
> one.
> >
> > Eg (close your eyes and point anywhere), the anti-war protests:
> >
> > ..."It was the wide array of people from all walks of life - high
> > school students showing they cared about more than their own
> > problems, soccer moms protesting for the first time, retired school
> > teachers, professionals in suits, war veterans, parents who also
> > brought their young children - that gave me the most hope. Bush can
> > continue to ignore veteran activists and liberals like me. But he
> > can't ignore the independent suburban voters, the kind who don't vote
> > straight-ticket Republican or any other political party... I believe
> > the people who came out and practiced their democratic rights on
> > Saturday are more American than those who sat on their butts and
> > criticized them. We must continue to display our flags with pride,
> > showing we are patriots who care about more than the selfish, violent
> > agenda pushed by Bush Inc..."
> >
> > So where was this cesspit of knee-jerk anti-American left-wing
> > iniquity, you might ask? "... one of the most right-wing regions of
> > the world, the former home of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and the
> > fictional J.R. Ewing and many others who represent cold-hearted,
> > selfish economic and political policies": Dallas, Texas.
> >
> > http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15197
> > Texans Turn Out Against War
> > By Jackson Thoreau, AlterNet
> > February 16, 2003
> >
> > >Most of us
> > >Americans know the difference between right / wrong, and good / bad.
> >
> > $100 billion a year spent on advertising in the US says otherwise,
> > $35 billion a year spent by the PR industry in the US to twist
> > reality on behalf of the rich and powerful says otherwise, intense
> > and ongoing concentration of media ownership in the hands of powerful
> > corporate interests (the major PR agency clients) says otherwise.
> > Yet I agree with you - most Americans do know the difference betwen
> > right and wrong, good and bad, in spite of all the spin - but they
> > don't agree with you about the war.
> >
> > But say you're right, 70% of Americans agree with James's pal. How
> > come it's just the opposite in virtually every other country,
> > including your alleged ally Britain, including your other alleged
> > ally Australia? - 70% and up against the war. Including Turkey (see
> > the recent NATO fuss, if you didn't already). They're, what, plain
> > wrong? But they're the vast world majority - uh, you believe in
> > democracy, right? They're ill-informed then? Hah!
> >
> > James's (erstwhile) pal isn't American, he's English, now living in
> > the US. What if he'd moved to Germany instead? Would he now be
> > thinking just the same, do you think? Or would he be agreeing with
> > the Germans? But I bet you just discounted what I said above about PR
> > dollars. So what then - simply standing on US soil brings a
> > penetrating enlightenment all its own that just doesn't happen
> > elsewhere?
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > >And 99
> > >% don't live anything like what is shown on the movies or the news.
> > >
> > >Harley
> > >  -----Original Message-----
> > >  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >  Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 3:22 PM
> > >  To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> > >  Subject: [biofuel] Latest from my Pal
> > >
> > >
> > >  IK suspect there's quite a bit of support for the latest from my US
> > >  based English  pal...
> > >
> > >
> > >  Fine The US is bad and everyone else is good. Bush didn't really get
> > >  elected, he just scammed his way in and we were too busy eating
> > >  burgers to notice. We don't really have a free press or opposition
> party
> > >  to raise issues. We get our rocks off killing people around the world
> > >  and are all part of a global conspiracy to steal everybody's natural
> > >  resources because we are fed up paying for them.
> > >
> > >  You can read the kind of information you are sending me in this
> > >  country, its always there. Don't think it is exclusive information
only
> > >  available outside of the US.
> > >
> > >  Should we learn to turn our back on oppressive regimes, stop being
the
> > >  biggest provider of aid? Should we forget about 20th century history
> > >  and the lessons learnt. Isolationism took place in the '30's. Result
> > >  WWII.
> > >
> > >  People in America are appalled by the McCarthy era too, but if it
> wasn't
> > >  for American pressure from 1944 to the Berlin wall coming down
> > >  Russia would have taken over Europe. As it was a stalemate was
> > >  produced, where the other side tired first. Was America perfect
through
> > >  that 45 year period? No. I think we get on better with Russia than
> > >  Europe these days. What was the central issue? Communism versus
> > >  Capitalism, just basic ideals. One system seems to work better than
> > >  the other.
> > >
> > >  Should America have forced a stalemate in Korea in the '50's? Was
> > >  America naive getting into Vietnam as the French bailed in the early
> > >  '60's? Should America have let Iraq have Kuwait?
> > >
> > >  Do you think we don't know the US supported Iraq in the early '80's
> > >  following the Iranian revolution when the two countries were fighting
> > >  and Iran looked set to take over the middle east. Do you think we
don't
> > >  know that it is a miserable job trying to maintain some order in the
> > >  middle east to stabilize oil prices upon which the world depends, not
> > >  just the US which is less dependant than Europe. Do you think we
> > >  protect Israel just to piss people off or do you think people here
> really
> > >  worry about another holocaust.
> > >
> > >  If America didn't threaten Iraq with war do you think Saddam would
> > >  loose any sleep over UN sanctions?
> > >
> > >  It appears to be a unifying force, hate America, clearly 9/11 was
great
> > >  for many. We did enjoy seeing the shots of people dancing in the
> > >  streets in Palestine on the same day.
> > >
> > >  The UN didn't act with Afghanistan. Should the US have gone in to put
> > >  an end to the terrorist training camps there? Or do people believe
that
> > >  it was Bush making it all up with the help of Hollywood. Maybe Bush
> > >  wanted to bring order back to the heroin trade because that's how he
> > >  secretly funds his megalomania. Or maybe Bin Laden works for Bush,
> > >  after we never got him, so that we'd have a good excuse to run around
> > >  the world killing people out of a self manufactured sense of moral
> > >  outrage.
> > >
> > >  Who knows, I'd rather smoke p-- and chill.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 3
> >    Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:00:48 -0600
> >    From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: good oil crops for England
> >
> > > I didn't think anyone used the imperial gallon anymore.
> > > that was 5 us quarts, right?
> >
> >
> >  That's pretty close!
> >  One Imperial gallon equals about 1.2 US gallons.
> >
> >  One Imperial gallon = 4.546 liters
> >  One US gallon = 3.785 liters
> >  One UK gallon = 1.201 US gallons
> >
> >  http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/ccvol.htm
> >
> >  __________________________
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 4
> >    Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:14:39 -0700
> >    From: "kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: RE: good oil crops for England
> >
> > I don't think of chokecherries as bearing much.
> > The blossoms are one of the lovliest scents in the world.
> > Truly exquisite.
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Neoteric Biofuels Inc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 9:50 PM
> > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [biofuel] good oil crops for England
> >
> >
> > Speaking of oil palms, how about those "oil palms of the
> > north"....chokecherries....
> >
> > "Tests have shown that a car can run for about 7,000 kilometres on a
> > hectare of wheat converted into ethanol, 14,000 km on canola-based
> > biodiesel and 30,000 km on a hectare of chokecherries. "
> >
> > http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Pages/grain/news/newsarchive/
> > 02igqinews/020926igqinews4.html
> >
> > Edward Beggs
> > http://www.biofuels.ca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, February 17, 2003, at 07:59 PM, Steve Spence wrote:
> >
> > > more like 39 gallons per acre.
> > >
> > > http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html
> > >
> > > not even oil palms produce 1000 gallons / acre.
> > >
> > >
> > > Steve Spence
> > > Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
> > > & Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
> > > http://www.green-trust.org
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 8:51 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [biofuel] good oil crops for England
> > >
> > >
> > >> hemp is also good, oil yield approx 1000 gal/acre
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> dD
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> biofuel@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >> <
> > >> <  Areind of mine is a farmer in the home counties of England and is
> > > interested
> > >> <  in what alternative crops he could grow to produce oil to power
his
> > > tractors
> > >> <  etc, is rape the most viable etc,and what sort of machinery would
> > >> be
> > > needed
> > >> <  to extract the oil, and what sort of oil yield could he expect per
> > > acre?
> > >> <
> > >> <
> > >> <  Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > >> <  http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> > >> <
> > >> <  Biofuels list archives:
> > >> <  http://archive.nnytech.net/
> > >> <
> > >> <  Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> > >> <  To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > >> <  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> <
> > >> <  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >> <
> > >> <
> > >> <
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > >> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> > >>
> > >> Biofuels list archives:
> > >> http://archive.nnytech.net/
> > >>
> > >> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> > >> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>
> > >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > >> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> > >
> > > Biofuels list archives:
> > > http://archive.nnytech.net/
> > >
> > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> > > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> >
> > Biofuels list archives:
> > http://archive.nnytech.net/
> >
> > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.454 / Virus Database: 253 - Release Date: 2/10/2003
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 5
> >    Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 01:12:57 +0900
> >    From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: U.S. Special Operations Units Already in Iraq
> >
> > See also:
> >
> > http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15169
> > U.N. Charade: Timing of Iraq War in Bush's Hands from Start
> > By Michael T. Klare, Pacific News Service
> > February 12, 2003
> >
> > http://www.presentdanger.org/commentary/2003/0302milplan.html
> > Pentagon Planning, Not Diplomacy, Sets U.S. Agenda on Iraq
> > By Michael T. Klare
> > February 17, 2003
> >
> >
> > Initial Phase of Attack Underway
> > U.S. Special Operations troops are already in Iraq, "hunting for
> > weapons sites, establishing a communications network and seeking
> > potential defectors from Iraqi military units." Pentagon officials
> > are calling this the initial phase of a larger ground war. The
> > Pentagon plan du jour, as touted by "insider" sources in a Washington
> > Post article, calls for a series of preliminary ground actions to
> > seize Iraqi territory and effectively encircle Baghdad before the
> > aerial bombardment begins.
> >
> >
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A331-2003Feb12?language=printer
> > Special Operations Units Already in Iraq
> > Weapons, Defectors, Communications Links Sought
> >
> > By Thomas E. Ricks
> > Washington Post Staff Writer
> > Thursday, February 13, 2003; Page A01
> >
> > U.S. Special Operations troops are already operating in various parts
> > of Iraq, hunting for weapons sites, establishing a communications
> > network and seeking potential defectors from Iraqi military units in
> > what amounts to the initial ground phase of a war, U.S. defense
> > officials and experts familiar with Pentagon planning said.
> >
> > The troops, comprising two Special Operations Task Forces with an
> > undetermined number of personnel, have been in and out of Iraq for
> > well over a month, said two military officials with direct knowledge
> > of their activities. They are laying the groundwork for conventional
> > U.S. forces that could quickly seize large portions of Iraq if
> > President Bush gives a formal order to go to war, the officials said.
> >
> > The ground operation points to a Pentagon war plan that is shaping up
> > to be dramatically different than the one carried out by the United
> > States and its allies in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Instead of
> > beginning with a massive aerial bombardment, the plan envisions a
> > series of preliminary ground actions to seize Iraqi territory and
> > effectively encircle Baghdad before a large-scale air campaign hits
> > the capital, defense officials and analysts said.
> >
> > "It's possible that ground movements could come in and occupy large
> > portions of Iraq almost unimpeded," said one person familiar with
> > Pentagon planning. In northern Iraq, the source said, "we might get
> > to the outskirts of Tikrit without firing a shot." Tikrit, a city
> > north of Baghdad, is Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's ancestral home
> > and a major base of his power.
> >
> > Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the U.S. commander for the Middle East, is
> > scheduled to go to the White House today for a review of his war
> > plans with Bush. Franks is expected to depart soon afterward to
> > Qatar, where his Central Command has established its regional
> > headquarters for an attack on Iraq.
> >
> > The buildup of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf region continues, even
> > as the Bush administration pursues last-minute diplomacy to win
> > support for war at the United Nations. The Pentagon announced the
> > activation of nearly 40,000 more reservists yesterday, bringing the
> > total to more than 150,000, the highest number since the Sept. 11,
> > 2001, terrorist attacks.
> >
> > There are more than 135,000 U.S. troops in the vicinity of Iraq, and
> > that is expected to grow by next week to 150,000 -- the number cited
> > by military planners as the minimum required to launch a full-scale
> > assault.
> >
> > Military officials familiar with the war plan say it is possible that
> > a fairly substantial ground operation could take place not after the
> > air campaign, as in the Gulf War, but either before or simultaneously
> > with it.
> >
> > The Special Operations forces operating in Iraq have several distinct
> > missions. Some are establishing relations with opposition groups and
> > setting up airstrips into which U.S. forces could be flown, the
> > officials said. Others are focused on preventing Iraq from launching
> > missiles or drone aircraft against Israel. Those troops are believed
> > to move in and out of Iraq from neighboring countries.
> >
> > In addition to the ground operations, a small-scale air war against
> > Iraq also continues. U.S. and British aircraft patrolling "no-fly"
> > zones in northern and southern Iraq have conducted airstrikes several
> > times a week for months, hitting antiaircraft sites, military
> > communications lines and other government facilities. On Tuesday,
> > U.S. warplanes dropped more than a dozen bombs on a medium-range
> > missile launcher system in southern Iraq. Yesterday, they returned to
> > bomb the radar system for that launcher.
> >
> > A psychological operations campaign also has been underway, with
> > leaflets and broadcasts preparing Iraqis for military action, telling
> > them, among other things, that "coalition forces do not wish to harm
> > the noble people of Iraq."
> >
> > "The strategic war has already begun," said retired Marine Lt. Gen.
> > Paul Van Riper, an expert in war planning.
> >
> > Early moves of U.S. forces into northern, southern and western Iraq
> > could substantially reduce the obstacles faced by the large-scale
> > ground operations that would follow, military planners said. In the
> > north, Kurdish militias already have achieved considerable autonomy
> > while the south is overwhelmingly populated by members of the Shiite
> > sect of Islam who widely resent Hussein's Sunni-dominated leadership.
> > Western Iraq is largely uninhabited desert.
> >
> > As a result, military planners said, U.S. ground forces could seize
> > as much as 75 percent of Iraqi territory in the early phase of a war,
> > leaving Hussein in control of Baghdad and the area from the capital
> > north to Tikrit, bounded on the west by the Euphrates River and on
> > the east by the Tigris -- a region less than 50 miles wide and about
> > 150 miles long.
