Today's Articles

  • Chinkocal?

    Question:

    By DAVID BARBOZA and ANDREW ROSS SORKIN Published: June 23, 2005 SHANGHAI, Thursday, June 23 – One of China’s largest state-controlled oil companies made a $18.5 billion unsolicited bid Thursday for Unocal, signaling the first big takeover battle by a Chinese company for an American corporation. The bold bid, by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation ( CNOOC), may be a watershed in Chinese corporate behavior, and it demonstrates the increasing influence on Asia of Wall Street’s bare-knuckled takeover tactics. Skip to next paragraph Associated Press Seventy-three percent of Unocal’s natural gas reserves are in Asia; this platform is in the Gulf of Thailand. The offer is also the latest symbol of China’s growing economic power and of the soaring ambitions of its corporate giants, particularly when it comes to the energy resources it needs desperately to continue feeding its rapid growth. CNOOC’s bid, which comes two months after Unocal agreed to be sold to Chevron, the American energy giant, for $16.4 billion, is expected to incite a potentially costly bidding war over the California-based Unocal, a large independent oil company. CNOOC said its offer represents a premium of about $1.5 billion over the value of Unocal’s deal with Chevron after a $500 million breakup fee. Moreover, the effort is likely to provoke a fierce debate in Washington about the nation’s trade policies with China and the role of the two governments in the growing trend of deal making between companies in the countries. This week, a consortium of investors led by the Haier Group, one of China’s biggest companies, moved to acquire the Maytag Corporation, the American appliance maker, for about $1.3 billion, surpassing a bid from a group of American investors. Last month, Lenovo, China’s largest computer maker, completed its $1.75 billion deal for I.B.M.’s personal computer business, creating the world’s third-largest computer maker after Dell and Hewlett-Packard. After years of attracting billions in foreign investment and virtually turning itself into the world’s largest factory floor, China appears to be nurturing the growth of its own corporate giants into beacons of capitalism. China wants to be a player on the world stage, and it is eager to have its own energy resources, its own multinational corporations and its own dazzling corporate names. And some of China’s biggest companies are now on the hunt, trying to snap up global treasures. "If there’s an asset up for sale anywhere in the world, people are looking to China, particularly if there’s a manufacturing element involved," said Colin Banfield, who runs the mergers and acquisitions practice at Credit Suisse First Boston in Asia. "And if these two deals go through this year, no one is going to doubt the credibility of the Chinese corporates when it comes to M & A." The deal making and bidding wars are all the more remarkable because they involve Chinese companies taking on American multinationals in a series of transactions certain to be a boon for Western lawyers and investment bankers, many of whom have been betting hundreds of millions of dollars on China’s rise. Indeed, CNOOC is being advised by an army of bankers from Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan Chase and N M Rothschild & Sons of Britain. In a response, Unocal said in a statement that its board would evaluate the offer, but that its recommendation of the deal with Chevron "remains in effect." CNOOC’s bid faces an uphill battle, with hurdles that probably rise above those usually confronting a corporate bidder. Already, lawmakers in Washington are questioning whether the Bush administration should intervene to block the bid for Unocal, which was founded in 1890 as the Union Oil Company of California. Two Republican representatives from California, Richard W. Pombo and Duncan Hunter, wrote a letter last week to President Bush, after speculation concerning the deal arose, urging that the transaction be scrutinized on the grounds of national security.

    critical to understand the implications for American interests and most especially, the threat posed by China’s governmental pursuit of world energy resources. The United States increasingly needs to view meeting its energy requirements within the context of our foreign policy, national security and economic security agenda." Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman said at a meeting of the National Petroleum Council late Wednesday that the government’s review of the deal would be "truly a complex matter," according to Reuters. In Beijing, Liu Jianchao, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, told reporters on Tuesday that "this is a corporate issue," according to Bloomberg News. "I can’t comment on this individual case," Mr. Liu said, "but I can say we encourage the U.S. to allow normal trade relations to take place without political interference." TCL, a Chinese company that began by making cassette tapes in 1981, is suddenly the world’s biggest television set maker, after its acquisition last July of the television business of Thomson of France, which owned the old RCA brand. Chinese companies still have a long way to go to become global giants that can compete head-to-head with Toyota, Siemens or General Electric. Most of the China deals are small in value – about $1 billion to $2 billion – when compared with big American or European deals. Whether CNOOC’s bid will succeed on it merits is unclear. It is interested in Unocal, once known for its 76 brand, less for its exploration and production in North America than for its huge reserves in Asia. Twenty-seven percent of Unocal’s proven oil reserves and 73 percent of its proven natural gas reserves are in Asia, according to Merrill Lynch. To succeed, CNOOC will have to persuade Unocal’s shareholders to vote against their deal with Chevron. The new deal would then face a shareholder vote. Even though CNOOC’s offer is worth $1.5 billion more than Chevron’s, some shareholders could still decide that the regulatory review process and the time required to complete a deal with CNOOC would pose too great a risk, given the size of the offer. Chevron, which could raise its bid to counter CNOOC, is racing to complete its deal and submit it to a shareholder vote as early as August. The company made no specific comment on the Chinese offer. CNOOC’s all-cash offer values Unocal at $67 a share. Chevron’s cash and stock offer values Unocal at $61.26 a share, based on Chevron’s closing price on Wednesday of $58.27 a share. Shares of Unocal jumped 2.2 percent, to $64.85, as investors anticipated CNOOC’s higher bid. In CNOOC’s letter to Unocal, it went to great lengths to say that its bid was friendly, despite being unsolicited. "This friendly, all-cash proposal is a superior offer for Unocal shareholders," wrote CNOOC’s chairman and chief executive, Fu Chengyu. Trying to assuage concerns of some in Washington, CNOOC pledged to continue Unocal’s practice of selling all of the oil and gas produced in the United States back to customers in the United States. The company also said it would retain substantially all of Unocal’s employees in the United States.

