Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition


"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink,net > wrote in message
news:13uv52d9amq723@corp.supernews,com ...
>
> "jloomis" <jloomis@ocean,net > wrote in message
> news:fsmqlq022eq@news1.newsguy,com ...
>> The real problem is the "addiction to oil" and our being brought up in a
>> world where there was "no limit" on the supply of gasoline at the
>> station.
>
> Modern economies do not relay on the human back to do the heavy
> lifting.
> We do not rely on horses to move produce. So?

And there is still virtually "no limit". The US has enough reserves to last
100 years, a lot longer than it will take for a superior motive technology
to arises.

All needs be done is get Congress to quit sitting on their brains and to
tell the EnviroNazi's (yes, that's were a lot of environmental premises come
from) to stick it where the sun don't shine.

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

Matt W. Barrow wrote:

> "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink,net > wrote in message
> news:13uv52d9amq723@corp.supernews,com ...
>
>>"jloomis" <jloomis@ocean,net > wrote in message
>>news:fsmqlq022eq@news1.newsguy,com ...
>>
>>>The real problem is the "addiction to oil" and our being brought up in a
>>>world where there was "no limit" on the supply of gasoline at the
>>>station.
>>
>> Modern economies do not relay on the human back to do the heavy
>>lifting.
>>We do not rely on horses to move produce. So?
>
>
> And there is still virtually "no limit". The US has enough reserves to last
> 100 years, a lot longer than it will take for a superior motive technology
> to arises.

Enough reserves of what? Crude oil? So why has since the mid 70ies the
USA become a dramatic net-importer of crude oil?
Is that tactics to misleda everybody while you're piling up the homeland
oil in secret shelters?

The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.

> All needs be done is get Congress to quit sitting on their brains and to
> tell the EnviroNazi's (yes, that's were a lot of environmental premises come
> from) to stick it where the sun don't shine.

From time to time some fool pops up, using the word "Nazi" in utterly
wrong and misconceptional ways,
probably hardly knowing what he's talking about and the Nazi's implications.

Tadej
--
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it.”
<Upton Sinclair in The Jungle>

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition


"Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:47f0e110$0$12126$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
>> "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink,net > wrote in message
>> news:13uv52d9amq723@corp.supernews,com ...
>>
>>>"jloomis" <jloomis@ocean,net > wrote in message
>>>news:fsmqlq022eq@news1.newsguy,com ...
>>>
>>>>The real problem is the "addiction to oil" and our being brought up in a
>>>>world where there was "no limit" on the supply of gasoline at the
>>>>station.
>>>
>>> Modern economies do not relay on the human back to do the heavy
>>> lifting.
>>>We do not rely on horses to move produce. So?
>>
>>
>> And there is still virtually "no limit". The US has enough reserves to
>> last 100 years, a lot longer than it will take for a superior motive
>> technology to arises.
>
> Enough reserves of what? Crude oil? So why has since the mid 70ies the USA
> become a dramatic net-importer of crude oil?
> Is that tactics to misleda everybody while you're piling up the homeland
> oil in secret shelters?

[See comment at bottom]
>
> The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
> exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.

Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of barrels
of known reserves?

Indeed, based on your arguments, it would be a complete waste of time and
effort.

>> All needs be done is get Congress to quit sitting on their brains and to
>> tell the EnviroNazi's (yes, that's were a lot of environmental premises
>> come from) to stick it where the sun don't shine.
>
> From time to time some fool pops up, using the word "Nazi" in utterly
> wrong and misconceptional ways,
> probably hardly knowing what he's talking about and the Nazi's
> implications.

And you obviously don't know the long term history of the environmental
movement back to Germany in the 1920's and 30's.

Now, you're demonstrating complete ignorance, so, no, I won't waste my time.

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Tadej Brezina" <tadej usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
> news:47f0e110$0$12126$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...

>> The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
>> exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.
>
> Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of barrels
> of known reserves?

Are your 'reserves' sand oil and kerogen? They have little to do with
'capacity to produce'. The ERoEI of kerogen is almost non existent. We
have peaked in natural gas production in North America so sand oil is
pretty much a losing proposition. The EIA predicts demand to go well
over 100 mb/d by 2025. Where will it come from?

http :// lakeweb.blogspot,com /

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition


"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb,com > wrote in message
news:IIfIj.935$NU2.126@news01.roc.ny...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>> "Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
>> news:47f0e110$0$12126$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
>
>>> The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
>>> exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.
>>
>> Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of
>> barrels of known reserves?
>
> Are your 'reserves' sand oil and kerogen?