> >
> > Assaulting that area still presents a formidable challenge,
> > especially in Baghdad and other cities. But by radically reducing the
> > combat zone, the war plan promises to substantially lessen the impact
> > on the Iraqi population. That in turn would ease humanitarian
> > problems.
> >
> > For many of the same reasons, people familiar with the Pentagon's war
> > plan said, the military also will move quickly to secure major oil
> > fields either before the formal outset of war, or as it begins.
> >
> > Pentagon officials said the plan under contemplation would not
> > resemble the Gulf War, where the opening signal was cruise missiles
> > and bombs hitting downtown Baghdad. Rather, they said, widespread
> > aerial attacks on the capital may be among the last major moves by
> > the United States.
> >
> > In 1991, it was essential to hit targets in and around Baghdad to cut
> > communications of the national antiaircraft network. But in contrast
> > to 12 years ago, the antiaircraft system in northern and southern
> > Iraq has been substantially degraded by years of airstrikes. While
> > Baghdad remains protected by surface-to-air missiles, many of them
> > withdrawn into the capital region from the "no-fly" zones, much of
> > the rest of the country is relatively open to U.S. aircraft.
> >
> > Military experts cited tactical and strategic reasons for beginning
> > the war in a way that almost inverts the opening of the Gulf War.
> >
> > "If Saddam Hussein has the oil fields wired for destruction and is
> > prepared to blow the dams and dikes of the lower Tigris and
> > Euphrates, which would slow down our forces, you can't go through a
> > week of bombing that gives him the chance to do that," said Andrew
> > Krepinevich, a defense expert at the Center for Strategic and
> > Budgetary Assessments, a Washington think tank. Also, the Bush
> > administration worries that global patience with a war would begin
> > running out after a few weeks of fighting. Arab governments have sent
> > the message to the U.S. government that "if you do it, it's got to be
> > done quickly," said Michael Eisenstadt, an expert on the Iraqi
> > military at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. So it is
> > advantageous, he said, for the military to win some strategic
> > breathing space by achieving some of its war aims before the major
> > air campaign begins.
> >
> > © 2003 The Washington Post Company
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 6
> >    Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 01:12:49 +0900
> >    From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: We need Trolls. RE: Torture Tactics - Yes, in America was
Re:
> The oil in Iraq
> >
> > Hello Hakan
> >
> > >Keith,
> > >
> > >Sometimes we need the Trolls for adjustments of the
> > >grey scales.
> >
> > Oh I agree - but there are trolls and trolls, and this was one we can
> > do without and not suffer a great deal for lack of him, I do believe.
> > Grey matter rather than grey scales.
> >
> > >Look at the positive effect of the actions
> > >of the chief Troll in the US.
> >
> > It's a bit of a vindication that people are saying this these days. I
> > started saying it a few months after the un-election, which didn't
> > make me too popular. It was all too blatant and in-your-face, too
> > outrageous, and people were duly getting outraged - people who, I
> > suspect, might have kept right on slumbering peacefully if the Other
> > Guy had won. Their agenda isn't too different, if different at all,
> > it's mainly just a different style, and a matter of degree. They have
> > the same paymasters.
> >
> > >The whole world is now
> > >reacting and it is a lot of positives coming from it. The
> > >chief Troll and his Troll assistants really got the juices
> > >going. Now Iraq recognizes that their renegade province
> > >is a sovereign country and are signing a nonaggression
> > >pact.
> > >
> > >The Arab countries realize that they have to sort out
> > >their relations in a more unified way.
> > >
> > >If Israel depart from their imperialistic demands, it is an
> > >opening for peace in the region. If a war does not happen,
> > >they will have to deal with peace.
> >
> > Some other examples (from incomings to the grab-bag over the last
> > couple of days):
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2769313.stm
> > BBC NEWS | World | Americas |
> > Monday, 17 February, 2003, 08:27 GMT
> > San Francisco ends world peace rallies
> >
> > http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15182
> > A Global Antiwar Movement
> >
> > http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15163
> > Moving On: A New Kind of Peace Activism
> >
> > http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=3067
> > Showdown
> > By Michael Albert
> > 17 Feb 2003
> >
> > >It did not solve the US oil demand problem and this
> > >might have to be solved with alternative energy and
> > >energy conservation. The risk is that US still will try to
> > >solve the problems by force, since it is and can develop
> > >to a more desperate situation. If so, the real motives will
> > >be out in the open and the international support level will
> > >not be there. I hope that the message was clear.
> > >
> > >I hope that it does not result in that we paint Saddam
> > >Hussein white or refrain from destroying all chemical
> > >and biological weapons that US delivered to him.
> >
> > Indeed - but I don't think there's much danger of that, although the
> > peace protesters have been accused of it by pro-war commentators in
> > the US. Nobody's pro-Saddam Hussein, not even Osama bin Laden,
> > contrary to top-level and media-wide disinformation in the US. In a
> > taped statement, bin Laden told the Iraqi people to rise up against
> > Saddam Hussein. Yet Colin Powell claimed that Hussein and bin Laden
> > are working together, and MSNBC omitted the reference in its news
> > report. See:
> >
> > http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15176
> > Osama Rallies Muslims, Condemns Hussein
> > By William Rivers Pitt, TruthOut.com
> > February 12, 2003
> >
> > This next is an interesting analysis of bin Laden's statement, worth a
> read:
> >
> > http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0302binladen.html
> > Foreign Policy In Focus | Global Affairs Commentary |
> > Osama Bin Laden's Message to the Arab and Muslim World:
> > "I am not the enemy. America is."
> > By R.S. Zaharna
> > February 12, 2003
> >
> > Also:
> >
> > Blix Report Confounds Push to War
> > While the United States and U.K. had hoped to use Blix's second
> > report to push through a second resolution authorizing war, the
> > outcome was just the opposite. The Guardian reports, "The French and
> > Russian foreign ministers were given rare applause in the council
> > chamber yesterday (Friday) when they demanded more time for
> > inspections, in striking contrast to the stony silence that greeted
> > hoarse and irritable insistence that time had run out from Colin
> > Powell, the U.S. secretary of state."  The divide within the Security
> > Council has intensified, putting any future resolution in jeopardy.
> > While the Bushies may still go ahead alone, such an outcome does not
> > bode well for Tony Blair who will face cabinet resignations and mass
> > defections from his Labor party.
> >
> > See:
> >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,896139,00.html
> > Special reports
> > A case for war? Yes, say US and Britain. No, say the majority
> > Julian Borger in Washington and Ewen MacAskill
> > Saturday February 15, 2003
> > The Guardian
> >
> > Blix Questions Powell's Evidence
> > In a crucial report to the United Nations, chief inspector Hans Blix
> > gave Iraq a mixed review -- though his assessment was far less
> > scathing than the one in January. He again raised questions about
> > Iraq's stocks of anthrax and nerve agent VX and its long-range
> > missiles, but also took a swipe at the two satellite images presented
> > by Colin Powell to the Security Council. Powell argued that the
> > images showed Iraqis moving arms out of certain sites to evade
> > inspectors. Blix said, "The reported movement of munitions at the
> > site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement
> > of proscribed munitions in anticipation of an imminent inspection."
> >
> > See:
> >
> > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&ncid=564&e=1&u=/n
> > m/20030214/ts_nm/iraq_dc_557
> > Reuters
> > Blix Gives Mixed Picture of Iraqi Disarming Effort
> > Fri Feb 14,11:49 AM ET
> >
> > And this is very interesting, if not very surprising:
> >
> > "... How has the downfall of scores of such autocratic regimes in the
> > past twenty years been accomplished? In no case was it done through
> > foreign invasion. In only a handful of cases was it done through
> > internal armed revolution. In the vast major of cases, dictatorships
> > were toppled through massive nonviolent action, "people power"
> > movements that faced down the tanks and guns and swept these regimes
> > aside.
> >
> > "Why hasn't this been successful in the case of Iraq? Most of these
> > successful nonviolent pro-democracy movements have been centered in
> > the urban middle class. In Iraq, however, thanks to the devastation
> > to the country's civilian infrastructure during the U.S. bombing
> > campaign twelve years ago and the resulting sanctions, the
> > once-burgeoning middle class has been reduced to penury or forced to
> > emigrate. It has been replaced by a new class of black marketeers who
> > have a stake in preserving the status quo. Furthermore, with
> > sanctions forcing the Iraqi people to become dependent on the regime
> > for rations of badly needed food, medicine, and other necessities,
> > people are even less likely to take the already extraordinary risks
> > of challenging it.
> >
> > "Many Iraqis believe that if United States had pursued a more
> > rational policy over the past two decades, regime change would have
> > taken place years ago as a result of initiatives of the Iraqi people
> > themselves. The sanctions have not only had serious humanitarian
> > consequences--resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
> > Iraqi children from malnutrition and preventable diseases--but have
> > actually strengthened Saddam Hussein's grip on power..."
> >
> > See:
> >
> > http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0301iraq.html
> > Foreign Policy In Focus | Global Affairs Commentary
> > Addressing Iraqi Repression and the Need for a Change of Regime
> > By Stephen Zunes
> > January 30, 2003
> >
> > Also:
> >
> > Iraq War To Exact Greatest Toll on Americans, Says Nuclear Expert
> > The war we stand on the brink of will be disastrous for the people of
> > Iraq, but even more so for the American people, who will face
> > increased threats of terrorism and the erosion of civil liberties as
> > power is concentrated in a dictatorial president, warns Nuclear Age
> > Peace Foundation President David Kreiger.
> > Transnational Foundation. February 14 2003
> >
> > See:
> >
> > http://www.transnational.org/forum/meet/2003/Krieger_BrinkWar.html
> > David Krieger, Brink of War, USA
> >
> > http://www.oneworld.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi?root=1680&url=http%3A%2F%2Fw
> > ww%2Eoneworld%2Enet%2Fips4%2F2003%2F02%2F13%2D1%2Eshtml
> > Lawyers, Doctors Warn U.N. Over U.S. Attack on Iraq
> > Thalif Deen
> > UNITED NATIONS, Feb 12 (IPS) - Groups representing more than 300
> > international lawyers, jurists and physicians warned Wednesday that a
> > military attack on Iraq would not only be a blatant violation of
> > international law but could kill over 260,000 people.
> >
> > Catastrophic War for Iraqi Children
> > Iraq's 12 million children are likely to bear the brunt of an attack
> > on Iraq. The Independent (U.K.) reports that a team of international
> > investigators have conducted the first pre-conflict field research
> > with children and concluded that they are "at grave risk of
> > starvation, disease, death and psychological trauma."  The
> > researchers say the level of fear among the children is shocking. A
> > 13-year told them, "I feel fear every day that we might all die, but
> > where shall I go if I am left alone?"
> >
> > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=377622
> > Vulnerable but ignored: how catastrophe threatens the 12 million
> > children of Iraq
> > By Leonard Doyle
> > Foreign Editor
> > The Independent
> > 12 February 2003
> >
> > "They come from above, from the air, and will kill us and destroy us.
> > I can explain to you that we fear this every day and every night." -
> > Shelma (Five years old)
> >
> > As for Mr Blair:
> >
> > Greg Palast on Poodle Blair
> > What the hell is Tony Blair smoking? Greg Palast says the British PM
> > "is using the war on terror and the war in Iraq as a way to smash his
> > only political opposition, which is the left wing of his party."
> > Besides, Tony got his marching orders from the Bushies right after
> > the 2000 elections.
> >
> > See:
> >
> > http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/02/11_Palast.html
> > Greg Palast: "What the Heck is Going on With Tony Blair?"
> > February 11, 2003
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > >Hakan
> > >
> > >
> > >At 07:25 PM 2/17/2003 +0900, you wrote:
> > > > >No problem. Part of life on the Internet.
> > > >
> > > >'Fraid so.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 7
> >    Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 06:57:00 -0800 (PST)
> >    From: kavitha palaniappan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: Environment-friendly fuel for Indian railways
> >
> >
> > Jatropha seeds are mainly utilized for their medicinal properties in
> India.  It is also commonly referred to as 'purging nut'.  The latex, oil,
> twigs, wood and leaves are all used externally for healing wounds, to stop
> bleeding, to treat rheumatism, skin diseases, leprosy, etc.
> > The manure that is referred here, is the seed cake which is rich in
> nitrogen and phosphorus.
> > So, apart from using the non-edible oil for producing biodiesel, the
other
> parts of Jatropha can also be used to a very great extent.
> > Likewise, the oil crop which I'm working on (Mahua - Madhuca indica) is
> also a non-edible variety and possesses similar properties.
> > Another advantage is that, such oil crops can be easily cultivated on
arid
> and semi-arid regions.
> > Kavitha.
> >  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Hi Murdoch,
> > I think you are on the right track here.  I would be interested in more
> > info on the jatropha seed.  The glycerine is typically used for soaps,
but
> > has many industrial uses.  I'd be interested if it could be used for a
> fuel
> > cell.  That would be great.  Where does the 300 kg manure come from?  Is
> > the jatropha seed used for cattle feed in India?  The traditional ag
uses
> > for manure reduces the need for chemical fertilizers, so that may be the
> > best use.  A secondary use would be to ferment it into biogas.
> >
> > Tim Murphy
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > >-- Original Message --
> > >To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> > >From: murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:22:24 -0800
> > >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Environment-friendly fuel for Indian railways
> > >Reply-To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > >
> > >>About 400 kg of Jatropha seed can yield 100 kg oil, which after
> > >>blending with methanol or alcohol would give 100 kg bio-diesel, 10 kg
> >
> > >>glycerine and 300 kg manure. In addition it creates large-scale
> > >>employment.
> > >
> > >I wonder as to possible different uses for glycerine and manure.  I
don't
> > >know
> > >anything about it.  Could glycerine be used in a fuel cell?  Could
manure
> > >be
> > >dried and burned in a boiler or generator (not to exclude it from
> traditional
> > >uses)?
> > >
> > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> > >
> > >Biofuels list archives:
> > >http://archive.nnytech.net/
> > >
> > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> > >To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> >
> > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> >
> > Biofuels list archives:
> > http://archive.nnytech.net/
> >
> > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 8
> >    Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:25:57 -0700
> >    From: Gary Rempel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've watched this discussion for a while and there appears to be no
> > reference to methane hydrates, which are well distributed throughout the
> > world and are well positioned to readily serve the coastal U.S.