    Response:

    Turdgurglers: CNOOC is being advised by an army of bankers from; Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan Chase and N M Rothschild & Sons of Britain. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> By DAVID BARBOZA > and ANDREW ROSS SORKIN > Published: June 23, 2005 > SHANGHAI, Thursday, June 23 – One of China’s largest state-controlled > oil companies made a $18.5 billion unsolicited bid Thursday for Unocal, > signaling the first big takeover battle by a Chinese company for an > American corporation. > The bold bid, by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation ( CNOOC), > may be a watershed in Chinese corporate behavior, and it demonstrates > the increasing influence on Asia of Wall Street’s bare-knuckled takeover > tactics. > Seventy-three percent of Unocal’s natural gas reserves are in Asia; this > platform is in the Gulf of Thailand. > The offer is also the latest symbol of China’s growing economic power > and of the soaring ambitions of its corporate giants, particularly when > it comes to the energy resources it needs desperately to continue > feeding its rapid growth. > CNOOC’s bid, which comes two months after Unocal agreed to be sold to > Chevron, the American energy giant, for $16.4 billion, is expected to > incite a potentially costly bidding war over the California-based > Unocal, a large independent oil company. CNOOC said its offer represents > a premium of about $1.5 billion over the value of Unocal’s deal with > Chevron after a $500 million breakup fee. > Moreover, the effort is likely to provoke a fierce debate in Washington > about the nation’s trade policies with China and the role of the two > governments in the growing trend of deal making between companies in the > countries. > This week, a consortium of investors led by the Haier Group, one of > China’s biggest companies, moved to acquire the Maytag Corporation, the > American appliance maker, for about $1.3 billion, surpassing a bid from > a group of American investors. > Last month, Lenovo, China’s largest computer maker, completed its $1.75 > billion deal for I.B.M.’s personal computer business, creating the > world’s third-largest computer maker after Dell and Hewlett-Packard. > After years of attracting billions in foreign investment and virtually > turning itself into the world’s largest factory floor, China appears to > be nurturing the growth of its own corporate giants into beacons of > capitalism. China wants to be a player on the world stage, and it is > eager to have its own energy resources, its own multinational > corporations and its own dazzling corporate names. > And some of China’s biggest companies are now on the hunt, trying to > snap up global treasures. > "If there’s an asset up for sale anywhere in the world, people are > looking to China, particularly if there’s a manufacturing element > involved," said Colin Banfield, who runs the mergers and acquisitions > practice at Credit Suisse First Boston in Asia. "And if these two deals > go through this year, no one is going to doubt the credibility of the > Chinese corporates when it comes to M & A." > The deal making and bidding wars are all the more remarkable because > they involve Chinese companies taking on American multinationals in a > series of transactions certain to be a boon for Western lawyers and > investment bankers, many of whom have been betting hundreds of millions > of dollars on China’s rise. > Indeed, CNOOC is being advised by an army of bankers from Goldman Sachs, > J. P. Morgan Chase and N M Rothschild & Sons of Britain. > In a response, Unocal said in a statement that its board would evaluate > the offer, but that its recommendation of the deal with Chevron "remains > in effect." > CNOOC’s bid faces an uphill battle, with hurdles that probably rise > above those usually confronting a corporate bidder. Already, lawmakers > in Washington are questioning whether the Bush administration should > intervene to block the bid for Unocal, which was founded in 1890 as the > Union Oil Company of California. > Two Republican representatives from California, Richard W. Pombo and > Duncan Hunter, wrote a letter last week to President Bush, after > speculation concerning the deal arose, urging that the transaction be > scrutinized on the grounds of national security. > critical to understand the implications for American interests and most > especially, the threat posed by China’s governmental pursuit of world > energy resources. The United States increasingly needs to view meeting > its energy requirements within the context of our foreign policy, > national security and economic security agenda." > Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman said at a meeting of the National > Petroleum Council late Wednesday that the government’s review of the > deal would be "truly a complex matter," according to Reuters. > In Beijing, Liu Jianchao, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, told > reporters on Tuesday that "this is a corporate issue," according to > Bloomberg News. "I can’t comment on this individual case," Mr. Liu said, > "but I can say we encourage the U.S. to allow normal trade relations to > take place without political interference." > TCL, a Chinese company that began by making cassette tapes in 1981, is > suddenly the world’s biggest television set maker, after its acquisition > last July of the television business of Thomson of France, which owned > the old RCA brand. > Chinese companies still have a long way to go to become global giants > that can compete head-to-head with Toyota, Siemens or General Electric. > Most of the China deals are small in value – about $1 billion to $2 > billion – when compared with big American or European deals. > Whether CNOOC’s bid will succeed on it merits is unclear. It is > interested in Unocal, once known for its 76 brand, less for its > exploration and production in North America than for its huge reserves > in Asia. Twenty-seven percent of Unocal’s proven oil reserves and 73 > percent of its proven natural gas reserves are in Asia, according to > Merrill Lynch. > To succeed, CNOOC will have to persuade Unocal’s shareholders to vote > against their deal with Chevron. The new deal would then face a > shareholder vote. > Even though CNOOC’s offer is worth $1.5 billion more than Chevron’s, > some shareholders could still decide that the regulatory review process > and the time required to complete a deal with CNOOC would pose too great > a risk, given the size of the offer. > Chevron, which could raise its bid to counter CNOOC, is racing to > complete its deal and submit it to a shareholder vote as early as > August. The company made no specific comment on the Chinese offer. > CNOOC’s all-cash offer values Unocal at $67 a share. Chevron’s cash and > stock offer values Unocal at $61.26 a share, based on Chevron’s closing > price on Wednesday of $58.27 a share. Shares of Unocal jumped 2.2 > percent, to $64.85, as investors anticipated CNOOC’s higher bid. > In CNOOC’s letter to Unocal, it went to great lengths to say that its > bid was friendly, despite being unsolicited. "This friendly, all-cash > proposal is a superior offer for Unocal shareholders," wrote CNOOC’s > chairman and chief executive, Fu Chengyu. > Trying to assuage concerns of some in Washington, CNOOC pledged to > continue Unocal’s practice of selling all of the oil and gas produced in > the United States back to customers in the United States. The company > also said it would retain substantially all of Unocal’s employees in the > United States.

