Peak Cheap Oil, Peak Dollar, but no Peak Gold

[GRG55]

Re: NatGas

A little background is in order:

1. I'm a military pilot, have been for the last ten years.

This does not appear to be correct, unless I am misunderstanding what has been written.

First, although volume is important in aircraft applications, weight is the governing design limitation. Energy density expressed as combustion energy per unit of mass is more important for aircraft fuels than volume.

2. "Although volume is important in aircraft applications"

You miss the argument completely. It is HOW fuel is stored on an aircraft typically (in the wings) that makes volume so important. The type of storage vessel for GTL (a pressurized storage container) mandates locating fuel stowage in the fuselage vs a typical aircraft installation where fuel is stored unpressurized in the wings for the majority of the fuel supply. (Yes there are body tanks, but these are either hard tanks or even in many cases simple flexible fuel bladders that forgo cargo space). It is the weight and complexity of the installation as well as the requirement that all fuel storage be relocated in the fuselage that makes this technology incompatible with the existing aircraft fleet and makes retrofit highly unlikely. Hence the need for purpose built aircraft.

Missed the argument completely did I? Please allow me the indulgence of a second attempt:

GTL at STP is a relatively stable liquid with boiling point properties very similar to diesel (Initial boiling point greater than 150 C vs about 170 for typical diesel, final boiling point generally greater than 350 in both cases). Typical diesel/GTL RVP is about 2 kPa compared with motor gasoline (summer) RVP about 50 kPa.

What is it about GTL that makes you think that pressurized storage in the fuselage is necessary?

3. Interestingly, GTL is considered a diesel, not kerosene, substitute. Compared with conventional crude based diesel, GTL's energy density is typically 4% higher because it's highly paraffinic (lower aromatic/higher paraffin content). Volumetric density is lower at about 0.76 kg/l for GTL vs about 0.83 kg/l for conventional diesel because paraffins have a higher hydrogen to carbon ratio than aromatics. GTL can be burned directly in compression ignition engines.

"Volumetric density is lower at about 0.76 kg/l for GTL vs about 0.83 kg/l"
"(lower aromatic/higher paraffin content)"


You said it not me. When the Air Force switched from JP-4 to JP-8 (a fuel with lower volitility and higher volumetric density) our flight duration increased by 15-25% depending on aircraft type! This is an apples to apples comparison of two kerosene based fuels. It also caused huge problems with our engine fuel controls because of the viscosity differential. (we also had to implement special procedures to reduce the risk of flaming out our engines during certain flight regimes).

Speaking strictly as a civilian pilot, I would have thought that increased flight duration would be a highly desirable outcome.

Especially if the fuel management systems and engine characteristics can be engineered to overcome the problems caused by the viscosity differential between the fuels.

GTL has a lot of issues that need to be solved before it will ever become a widely used substitute liquid fuel (in any application), but energy density is not one of them.

Maybe, but that does not invalidate the points addressed. And, fuel storage installation on-board aircraft is certainly an issue.

This is the point I am trying to understand. For decades much more volatile avgas was used routinely in Otto cycle engines at high altitudes without the need for specialized fuselage pressure vessel fuel tanks.

Why can't GTL, a liquid at STP and similar in characteristics to diesel and kerosene, be used in conventional wing tanks?

call me nuts but isn't an airplane the last place you'd put these fuels?

Mike: I would agree with you in normal circumstances. But these are anything but "normal" times. I don't know what's happening in North America in this regard, but in Europe the climate change cohort have recently been particularly zealous targeting the airlines and Airbus (an easy target with its government sponsorship) over carbon emissions, green practices, environmental responsibility, and so forth.

The airlines are scrambling around trying to come up with politically correct responses. Last year Virgin Group's Richard Branson proposed using tugs to tow aircraft between ramps and runways to lower CO2 emissions (smart man...this would save him fuel and transfer the cost to the airport authorities, where they could argue forever about landing fee increases). The Shell-Qatar-Airbus GTL flight (some GTL blended into conventional jet fuel) was a nice promotion for Shell's Pearl GTL project in the State of Qatar, but not much else. Expect more PR stuff and stunts, as the airlines and manufacturers try to prevent their reputations from being trashed as environmental pariahs.