> > population when developed.
> >
> > While there are a variety of data sources, I will leave compilation to
> > those so inclined.
> >
> > In the meanwhile a reasonably non-contentious starting source might be
> >
> > http://www.fe.doe.gov/oil_gas/methanehydrates/
> >
> > Rgds,
> > G.R.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hakan Falk wrote:
> > >
> > > Greg,
> > >
> > > I am glad that you found the numbers interesting and that it obviously
> > > enhanced your view.
> > >
> > > Your stumbling block regarding the maps is nothing, compared when some
> > > Americans try to make maps of the world. The individual numbers are
the
> > > most interesting anyway.
> > >
> > > Regarding known (proven) reserves, it is not much to say. Estimates
are
> > > founded on geological data and some of the are made by economists.
This
> > > explains the range of numbers. I call it speculations, since they vary
> > > between 2 to 4 times the known. We could make 3 or more groups out of
> them,
> > > but it does not really change the over all picture. I like your idea
of
> > > known, estimates and wild speculations, but my point in the article
was
> > > that it is really not serious to fight about if it is me, my children
or
> my
> > > grandchildren that will suffer. I like to see future generations span
> more
> > > the 3 generations and ideally see a sustainable situation.
> > >
> > > When you deal with this figures and draw the consequences, it is
> ludicrous
> > > to say that it is not about oil. If you the see who are getting
> development
> > > contracts in Iraq and who is not getting them, it fits well with the
> > > groupings on the war issue. It is only Spain, who have tentative
> agreement
> > > with Iraq that is acting without logic. I am not surprised about that
at
> > > all, but maybe they have been promised a larger stake from US/UK.
> > >
> > > During the late 60's and early 70's, it was many numbers flying
around.
> The
> > > most serious analyses was Hubbert's presentation to the US Congress in
> mid
> > > 70's. Since I was very much involved in energy questions already then,
I
> > > remember the important ones. It is quite possible that you had some
> > > doomsday prophets that was talking about 30 years, but I do not
remember
> > > it. If they did, it was irrelevant anyway in the circles that I was
> working
> > > in. I can not take this as a serious argument, since I did not
supported
> > > such estimates. Known oil reserves for 50 to 60 years was what we
talked
> > > about and that was quite correct. We were also aware that that new
> > > discoveries would push that numbers forward. In that sense I would say
> that
> > > the numbers we discussed was maybe more optimistic than todays.
> > >
> > > Nuclear is a subject that I try to avoid, since it is a very infected
> area
> > > with many unqualified opinions. We were involved in designing of PA
> systems
> > > and in the control calculations of stress and fixations of piping in
the
> > > two last built Nuclear Plants in Sweden. I am not in starch opposition
> to
> > > nuclear, but some of the plants built and operated today are outright
> > > dangerous. I would like to see the idea of low temperature mini
reactors
> > > for hot water production for heating picked up again, it would be much
> > > safer and minimum of dangerous waste.
> > >
> > > As it is, fusion have a long way to go if it ever will be an
> alternative.
> > >
> > > Hakan
> > >
> > > At 12:26 AM 2/18/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "Hakan Falk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
> > > >Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 18:53
> > > >Subject: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Puuh, sweat, sweat,
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Greg,
> > > > >
> > > > > Good, I suppose that you must know your boolean algebra and the
> basis for
> > > > > computers to make this definition of multiplication and division.
So
> we do
> > > > > not have to waste time on this as long as you do it right.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >I've always had a hard time with algebra (other than the basic
algebra
> > > >anyway), but, to me it just seams make sense.
> > > >
> > > > > Obviously you need some help with the numbers and I will try to
> explain
> > > >the
> > > > > issues as good as I can. To start with, the source which is
> generally
> > > > > regarded as comprehensive, interesting and quite accurate is at
the
> > > > > following link,
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.bp.com/downloads/1087/statistical_review.pdf
> > > >
> > > >Confusion time.  On Pg. 4 they list Mexico with N. America, but, on
Pg.
> 5,
> > > >the map shows Mexico as being included with S. & central America as
far
> as
> > > >the graphs. Which is correct?  This cast doubt on the graphs on Pg. 8
> and
> > > >others that are based on the information from Pgs. 4 & 5. I'm not
being
> > > >argumentative, just confused.
> > > >
> > > >I am kinda suprised by the map on Pg. 19, I would think that the U.S.
> would
> > > >try and get more oil from Africa, it being closer, than from the
middle
> > > >east.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To explain Known Oil Reserves versus speculations about the Total
> Oil
> > > > > Reserves, it will save space in this email if you read what I
wrote
> about
> > > > > it on the following link,
> > > > >
> > > > > http://energy.saving.nu/resources/oilreserves.shtml
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Another stumbling block I'm having is the differance between Proven
> > > >Reserves, Estamated Reserves of a known oil source and Speculation of
> > > >unknown reserves. To me this is 3 seperate things, akin to Known,
Most
> > > >likely and a wild ass guess. I read the link above, but, like I said,
> to me
> > > >I'm seeing 3 seperate things rather than just ' Proven ' and '
> Speculation
> > > >'.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To add some background to this, is that the only unknown larger
oil
> > > > > reserves that might be in US, are maybe to be found in Alaska.
Iraq,
> which
> > > > > have known oil reserves that amounts to half of Saudi Arabia (the
> largest
> > > > > in the world) is the second largest. Together they represent
around
> half
> > > >of
> > > > > the worlds known oil reserves. It is however expected that when
Iraq
> is
> > > > > fully explored, it will be as large as Saudi Arabia and maybe
> larger.
> > > > >
> > > > > With known oil reserves, it is known oil reserves also for US. A
> > > >discussion
> > > > > of single fields is therefore academic and fruitless as arguments.
> The
> > > >only
> > > > > thing that might be open for discussions are the unknown oil
> reserves.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your confusions could come from that in some US estimates, it is
> included
> > > > > oil imports. In R/P values for the whole world, production is
equal
> to
> > > > > consumption, but for local areas the consumption are used. The R/P
> value
> > > > > for US is therefore the US known oil reserves divided by its
yearly
> > > > > consumption and that is how they get 10.7 years, the number does
not
> even
> > > > > include estimates of a rise in consumption. Bluntly said, with
> current
> > > > > known oil reserves, without imports and with current consumption,
US
> will
> > > > > have oil for 10.7 years. Obviously US must import oil or rapidly
> find very
> > > > > large new oil reserves and if non of this is available US would be
> in a
> > > > > crisis situation.
> > > >
> > > >This helps.
> > > >
> > > > >Therefore US decided many years ago to build a storage
> > > > > reserve, mainly from imports. The storage reserve, if it is full,
> give US
> > > >a
> > > > > year or two in combination with own oil reserves. This storage
> reserve is
> > > > > mainly used for stabilizing prices and at the moment it is around
> 50% of
> > > > > its capacity. It should not be necessary, but I will anyway point
> out that
> > > > > US already now is in a very sensitive situation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since when is Mexico US? Do you have plans of invading them too? I
> have
> > > >not
> > > > > heard about that, it is a complete surprise. Regarding Mexico, see
> the
> > > > > first link I gave you, where you can find detailed data for the
> whole
> > > > > world. You will find Canada and the Central/South American
countries
> also.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >No, I'm not planning on invading mexico, but, I have talked about the
> U.S.
> > > >buying Baja Califorina from them a few times, but, that is an entirly
> > > >different subject.  I tossed in Mexico as part of the World Numbers,
I
> know,
> > > >I should of seperated it from the US numbers, but I didn't. Sorry.
> > > >
> > > > > For NG it includes WY, since it is 2001/2002 numbers, but the same
> as I
> > > > > said about R/P values for oil is also valid for NG.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your point about multiple cycles for nuclear is very valid, but
for
> > > >various
> > > > > safety reasons the normal reactors are one stage. I have not heard
> that
> > > > > multiple stages would take care of the waste problems to any
larger
> degree
> > > > > and balanced with the other safety concerns, it does not look as
an
> > > > > advantage.
> > > >
> > > >By taking the spent reactor fuel, and reprocessing it, you reduce the
> amount
> > > >of new fuel you use and the total amount of spent fuel that becomes
> waste.
> > > >I don't know the exact numbers, but, I have been told that in a spent
> fuel
> > > >rod, somewhere between 80% and 90% of the fuel would still be usable
if
> the
> > > >contaminating products were removed. Sort of like when biodiesel is
> made and
> > > >you have to remove the water from it.  In France they recycle the
fuel
> rods
> > > >by re-refining them. It cuts down on how fast the spent material
builds
> up.
> > > >In the US, it is one time only, and some people think that this will
> lead to
> > > >radioactive waste that is hotter longer.
> > > >
> > > > >But maybe the safety concerns becomes less of a factor in an
> > > > > energy crunch.
> > > >
> > > >Always has before. Another thing that might help is if ( and that is
a
> big
> > > >IF ) fusion finaly gets out of the lab.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Coal is a large asset that is underutilized at the moment, but
Bush
> and
> > > >the
> > > > > oil industry seems to have some hydrogen plans for this. I do not
> have to
> > > > > tell you as mathematician, that the R/P value will go down fast
with
> > > >higher
> > > > > utilization. 200 years seems to me as an overoptimistic estimation
> if it
> > > > > starts to be used for hydrogen or synthetic fuels.
> > > >
> > > >Perhaps you are right there, it would not suprise me.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally, it was the 60's and it was 50 years. The unknown reserves
> was not
> > > > > included or even estimated. We got better on this the last 35
years.
> > > > > However, Hubbert's peak production calculation method has proven
its
> > > >value.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >I barley remember the early 70's, so I know it wasn't from the 60's.
> LOL
> > > >
> > > > > If I forgot or misunderstood something, please tell me and I will
do
> my
> > > > > best to clear it out.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > > >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> > > >
> > > >Biofuels list archives:
> > > >http://archive.nnytech.net/
> > > >
> > > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> > > >To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> > >
> > > Biofuels list archives:
> > > http://archive.nnytech.net/
> > >
> > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> > > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 9
> >    Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:55:16 -0800
> >    From: Neoteric Biofuels Inc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: good oil crops for England
> >
> > They do. More oil per acre than African oil palms, apparently, and a
> > LOT of pulp for ethanol - and they smell nice too? Bonus. The bees
> > prolly love 'em.
> >
> > Edward Beggs
> > http://www.biofuels.ca
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 08:14 AM, kirk wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think of chokecherries as bearing much.
> > > The blossoms are one of the lovliest scents in the world.
> > > Truly exquisite.
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 10
> >    Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:45:13 -0500
> >    From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Hog Snot!!!
> >
> > Greg,
> >
> > Taking your previously condemnatory responses in hand with your
> > in great part "butter my bread on all sides" response issued
> > below on the same subject, It's rather difficult to see the
> > benefit of consuming much more time playing "hide and seek" with
> > your perspectives on civil disobedience.
> >
> > On the one hand you issue terse condemnation against dirt
> > worshipin', bunny lovin' tree huggers and circumstances of which
> > you are largely unaware, yet on the other hand you state that it
> > may be necessary for you to conduct an act of civil disobedience
> > in the future as well - not okay with Greg on the one hand but
> > "okay" with Greg if it's his own hand.
> >
> > Where by your previous and present expressions you have equated
> > civil disobedience with terrorism, you now qualify civil
> > disobedience as occasionally being acceptable, even when in the
> > radical extreme such as John Brown.
> >
> > The extremisms expressed in your views are a bit incongruent.
> >
> > By your standards, any activist who does not have "legal
> > standing" in a judicial matter is one who has "jumped on the
> > bandwagon" - an activity that you again are disdainful of. By
> > your standards, Thoreau should have filed suit against the poll
> > tax and waited years for a ruling, even when the tax was but a
> > vehicle of his protest, not specifically what he was protesting.
> > Attempting to establish a standard where people who "haven't done
> > the work" should have no right to their activism is not only
> > preposterous but once again a highly opinionated and overly
> > presumptive judgement.
> >
> > Only a select few have the right to enact civil disobedience? And
> > would it be you who is just the individual capable of determining
> > exactly who is and who is not acceptable to participate in such a
> > manner - on any matter?
> >
> > Two things that I find lacking in your expressions: 1) a lack of
> > understanding of critical mass, which seldom to never happens in
> > the nice, tidy and ever so orderly fashion that you would prefer
> > and 2) a largely void understanding of the disparity between our
> > judicial process, both its time lines and its metering of
> > "justice," and the natural world that you reside in. Ecosystems
> > and human beings don't just get up out of their chair beyond the
> > dais and casually resume their previous existence after a judge
> > makes a pronouncement, least of all if they've been devastated,
> > destroyed or compromised in advance of or throughout the same
> > legal process.
> >
> > And while you may expect that the rest of the world should simply
> > wait politely and quietly for the pen of a judge, legislator or
> > policy chief to sway in one direction or another, your
> > expectations are exaggerated and unrealistic in light of the
> > inequities, improprieties, injustices and other indiscriminate
> > spoilage that may be effected both prior to and after that same
> > pen having been taken up.
> >
> > Perhaps most telling of all is your following perception.
> >
> > > If any activists, by breaking the law, draw law enforcement
> > away from
> > > anti-terrorist activities, then yes indeed, they are supporting
> > terrorism.
> > > They may not be directly supporting terrorism, but, they are
> > supporting it
> > > none the less.
> >
> > So inequity and injustice should only be met with a pen, wielded
> > by appointed judges - as anything beyond that which draws a
> > single breath of effort from law enforcement is supporting
> > terrorism....?
> >
> > > >Yet the
> > > > purveyors of government overthrows, collusive
> > > > corporate/political/military coups, general armament, mayhem,
> > > > distraction, destruction and disregard for life in general
> > are
> > > > expected to be viewed as the right-hand avenging angels of
> > God
> > > > almighty and securers of the peace?
> >
> > And the extremisms and tyrannies of such economically and
> > politically inclined despots should only be met with the paper of
> > legal challenge as well - as all else is terrorism and support of
> > terrorism....?