    Response:

    Racist!!! Racism SUCKS!!! ALWAYS!!!

    Response:

    The obvious should be understated sonny- always. Hey, how’s the manhole-cover Strat holding up to the dust? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I SUCK!!! ALWAYS!!!

    Response:

    > The obvious should be understated sonny- always. Hey, how’s the > manhole-cover Strat holding up to the dust? > I SUCK!!! ALWAYS!!!

    MAJOR loser! not worth the time for a real response!

    Response:

    > > The obvious should be understated sonny- always. Hey, how’s the > manhole-cover Strat holding up to the dust? >> I SUCK!!! ALWAYS!!! > MAJOR loser! not worth the time for a real response!

    notice how language carries hidden cultural meaning.

    Response:

    C’mon potbelly, howzat Strat ? ;-) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The obvious should be understated sonny- always. Hey, how’s the manhole-cover Strat holding up to the dust? >>I SUCK!!! ALWAYS!!!

    Response:


  • FREE ENERGY Technology

    Question:

    I think all you cats are being hard on this robert character for the sake of denigrating his claims.  While i make no claim to be a man of scientific astutness, i have seen and read many things that lead me to believe that some of this man’s claims have clarity and some are fiction. Anyone who has seen a tesla coil work, perhaps in a classroom, cannot deny the applicable nature of its function.  Any idea which can be made demonstrable, not just on paper, but in mechanical functionality can be accepted as valid and thereby useful.  Making machines which are powered by alignments of magnetic fields, or toroids of water in special tubes is not science fiction.  Read Da Vinci’s notebooks.  The principles he utilized in making his notes and drawings and models were in large part not understood at that time, but have nevertheless proven true, and moreover, useful.  He did it without a lick of math or physics as we know it; in fact all his ideas were drawn on insights based on his observations.  In this light a critical, unskeptical, and historically minded view towards new ideas would prove useful in the trial to find new energy resources. I have my doubts of conspiracy in the gov’t, at least as far as hiding potentially useful new resources such as those described in robert’s article.  Why research them, produce them, and then NOT use them? Phallacy.  The issue here is that the gov’t doesn’t wish to realize these devices.  The gov’t is a service handling the role of a monarch.  A monarch seeks to reduce factors that undermine his power, and by assimilating such factors, can thereby increase his own power.  The internet began as a tool for facilitating communication between dep’ts in the pentagon.  As it’s leaked out, dear old Uncle Sam has seen a dramatic shift in the informative power of the public.  This is the sole example of power flowing out of the gov’t.  And here we are, on a discussion group in that very internet, dedicated to exploring ideas about different energy resources, while you cats throw dirt at someone who wants to open people’s eyes.  I don’t call for your shame, but your chagrin.  Wouldn’t you like to see a revolution?  Be part of it. No matter what language or vernacular an idea is couched in, or whther it comes from the mouth of a depraved lunatic, it may just be the key to the future. BTW- J.P. Morgan privately funded Nikolai Tesla and his ideas on energy until Morgan realized that Tesla’s ideas were grounded in providing energy for millions of people without cost.  Subsequent to that, funding was withdrawn and placed in a power system that generated monetary profit.  I have heard tell that Morgan was also party to supressing Tesla’s ideas afterwards, in conjunction with other big players.  Now Morgan was a smart businessman: Does it seem likely that if Tesla’s ideas had been dismissable, Morgan would have dropped him like that?  no.  So if Tesla was onto something, couldn’t these other people?

    Response:

    >I think all you cats are being hard on this robert character for the >sake of denigrating his claims.  While i make no claim to be a man of >scientific astutness, i have seen and read many things that lead me to >believe that some of this man’s claims have clarity and some are >fiction.