In the meantime, the search for suitable substitutes for crude based aviation fuels will be an interesting challenge that should soak up untold amounts of alternate energy government subsidies. And as cheap oil becomes scarcer, there is the possibility that flying once again becomes the exclusive purview of the financially well off gin and Jaguar set, and the business/government/UN expense account groupies (how else are they going to get to Davos and all those climate change conferences?).

[JoeSixpack]

Re: Peak Cheap Oil, Peak Dollar, but no Peak Gold

Metalman, absolutely not - in the very long term.

In the context of competing uses of energy its likely that coal and nuclear are big for electricity, e.g., thermal and solar will have a share too.
However its hard to believe you can fly an airplane with a nuclear reactor or a few solar panels.
In the end it will be sorted out by price of oil which might just get too expensive for commercial aviation one day..

Anyways, im just specualting. The original question was if NatGas would go into a long term demand driven bull market.

[metalman]

Re: Peak Cheap Oil, Peak Dollar, but no Peak Gold

Thanks for the informative replies everyone.

From what i understood the GTL technique and likewise methods generally produce real fuel, which can be transported like any other liquid, in contrast to LNG which is just pressurized gas and a security nightmare even on ground.


Found this on wiki, dont know if it is accurate information:

Processes:
The process of producing synfuels is often referred to as Coal-To-Liquids (CTL), Gas-To-Liquids (GTL) or Biomass-To-Liquids (BTL), depending on the initial feedstock. Synthetic crude may also be created by upgrading bitumen (a tar like substance found in tar sands)

Economics:
Synthetic fuels require a relatively high price of crude oil in order to be competitive with petroleum-based fuels without subsidies. However, they offer the potential to supplement or replace petroleum-based fuels if oil prices continue to rise. Several factors make synthetic fuels attractive relative to competing technologies such as biofuels, ethanol/methanol or hydrogen:

• The raw material is available in quantities sufficient to meet current demand for centuries
• It can produce gasoline, diesel or kerosene directly without the need for additional steps such as reforming or cracking
• There is no need to convert vehicle engines to use a different fuel
• There is no need to build a new distribution network

01/02/08
Airbus conducts A380 alternative-fuel demonstration flight
By Graham Dunn

Airbus has kicked-off its alternative fuel research programme by flying an A380 with a synthetic liquid fuel process from gas (GTL) on a three hour flight between Filton in the UK and Toulouse.
The A380, powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines, used Shell International Petroleum’s GTL jet fuel for the flight.
The trial is part of Airbus’s studies into alternative fuels, with the airframer having announced the GTL project at last year’s Dubai air show in conjunction with a team that includes Shell, Qatar Airways and Rolls-Royce.

Airbus president and CEO Tom Enders says. "Our alternative fuels roadmap requires innovation, diversity of ideas and options that need to be explored.
"This takes bold cross industry and cross border collaboration and that's what we are showing today with our groundbreaking first test flight with alternative fuels. It is part and parcel of Airbus' commitment to providing leadership as an eco-efficient."
Airbus says under the research programme, this marks the first step of a long-term testing phase to evaluate potential alternative fuels.

"GTL could be available at certain locations to make it a practical and viable drop-in alternative fuel for commercial aviation in the short term," Airbus says. "GTL has attractive characteristics for local air quality, as well as some benefits in terms of aircraft fuel burn relative to existing jet fuel.
"Testing GTL today will support future second generation bio-fuels, but which are not presently available in sufficient commercial quantities. Airbus will study viable second generation bio-fuels when they become available," the company says.

call me nuts but isn't an airplane the last place you'd put these fuels?

[JoeSixpack]

Re: Peak Cheap Oil, Peak Dollar, but no Peak Gold

Thanks for the informative replies everyone.

From what i understood the GTL technique and likewise methods generally produce real fuel, which can be transported like any other liquid, in contrast to LNG which is just pressurized gas and a security nightmare even on ground.