> >
> > No. I don't believe we are addressing the same realities.
> >
> > Todd Swearingen
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Greg and April <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 3:44 AM
> > Subject: [biofuel] Re: Hog Snot!!!
> >
> >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 23:22
> > > Subject: Hog Snot!!! was Re: Torture Tactics - Yes, in America
> > was Re:
> > > [biofuel] Re: The oil in Iraq
> > >
> > >
> > > > Greg,
> > > >
> > > > First off, I would hazard to guess that you haven't
> > particulary
> > > > versed yourself on the Headwaters battles of either yor or
> > > > present, nor how the ever so precious legal recourses have
> > been
> > > > and are being exhausted, with the courts "peculiarly" siding
> > > > predominantly with the perverted notion that somehow the
> > > > consequences of enacting the full dimension of "personal
> > property
> > > > rights" don't extend beyond a property line onto the property
> > and
> > > > into the rights of others.
> > >
> > > It depends on the action, and in many cases the law of the
> > land.  What may
> > > be the right and legal thing to do in one place, may  be the
> > right and
> > > illegal thing to do elsewere, or for that matter the wrong but
> > still legal
> > > in still another place.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So your over generalization of "lazyiness" to people who have
> > > > actually participated in processes to their legal, ethical,
> > > > principle, moral and wit's end is considerably out of order.
> > On
> > > > top of this lacking, by your standard, people should only
> > conduct
> > > > acts of civil disobedience after the bombs have been
> > launched,
> > > > after societies are devastated, after the last tree is cut,
> > after
> > > > the salmon are on a devastating decline or after a species is
> > > > lost, all because there may perhaps yet be one more avenue of
> > > > legal recourse available - even if the only thing that
> > recourse
> > > > saves is a black and white drawing of the last of a species -
> > not
> > > > the real thing, much less a sufficiently diversified gene
> > pool.
> > >
> > > Far to many times people jump on the civil disobedience band
> > wagon, just to
> > > be there with out having done any other work, to resolve the
> > issue, this is
> > > what I'm talking about.  I'm involved in a few issues now that
> > may in the
> > > end, result in it, but, that does not reduce in any way my
> > responsability to
> > > first do all I can, in the accepted legal manor.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Funny thing about nature and other structures. They're not on
> > the
> > > > same time schedule as the judiciary appeals process. But to
> > avoid
> > > > your disdain, people should do nothing until the ink dries on
> > > > paper, no matter that everything be dead, dying or inevitably
> > > > headed in that direction.
> > >
> > > They can use the 1st amendment to sway public opinion, you
> > change enough
> > > minds, you don't need to wait for the appeals process, because
> > a law can get
> > > passed faster than that.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you no. I'd much rather be the recipient of your
> > "disdain,"
> > > > which will eventually change when it's your well being that's
> > > > being directly challenged or you begin to realize the
> > devastating
> > > > collective impact of "legal recourse."
> > >
> > > And when your activities affect me negitively? Do I take
> > matters into my own
> > > hands? Perhaps I should go through the court system? Or would
> > you rather I
> > > try to work thing out with you?  I would think that you would
> > want one of
> > > the last two, but, what you sugest is if the last two don't
> > work, I go to
> > > #1, is this what you want, I woulnd't think so.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Also, you might care to take a look at the revised Monkey
> > Wrench
> > > > manuals (unpublished).
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why should I?
> > >
> > > > Techniques for the sort of protest presence that you take
> > such
> > > > umbrage with have for the past two decades not necessarily
> > > > included "self releases," unless the initiator feels the
> > > > necessity due to any belief of impending threat that might
> > > > compromise life and/or limb. Fast moving freight trains and
> > > > loggers in an unpoliced wilderness frequently qualify.
> > Suburban
> > > > offices almost never have. All the same, there remains no
> > hard
> > > > and fast rule that anyone can count on with absolute
> > certainty.
> > > >
> > > > Constabulary agencies have been intimately familiar with this
> > > > tactic and its nuances for an equal length of time, making
> > their
> > > > practice in this instance purely criminal, even if not
> > "legally"
> > > > pursuable. But, no doubt, you will continue to choose to
> > express
> > > > otherwise.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If your going to say it, why don't you say it in plain english,
> > rather than
> > > obscurely.
> > >
> > > > Don't kid yourself. These types of activities are high stakes
> > > > gambits with participants on the protest side completely
> > aware as
> > > > to what extremes the "enforcement" side is capable and
> > perfectly
> > > > willing to resort. Funny thing though. The limits of what a
> > tree
> > > > sitter or a locked down sit-in activist is capable of doing
> > is of
> > > > exponential magnitudes less that what a logger with a chain
> > saw
> > > > or a pack of jack-booted thugs are capable of "executing"
> > within
> > > > the realm or vagueries of "legal" indiscretion.
> > >
> > > And what about the guy working hard for an honest buck? Let me
> > guess " To
> > > Bad " right?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > As for this?
> > > >
> > > > > Terrorism is an example of this, it is the extreame of
> > civil
> > > > > disobedience and law breaking.
> > >
> > > Do not terrorist break laws and are they not disobedient to
> > civil code?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What a blackwashed perception. Murder is now "extreme civil
> > > > disobedience?" The execution of humans in the pursuit of
> > > > intentionally distorted and warped fundamentalism is "extreme
> > > > civil disobedience?" No.... that's called warped
> > fundamentalism.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It may be, but they still break laws and are disobedient to the
> > civil code.
> > >
> > > > Even John Brown's intent to liberate the
> > > > armaments of a military repository in order to assist in a
> > slave
> > > > revolt can't be placed in the same category as what you would
> > > > purport -
> > >
> > > I would not put him at the same level as terrorism, but it was
> > warped for
> > > him to think that he could pull it off.  Look at how many
> > people got killed
> > > in the process. Some at the time used a similar description for
> > him as you
> > > did for terrorism.   Bruce Olds: Was he mad? He was obsessed,
> > he was
> > > fanatical, he was monomaniacal, he was a zealot, and
> > psychologically
> > > unbalanced.
> > >
> > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/brown/filmmore/transcript/transcript
> > 1.html
> > > Sounds very much like your description.
> > >
> > >
> > > > This is now a world where peace activists, environmental
> > > > activists and recreational cannabis smokers alike are all too
> > > > conveniently lump-summed as "supporters of terrorism."
> > >
> > > If any activists, by breaking the law, draw law enforcement
> > away from
> > > anti-terrorist activities, then yes indeed, they are supporting
> > terrorism.
> > > They may not be directly supporting terrorism, but, they are
> > supporting it
> > > none the less.
> > >
> > > >Yet the
> > > > purveyors of government overthrows, collusive
> > > > corporate/political/military coups, general armament, mayhem,
> > > > distraction, destruction and disregard for life in general
> > are
> > > > expected to be viewed as the right-hand avenging angels of
> > God
> > > > almighty and securers of the peace?
> > >
> > > I never said that, stop putting words in my mouth.  Extremist
> > of any type
> > > are distasteful to most people.
> > >
> > > Greg H.
> > >
> > >
> > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> > >
> > > Biofuels list archives:
> > > http://archive.nnytech.net/
> > >
> > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> > > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 11
> >    Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 02:03:38 +0900
> >    From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: Environment-friendly fuel for Indian railways
> >
> > >Jatropha seeds are mainly utilized for their medicinal properties in
> > >India.  It is also commonly referred to as 'purging nut'.  The
> > >latex, oil, twigs, wood and leaves are all used externally for
> > >healing wounds, to stop bleeding, to treat rheumatism, skin
> > >diseases, leprosy, etc.
> > >The manure that is referred here, is the seed cake which is rich in
> > >nitrogen and phosphorus.
> > >So, apart from using the non-edible oil for producing biodiesel, the
> > >other parts of Jatropha can also be used to a very great extent.
> > >Likewise, the oil crop which I'm working on (Mahua - Madhuca indica)
> > >is also a non-edible variety and possesses similar properties.
> > >Another advantage is that, such oil crops can be easily cultivated
> > >on arid and semi-arid regions.
> > >Kavitha.
> >
> > I cross-posted a message on jatropha in India from A.D. Karve a
> > couple of months ago, from the Stoves list at Crest:
> >
> > > I have conducted field experiments on both castor and Jatropha.  I had
> > >already mentioned in a previous E-mail, that Jatropha was tested rather
> > >widely in India and was given up because it was not found to be as high
> > >yielding as the traditional oil crops in India.  I do not know how it
> > >behaves in other countries, but under our agroclimatic and edaphic
> > >conditions, Jatropha produces much more vegetative matter than fruits.
> At
> > >harvest, one has to search for the occasional fruit hidden behind all
the
> > >foliage that this plant produces.  It is found all over India as a wild
> > >plant.  India has some 25 uncultivated species of trees that yield
> > >non-edible oil. The seed of the wild trees is collected by villagers
and
> > >sold to merchants attending the weekly village markets, but no farmer
> would
> > >ever think of growing them as a crop, because all of them are lower
> yielding
> > >than the cultivated oil plants such as peanut, soybean, sunflower,
> > >safflower, sesame, various mustards and rapes, coconut, etc. Among the
> > >seasonal oilseeds, hybrid castor is the highest yielding (2.5 tonnes
oil
> per
> > >ha), but it is not an edible oil. The highest yield of edible oil, also
> > >about 2.5 tonnes per ha, is obtained from coconut. Oil palm, which
yields
> 6
> > >tonnes of oil per hectare in Malaysia,  was tested and given up as low
> > >yielding under Indian conditions.
> > >Yours A.D.Karve
> > http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?view=17993&list=BIOFUEL
> >
> > I'll say it again - many factors are more important than claimed high
> > yields, especially local conditions.
> >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Hi Murdoch,
> > >I think you are on the right track here.  I would be interested in more
> > >info on the jatropha seed.
> >
> > Plenty of into in the archives search for "jatropha" (no quotes):
> > http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel
> > http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuels-biz
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > >The glycerine is typically used for soaps, but
> > >has many industrial uses.  I'd be interested if it could be used for a
> fuel
> > >cell.  That would be great.  Where does the 300 kg manure come from?
Is
> > >the jatropha seed used for cattle feed in India?  The traditional ag
uses
> > >for manure reduces the need for chemical fertilizers, so that may be
the
> > >best use.  A secondary use would be to ferment it into biogas.
> > >
> > >Tim Murphy
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > > >-- Original Message --
> > > >To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> > > >From: murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:22:24 -0800
> > > >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Environment-friendly fuel for Indian railways
> > > >Reply-To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>About 400 kg of Jatropha seed can yield 100 kg oil, which after
> > > >>blending with methanol or alcohol would give 100 kg bio-diesel, 10
kg
> > >
> > > >>glycerine and 300 kg manure. In addition it creates large-scale
> > > >>employment.
> > > >
> > > >I wonder as to possible different uses for glycerine and manure.  I
> don't
> > > >know
> > > >anything about it.  Could glycerine be used in a fuel cell?  Could
> manure
> > > >be
> > > >dried and burned in a boiler or generator (not to exclude it from
> > >traditional
> > > >uses)?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 12
> >    Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 02:19:00 +0900
> >    From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
> >
> > Hi G.R.
> >
> > Maybe not in this particular thread, but there's quite a lot about it
> > in the archives:
> >
> > http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel
> >
> > Search for "methane hydrate" (with quotes). Also "coalbed methane".
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >I've watched this discussion for a while and there appears to be no
> > >reference to methane hydrates, which are well distributed throughout
the
> > >world and are well positioned to readily serve the coastal U.S.
> > >population when developed.
> > >
> > >While there are a variety of data sources, I will leave compilation to
> > >those so inclined.
> > >
> > >In the meanwhile a reasonably non-contentious starting source might be
> > >
> > > http://www.fe.doe.gov/oil_gas/methanehydrates/
> > >
> > >Rgds,
> > >G.R.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Hakan Falk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Greg,
> > > >
> > > > I am glad that you found the numbers interesting and that it
obviously
> > > > enhanced your view.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 13
> >    Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:23:55 -0800
> >    From: Ken Provost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: Environment-friendly fuel for Indian railways
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 09:03  AM, Keith Addison wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I'll say it again - many factors are more important than claimed high
> > > yields, especially local conditions.
> >
> > I had a good example of that last growing season. I raised two varieties
> > of mustard -- white (AKA yellow, Brassica hirta), and brown (AKA
> > oriental,
> > B. juncea). The brown was supposed to be much higher yielding, both
> > per acre and per plant. Unfortunately, it got horribly infested with
> > aphids
> > and powdery mildew, while the hirta six feet away were nearly free of
> > both.
> >
> > Disease and pest resistance may be much higher in a supposedly lower-
> > yielding species.    -K
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 14
> >    Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:58:21 -0800
> >    From: Neoteric Biofuels Inc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Imperial
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Steve -
> > >
> > > Here in Canada, and many other places I suspect, almost everyone over
> > > the age of about 15 still thinks in terms of miles per gallon, gallons
> > > per acre and so on, even though we switched officially to metric many
> > > years ago. So, we deal a lot in "metrish" (metric/English), and tend
> > > to think, still, in terms of miles per gallon and gallons per acre as
> > > being Imperial gallons which are 4.55 litres - whatever that is in US
> > > quarts!
> > >
> > > So my Jetta get 62 miles per gallon (but the gallon is 4.55 litres!)
> > >
> > >
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > > Edward Beggs
> > > http://www.biofuels.ca
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 04:07 AM, Steve Spence wrote:
> > >
> > >> I didn't think anyone used the imperial gallon anymore. that was 5 us
> > >> quarts, right?
> > >>
> > >> Steve Spence
> > >> Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
> > >> & Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
> > >> http://www.green-trust.org
> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 15
> >    Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:59:28 -0800
> >    From: Neoteric Biofuels Inc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Chokecherries
> >
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [biofuel] good oil crops for England
> > >
> > >
> > > That's oil, from the pits. Interesting agroforestry/windbreak/soil
> > > conservation opportunity, I'd think, especially for our Prairies.