Well, no, so the rest of this tripe is of little worth.

> They have little to do with 'capacity to produce'. The ERoEI of kerogen is
> almost non existent. We have peaked in natural gas production in North
> America so sand oil is pretty much a losing proposition. The EIA predicts
> demand to go well over 100 mb/d by 2025. Where will it come from?
>

You should not make assumptions (such as that I was talking about kerogens),
but then you'd have to really THINK, not just emote.

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb,com > wrote in message
> news:IIfIj.935$NU2.126@news01.roc.ny...
>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>> "Tadej Brezina" <tadej usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
>>> news:47f0e110$0$12126$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
>>>> The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
>>>> exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.
>>> Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of
>>> barrels of known reserves?
>> Are your 'reserves' sand oil and kerogen?
>
> Well, no, so the rest of this tripe is of little worth.
>
>> They have little to do with 'capacity to produce'. The ERoEI of kerogen is
>> almost non existent. We have peaked in natural gas production in North
>> America so sand oil is pretty much a losing proposition. The EIA predicts
>> demand to go well over 100 mb/d by 2025. Where will it come from?
>>
>
> You should not make assumptions (such as that I was talking about kerogens),
> but then you'd have to really THINK, not just emote.

You didn't answer the question. Where will it come from?

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

On Mar 31, 10:18 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb,com > wrote:
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> > "Dan Bloomquist" <publi...@lakeweb,com > wrote in message
> >news:IIfIj.935$NU2.126@news01.roc.ny...
> >> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> >>> "Tadej Brezina" <tadej use...@gmx.at> wrote in message
> >>>news:47f0e110$0$12126$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
> >>>> The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
> >>>> exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.
> >>> Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of
> >>> barrels of known reserves?
> >> Are your 'reserves' sand oil and kerogen?
>
> > Well, no, so the rest of this tripe is of little worth.
>
> >> They have little to do with 'capacity to produce'. The ERoEI of kerogen is
> >> almost non existent. We have peaked in natural gas production in North
> >> America so sand oil is pretty much a losing proposition. The EIA predicts
> >> demand to go well over 100 mb/d by 2025. Where will it come from?
>
> > You should not make assumptions (such as that I was talking about kerogens),
> > but then you'd have to really THINK, not just emote.
>
> You didn't answer the question. Where will it come from?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh come on. Stop being simplistic. We will not run out of oil --
ever. Period. End of sentence.

As supplies become more and more limited, price goes up. As price
goes up, substitutes become feasible. As substitutes become more
plentiful, there is less demand for oil. Eventuall, substitutes will
take over completely because it's too expensive to pump the remaining
oil, so it will sit in the ground forever. It's economics 101.

So where will it all come from -- substitution. But right now, it's
to early to know what the ultimate substitute will be. But in the
end, the market will prevail. It always does.

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition


"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:b54b54f3-be7b-4c96-b64d-d09ad5a765dc@8g2000hse.googlegroups,com ...
On Mar 31, 10:18 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb,com > wrote:
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> > "Dan Bloomquist" <publi...@lakeweb,com > wrote in message
> >news:IIfIj.935$NU2.126@news01.roc.ny...
> >> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> >>> "Tadej Brezina" <tadej_use...@gmx.at> wrote in message
> >>>news:47f0e110$0$12126$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
> >>>> The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
> >>>> exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.
> >>> Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of
> >>> barrels of known reserves?
> >> Are your 'reserves' sand oil and kerogen?
>
> > Well, no, so the rest of this tripe is of little worth.
>
> >> They have little to do with 'capacity to produce'. The ERoEI of kerogen
> >> is
> >> almost non existent. We have peaked in natural gas production in North
> >> America so sand oil is pretty much a losing proposition. The EIA
> >> predicts
> >> demand to go well over 100 mb/d by 2025. Where will it come from?
>
> > You should not make assumptions (such as that I was talking about
> > kerogens),
> > but then you'd have to really THINK, not just emote.
>
> You didn't answer the question. Where will it come from?- Hide quoted
> text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

> Oh come on. Stop being simplistic. We will not run out of oil --
> ever. Period. End of sentence.

> As supplies become more and more limited, price goes up. As price
> goes up, substitutes become feasible.

Well, we could, if alternative are not developed.

But not only are substitutes developed, drilling in more difficult and
inhospitable locations becomes feasible, both technologically and
economically.


> As substitutes become more
> plentiful, there is less demand for oil. Eventually, substitutes will
> take over completely because it's too expensive to pump the remaining
> oil, so it will sit in the ground forever. It's economics 101.

Econ 101 - something these two ratchetheads don't comprehend. They
apparently have been innured with the "Fixed Pie" school of thought.

> So where will it all come from -- substitution. But right now, it's
> to early to know what the ultimate substitute will be. But in the
> end, the market will prevail. It always does.

Right now, the US has AT LEAST 50 years of oil deposits available fairly
readily.

Just one hundred years ago, a 1000 foot well was a major accomplishment.
Today, 28,000 feet is no big deal.

As well, major strides are being made in nuclear generation
http :// gt-mhr.ga,com , even the Tokomac Fusion generator holds some longer
term promise.

our lives are enhanced by the geniuses of the world (like those mentioned in
the above web articles), not the putzes banging away on daddy's computer
like Bloomquist and Loomis.

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

Pat wrote:
> On Mar 31, 10:18 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb,com > wrote:
>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>> "Dan Bloomquist" <publi...@lakeweb,com > wrote in message
>>> news:IIfIj.935$NU2.126@news01.roc.ny...
>>>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>>>> "Tadej Brezina" <tadej use...@gmx.at> wrote in message
>>>>> news:47f0e110$0$12126$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
>>>>>> The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
>>>>>> exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.
>>>>> Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of
>>>>> barrels of known reserves?
>>>> Are your 'reserves' sand oil and kerogen?
>>> Well, no, so the rest of this tripe is of little worth.
>>>> They have little to do with 'capacity to produce'. The ERoEI of kerogen is
>>>> almost non existent. We have peaked in natural gas production in North
>>>> America so sand oil is pretty much a losing proposition. The EIA predicts
>>>> demand to go well over 100 mb/d by 2025. Where will it come from?
>>> You should not make assumptions (such as that I was talking about kerogens),
>>> but then you'd have to really THINK, not just emote.
>> You didn't answer the question. Where will it come from?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Oh come on. Stop being simplistic. We will not run out of oil --
> ever. Period. End of sentence.
>
> As supplies become more and more limited, price goes up. As price
> goes up, substitutes become feasible. As substitutes become more
> plentiful, there is less demand for oil. Eventuall, substitutes will
> take over completely because it's too expensive to pump the remaining
> oil, so it will sit in the ground forever. It's economics 101.
>
> So where will it all come from -- substitution. But right now, it's
> to early to know what the ultimate substitute will be. But in the
> end, the market will prevail. It always does.

Address our condition explicitly. Our condition is measured in quads/year.

Do see the Hirsch report.

http :// lakeweb.blogspot,com /

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb,com > wrote in message
news:tNjIj.977$Cn4.710@news02.roc.ny...
> Pat wrote:

>
> Address our condition explicitly. Our condition is measured in quads/year.
>
> Do see the Hirsch report.
>
> http :// lakeweb.blogspot,com /

Yeah, saw that years ago.

It was poop then, it's poop now.

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition


"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb,com > wrote in message
news:wYgIj.962$Cn4.930@news02.roc.ny...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>> "Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb,com > wrote in message
>> news:IIfIj.935$NU2.126@news01.roc.ny...
>>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>>> "Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
>>>> news:47f0e110$0$12126$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
>>>>> The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
>>>>> exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.
>>>> Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of
>>>> barrels of known reserves?
>>> Are your 'reserves' sand oil and kerogen?
>>
>> Well, no, so the rest of this tripe is of little worth.
>>
>>> They have little to do with 'capacity to produce'. The ERoEI of kerogen
>>> is almost non existent. We have peaked in natural gas production in
>>> North America so sand oil is pretty much a losing proposition. The EIA
>>> predicts demand to go well over 100 mb/d by 2025. Where will it come
>>> from?
>>>
>>
>> You should not make assumptions (such as that I was talking about
>> kerogens), but then you'd have to really THINK, not just emote.
>
> You didn't answer the question. Where will it come from?

Not from kerogens.

Do you know any other reserves that we have discovered?

I do.

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb,com > wrote in message
> news:wYgIj.962$Cn4.930@news02.roc.ny...
>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>> "Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb,com > wrote in message
>>> news:IIfIj.935$NU2.126@news01.roc.ny...
>>>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>>>> "Tadej Brezina" <tadej usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
>>>>> news:47f0e110$0$12126$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
>>>>>> The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
>>>>>> exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.
>>>>> Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of
>>>>> barrels of known reserves?
>>>> Are your 'reserves' sand oil and kerogen?
>>> Well, no, so the rest of this tripe is of little worth.
>>>
>>>> They have little to do with 'capacity to produce'. The ERoEI of kerogen
>>>> is almost non existent. We have peaked in natural gas production in
>>>> North America so sand oil is pretty much a losing proposition. The EIA
>>>> predicts demand to go well over 100 mb/d by 2025. Where will it come
>>>> from?
>>>>
>>> You should not make assumptions (such as that I was talking about
>>> kerogens), but then you'd have to really THINK, not just emote.
>> You didn't answer the question. Where will it come from?
>
> Not from kerogens.
>
> Do you know any other reserves that we have discovered?