Found this on wiki, dont know if it is accurate information:

Processes:
The process of producing synfuels is often referred to as Coal-To-Liquids (CTL), Gas-To-Liquids (GTL) or Biomass-To-Liquids (BTL), depending on the initial feedstock. Synthetic crude may also be created by upgrading bitumen (a tar like substance found in tar sands)

Economics:
Synthetic fuels require a relatively high price of crude oil in order to be competitive with petroleum-based fuels without subsidies. However, they offer the potential to supplement or replace petroleum-based fuels if oil prices continue to rise. Several factors make synthetic fuels attractive relative to competing technologies such as biofuels, ethanol/methanol or hydrogen:

• The raw material is available in quantities sufficient to meet current demand for centuries
• It can produce gasoline, diesel or kerosene directly without the need for additional steps such as reforming or cracking
• There is no need to convert vehicle engines to use a different fuel
• There is no need to build a new distribution network

01/02/08
Airbus conducts A380 alternative-fuel demonstration flight
By Graham Dunn

Airbus has kicked-off its alternative fuel research programme by flying an A380 with a synthetic liquid fuel process from gas (GTL) on a three hour flight between Filton in the UK and Toulouse.
The A380, powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines, used Shell International Petroleum’s GTL jet fuel for the flight.
The trial is part of Airbus’s studies into alternative fuels, with the airframer having announced the GTL project at last year’s Dubai air show in conjunction with a team that includes Shell, Qatar Airways and Rolls-Royce.

Airbus president and CEO Tom Enders says. "Our alternative fuels roadmap requires innovation, diversity of ideas and options that need to be explored.
"This takes bold cross industry and cross border collaboration and that's what we are showing today with our groundbreaking first test flight with alternative fuels. It is part and parcel of Airbus' commitment to providing leadership as an eco-efficient."
Airbus says under the research programme, this marks the first step of a long-term testing phase to evaluate potential alternative fuels.

"GTL could be available at certain locations to make it a practical and viable drop-in alternative fuel for commercial aviation in the short term," Airbus says. "GTL has attractive characteristics for local air quality, as well as some benefits in terms of aircraft fuel burn relative to existing jet fuel.
"Testing GTL today will support future second generation bio-fuels, but which are not presently available in sufficient commercial quantities. Airbus will study viable second generation bio-fuels when they become available," the company says.

[jtabeb]

Re: NatGas

A little background is in order:

1. I'm a military pilot, have been for the last ten years.

This does not appear to be correct, unless I am misunderstanding what has been written.

First, although volume is important in aircraft applications, weight is the governing design limitation. Energy density expressed as combustion energy per unit of mass is more important for aircraft fuels than volume.

2. "Although volume is important in aircraft applications"

You miss the argument completely. It is HOW fuel is stored on an aircraft typically (in the wings) that makes volume so important. The type of storage vessel for GTL (a pressurized storage container) mandates locating fuel stowage in the fuselage vs a typical aircraft installation where fuel is stored unpressurized in the wings for the majority of the fuel supply. (Yes there are body tanks, but these are either hard tanks or even in many cases simple flexible fuel bladders that forgo cargo space). It is the weight and complexity of the installation as well as the requirement that all fuel storage be relocated in the fuselage that makes this technology incompatible with the existing aircraft fleet and makes retrofit highly unlikely. Hence the need for purpose built aircraft.

Typical Jet A, Jet B or kerosene has an energy density in the range of 42 - 44 MJ/kg (ASTM D1655 requires a minimum of 42.8). Typical GTL has an energy density of about 47 MJ/kg, making it a superior fuel (only on that one measure - there's other reasons it many not actually work in a real jet engine).

On this you are correct. I incorrectly used gaseous density, not liquefied density in my previous post.

3. Interestingly, GTL is considered a diesel, not kerosene, substitute. Compared with conventional crude based diesel, GTL's energy density is typically 4% higher because it's highly paraffinic (lower aromatic/higher paraffin content). Volumetric density is lower at about 0.76 kg/l for GTL vs about 0.83 kg/l for conventional diesel because paraffins have a higher hydrogen to carbon ratio than aromatics. GTL can be burned directly in compression ignition engines.

"Volumetric density is lower at about 0.76 kg/l for GTL vs about 0.83 kg/l"
"(lower aromatic/higher paraffin content)"


You said it not me. When the Air Force switched from JP-4 to JP-8 (a fuel with lower volitility and higher volumetric density) our flight duration increased by 15-25% depending on aircraft type! This is an apples to apples comparison of two kerosene based fuels. It also caused huge problems with our engine fuel controls because of the viscosity differential. (we also had to implement special procedures to reduce the risk of flaming out our engines during certain flight regimes)




GTL has a lot of issues that need to be solved before it will ever become a widely used substitute liquid fuel (in any application), but energy density is not one of them.[/quote]

Maybe, but that does not invalidate the points addressed. And, fuel storage installation on-board aircraft is certainly an issue.