> > >
> > > Edward Beggs
> > > http://www.biofuels.ca
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 04:06 AM, Steve Spence wrote:
> > >
> > >> ethanol or oil? I'm assuming ethanol from chokecherries?
> > >>
> > >> Steve Spence
> > >> Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
> > >> & Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
> > >> http://www.green-trust.org
> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Neoteric Biofuels Inc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
> > >> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 11:49 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: [biofuel] good oil crops for England
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Speaking of oil palms, how about those "oil palms of the
> > >>> north"....chokecherries....
> > >>>
> > >>> "Tests have shown that a car can run for about 7,000 kilometres on a
> > >>> hectare of wheat converted into ethanol, 14,000 km on canola-based
> > >>> biodiesel and 30,000 km on a hectare of chokecherries. "
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Pages/grain/news/newsarchive/
> > >>> 02igqinews/020926igqinews4.html
> > >>>
> > >>> Edward Beggs
> > >>> http://www.biofuels.ca
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 16
> >    Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 02:41:26 +0900
> >    From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Behind the Great Divide
> >
> > A bit weak, especially for Krugman... but it's a start, maybe about
> > the maximum-sized bite the average cable-viewer could chew on without
> > choking.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/opinion/18KRUG.html
> >
> > Behind the Great Divide
> > By PAUL KRUGMAN
> >
> > There has been much speculation why Europe and the U.S. are suddenly
> > at such odds. Is it about culture? About history? But I haven't seen
> > much discussion of an obvious point: We have different views partly
> > because we see different news.
> >
> > Let's back up. Many Americans now blame France for the chill in
> > U.S.-European relations. There is even talk of boycotting French
> > products.
> >
> > But France's attitude isn't exceptional. Last Saturday's huge
> > demonstrations confirmed polls that show deep distrust of the Bush
> > administration and skepticism about an Iraq war in all major European
> > nations, whatever position their governments may take. In fact, the
> > biggest demonstrations were in countries whose governments are
> > supporting the Bush administration.
> >
> > There were big demonstrations in America too. But distrust of the
> > U.S. overseas has reached such a level, even among our British
> > allies, that a recent British poll ranked the U.S. as the world's
> > most dangerous nation - ahead of North Korea and Iraq.
> >
> > So why don't other countries see the world the way we do? News
> > coverage is a large part of the answer. Eric Alterman's new book,
> > "What Liberal Media?" doesn't stress international comparisons, but
> > the difference between the news reports Americans and Europeans see
> > is a stark demonstration of his point. At least compared with their
> > foreign counterparts, the "liberal" U.S. media are strikingly
> > conservative - and in this case hawkish.
> >
> > I'm not mainly talking about the print media. There are differences,
> > but the major national newspapers in the U.S. and the U.K. at least
> > seem to be describing the same reality.
> >
> > Most people, though, get their news from TV - and there the
> > difference is immense. The coverage of Saturday's antiwar rallies was
> > a reminder of the extent to which U.S. cable news, in particular,
> > seems to be reporting about a different planet than the one covered
> > by foreign media.
> >
> > What would someone watching cable news have seen? On Saturday, news
> > anchors on Fox described the demonstrators in New York as "the usual
> > protesters" or "serial protesters." CNN wasn't quite so dismissive,
> > but on Sunday morning the headline on the network's Web site read
> > "Antiwar rallies delight Iraq," and the accompanying picture showed
> > marchers in Baghdad, not London or New York.
> >
> > This wasn't at all the way the rest of the world's media reported
> > Saturday's events, but it wasn't out of character. For months both
> > major U.S. cable news networks have acted as if the decision to
> > invade Iraq has already been made, and have in effect seen it as
> > their job to prepare the American public for the coming war.
> >
> > So it's not surprising that the target audience is a bit blurry about
> > the distinction between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda. Surveys show
> > that a majority of Americans think that some or all of the Sept. 11
> > hijackers were Iraqi, while many believe that Saddam Hussein was
> > involved in Sept. 11, a claim even the Bush administration has never
> > made. And since many Americans think that the need for a war against
> > Saddam is obvious, they think that Europeans who won't go along are
> > cowards.
> >
> > Europeans, who don't see the same things on TV, are far more inclined
> > to wonder why Iraq - rather than North Korea, or for that matter Al
> > Qaeda - has become the focus of U.S. policy. That's why so many of
> > them question American motives, suspecting that it's all about oil or
> > that the administration is simply picking on a convenient enemy it
> > knows it can defeat. They don't see opposition to an Iraq war as
> > cowardice; they see it as courage, a matter of standing up to the
> > bullying Bush administration.
> >
> > There are two possible explanations for the great trans-Atlantic
> > media divide. One is that European media have a pervasive
> > anti-American bias that leads them to distort the news, even in
> > countries like the U.K. where the leaders of both major parties are
> > pro-Bush and support an attack on Iraq. The other is that some U.S.
> > media outlets - operating in an environment in which anyone who
> > questions the administration's foreign policy is accused of being
> > unpatriotic - have taken it as their assignment to sell the war, not
> > to present a mix of information that might call the justification for
> > war into question.
> >
> > So which is it? I've reported, you decide.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 17
> >    Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:02:07 -0500
> >    From: "Martin Klingensmith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: RE: Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
> >
> > Additionally, try this:
> > http://nnytech.net/~archive2/index.php?keywords=methane+hydrate&list=bio
> > fuel&browse=1
> >
> > I apologize for such a long list of results, this is the "beta" website
> > - I'll put it on my list of to-dos :)
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Martin Klingensmith
> > infoarchive.net  [archive.nnytech.net]
> > nnytech.net
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 12:19 PM
> > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
> >
> > Hi G.R.
> >
> > Maybe not in this particular thread, but there's quite a lot about it
> > in the archives:
> >
> > http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel
> >
> > Search for "methane hydrate" (with quotes). Also "coalbed methane".
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >I've watched this discussion for a while and there appears to be no
> > >reference to methane hydrates, which are well distributed throughout
> > the
> > >world and are well positioned to readily serve the coastal U.S.
> > >population when developed.
> > >
> > >While there are a variety of data sources, I will leave compilation to
> > >those so inclined.
> > >
> > >In the meanwhile a reasonably non-contentious starting source might be
> > >
> > > http://www.fe.doe.gov/oil_gas/methanehydrates/
> > >
> > >Rgds,
> > >G.R.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Hakan Falk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Greg,
> > > >
> > > > I am glad that you found the numbers interesting and that it
> > obviously
> > > > enhanced your view.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> >
> > Biofuels list archives:
> > http://archive.nnytech.net/
> >
> > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 18
> >    Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:29:11 -0600
> >    From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject:  PBS - The War Behind Closed Doors
> >
> >  On Feb. 20, 2002  "The War Behind Closed Doors" examines the hidden
> >  story of what is really driving the Bush administration to war with
Iraq.
> >  Are the publicly reported reasons - Saddam's weapons of mass
> >  destruction and U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East - only
> >  masking the real reason for war?
> >  FRONTLINE unravels a story known only to Washington insiders.
> >  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
> >
> >
> >  Find Your Local  [USA]  Television Schedule
> >    Enter your zip code  -OR-
> >    Select a State or Territory
> >  http://www.pbs.org/whatson/index.html
> >
> >
> >  ___________________________
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 19
> >    Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:46:43 -0500
> >    From: "Steve Spence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
> >
> > No one is sure if the hydrates can be harvested safely.
> >
> > Steve Spence
> > Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
> > & Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
> > http://www.green-trust.org
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gary Rempel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 10:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
> >
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've watched this discussion for a while and there appears to be no
> > > reference to methane hydrates, which are well distributed throughout
the
> > > world and are well positioned to readily serve the coastal U.S.
> > > population when developed.
> > >
> > > While there are a variety of data sources, I will leave compilation to
> > > those so inclined.
> > >
> > > In the meanwhile a reasonably non-contentious starting source might be
> > >
> > > http://www.fe.doe.gov/oil_gas/methanehydrates/
> > >
> > > Rgds,
> > > G.R.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hakan Falk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Greg,
> > > >
> > > > I am glad that you found the numbers interesting and that it
obviously
> > > > enhanced your view.
> > > >
> > > > Your stumbling block regarding the maps is nothing, compared when
some
> > > > Americans try to make maps of the world. The individual numbers are
> the
> > > > most interesting anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding known (proven) reserves, it is not much to say. Estimates
> are
> > > > founded on geological data and some of the are made by economists.
> This
> > > > explains the range of numbers. I call it speculations, since they
vary
> > > > between 2 to 4 times the known. We could make 3 or more groups out
of
> > them,
> > > > but it does not really change the over all picture. I like your idea
> of
> > > > known, estimates and wild speculations, but my point in the article
> was
> > > > that it is really not serious to fight about if it is me, my
children
> or
> > my
> > > > grandchildren that will suffer. I like to see future generations
span
> > more
> > > > the 3 generations and ideally see a sustainable situation.
> > > >
> > > > When you deal with this figures and draw the consequences, it is
> > ludicrous
> > > > to say that it is not about oil. If you the see who are getting
> > development
> > > > contracts in Iraq and who is not getting them, it fits well with the
> > > > groupings on the war issue. It is only Spain, who have tentative
> > agreement
> > > > with Iraq that is acting without logic. I am not surprised about
that
> at
> > > > all, but maybe they have been promised a larger stake from US/UK.
> > > >
> > > > During the late 60's and early 70's, it was many numbers flying
> around.
> > The
> > > > most serious analyses was Hubbert's presentation to the US Congress
in
> > mid
> > > > 70's. Since I was very much involved in energy questions already
then,
> I
> > > > remember the important ones. It is quite possible that you had some
> > > > doomsday prophets that was talking about 30 years, but I do not
> remember
> > > > it. If they did, it was irrelevant anyway in the circles that I was
> > working
> > > > in. I can not take this as a serious argument, since I did not
> supported
> > > > such estimates. Known oil reserves for 50 to 60 years was what we
> talked
> > > > about and that was quite correct. We were also aware that that new
> > > > discoveries would push that numbers forward. In that sense I would
say
> > that
> > > > the numbers we discussed was maybe more optimistic than todays.
> > > >
> > > > Nuclear is a subject that I try to avoid, since it is a very
infected
> > area
> > > > with many unqualified opinions. We were involved in designing of PA
> > systems
> > > > and in the control calculations of stress and fixations of piping in
> the
> > > > two last built Nuclear Plants in Sweden. I am not in starch
opposition
> > to
> > > > nuclear, but some of the plants built and operated today are
outright
> > > > dangerous. I would like to see the idea of low temperature mini
> reactors
> > > > for hot water production for heating picked up again, it would be
much
> > > > safer and minimum of dangerous waste.
> > > >
> > > > As it is, fusion have a long way to go if it ever will be an
> > alternative.
> > > >
> > > > Hakan
> > > >
> > > > At 12:26 AM 2/18/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: "Hakan Falk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 18:53
> > > > >Subject: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Puuh, sweat, sweat,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Greg,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good, I suppose that you must know your boolean algebra and the
> > basis for
> > > > > > computers to make this definition of multiplication and
division.
> So
> > we do
> > > > > > not have to waste time on this as long as you do it right.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >I've always had a hard time with algebra (other than the basic
> algebra
> > > > >anyway), but, to me it just seams make sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Obviously you need some help with the numbers and I will try to
> > explain
> > > > >the
> > > > > > issues as good as I can. To start with, the source which is
> > generally
> > > > > > regarded as comprehensive, interesting and quite accurate is at
> the
> > > > > > following link,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.bp.com/downloads/1087/statistical_review.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > >Confusion time.  On Pg. 4 they list Mexico with N. America, but, on
> Pg.
> > 5,
> > > > >the map shows Mexico as being included with S. & central America as
> far
> > as
> > > > >the graphs. Which is correct?  This cast doubt on the graphs on Pg.
8
> > and
> > > > >others that are based on the information from Pgs. 4 & 5. I'm not
> being
> > > > >argumentative, just confused.
> > > > >
> > > > >I am kinda suprised by the map on Pg. 19, I would think that the
U.S.
> > would
> > > > >try and get more oil from Africa, it being closer, than from the
> middle
> > > > >east.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To explain Known Oil Reserves versus speculations about the
Total
> > Oil
> > > > > > Reserves, it will save space in this email if you read what I
> wrote
> > about
> > > > > > it on the following link,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://energy.saving.nu/resources/oilreserves.shtml
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Another stumbling block I'm having is the differance between Proven
> > > > >Reserves, Estamated Reserves of a known oil source and Speculation
of
> > > > >unknown reserves. To me this is 3 seperate things, akin to Known,
> Most
> > > > >likely and a wild ass guess. I read the link above, but, like I
said,
> > to me
> > > > >I'm seeing 3 seperate things rather than just ' Proven ' and '
> > Speculation
> > > > >'.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To add some background to this, is that the only unknown larger
> oil
> > > > > > reserves that might be in US, are maybe to be found in Alaska.
> Iraq,
> > which
> > > > > > have known oil reserves that amounts to half of Saudi Arabia
(the
> > largest
> > > > > > in the world) is the second largest. Together they represent
> around
> > half
> > > > >of
> > > > > > the worlds known oil reserves. It is however expected that when
> Iraq
> > is
> > > > > > fully explored, it will be as large as Saudi Arabia and maybe
> > larger.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With known oil reserves, it is known oil reserves also for US. A
> > > > >discussion
> > > > > > of single fields is therefore academic and fruitless as
arguments.
> > The
> > > > >only
> > > > > > thing that might be open for discussions are the unknown oil
> > reserves.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your confusions could come from that in some US estimates, it is
> > included
> > > > > > oil imports. In R/P values for the whole world, production is
> equal
> > to
> > > > > > consumption, but for local areas the consumption are used. The
R/P
> > value
> > > > > > for US is therefore the US known oil reserves divided by its
> yearly
> > > > > > consumption and that is how they get 10.7 years, the number does
> not
> > even
> > > > > > include estimates of a rise in consumption. Bluntly said, with
> > current
> > > > > > known oil reserves, without imports and with current
consumption,
> US
> > will
> > > > > > have oil for 10.7 years. Obviously US must import oil or rapidly
> > find very
> > > > > > large new oil reserves and if non of this is available US would
be
> > in a
> > > > > > crisis situation.
> > > > >
> > > > >This helps.
> > > > >
> > > > > >Therefore US decided many years ago to build a storage
> > > > > > reserve, mainly from imports. The storage reserve, if it is
full,
> > give US
> > > > >a
> > > > > > year or two in combination with own oil reserves. This storage
> > reserve is
> > > > > > mainly used for stabilizing prices and at the moment it is
around
> > 50% of
> > > > > > its capacity. It should not be necessary, but I will anyway
point
> > out that
> > > > > > US already now is in a very sensitive situation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since when is Mexico US? Do you have plans of invading them too?
I
> > have
> > > > >not
> > > > > > heard about that, it is a complete surprise. Regarding Mexico,
see
> > the
> > > > > > first link I gave you, where you can find detailed data for the
> > whole
> > > > > > world. You will find Canada and the Central/South American
> countries
> > also.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >No, I'm not planning on invading mexico, but, I have talked about
the
> > U.S.
> > > > >buying Baja Califorina from them a few times, but, that is an
entirly
> > > > >different subject.  I tossed in Mexico as part of the World
Numbers,
> I
> > know,
> > > > >I should of seperated it from the US numbers, but I didn't. Sorry.
> > > > >
> > > > > > For NG it includes WY, since it is 2001/2002 numbers, but the
same
> > as I
> > > > > > said about R/P values for oil is also valid for NG.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your point about multiple cycles for nuclear is very valid, but
> for
> > > > >various
> > > > > > safety reasons the normal reactors are one stage. I have not
heard
> > that
> > > > > > multiple stages would take care of the waste problems to any
> larger
> > degree
> > > > > > and balanced with the other safety concerns, it does not look as
> an
> > > > > > advantage.
> > > > >
> > > > >By taking the spent reactor fuel, and reprocessing it, you reduce
the
> > amount
> > > > >of new fuel you use and the total amount of spent fuel that becomes
> > waste.
> > > > >I don't know the exact numbers, but, I have been told that in a
spent
> > fuel
> > > > >rod, somewhere between 80% and 90% of the fuel would still be
usable
> if
> > the
> > > > >contaminating products were removed. Sort of like when biodiesel is
> > made and
> > > > >you have to remove the water from it.  In France they recycle the
> fuel
> > rods
> > > > >by re-refining them. It cuts down on how fast the spent material
> builds
> > up.
> > > > >In the US, it is one time only, and some people think that this
will
> > lead to
> > > > >radioactive waste that is hotter longer.
> > > > >
> > > > > >But maybe the safety concerns becomes less of a factor in an
> > > > > > energy crunch.
> > > > >
> > > > >Always has before. Another thing that might help is if ( and that
is
> a
> > big
> > > > >IF ) fusion finaly gets out of the lab.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Coal is a large asset that is underutilized at the moment, but
> Bush
> > and
> > > > >the
> > > > > > oil industry seems to have some hydrogen plans for this. I do
not
> > have to
> > > > > > tell you as mathematician, that the R/P value will go down fast
> with
> > > > >higher
> > > > > > utilization. 200 years seems to me as an overoptimistic
estimation
> > if it
> > > > > > starts to be used for hydrogen or synthetic fuels.
> > > > >
> > > > >Perhaps you are right there, it would not suprise me.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Finally, it was the 60's and it was 50 years. The unknown
reserves
> > was not
> > > > > > included or even estimated. We got better on this the last 35
> years.
> > > > > > However, Hubbert's peak production calculation method has proven
> its
> > > > >value.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >I barley remember the early 70's, so I know it wasn't from the
60's.
> > LOL
> > > > >
> > > > > > If I forgot or misunderstood something, please tell me and I
will
> do
> > my
> > > > > > best to clear it out.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > > > >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> > > > >
> > > > >Biofuels list archives:
> > > > >http://archive.nnytech.net/
> > > > >
> > > > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> > > > >To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> > > >
> > > > Biofuels list archives:
> > > > http://archive.nnytech.net/
> > > >
> > > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> > > > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> > >
> > > Biofuels list archives:
> > > http://archive.nnytech.net/
> > >
> > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> > > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 20
> >    Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:40:57 -0500
> >    From: "Steve Spence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: Chokecherries
> >
> > I wonder if you can also ferment the cherries. I was not aware the pits
> had
> > oil potential. They grow almost everywhere.
> >
> >
> > Steve Spence
> > Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
> > & Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
> > http://www.green-trust.org
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Neoteric Biofuels Inc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:59 AM
> > Subject: [biofuel] Chokecherries
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [biofuel] good oil crops for England
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's oil, from the pits. Interesting agroforestry/windbreak/soil
> > > > conservation opportunity, I'd think, especially for our Prairies.
> > > >
> > > > Edward Beggs
> > > > http://www.biofuels.ca
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 04:06 AM, Steve Spence wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> ethanol or oil? I'm assuming ethanol from chokecherries?
> > > >>
> > > >> Steve Spence
> > > >> Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
> > > >> & Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
> > > >> http://www.green-trust.org
> > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> From: "Neoteric Biofuels Inc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >> To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
> > > >> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 11:49 PM
> > > >> Subject: Re: [biofuel] good oil crops for England
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> Speaking of oil palms, how about those "oil palms of the
> > > >>> north"....chokecherries....
> > > >>>
> > > >>> "Tests have shown that a car can run for about 7,000 kilometres on
a
> > > >>> hectare of wheat converted into ethanol, 14,000 km on canola-based
> > > >>> biodiesel and 30,000 km on a hectare of chokecherries. "
> > > >>>
> > > >>> http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Pages/grain/news/newsarchive/
> > > >>> 02igqinews/020926igqinews4.html
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Edward Beggs
> > > >>> http://www.biofuels.ca
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> > >
> > > Biofuels list archives:
> > > http://archive.nnytech.net/
> > >
> > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> > > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 21
> >    Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:26:20 +0100
> >    From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
> >
> >
> > Hi G.R.
> >
> > "Ready for use" technology? Safe shot?
> > Otherwise a good idea for the uncertain future.
> >
> > Hakan
> >
> > At 08:25 AM 2/18/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >I've watched this discussion for a while and there appears to be no
> > >reference to methane hydrates, which are well distributed throughout
the
> > >world and are well positioned to readily serve the coastal U.S.
> > >population when developed.
> > >
> > >While there are a variety of data sources, I will leave compilation to
> > >those so inclined.
> > >
> > >In the meanwhile a reasonably non-contentious starting source might be
> > >
> > >         http://www.fe.doe.gov/oil_gas/methanehydrates/
> > >
> > >Rgds,
> > >G.R.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Hakan Falk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Greg,
> > > >
> > > > I am glad that you found the numbers interesting and that it
obviously
> > > > enhanced your view.
> > > >
> > > > Your stumbling block regarding the maps is nothing, compared when
some
> > > > Americans try to make maps of the world. The individual numbers are
> the
> > > > most interesting anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding known (proven) reserves, it is not much to say. Estimates
> are
> > > > founded on geological data and some of the are made by economists.
> This
> > > > explains the range of numbers. I call it speculations, since they
vary
> > > > between 2 to 4 times the known. We could make 3 or more groups out
of
> them,
> > > > but it does not really change the over all picture. I like your idea
> of
> > > > known, estimates and wild speculations, but my point in the article
> was
> > > > that it is really not serious to fight about if it is me, my
children
> or my
> > > > grandchildren that will suffer. I like to see future generations
span
> more
> > > > the 3 generations and ideally see a sustainable situation.
> > > >
> > > > When you deal with this figures and draw the consequences, it is
> ludicrous
> > > > to say that it is not about oil. If you the see who are getting
> development
> > > > contracts in Iraq and who is not getting them, it fits well with the
> > > > groupings on the war issue. It is only Spain, who have tentative
> agreement
> > > > with Iraq that is acting without logic. I am not surprised about
that
> at
> > > > all, but maybe they have been promised a larger stake from US/UK.
> > > >
> > > > During the late 60's and early 70's, it was many numbers flying
> around. The
> > > > most serious analyses was Hubbert's presentation to the US Congress
in
> mid
> > > > 70's. Since I was very much involved in energy questions already
then,
> I
> > > > remember the important ones. It is quite possible that you had some
> > > > doomsday prophets that was talking about 30 years, but I do not
> remember
> > > > it. If they did, it was irrelevant anyway in the circles that I was
> working
> > > > in. I can not take this as a serious argument, since I did not
> supported
> > > > such estimates. Known oil reserves for 50 to 60 years was what we
> talked
> > > > about and that was quite correct. We were also aware that that new
> > > > discoveries would push that numbers forward. In that sense I would
say
> that
> > > > the numbers we discussed was maybe more optimistic than todays.
> > > >
> > > > Nuclear is a subject that I try to avoid, since it is a very
infected
> area
> > > > with many unqualified opinions. We were involved in designing of PA
> systems
> > > > and in the control calculations of stress and fixations of piping in
> the
> > > > two last built Nuclear Plants in Sweden. I am not in starch
opposition
> to
> > > > nuclear, but some of the plants built and operated today are
outright
> > > > dangerous. I would like to see the idea of low temperature mini
> reactors
> > > > for hot water production for heating picked up again, it would be
much
> > > > safer and minimum of dangerous waste.
> > > >
> > > > As it is, fusion have a long way to go if it ever will be an
> alternative.
> > > >
> > > > Hakan
> > > >
> > > > At 12:26 AM 2/18/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: "Hakan Falk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 18:53
> > > > >Subject: [biofuel] Oil reserves and The oil in Iraq
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Puuh, sweat, sweat,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Greg,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good, I suppose that you must know your boolean algebra and the
> > > basis for
> > > > > > computers to make this definition of multiplication and
division.
> > > So we do
> > > > > > not have to waste time on this as long as you do it right.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >I've always had a hard time with algebra (other than the basic
> algebra
> > > > >anyway), but, to me it just seams make sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Obviously you need some help with the numbers and I will try to
> explain
> > > > >the
> > > > > > issues as good as I can. To start with, the source which is
> generally
> > > > > > regarded as comprehensive, interesting and quite accurate is at
> the
> > > > > > following link,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.bp.com/downloads/1087/statistical_review.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > >Confusion time.  On Pg. 4 they list Mexico with N. America, but, on
> Pg. 5,
> > > > >the map shows Mexico as being included with S. & central America as
> far as
> > > > >the graphs. Which is correct?  This cast doubt on the graphs on Pg.
8
> and
> > > > >others that are based on the information from Pgs. 4 & 5. I'm not
> being
> > > > >argumentative, just confused.
> > > > >
> > > > >I am kinda suprised by the map on Pg. 19, I would think that the
U.S.
> > > would
> > > > >try and get more oil from Africa, it being closer, than from the
> middle
> > > > >east.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To explain Known Oil Reserves versus speculations about the
Total
> Oil
> > > > > > Reserves, it will save space in this email if you read what I
> wrote
> > > about
> > > > > > it on the following link,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://energy.saving.nu/resources/oilreserves.shtml
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Another stumbling block I'm having is the differance between Proven
> > > > >Reserves, Estamated Reserves of a known oil source and Speculation
of
> > > > >unknown reserves. To me this is 3 seperate things, akin to Known,
> Most
> > > > >likely and a wild ass guess. I read the link above, but, like I
said,
> > > to me
> > > > >I'm seeing 3 seperate things rather than just ' Proven ' and '
> Speculation
> > > > >'.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To add some background to this, is that the only unknown larger
> oil
> > > > > > reserves that might be in US, are maybe to be found in Alaska.
> > > Iraq, which
> > > > > > have known oil reserves that amounts to half of Saudi Arabia
(the
> > > largest
> > > > > > in the world) is the second largest. Together they represent
> around
> > > half
> > > > >of
> > > > > > the worlds known oil reserves. It is however expected that when
> Iraq is
> > > > > > fully explored, it will be as large as Saudi Arabia and maybe
> larger.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With known oil reserves, it is known oil reserves also for US. A
> > > > >discussion
> > > > > > of single fields is therefore academic and fruitless as
arguments.
> The
> > > > >only
> > > > > > thing that might be open for discussions are the unknown oil
> reserves.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your confusions could come from that in some US estimates, it is
> > > included
> > > > > > oil imports. In R/P values for the whole world, production is
> equal to
> > > > > > consumption, but for local areas the consumption are used. The
R/P
> > > value
> > > > > > for US is therefore the US known oil reserves divided by its
> yearly
> > > > > > consumption and that is how they get 10.7 years, the number does
>
> > > not even
> > > > > > include estimates of a rise in consumption. Bluntly said, with
> current
> > > > > > known oil reserves, without imports and with current
consumption,
> > > US will
> > > > > > have oil for 10.7 years. Obviously US must import oil or rapidly
> > > find very
> > > > > > large new oil reserves and if non of this is available US would
be
> in a
> > > > > > crisis situation.
> > > > >
> > > > >This helps.
> > > > >
> > > > > >Therefore US decided many years ago to build a storage
> > > > > > reserve, mainly from imports. The storage reserve, if it is
full,
> > > give US
> > > > >a
> > > > > > year or two in combination with own oil reserves. This storage
> > > reserve is
> > > > > > mainly used for stabilizing prices and at the moment it is
around
> > > 50% of
> > > > > > its capacity. It should not be necessary, but I will anyway
point
> > > out that
> > > > > > US already now is in a very sensitive situation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since when is Mexico US? Do you have plans of invading them too?
I
> have
> > > > >not
> > > > > > heard about that, it is a complete surprise. Regarding Mexico,
see
> the
> > > > > > first link I gave you, where you can find detailed data for the
> whole
> > > > > > world. You will find Canada and the Central/South American
> > > countries also.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >No, I'm not planning on invading mexico, but, I have talked about
the
> U.S.
> > > > >buying Baja Califorina from them a few times, but, that is an
entirly
> > > > >different subject.  I tossed in Mexico as part of the World
Numbers,
> I
> > > know,
> > > > >I should of seperated it from the US numbers, but I didn't. Sorry.