    What are these things, and you will have to specifically associate each one with one of Robert’s claims. >Anyone who has seen a tesla coil work, perhaps in a classroom, cannot >deny the applicable nature of its function.  Any idea which can be >made demonstrable, not just on paper, but in mechanical functionality >can be accepted as valid and thereby useful.  Making machines which >are powered by alignments of magnetic fields, or toroids of water in >special tubes is not science fiction.

    Please give some sources that any of these machines have been built.  Motors that are powered by a special alignment of static magnetic fields are not denied by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but by the mathematical laws governing static fields.  Electro-magnetism cannot be a conservative force if these devices are possible and a non-conservative electromagnetism would invalidate all of physics since Faraday. [If you do not understand the conservative nature of electromagnetism and gravity, you will need to learn about vector calculus, forces, and potential fields] >Read Da Vinci’s notebooks.  The >principles he utilized in making his notes and drawings and models >were in large part not understood at that time, but have nevertheless >proven true, and moreover, useful.  He did it without a lick of math >or physics as we know it; in fact all his ideas were drawn on insights >based on his observations.  In this light a critical, unskeptical, and >historically minded view towards new ideas would prove useful in the >trial to find new energy resources.

    I am sad to say that I agree with L. Sprague de Camp’s analysis of Da Vinci in his book _The Ancient Engineers_.  Da Vinci’s contributions to science and engineering are vastly overrated.  He thought a lot, but actually did nothing. Scientifically speaking, he was no better than a greek philosopher who generated a hypothesis and assumed it to be true, without seeking a lick of proof.  Even his anatomical studies are only of value if you are going to draw the human form.  He made no attempt to identify structures or discern their purpose. >I have my doubts of conspiracy in the gov’t, at least as far as hiding >potentially useful new resources such as those described in robert’s >article.  Why research them, produce them, and then NOT use them? >Phallacy.  The issue here is that the gov’t doesn’t wish to realize >these devices.  The gov’t is a service handling the role of a monarch.

    The government seeks only one thing — re-election.  The best way to assure that is with blanket prosperity (which has the side benefit of expanding the tax base).  Every energy related revolution (except nuclear power, due to scaremongering) has created new levels of prosperity.  It is in every governments’ interest to get these devices out as fast as possible  *** IF THEY WORK ***, as it will only lead to greater prosperity (Which is one of the reasons that governments backed nuclear power to the hilt).  Even entrenched interests can be supportive of new energy technologies.  If there is money in oil, there is even more money in a cheaper, or more convenient, technology.  The industrial revolution came from the introduction of coal powered steam engines, and the introduction of petroleum extended that revolution. > A monarch seeks to reduce factors that undermine his power, and by >assimilating such factors, can thereby increase his own power.  The >internet began as a tool for facilitating communication between dep’ts >in the pentagon.  As it’s leaked out, dear old Uncle Sam has seen a >dramatic shift in the informative power of the public.  This is the >sole example of power flowing out of the gov’t.  And here we are, on a >discussion group in that very internet, dedicated to exploring ideas >about different energy resources, while you cats throw dirt at someone >who wants to open people’s eyes.  I don’t call for your shame, but >your chagrin.  Wouldn’t you like to see a revolution?  Be part of it. >No matter what language or vernacular an idea is couched in, or whther >it comes from the mouth of a depraved lunatic, it may just be the key >to the future.