[GRG55]

Re: NatGas

" - GTL (Gas-to-Liquid) is becoming a viable technology to replace Airplane fuel,"

Not for a long while. Not without purpose built aircraft. It is not viable for existing fleet conversion.

1. Energy density is too low vs Jet A (volumetric and BTU/weight are both issues in this case). 2.6 times as much fuel for the same range capability, all things being equal. (which they aren't. )The added volume and weight of the aircraft would make it not nearly as efficient.

2. on-board storage in an aircraft is a nightmare. (installation weight is much higher, CG constraints, have to redesign the entire aircraft, not transferable to the existing aerospace fleet)

I believe N based hydrogen carries vs C based ones are much more likely as a replacement.

Bio fuel (diesel ) is a no-go in the aviation world, unless they can figure out a way to reduce viscosity and prevent it from freezing at altitude.

Hope this helps

This does not appear to be correct, unless I am misunderstanding what has been written.

First, although volume is important in aircraft applications, weight is the governing design limitation. Energy density expressed as combustion energy per unit of mass is more important for aircraft fuels than volume.

Typical Jet A, Jet B or kerosene has an energy density in the range of 42 - 44 MJ/kg (ASTM D1655 requires a minimum of 42.8). Typical GTL has an energy density of about 47 MJ/kg, making it a superior fuel (only on that one measure - there's other reasons it many not actually work in a real jet engine).

Interestingly, GTL is considered a diesel, not kerosene, substitute. Compared with conventional crude based diesel, GTL's energy density is typically 4% higher because it's highly paraffinic (lower aromatic/higher paraffin content). Volumetric density is lower at about 0.76 kg/l for GTL vs about 0.83 kg/l for conventional diesel because paraffins have a higher hydrogen to carbon ratio than aromatics. GTL can be burned directly in compression ignition engines.

GTL has a lot of issues that need to be solved before it will ever become a widely used substitute liquid fuel (in any application), but energy density is not one of them.

[jtabeb]

Re: NatGas

" - GTL (Gas-to-Liquid) is becoming a viable technology to replace Airplane fuel,"

Not for a long while. Not without purpose built aircraft. It is not viable for existing fleet conversion.

1. Energy density is too low vs Jet A (volumetric and BTU/weight are both issues in this case). 2.6 times as much fuel for the same range capability, all things being equal. (which they aren't. )The added volume and weight of the aircraft would make it not nearly as efficient.

2. on-board storage in an aircraft is a nightmare. (installation weight is much higher, CG constraints, have to redesign the entire aircraft, not transferable to the existing aerospace fleet)

I believe N based hydrogen carries vs C based ones are much more likely as a replacement.

Bio fuel (diesel ) is a no-go in the aviation world, unless they can figure out a way to reduce viscosity and prevent it from freezing at altitude.

Hope this helps

[zoog]

Re: NatGas

I wondered if anyone here is in the position to comment on NATGAS in the context of peak-cheap oil / Bonar / AltEnergy. I did some research but the results are ambigious. Sorry if there is a topic on this i didnt find it.

Regarding the dollar, i read opinions saying NatGas is too much of a local market to become affected by the USD depreciation, which can be clearly seen in any chart so far...

However, could this could become a true demand driven bull market, especially the US and Canada, if oil becomes ever more expensive ? UK is an example what happens on a supply shortage with prices...

- i read it takes 2 "barrels" of NatGas to extract 1 barrel of OilSands, which is one of the biggest known resources of oil, and in secure places (Canada, OilSands is one the investments i watch)
- GTL (Gas-to-Liquid) is becoming a viable technology to replace Airplane fuel, but they might find more competitive means of biofuel, too...
- GTL can be easily used as a diesel substitute in EXISTING machinery, in fact it is already added to various diesel fuels
- US is the heaviest user of NatGas but has limited resources
- It fits the Clean&Secure Energy theme very good
- Retail customers rely on NatGas for heating and electricity and might shift if prices go up, but what alternatives should they use ?
- Greenspan said the US could face a severe NatGas shortage.. well you might see that as a contra-indicator, but he had his clear moments, too

From a technical perspective, the days of cheap NatGas are long gone, too. It traded at 2$ now its trending around 7$ without impact from the hurricane season. Breaking 9$ could get the smart money interested

Appreciate any thoughts!

Seems like I keep hearing more about liquefied natural gas, mainly because there are at least three proposed LNG terminals being considered here in Oregon. From the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:

There are about 40 LNG terminals that are either before FERC or being discussed by the LNG industry for North America. Six terminals are already operating on the East Coast, Puerto Rico and Alaska.

Currently, there are 16 facilities under FERC jurisdiction in the continental US. Twelve of the facilities are land-based, peak-shaving plants that liquefy and store LNG during the summer (low demand) months for sendout during winter (high demand) months. The remainder are baseload LNG import terminals, which are the focus of this LNG section.

Any LNG terminal project that is approved must also obtain Coastal Zone Management Act, Section 404 water quality certificate, and Section 404 dredging permits.

The market ultimately determines whether an approved LNG terminal is ever built. Even if an LNG terminal project receives all of the federal and state approvals, it still must meet complicated global issues surrounding financing, gas supply and market conditions. Many industry analysts predict that only 12 of the 40 LNG terminals being considered will ever be built.

From NYTimes:

Exxon Mobil said Tuesday that it would like to build a $1 billion floating terminal for liquefied natural gas about 20 miles off the coast of New Jersey, a move meant to deflect safety and environmental concerns about proximity to populated areas.

...

The company plans to anchor a boatlike structure in the Atlantic Ocean to process natural gas imported by cargo ships from faraway suppliers in the Middle East, Europe and Africa.

I'm not sure LNG really fits the "secure" part of "clean and secure energy" if we're importing it from the Middle East and Africa. However...

Natural gas shipped by tanker from abroad in a supercold liquid form accounts for about 3 percent of domestic consumption, but the government estimates that share could rise to 17 percent by 2030. At terminals like those proposed near New York, liquefied natural gas is processed into the gas form, which is used to heat homes, power electric plants and fuel many industrial activities. Natural gas accounts for about a quarter of the nation’s energy supplies.

...I guess we're not importing all that much. The rest must come from domestic (USA) and Canadian sources?

For Exxon, going so far offshore is an effort to duck the vociferous opposition that has dogged projects on both coasts. Its project, called BlueOcean Energy, would be able to supply 1.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day, about 2 percent of the nation’s gas consumption — and enough to meet the needs of five million residential customers.

Each of the proposed Oregon facilities also project around a billion cubic feet per day, so I am assuming this would be the typical size / capacity of such terminals.

Imports of liquefied natural gas are expected to jump 35 percent this year compared with last. But the growth is likely to slow next year because of delays with new terminals, according to the Federal Energy Information Administration.

I don't feel qualified to offer an opinion on natural gas in this context, but, thought the above information might be useful.

[JoeSixpack]

NatGas

I wondered if anyone here is in the position to comment on NATGAS in the context of peak-cheap oil / Bonar / AltEnergy. I did some research but the results are ambigious. Sorry if there is a topic on this i didnt find it.

Regarding the dollar, i read opinions saying NatGas is too much of a local market to become affected by the USD depreciation, which can be clearly seen in any chart so far...

However, could this could become a true demand driven bull market, especially the US and Canada, if oil becomes ever more expensive ? UK is an example what happens on a supply shortage with prices...

- i read it takes 2 "barrels" of NatGas to extract 1 barrel of OilSands, which is one of the biggest known resources of oil, and in secure places (Canada, OilSands is one the investments i watch)
- GTL (Gas-to-Liquid) is becoming a viable technology to replace Airplane fuel, but they might find more competitive means of biofuel, too...
- GTL can be easily used as a diesel substitute in EXISTING machinery, in fact it is already added to various diesel fuels
- US is the heaviest user of NatGas but has limited resources
- It fits the Clean&Secure Energy theme very good
- Retail customers rely on NatGas for heating and electricity and might shift if prices go up, but what alternatives should they use ?
- Greenspan said the US could face a severe NatGas shortage.. well you might see that as a contra-indicator, but he had his clear moments, too

From a technical perspective, the days of cheap NatGas are long gone, too. It traded at 2$ now its trending around 7$ without impact from the hurricane season. Breaking 9$ could get the smart money interested

Appreciate any thoughts!

[GRG55]

Re: Peak Cheap Oil, Peak Dollar, but no Peak Gold

“Petro dollar 50 yard suite seats”,,,, maybe they buy the place before they get out of town.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/p...dubai0203.html
Dubai partnership sought

Phoenix wants to start business connections

Casey Newton
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 3, 2008 12:00 AM
Phoenix is taking some key first steps to establishing a long-term partnership with the Middle Eastern port of Dubai, hoping ties to the wealthy emirate will result in more jobs for the Valley.

The Greater Phoenix Economic Council is hosting a delegation of government and business leaders from Dubai this weekend. The delegation includes Mohammed Bin Ali Alabbar, chairman of real-estate giant Emaar Properties, and Richard Rodriguez, who oversees Emaar's developments in the United Arab Emirates.

Dubai officials plan to watch the Super Bowl and meet with local business leaders and elected officials.

Let's see now...sold the Arabs Citi stock and AMD stock. Why not sell them a homebuilder or two while the stock price is still in the toilet? Maybe the next housing boom will be remembered for having a minaret on every residence?

[bill]

Re: Peak Cheap Oil, Peak Dollar, but no Peak Gold

“Petro dollar 50 yard suite seats”,,,, maybe they buy the place before they get out of town.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/p...dubai0203.html
Dubai partnership sought

Phoenix wants to start business connections

Casey Newton
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 3, 2008 12:00 AM
Phoenix is taking some key first steps to establishing a long-term partnership with the Middle Eastern port of Dubai, hoping ties to the wealthy emirate will result in more jobs for the Valley.

The Greater Phoenix Economic Council is hosting a delegation of government and business leaders from Dubai this weekend. The delegation includes Mohammed Bin Ali Alabbar, chairman of real-estate giant Emaar Properties, and Richard Rodriguez, who oversees Emaar's developments in the United Arab Emirates.

Dubai officials plan to watch the Super Bowl and meet with local business leaders and elected officials.

[jk]

Re: Peak Cheap Oil, Peak Dollar, but no Peak Gold

God bless satellite TV. No small feat, but we've figured out how to get the game live over here (it's a 2:30 am kick off). Now this Canadian has the privilege of trying to explain American football to some Arabs, most of whom have never seen the game. Qualifications for that task? Dubious at best.

go to youtube and find george carlin's comparison of football and baseball. that will not only help explain football, it will help explain america.

[GRG55]

Re: Peak Cheap Oil, Peak Dollar, but no Peak Gold

God bless satellite TV. No small feat, but we've figured out how to get the game live over here (it's a 2:30 am kick off). Now this Canadian has the privilege of trying to explain American football to some Arabs, most of whom have never seen the game. Qualifications for that task? Dubious at best. Through my engineering student days in the '70's I was a devout fan of the Bud Grant/Fran Tarkenton Vikings. Three Super Bowl losses in 4 years. I'm still bitter about 1977. Foreman, Rashad, Sammy White, Alan Page, an 11-win season, and the bums still couldn't do it. :mad:

Go Patriots.

Oh ya. And God Bless America too...

Re: Peak Cheap Oil, Peak Dollar, but no Peak Gold

From the column:


"The reason is that central banks know that the incompetent, spendthrift governments they are loosely shackled to will continue to pursue inane policies and that these, in addition to their own irresponsibility such as interest rate policies under the Greenspan Fed, will eventually cause their fiat currencies to lose substantial value or worse so they’d better have something to fall back on. That was one of the reasons we recommended it in 2001 and we have not seen any compelling evidence to change our minds. As gold increased from $260 then to $924 today, what do you suppose has happened to the value of central bank gold reserves? You can bet the central banks aren’t complaining."

I'm sure there's a factor that mitigates against this, but if the central banks can affect the money supply, and raising that can cause gold to rise due to the monetary inflation, isn't it in their interest to inflate away to run up the value of their own gold holdings? Seems like a conflict of interest on the surface.

[EJ]

Re: Peak Cheap Oil, Peak Dollar, but no Peak Gold

Great. Just what we need. Another Peak Oil Thread ;)

There's a much more pressing and immediate issue at stake. I have just arrived back in the Arabian Gulf, and the jet lag at my age is awful, so forgive me if I missed it, but I don't see a posting anywhere setting out The Official iTulip Position - Patriots vs Giants?

We could just presume hometown bias on the part of iTulip, but on all other critical topics such presumptions have historically proven deadly, as EJ has repeatedly shown that conventional thinking rarely pays out... :p

Eagerly anticipating your views.