> > > > >
> > > > > > For NG it includes WY, since it is 2001/2002 numbers, but the
same
> as I
> > > > > > said about R/P values for oil is also valid for NG.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your point about multiple cycles for nuclear is very valid, but
> for
> > > > >various
> > > > > > safety reasons the normal reactors are one stage. I have not
heard
> that
> > > > > > multiple stages would take care of the waste problems to any
> larger
> > > degree
> > > > > > and balanced with the other safety concerns, it does not look as
> an
> > > > > > advantage.
> > > > >
> > > > >By taking the spent reactor fuel, and reprocessing it, you reduce
the
> > > amount
> > > > >of new fuel you use and the total amount of spent fuel that becomes
> waste.
> > > > >I don't know the exact numbers, but, I have been told that in a
spent
> fuel
> > > > >rod, somewhere between 80% and 90% of the fuel would still be
usable
> > > if the
> > > > >contaminating products were removed. Sort of like when biodiesel is
> > > made and
> > > > >you have to remove the water from it.  In France they recycle the
> fuel
> > > rods
> > > > >by re-refining them. It cuts down on how fast the spent material
> > > builds up.
> > > > >In the US, it is one time only, and some people think that this
will
> > > lead to
> > > > >radioactive waste that is hotter longer.
> > > > >
> > > > > >But maybe the safety concerns becomes less of a factor in an
> > > > > > energy crunch.
> > > > >
> > > > >Always has before. Another thing that might help is if ( and that
is
> a big
> > > > >IF ) fusion finaly gets out of the lab.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Coal is a large asset that is underutilized at the moment, but
> Bush and
> > > > >the
> > > > > > oil industry seems to have some hydrogen plans for this. I do
not
> > > have to
> > > > > > tell you as mathematician, that the R/P value will go down fast
> with
> > > > >higher
> > > > > > utilization. 200 years seems to me as an overoptimistic
estimation
> > > if it
> > > > > > starts to be used for hydrogen or synthetic fuels.
> > > > >
> > > > >Perhaps you are right there, it would not suprise me.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Finally, it was the 60's and it was 50 years. The unknown
reserves
> > > was not
> > > > > > included or even estimated. We got better on this the last 35
> years.
> > > > > > However, Hubbert's peak production calculation method has proven
> its
> > > > >value.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >I barley remember the early 70's, so I know it wasn't from the
60's.
> LOL
> > > > >
> > > > > > If I forgot or misunderstood something, please tell me and I
will
> do my
> > > > > > best to clear it out.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 22
> >    Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:13:41 +0100
> >    From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: Behind the Great Divide
> >
> >
> > Hi Keith,
> >
> > Very weak I would say. I think that Bush got a couple of
> > warning shots across his bow, Byrd's speech was one of them.
> > I have never seen such a speech before, when US prepared
> > for action. Normally the standard is 100% behind the president.
> >
> > As I said earlier, how can they solve post war democracy in
> > Iraq? They must know that the anti US sentiment in the Arab
> > world is so strong that it makes a pro US democratic regime
> > almost impossible in any Arab country. The best they can
> > hope for is a pro US dictatorship, supported by a strong
> > military control and more shipments of weapons. But where to
> > find or engineer that?
> >
> > At the moment US can not find a democratic pro American
> > movement in the Middle East that have a chance to get a
> > majority. If it is going to be a democracy that correlate with
> > the majority of the people, it is going to be strong anti US
> > movement. How can the Americans be so naive?
> >
> > America might win the battle, but the chances of loosing the
> > war are immense. US own attitude polls in the area points
> > to that between 60 to 80% of the population, depending on
> > the country, have an anti US sentiment. Is that going to
> > change with a war? It is going to be civilian casualties and
> > do not forget that almost all soldiers have a family, like
> > the American soldiers. In Iraq the soldiers are likely to
> > be around 15-16 years old, because of the toll of the other
> > wars, and the world opinion is not going to look at killing
> > children as heroism.
> >
> > Ok guys, in true American tradition I am the target now,
> > since I am the messenger. My own positive attitude to
> > Americans and experiences does not count and my concerns
> > that a friend is about to do a major mistake for the wrong
> > reasons neither.
> >
> > Hakan
> >
> >
> > At 02:41 AM 2/19/2003 +0900, you wrote:
> > >A bit weak, especially for Krugman... but it's a start, maybe about
> > >the maximum-sized bite the average cable-viewer could chew on without
> > >choking.
> > >
> > >Keith
> > >
> > >
> > >http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/opinion/18KRUG.html
> > >
> > >Behind the Great Divide
> > >By PAUL KRUGMAN
> > >
> > >There has been much speculation why Europe and the U.S. are suddenly
> > >at such odds. Is it about culture? About history? But I haven't seen
> > >much discussion of an obvious point: We have different views partly
> > >because we see different news.
> > >
> > >Let's back up. Many Americans now blame France for the chill in
> > >U.S.-European relations. There is even talk of boycotting French
> > >products.
> > >
> > >But France's attitude isn't exceptional. Last Saturday's huge
> > >demonstrations confirmed polls that show deep distrust of the Bush
> > >administration and skepticism about an Iraq war in all major European
> > >nations, whatever position their governments may take. In fact, the
> > >biggest demonstrations were in countries whose governments are
> > >supporting the Bush administration.
> > >
> > >There were big demonstrations in America too. But distrust of the
> > >U.S. overseas has reached such a level, even among our British
> > >allies, that a recent British poll ranked the U.S. as the world's
> > >most dangerous nation - ahead of North Korea and Iraq.
> > >
> > >So why don't other countries see the world the way we do? News
> > >coverage is a large part of the answer. Eric Alterman's new book,
> > >"What Liberal Media?" doesn't stress international comparisons, but
> > >the difference between the news reports Americans and Europeans see
> > >is a stark demonstration of his point. At least compared with their
> > >foreign counterparts, the "liberal" U.S. media are strikingly
> > >conservative - and in this case hawkish.
> > >
> > >I'm not mainly talking about the print media. There are differences,
> > >but the major national newspapers in the U.S. and the U.K. at least
> > >seem to be describing the same reality.
> > >
> > >Most people, though, get their news from TV - and there the
> > >difference is immense. The coverage of Saturday's antiwar rallies was
> > >a reminder of the extent to which U.S. cable news, in particular,
> > >seems to be reporting about a different planet than the one covered
> > >by foreign media.
> > >
> > >What would someone watching cable news have seen? On Saturday, news
> > >anchors on Fox described the demonstrators in New York as "the usual
> > >protesters" or "serial protesters." CNN wasn't quite so dismissive,
> > >but on Sunday morning the headline on the network's Web site read
> > >"Antiwar rallies delight Iraq," and the accompanying picture showed
> > >marchers in Baghdad, not London or New York.
> > >
> > >This wasn't at all the way the rest of the world's media reported
> > >Saturday's events, but it wasn't out of character. For months both
> > >major U.S. cable news networks have acted as if the decision to
> > >invade Iraq has already been made, and have in effect seen it as
> > >their job to prepare the American public for the coming war.
> > >
> > >So it's not surprising that the target audience is a bit blurry about
> > >the distinction between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda. Surveys show
> > >that a majority of Americans think that some or all of the Sept. 11
> > >hijackers were Iraqi, while many believe that Saddam Hussein was
> > >involved in Sept. 11, a claim even the Bush administration has never
> > >made. And since many Americans think that the need for a war against
> > >Saddam is obvious, they think that Europeans who won't go along are
> > >cowards.
> > >
> > >Europeans, who don't see the same things on TV, are far more inclined
> > >to wonder why Iraq - rather than North Korea, or for that matter Al
> > >Qaeda - has become the focus of U.S. policy. That's why so many of
> > >them question American motives, suspecting that it's all about oil or
> > >that the administration is simply picking on a convenient enemy it
> > >knows it can defeat. They don't see opposition to an Iraq war as
> > >cowardice; they see it as courage, a matter of standing up to the
> > >bullying Bush administration.
> > >
> > >There are two possible explanations for the great trans-Atlantic
> > >media divide. One is that European media have a pervasive
> > >anti-American bias that leads them to distort the news, even in
> > >countries like the U.K. where the leaders of both major parties are
> > >pro-Bush and support an attack on Iraq. The other is that some U.S.
> > >media outlets - operating in an environment in which anyone who
> > >questions the administration's foreign policy is accused of being
> > >unpatriotic - have taken it as their assignment to sell the war, not
> > >to present a mix of information that might call the justification for
> > >war into question.
> > >
> > >So which is it? I've reported, you decide.
> > >
> > >
> > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> > >
> > >Biofuels list archives:
> > >http://archive.nnytech.net/
> > >
> > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> > >To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 23
> >    Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:13:14 -0600
> >    From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: PBS - The War Behind Closed Doors
> >
> >  Darn it!!  That's 2003,  2003.....
> >
> >   On Feb. 20, 2003  "The War Behind Closed Doors" examines the hidden
> >   story of what is really driving the Bush administration to war with
> Iraq.
> >   Are the publicly reported reasons - Saddam's weapons of mass
> >   destruction and U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East - only
> >   masking the real reason for war?
> >   FRONTLINE unravels a story known only to Washington insiders.
> >   http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
> >
> >   Find Your Local  [USA]  Television Schedule
> >     Enter your zip code  -OR-
> >     Select a State or Territory
> >   http://www.pbs.org/whatson/index.html
> >
> >   ___________________________
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 24
> >    Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:10:46 -0700
> >    From: "kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: FW: THE DOMESTIC SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2003/A PLAIN
> ANALYSIS
> >
> >
> > Can you believe?
> > Sounds like Stalin.
> > Kirk
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mom
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 10:19 AM
> > Subject: THE DOMESTIC SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2003/A PLAIN ANALYSIS
> >
> >
> > As you read this remember who the terrorists are here.  If you have any
> > doubt, pull
> > up Morris Dees site ...
> > THE DOMESTIC SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2003
> > A PLAIN ANALYSIS
> >
> > By Greg Kay
> >
> > I have broken the 33 page summary/analysis down, section by section,
> > addressing the parts that might pertain to us, in plain English to
> > make it easier to look up the parts of concern. This will make it
> > easier to evaluate the whole bill, which can be read at
> > http://www.public-i.org/dtaweb/report.asp?
> > ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0 . Please remember that the
> > information here is ONLY from the analysis; the language of the bill
> > itself will undoubtedly contain more surprises.
> >
> > There's some scary stuff here, folks!
> >
> > FISA, by the way, is another federal alphabet an acronym for Foreign
> > Intelligence Surveillance Act.
> >
> > SECTION 101: All persons, including unaffiliated groups or
> > individuals, who engage in "international terrorism", will be
> > designated "a foreign power" eliminating any rights that they might
> > have.
> >
> > SECTION 102: Any person who engages in the legal collection
> > (repealing the current requirement of the collection mode being
> > illegal) of information that may be used by another country,
> > including US reporters, could be deemed "agents of a foreign power",
> > even if the information was used or intended to be used as a standard
> > news media. What information gathered here is not used in foreign
> > news media?
> >
> > SECTION 103: This would extend the government's right to unfettered
> > (Without FISA court approval) searches and taps for a period of 15
> > days after a declaration of war by congress to also be invoked after
> > a Congressional authorization of the use of force or an attack, while
> > SECTION 104 extends the term from 15 days to one year, and expands
> > the scope of the surveillance.
> >
> > SECTION 105: This would make it easier for FISA collected information
> > to be made available to law enforcement.
> >
> > SECTION 106: Gives immunity to agents who engage in searches without
> > court approval.
> >
> > SECTION 107: Eliminates the tighter restrictions on conducting
> > investigations against US citizens than against foreign nationals in
> > the US.
> >
> > SECTION 109: Gives the FISA court the same powers as a regular court
> > to force cooperation.
> >
> > SECTION 110: To prevent sun-setting of certain aspects of the USA
> > Patriot Act.
> >
> > SECTION 111: Removing different rules between foreign nationals and
> > US citizens in terrorism investigations.
> >
> > SECTION 122: Allows electronic surveillance and monitoring without a
> > court order in `emergencies' and makes it easier to allow foreign law
> > enforcement requests for investigations in the US to be carried out.
> >
> > SECTION 123: Extends tapping and surveillance and further minimizes
> > judicial oversight and involvement.
> >
> > SECTION 124: Extends a single search's legality over all functions of
> > multi-function devices.
> >
> > SECTION 125: Expands the types of crimes for which a federal judge in
> > one district may issue a nationwide warrant valid in all areas.
> >
> > SECTION 126: Allow Federal agents to obtain anyone's credit report,
> > consumer records, and other financial records on request, and prevent
> > the reporting agency from revealing to their customer that their
> > records had been accessed.
> >
> > SECTION 128: Allow the Justice Department, independent of a judge, to
> > issue subpoenas.
> >
> > SECTION 129: Would make compliance with the above subpoenas and other
> > requests for records mandatory, and would make refusal or disclosure
> > of the demand a felony punishable by 5 years in prison.
> >
> > SECTION 201: Allows the government to hold people "detained in the
> > investigation of terrorism" secretly and, apparently, indefinitely.
> >
> > SECTION 202: Limits the safety information presented to the public on
> > the potential hazards of chemical spills, releases, etc.
> >
> > SECTION 203: Eliminates public release of the layout of government
> > buildings.
> >
> > SECTION 204: Makes it easier for the government to present secret,
> > classified information to the court alone.
> >
> > SECTION 205: Eliminates tax assessments on the value of private
> > security systems and measures used by federal employees and officials
> > for their protection. No such exemption extends to anyone else.
> >
> > SECTION 206: Would impose on counsel contacted by those subpoenaed by
> > a Grand Jury the same demand or secrecy that is imposed on those who
> > are actually subpoenaed.
> >
> > SECTION 302: Would establish a DNA database, the identifying
> > information to be taken from the following people: persons SUSPECTED
> > of conspiring, attempting, or engaging in terrorism; enemy combatants
> > and POW's; persons suspected of being members of a terrorist
> > organization; aliens engaged in activity that endangers national
> > security.
> >
> > SECTION 303: Would require all law enforcement agencies to provide
> > the above identifying data to the attorney general, would allow him
> > to establish a database and either use the information or share it
> > with other law enforcement agencies, specifically including foreign
> > ones.
> >
> > SECTION 311: Allows the sharing of credit, consumer, and financial
> > information with foreign governments.
> >
> > SECTION 312: Would make void most consent decrees issued by State and
> > local governments that protect against unreasonable search and
> > seizure, thus allowing State and local law enforcement to operate
> > under federal regulations rather than the restrictions of their own
> > localities, EXCEPT those consent decrees based on accusations of
> > racism or racial profiling.
> >
> > SECTION 313: Protects businesses and personnel from civil liability
> > for voluntarily sharing information with federal law enforcement.
> >
> > SECTION 321: Would eliminate the treaty clause and allow the federal
> > government to engage in an investigation in the US on the request of
> > any foreign power.
> >
> > SECTION 322: Would allow, at the will of the attorney general and
> > secretary of state, the extradition of suspects to a foreign country
> > for crimes not covered by extradition treaties, or even to those
> > countries with whom we have no extradition treaty at all.
> >
> > SECTION 401: Would make it a crime to "knowingly convey false or
> > misleading information, where such information may be believed" and
> > increases penalties for terrorism hoaxes.
> >
> > SECTION 402: Provides definition for the material support of
> > terrorism to include materials, instruction or teaching, or personnel
> > to a terrorist organization.
> >
> > SECTION 403: Extends federal jurisdiction over Weapons of Mass
> > Destruction laws to cover virtually everything, including property
> > within the US owned, leased or used by a foreign government; if any
> > form of interstate or foreign commerce is used in setting up the
> > attack, if the property attacked relates to or is used in any
> > activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce, or if the
> > perpetrator travels or causes another to travel in interstate or
> > foreign commerce in furtherance of the crime.
> >
> > SECTION 404: Any person using encryption during or related to a
> > federal crime will be sentenced to an extra 5 years in prison.
> >
> > SECTION 405: Automatically denies bail to anyone charged with
> > terrorism related activities.
> >
> > SECTION 407: Extends interstate or foreign commerce jurisdiction
> > similar to that described in SECTION 403 to virtually all terrorism-
> > related crimes.
> >
> > SECTION 408:  Allows for the placing of convicts on parole or
> > probation for life, and eliminates re-sentencing violators for
> > anything less than the original sentence. These provisions also apply
> > to computer virus makers and those who have donated money to
> > terrorist groups.
> >
> > SECTION 409: Any person suspected (not necessarily charged) of being
> > a terrorist-related threat may have his pilot's license suspended or
> > revoked.
> >
> > SECTION 410: Provides no statute of limitations for terrorist crimes,
> > including cyber-terrorism or donating money to terrorist groups.
> >
> > SECTION 411: Increases number of acts subject to the death penalty.
> >
> > SECTION 421: Increases penalties for "financing terrorism" or
> > for "trading with prohibited persons" to $50,000 per offence.
> >
> > SECTION 422: Makes it easier to charge people with money laundering.
> >
> > SECTION 423: Removes tax-exempt status from terrorist organizations
> > (?).
> >
> > SECTION 424: Anyone convicted of terrorism may be denied federal
> > benefits.
> >
> > SECTION 425: Defines financing terrorism.
> >
> > SECTION 426: Adds RICO procedure to terrorist financing.
> >
> > SECTION 427: Allows for the seizure of assets of persons committing
> > or planning terrorism.
> >
> > SECTION 428: More asset forfeiture.
> >
> > SECTION 501: Americans can lose their citizenship if they serve in or
> > provide material support to any organization designated as a
> > terrorist group, and that the intent to relinquish nationality can be
> > inferred from conduct.
> >
> > SECTION 502: Allows increased penalties for immigration related
> > crimes.
> >
> > SECTION 503: Allows the Attorney General to bar admittance to or
> > remove from the US "individuals" (aliens?) that he has reason to
> > believe would be a danger to national security.
> >
> > SECTION 504: Allows for the attorney general to automatically remove
> > criminal aliens who have been convicted of certain crimes, expressly
> > included among which is draft evasion.
> >
> > --
> > **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
> > copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
> > profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
> > receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
> > educational purposes only. [Ref.
> > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 25
> >    Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:28:42 -0800
> >    From: murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: FW: THE DOMESTIC SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2003/A PLAIN
> ANALYSIS
> >
> > Reminds me of 15 years ago or so when Reagan first started going on
about
> > "Terrorists".  I thought: for one thing, how are we defining them?  Now
it
> Looks
> > like that's pretty much up to Mssrs. Fleischer, Card, Ashcroft, et. al.,
> > depending on their mood that day.  Or perhaps I should use the German
> "Herr"
> > instead of the French Mssrs.
> >
> > The drug property seizure laws were the first that ever really made me
> think
> > strongly about leaving this country.  But this.... this... well, has it
> been
> > enacted or is it just under consideration?
> >
> > I saw the Democratic Presidential Candidates holding forth on C-Span
last
> night.
> > One of them looked ok.  I turned it off when another started boring me.
> Even if
> > a good one is elected, I fear it will be too late.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:10:46 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Can you believe?
> > >Sounds like Stalin.
> > >Kirk
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: mom
> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 10:19 AM
> > >Subject: THE DOMESTIC SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2003/A PLAIN ANALYSIS
> > >
> > >
> > >As you read this remember who the terrorists are here.  If you have any
> > >doubt, pull
> > >up Morris Dees site ...
> > >THE DOMESTIC SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2003
> > >A PLAIN ANALYSIS
> > >
> > >By Greg Kay
> > >
> > >I have broken the 33 page summary/analysis down, section by section,
> > >addressing the parts that might pertain to us, in plain English to
> > >make it easier to look up the parts of concern. This will make it
> > >easier to evaluate the whole bill, which can be read at
> > >http://www.public-i.org/dtaweb/report.asp?
> > >ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0 . Please remember that the
> > >information here is ONLY from the analysis; the language of the bill
> > >itself will undoubtedly contain more surprises.
> > >
> > >There's some scary stuff here, folks!
> > >
> > >FISA, by the way, is another federal alphabet an acronym for Foreign
> > >Intelligence Surveillance Act.
> > >
> > >SECTION 101: All persons, including unaffiliated groups or
> > >individuals, who engage in "international terrorism", will be
> > >designated "a foreign power" eliminating any rights that they might
> > >have.
> > >
> > >SECTION 102: Any person who engages in the legal collection
> > >(repealing the current requirement of the collection mode being
> > >illegal) of information that may be used by another country,
> > >including US reporters, could be deemed "agents of a foreign power",
> > >even if the information was used or intended to be used as a standard
> > >news media. What information gathered here is not used in foreign
> > >news media?
> > >
> > >SECTION 103: This would extend the government's right to unfettered
> > >(Without FISA court approval) searches and taps for a period of 15
> > >days after a declaration of war by congress to also be invoked after
> > >a Congressional authorization of the use of force or an attack, while
> > >SECTION 104 extends the term from 15 days to one year, and expands
> > >the scope of the surveillance.
> > >
> > >SECTION 105: This would make it easier for FISA collected information
> > >to be made available to law enforcement.
> > >
> > >SECTION 106: Gives immunity to agents who engage in searches without
> > >court approval.
> > >
> > >SECTION 107: Eliminates the tighter restrictions on conducting
> > >investigations against US citizens than against foreign nationals in
> > >the US.
> > >
> > >SECTION 109: Gives the FISA court the same powers as a regular court
> > >to force cooperation.
> > >
> > >SECTION 110: To prevent sun-setting of certain aspects of the USA
> > >Patriot Act.
> > >
> > >SECTION 111: Removing different rules between foreign nationals and
> > >US citizens in terrorism investigations.
> > >
> > >SECTION 122: Allows electronic surveillance and monitoring without a
> > >court order in `emergencies' and makes it easier to allow foreign law
> > >enforcement requests for investigations in the US to be carried out.
> > >
> > >SECTION 123: Extends tapping and surveillance and further minimizes
> > >judicial oversight and involvement.
> > >
> > >SECTION 124: Extends a single search's legality over all functions of
> > >multi-function devices.
> > >
> > >SECTION 125: Expands the types of crimes for which a federal judge in
> > >one district may issue a nationwide warrant valid in all areas.
> > >
> > >SECTION 126: Allow Federal agents to obtain anyone's credit report,
> > >consumer records, and other financial records on request, and prevent
> > >the reporting agency from revealing to their customer that their
> > >records had been accessed.
> > >
> > >SECTION 128: Allow the Justice Department, independent of a judge, to
> > >issue subpoenas.
> > >
> > >SECTION 129: Would make compliance with the above subpoenas and other
> > >requests for records mandatory, and would make refusal or disclosure
> > >of the demand a felony punishable by 5 years in prison.
> > >
> > >SECTION 201: Allows the government to hold people "detained in the
> > >investigation of terrorism" secretly and, apparently, indefinitely.
> > >
> > >SECTION 202: Limits the safety information presented to the public on
> > >the potential hazards of chemical spills, releases, etc.
> > >
> > >SECTION 203: Eliminates public release of the layout of government
> > >buildings.
> > >
> > >SECTION 204: Makes it easier for the government to present secret,
> > >classified information to the court alone.
> > >
> > >SECTION 205: Eliminates tax assessments on the value of private
> > >security systems and measures used by federal employees and officials
> > >for their protection. No such exemption extends to anyone else.
> > >
> > >SECTION 206: Would impose on counsel contacted by those subpoenaed by
> > >a Grand Jury the same demand or secrecy that is imposed on those who
> > >are actually subpoenaed.
> > >
> > >SECTION 302: Would establish a DNA database, the identifying
> > >information to be taken from the following people: persons SUSPECTED
> > >of conspiring, attempting, or engaging in terrorism; enemy combatants
> > >and POW's; persons suspected of being members of a terrorist
> > >organization; aliens engaged in activity that endangers national
> > >security.
> > >
> > >SECTION 303: Would require all law enforcement agencies to provide
> > >the above identifying data to the attorney general, would allow him
> > >to establish a database and either use the information or share it
> > >with other law enforcement agencies, specifically including foreign
> > >ones.
> > >
> > >SECTION 311: Allows the sharing of credit, consumer, and financial
> > >information with foreign governments.
> > >
> > >SECTION 312: Would make void most consent decrees issued by State and
> > >local governments that protect against unreasonable search and
> > >seizure, thus allowing State and local law enforcement to operate
> > >under federal regulations rather than the restrictions of their own
> > >localities, EXCEPT those consent decrees based on accusations of
> > >racism or racial profiling.
> > >
> > >SECTION 313: Protects businesses and personnel from civil liability
> > >for voluntarily sharing information with federal law enforcement.
> > >
> > >SECTION 321: Would eliminate the treaty clause and allow the federal
> > >government to engage in an investigation in the US on the request of
> > >any foreign power.
> > >
> > >SECTION 322: Would allow, at the will of the attorney general and
> > >secretary of state, the extradition of suspects to a foreign country
> > >for crimes not covered by extradition treaties, or even to those
> > >countries with whom we have no extradition treaty at all.
> > >
> > >SECTION 401: Would make it a crime to "knowingly convey false or
> > >misleading information, where such information may be believed" and
> > >increases penalties for terrorism hoaxes.
> > >
> > >SECTION 402: Provides definition for the material support of
> > >terrorism to include materials, instruction or teaching, or personnel
> > >to a terrorist organization.
> > >
> > >SECTION 403: Extends federal jurisdiction over Weapons of Mass
> > >Destruction laws to cover virtually everything, including property
> > >within the US owned, leased or used by a foreign government; if any
> > >form of interstate or foreign commerce is used in setting up the
> > >attack, if the property attacked relates to or is used in any
> > >activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce, or if the
> > >perpetrator travels or causes another to travel in interstate or
> > >foreign commerce in furtherance of the crime.
> > >
> > >SECTION 404: Any person using encryption during or related to a
> > >federal crime will be sentenced to an extra 5 years in prison.
> > >
> > >SECTION 405: Automatically denies bail to anyone charged with
> > >terrorism related activities.
> > >
> > >SECTION 407: Extends interstate or foreign commerce jurisdiction
> > >similar to that described in SECTION 403 to virtually all terrorism-
> > >related crimes.
> > >
> > >SECTION 408:  Allows for the placing of convicts on parole or
> > >probation for life, and eliminates re-sentencing violators for
> > >anything less than the original sentence. These provisions also apply
> > >to computer virus makers and those who have donated money to
> > >terrorist groups.
> > >
> > >SECTION 409: Any person suspected (not necessarily charged) of being
> > >a terrorist-related threat may have his pilot's license suspended or
> > >revoked.
> > >
> > >SECTION 410: Provides no statute of limitations for terrorist crimes,
> > >including cyber-terrorism or donating money to terrorist groups.
> > >
> > >SECTION 411: Increases number of acts subject to the death penalty.
> > >
> > >SECTION 421: Increases penalties for "financing terrorism" or
> > >for "trading with prohibited persons" to $50,000 per offence.
> > >
> > >SECTION 422: Makes it easier to charge people with money laundering.
> > >
> > >SECTION 423: Removes tax-exempt status from terrorist organizations
> > >(?).
> > >
> > >SECTION 424: Anyone convicted of terrorism may be denied federal
> > >benefits.
> > >
> > >SECTION 425: Defines financing terrorism.
> > >
> > >SECTION 426: Adds RICO procedure to terrorist financing.
> > >
> > >SECTION 427: Allows for the seizure of assets of persons committing
> > >or planning terrorism.
> > >
> > >SECTION 428: More asset forfeiture.
> > >
> > >SECTION 501: Americans can lose their citizenship if they serve in or
> > >provide material support to any organization designated as a
> > >terrorist group, and that the intent to relinquish nationality can be
> > >inferred from conduct.
> > >
> > >SECTION 502: Allows increased penalties for immigration related
> > >crimes.
> > >
> > >SECTION 503: Allows the Attorney General to bar admittance to or
> > >remove from the US "individuals" (aliens?) that he has reason to
> > >believe would be a danger to national security.
> > >
> > >SECTION 504: Allows for the attorney general to automatically remove
> > >criminal aliens who have been convicted of certain crimes, expressly
> > >included among which is draft evasion.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/