    All fine and dandy, but a madman’s epistles are no gospels and nothing in Robert’s FREE ENERGY is new or unproven, it consists of old ideas that he trotted out several times over the last 15 years (that I have noticed). All of the devices that he mentioned do not work, except for the air engine. The air engine might work; however, as it runs on the combustion of nitrogen, the exhaust gases prevent it from passing an emissions check and widespread application would cause acid rain of unimaginable extent and strength.  There are also issues of controlling the power output: you cannot throttle it like a gasoline engine and you cannot control the fuel flow like a diesel. >BTW- J.P. Morgan privately funded Nikolai Tesla and his ideas on >energy until Morgan realized that Tesla’s ideas were grounded in >providing energy for millions of people without cost.  Subsequent to >that, funding was withdrawn and placed in a power system that >generated monetary profit.  I have heard tell that Morgan was also >party to supressing Tesla’s ideas afterwards, in conjunction with >other big players.  Now Morgan was a smart businessman: Does it seem >likely that if Tesla’s ideas had been dismissable, Morgan would have >dropped him like that?  no.  So if Tesla was onto something, couldn’t >these other people?

    Even if Tesla’s ideas for broadcast power worked, they would never be realised in a free-market economy.  It is not that Tesla’s ideas would generate power without cost, it was that there was no way, short of invading people’s homes, to prove that someone was getting the power without paying for it.  With the patent laws, you could try to enforce that no unlicensed receivers were out there, but once the protection expired, there was no way to prevent people from collecting the energy that passed through their home.  Seventeen years is not enough time to realize an appreciable profit from the wireless system, so no private investor would go for it.  Broadcast power only works, economically, if the government provides power to the entire population and pays for the energy out of the tax base.  As the former soviet union did not implement a broadcast power system, we can assume that it is not competitive with wired systems. The only alternative scheme would be a law that the suppliers of broadcast power receivers pay into a pool to cover generating costs, based on the number of units sold.  However, imagine how much you would have to pay for a car if the purchase price included the cost of all the fuel it would likely consume, which the auto manufacturers had to provide, free of charge.

    Response:


  • DON'T BUY GAS

    Question:

    > Quite >honestly, the U.S. needs to stop being a hog of the world and be more >considering in terms of earth and energy resources.

    The USA has 1/20th of the world’s population but produces 1/5th of the world’s pollution. -Erik

    Response:

    <snip> – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Well, seems to me the U.K. is approaching petrol prices correctly. Quite >honestly, the U.S. needs to stop being a hog of the world and be more >considering in terms of earth and energy resources. As I say, there’s a part >in me that wishes petrol prices would continually increase in the U.S. When >that happens, people will realise that alternative transportation are not >only possible, but actually viable, sustainable and good. People in the >U.S., it seems, don’t realise that there is an infrastructure already out >there for them that makes it so easy to use the car/SUV. Like you say in the >U.K., the infrastructure (e.g., the petrol prices) isn’t as favourable for >cars as it is in the U.S. I keep hearing arguments against alternative >transportation and much of it having to do with not realising that an >infrastructure is there to make the car work…it’s not as if the car is the >perfect tool…it needs an infrastructure to work. E.g., without enough >petrol stations around town and outside of town, the car wouldn’t work. >Period. >So…I say keep raising those petrol prices. Of course, that’s not going to >happen, knowing the way things work in the U.S.

    Like you, I very much support public transportation and, like you, I find US gas prices obscenely low. HOWEVER, you can’t suddenly jack them up to more reasonable levels because doing so would be devastating to a very large percentage of Americans — all the non-rich ones. The reason has nothing to do with personal transportation but with the fact that EVERYTHING THAT WE BUY includes in it the price of the gas that transported it. Low gas prices is one of the reasons we have such low consumer prices in the US — you really don’t want to screw that up in a sudden way.