You didn't answer the question.

> I do.

Then, answer the question.

My guess now, methane hydrates. Show me a realistic study. If not, just
answer the question.

(hand waving goes here...)

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb,com > wrote in message
news:4NjIj.960$NU2.256@news01.roc.ny...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:

>>
>> Do you know any other reserves that we have discovered?
>
> You didn't answer the question.

You didn't answer the first one, which was that your Kerotans was
irrelevant.

>
>> I do.
>
> Then, answer the question.

You first.

>
> My guess now, methane hydrates. Show me a realistic study. If not, just
> answer the question.

No.

Your ignorance is incredible. Your reading skills substantially less.

Okay, here's a clue: the original point, that you completely ignored, was
NOT substitutes.

> (hand waving goes here...)

That's not hand waving, that's jerking off.

Now, I suspect you're still in school, and you've just finished a class in
which you're ego has just gotten a substantially inflated.

I may be wrong, but if I am, I wonder why you come off like a newbie with
inflated expectations of your knowledge.

Here's another clue: I am working right now, with several people in the Oil
& Gas industries in Wyoming, Colorado, and, to a lesser degree, Texas and
Oklahoma (I am in construction, not specifically O&G). They are a very good
source of real, objective and empirical data regarding O&G production
potentials.

You, on the other hand, are evidently a clueless dweeb whose ego is about to
get smashed because you believed your teachers when they told you that your
opinion was important, but didn't understand, because they didn't comprehend
it either, that your opinion was NOT VALID.

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

PeterD wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Enough Already
> <enough already@lycos,com > wrote:
>
>
>> Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.
>
> Another misinformed person: it is supposed to be: "Population growth:
> the endless replacement of nature with people."
>

Yes, because everybody knows people are completely unnatural...

--
Les Cargill

Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

Enough Already <enough_already@lycos,com > wrote:

> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> starts each year? This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
> gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
> increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
> designated wilderness.

Yep. I never followed it up with any deep research though.

What struck me most, though (and you mention this below), is the land
area covered by roads.

I think I read somewhere that 6% of Manhattan's surface area are roads.
Anybody know is this is correct?

>
> The standard definition of housing starts makes no mention of land
> losses and the attendant increase in water & energy consumption, plus
> mandatory road-building. Like most economic creeds, housing starts are
> still defined mainly in terms of money and jobs. The land itself is
> treated as an infinite sink for this "progress" to occur in.
>
> From http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_starts:
>
> "Housing Starts are used in the United States of America as an
> indicator of the state of the economy. Housing Starts are the number
> of privately owned new homes (technically housing units) on which
> construction has been started over some period. Housing starts are an
> important economic indicator because they show how much money the
> general public has. If there is a rise in housing starts it likely
> means there is more money in the economy. Additionally if there are
> more Housing Starts in a time period the Federal Funds Rate is
> presumably low enough for individuals to be willing to borrow money
> from banks."
>
> With annual U.S. population growth at 3 million, housing starts must
> be consuming thousands of acres each year. Does anyone in the building
> industry see an end to this malignancy? Does anyone see that
> population growth is the chicken & egg precursor to job-creation?

As things are today, much of this polulation gorwn is latin american
immigration, much of which is illegal. I don't see how they can legaly
put in an order for real estate.

>
> With U.S. population projections of 400 to 500 million by mid-century,
> millions of acres of "empty" space will be written off as expendable.
> Nature will keep getting buried for the sake of construction jobs and
> real estate profits. There will be the usual talk of energy efficient
> homes, but they will never reverse the net impact of overpopulation.
>
> http :// www .wcs.org/humanfootprint (housing starts are stomping all
> over the place)
>
>
> E.A.
>
> http :// enough_already.tripod,com /terrasrvr.htm
>
> Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.

Thats incorrect - a good deal of economic growth has happened because of
better production methods that allows one human to do the work of many,
who do not have the same machines to perform their labor.

The industrial revolution is the prime example of this. So was/is the
computer revolution.

--
regards , Peter B. P. http :// macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals

"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!