    Response:

    I just about darn near fainted when I saw the price of $2.50/gallon for super unleaded at the BP station right outside Metro Airport in Detroit. And I thought $1.65 at my local Circle K was expensive—hell, that is a BARGAIN! Maryanne

    Response:

    > I just about darn near fainted when I saw the price of > $2.50/gallon for > super unleaded at the BP station right outside Metro Airport in > Detroit. > And I thought $1.65 at my local Circle K was expensive—hell, > that is a > BARGAIN! > Maryanne

    Gas is well above $2.00 here in Chicagoland.  Lotsa folks are going over to Indianer, where it’s a lot cheaper; Indianer also has cheapo prices on cigs and booze, and FIREWORKS are available fer sale over there! Best Greg * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

    Response:

    > Like you, I very much support public transportation and, like you, I > find US gas prices obscenely low. HOWEVER, you can’t suddenly jack them > up to more reasonable levels because doing so would be devastating to > a very large percentage of Americans — all the non-rich ones. The > reason has nothing to do with personal transportation but with the > fact that EVERYTHING THAT WE BUY includes in it the price of the > gas that transported it. Low gas prices is one of the reasons we have > such low consumer prices in the US — you really don’t want to screw > that up in a sudden way.

    I hear you Ellen. It’s just the devlish me grinning evily while petrol prices rise. Of course the change can’t be that drastic. :) But…I can dream, can’t I? C

    Response:

    I’m: 1.  Glad I didn’t buy an SUV 2.  Sad I’ve got a Caprice Classic 3.  Happy I only drive it 1 mile to the train station 4.  Still pissed that I pay $2.87 a gallon (Suburban Chicago) Oh, yeah… and I, for one, DID voice my opinion (for) the Illinois FIRST program, which raised license and sin taxes to pay for public transit.  Having said all that, I’m STILL pissed that I’m paying $2.87 while others are paying a buck-fifty. Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

    Response:

    > I urge evryone who reads this to boyctt buying gas on July 4th to > protest the high gas prices.  Don’t get pushed around by the oil > companies.  Let’s unite as Americans and tell the oil companies NO MORE!

    ….realizing what a great idea it was to NOT purchase a SUV about two years ago…. Rich

    Response:

    – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> I urge evryone who reads this to boyctt buying gas on July 4th to >> protest the high gas prices.  Don’t get pushed around by the oil >> companies.  Let’s unite as Americans and tell the oil companies NO MORE! > ….realizing what a great idea it was to NOT purchase a SUV about two > years ago…. > Rich > Yes, yes. The evil devil in me is grinning inside wishing that petrol price > would continue to rise higher and higher. Once again, people have forgotten > that protecting the environment and the future is important. People forget > such things until we are economically reminded of them. > :)

    Also, how about everyone start to move toward the milder areas of the earth so that heating and cooling become unnecessary through the year. AA’s DFW hub is going to be popular with that… ;) — Weiyun [Remove the obvious for email replies]

    Response:

    Ok, I’d like to know when the people in this Country (United States of America) are gonna take it back from the government. I don’t think people realalize that it’s the people in the government that’s doing all this. And the people don’t say a word about THAT. I guess they’re just blind huh. Oh!! also the lobbiest in there. OHOOOOOOOOO what’s the use. CONCERNED                             NO JUNK MAIL!!!

    Response:

    >btw we drive cares not because we are >dependent on them but because we like to >be independent. we like to come and go >as we please not be dependent on a bus >schedule. >Quite. This is a dependency. >– Craig

     maybe this is a dependency but depending on the government to provide you with mass transit is a dependency also.  

    Response:

    MsBella,,, uh i believe there`s an election coming up. vote vote vote!!(if your old enuff) do you REALLY think the US government has anything to do with the petrol pricing here? even though i`m a resident of texas,,i`m not endorsing Gov. Bush…just stating we still have a a choice here in US of A.( me thinks anyway). :-) PS–flames will be ignored,,,its hot enuff here in texas anyway. leaving on a jet plane,,dont know when i`ll be back again..blah blah blah.

    Response:

    MsBella,,also,,you can set your webtv unit to NOT get junk mail. its in your `Settings` program. works for me anyway. dang more waste of precious bandwidth again. `Scuse me!!

    Response:

    I wish Petrol prices were that low here in rip-off-Britain, the price here is


  • Any free energy papers?

    Question:

    Does anyone know where the free energy writting on the web??? cheeers

    Response:

    I’m not exactly sure what you’re looking for, but I work as a correspondent in the energy industry. The company I work for, www.energy.com is chock full of just about any energy info. you could possibly be looking for, there is no fee for any of the services. The site also links to about 200 other energy resources on the web. > Does anyone know where the free energy writting on the web??? > cheeers

    Response:

     > Does anyone know where the free energy writting on the web???  Go into yahoo and do a search for free energy.  I’m building an archive but it’ll be another  year before I get it fully up and running at:  http://members.tripod.com/~JohnLockard/FreeEnergy/index.html

    Response:

     > I’m not exactly sure what you’re looking for,  > but I work as a correspondent in the energy industry.  > The company I work for, www.energy.com is chock full  > of just about any energy info.  You could possibly be  > looking for, there is no fee for any of the services.  Cool web site, but it misses the subject entirly.  I type in the kewords, "zero point energy" and got zip.  Did even get anything hot there either about "cold fusion".  The term "free energy" is the new term for "perpetual motion  machines".  Do a search on yahoo for more information… or if  you want you can try my largly incomplete web site:  http://members.tripod.com/~JohnLockard/FreeEnergy/index.html

    Response:

    John, thanks for the info, I did check out your site.  I’m also forwarding the info to the editor the energy.com web site.  I’m looking forward to future visits to your site.  Thanks again – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >  > I’m not exactly sure what you’re looking for, >  > but I work as a correspondent in the energy industry. >  > The company I work for, www.energy.com is chock full >  > of just about any energy info.  You could possibly be >  > looking for, there is no fee for any of the services. >  Cool web site, but it misses the subject entirly. >  I type in the kewords, "zero point energy" and got zip. >  Did even get anything hot there either about "cold fusion". >  The term "free energy" is the new term for "perpetual motion >  machines". >  Do a search on yahoo for more information… or if >  you want you can try my largly incomplete web site: >  http://members.tripod.com/~JohnLockard/FreeEnergy/index.html

    Response:


  • Info on Chinese oil exploration/production

    Question:

    First, I apologize if this message has already been posted — I tried to post via my Lynx Web-client yesterday, but I don’t think it worked (I didn’t see my message when I checked the group today). I am researching for an economic analysis of China in the 21st century, and energy resources and exploitation of those resources will be one of the single most important issues. I know that the PRC claims that there are vast reserves in the far western Turim region, and are attempting to exploit them. Rumor has it that those reserves have been vastly overestimated, and, in fact, seriously fractured by seismic activity. If anyone in this group could point me towards production data/analysis of the Chinese industry (particularly that which suggests future trends), I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you for your help, Jeff Froh National Planning Association, Washington, D.C.

    Response:

    At a NASA symposium, I recently presented a paper on the problem of getting oil out of remotely located oil fields, which may be of interest. Here are two paragraphs from the 14 page document: "Long distance land transportation of crude oil, especially heavy crude, is very expensive with present technology. Oil from the north slope of Alaska is a classic example. It needs to be transported many thousands of miles to the market. However, in the first 800 miles, from Prudhoe Bay to Valdiz by a conventional pumping method, the Alaska pipeline consumes, including interest and capital recovery, roughly one-third of the oil’s value (ref. 1)." "It is obvious that, as easily accessible sources of fossil fuel become depleted, a more economic land transportation mode needs to be developed. The 800 mile long Alaska (pumped) pipeline is an example of unsatisfactory and uneconomical present day pumping technology. Other remotely located oil fields lie untapped as they wait for advancements in transportation technology. – Magnetic levitation is that new  advancement in technology. – A maglev crude oil pipeline could go very long distances and still be highly profitable in the hands of private enterprise. In the Alaska case, $10 million per day ($73 billion over 20 years) might have been saved, had the maglev technology been available and had it been used. Twice as long as the Alaska pipeline, a maglev crude oil pipeline from Tengiz in Kasakhstan to the Black Sea was calculated above to be also financially feasible." For copies of my paper "Maglev Crude Oil Pipeline" either request from myself or NASA’s library, mentioning the proceeding: NASA Langley Research Center’s Second International Symposium on Magnetic Suspension Technology The Westin Hotel Seattle, Washington, USA August 11-13, 1993

    Response:


  • Ginseng, information wanted

    Question:

    > Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
    > I think one should be careful not to take too much of it, because of its
    > man who took large doses of Ginseng one day went into a pharamacy with > a gun, and ordered the personel to give him all the Ginseng they had.
    > I have taken Ginseng myself in small doses for over 20 years in long

    What are you calling "large doses" and "small doses"?

    Response:

    Ginseng is one of the most (if not the most) yang herbs.  It stimulates and strenghtens the mental and physical functions.  Most stimulants tap your energy resources, giving you a boost, and leaving you tired afterwards.  To my opinion Ginseng stimulates in another, not so remarkable way as coffee, tea and such things, but in return it rather add power to your recourses, than depleting them. I think one should be careful not to take too much of it, because of its yang power, but that depends somewhat upon your constitution.  In large doses it can have some negative effects upon the mental functions, at least this is true for some people.  People who are paranoid for example may get even more paranoid.  I remember a story from Germany, where a young man who took large doses of Ginseng one day went into a pharamacy with a gun, and ordered the personel to give him all the Ginseng they had. I have remarked similar mental effects with myself and people I know, not in a scale as the above example, but negative tendencies in certain   ways.  But that is probably a very individual matter. In my opinion Ginseng is not addictive at all physically, there seem to be no abstinences when you stop using it, contrary to most other stimulants like coffee, tea etc..  Some people may perhaps get mental abstinences after taking large doses, because the are missing the mental stimulation, which in a way could be compared to that of small doses of amphetamines.   But compared to the mental abstinences from amphetamine they are hardly noticeably, not even after years of use.  You don’t get any depressions or things like that, you just get what you are when not taking Ginseng.   Of course, this may mean not feeling very well, to those people who feel they need this stimulating effect to get by. I have heard some say, that Ginseng has a negative effect upon the suprarenal glands, but I have not seen any publications on this. I have taken Ginseng myself in small doses for over 20 years in long periods of time, with pauses in between of varying length, and have not remarked any physical symptoms of any kind. But that is no guarantee that it might not have some negative effects physically, especially on some people. There is a book "Ginseng", by Stephen Fulder, which was released for 15-20 years ago, and which gives a good allround view on Ginseng. There is a lot of other information on it – it is probably the most studied herb of all.

    Response:


  • Send nuclear waste to the SUN

    Question:

    > > It has been suggested in this group that nuclear waste be > Launched into the sun.

    … > For an object launched from the earth to > reach the sun; you have to cancel out most or all of the earth’s > orbital velocity (66,000 mph or > 110,000 kph), to insure that your cargo will approach the sun closely > enough to be captured or destroyed. If you don’t reach this speed, your > cargo would enter an elliptical solar orbit, instead of dropping into > the sun.

    The way to do this would be with a gravity slingshot by Jupiter, but I agree that this is not the solution. > It would be easier to launch nuclear waste to Pluto.

    True.  In any case, sending nuclear waste to the sun is silly.  A much better solution would be to send it to the moon.  The lunar environment is *already* radioactive (solar flares), it has no ground-water, and is geologically (sic) stable.  Also, if you later decide you want it, you can go back and get it. Jordin Kare has proposed using small laser-propelled spacecraft to do this, and suggests that it could be cheap and safe.  By "safe," he means that it can be designed so that an accident would not break containment on the cannister and spread waste around. Geoffrey A. Landis NASA Lewis Research Center mailstop 302-1

    Response:

    [Extracted...] >     It has been suggested in this group that nuclear waste be Launched(?) into > the sun. >     Have any of you advocating this form of disposal made an educated guess > as to how much energy that would infact require.  

    Oddly enough, the sun is the most difficult object to reach in the solar system.  An object must reach a speed of about 25,000 mph (41,600 kph) to achieve earth escape velocity and enter a solar orbit.  Solar escape velocity is about 48,000 mph (80,000 kph).  At this speed, a cargo of nuclear waste could escape solar orbit and sail off into interstellar space.  However, for an object launched from the earth to reach the sun; you have to cancel out most or all of the earth’s orbital velocity (66,000 mph or 110,000 kph), to insure that your cargo will approach the sun closely enough to be captured or destroyed. If you don’t reach this speed, your cargo would enter an elliptical solar orbit, instead of dropping into the sun. It would be easier to launch nuclear waste to Pluto. — Senior Programmer/Analyst EG&G Energy Measurements Inc.

    Response:

    >    It has been suggested in this group that nuclear waste be Launched(?) into > the sun.  I personally think that’s very cute.

    It’s actually pretty stupid.  It’s much easier to eject matter from the solar system.  And much much easier just to bury it.         Paul F. Dietz

    Response:

        It has been suggested in this group that nuclear waste be Launched(?) into the sun.  I personally think that’s very cute.  Most would agree that the Earth itself could easily be consumed by the Sun with little consequences besides destroying Earth.     Have any of you advocating this form of disposal made an educated guess as to how much energy that would infact require.  I don’t mean only the propelent or the energy required to construct the rocket.  I mean the total amount of energy involved in R&D, (computing energy etc. divide by the number of launches for a specific rocket class if you’d like), transportation of personel and materials, communications and climate controll for supporting personel and whatever other energy resources that could be directed to the achivement of another goal.     Before even considering the ill atmosphereic effects of launch or the potential for disaster, this launch into the sun bit seems to approach diminishing returns for the ammount of energy harnessed from the virgin fuel (Don’t forget mineing and enriching of this virgin fuel as both of these processes don’t happen spontaniously).    And finally how much extra energy is consummed while building these fortified Nuke plants, and the aditional energy consumed during design/change order process.  It’s been mentioned to me that: "The problem with american Nuke plants is that each one is individually designed. Resulting in a relativly slow design evolution and high costs.  In contrast to Russian designs which are for the most part very similar and therfore easier to prefect with each new plant."     All coments in the name of rational solutions are eagerly awaited. —                                             Thelonious "T" Freitas

    Response: