Slashdot Mirror
From Turkey Guts to Fuel Oil
Untimely Ripp'd writes "The latest issue of Discover Magazine reports that any day now a plant will go online in Carthage, Missouri that processes turkey guts into high grade oil, natural gas, some minerals, and water. Unfortunately, the Discover article isn't online yet, but here's a newspaper article. The system, developed by Changing World Technologies uses thermal depolymerization and apparently works on almost any and every kind of organic waste. They assert that applying it to 100% of the US' agricultural waste would produce about 4 billion barrels of oil per year -- about the amount we currently import.
It sounds too good to be true, it sounds like one of those fly-by-night-in-the-face-of-the-second-law deals, but it isn't happening in somebody's basement -- it's happening in a multi-million dollar facility developed with Con-Agra."
... the US will be getting the fuck out of Iraq now they have their own source of Energy...
Cutting down on oil imports won't eliminate the real evil, American oil and energy corporations and the evil cowards who run them.
Ya just gotta love April Fools :)
Billions of barrels a year, lol... I just hope the oil industry doesn't think this is real and people start to mysteriously disappear!
From the BBC
Is the war with Iraq about oil when all is said and done? The anti-war movement seems to think so. I am not so sure.
Unless the peace movement has discovered telepathy, I doubt that it's in any better position to divine the hidden thoughts or secret motivations of George Bush and Tony Blair than I am. Arguing about unstated motives, therefore, is a waste of time - claims cannot be proven or disproven.
Is it so difficult to imagine that both Bush and Blair sincerely believe - rightly or wrongly - that a well-armed Iraq poses an intolerable danger to the civilized world? If access to oil were of concern to them, one might have expected members of their administrations to hint as much. After all, the Thatcher and Bush "senior" administrations were quite open about the role that oil played in justifying the first go-around in Kuwait. Polls in the United States revealed at the time, moreover, that the public responded favourably to the argument. Why the supposed reticence now?
Regardless, it's difficult to know exactly what's being alleged when one is confronted by the slogan "No Blood for Oil!"
If the argument is that war is primarily being executed to ensure global access to Iraqi oil reserves, then it flounders upon misunderstanding. The only thing preventing Iraqi oil from entering the world market in force is the partial U.N. embargo on Iraqi exports. Surely if access to Iraqi oil were the issue, it would have occurred to Bush and Blair that removing the embargo is about 100 billion dollars cheaper - and less politically risky - than going to war.
If the argument is that war is being undertaken to grab Iraqi reserves, flood the market with oil, bust the OPEC cartel, and provide cheap energy to western consumers, then war would be a dagger pointed at the heart of big oil companies. That's because low prices equal low profits. But if the market were flooded with cheap Iraqi oil, it would also wipe out the small-time producers in Texas, Oklahoma, and the American Southwest that President Bush has long considered his best political friends.
Accordingly, it's impossible to square this story with the allegation that President Bush is a puppet of the oil industry. If oil company "fat cats" were calling the shots - as is often alleged by the protesters - President Bush would almost certainly not go to war. He would instead embrace the Franco-German-Russian plan of muscular but indefinite inspections. Because keeping the world on the precipice of uncertainty regarding conflict is the best guarantee that oil prices, (and thus, oil profits,) will remain at current levels.
If the argument is that "Big Oil" is less interested in high prices than it is with outright ownership of the Iraqi reserves, then how can we account for Secretary of State Colin Powell's repeated promise that the oil reserves will be transferred to the Iraqi government after a new leadership is established? Do the protestors think that this high-profile public commitment is a bald-faced lie? If outright ownership of oil is the real goal of this war, then I'm forced to wonder why the U.S. didn't seize the Kuwaiti fields more than 10 years ago.
If the argument is that this war is aimed at installing a pro-American regime more inclined to grant oil contracts to American and British rather than French and Russian oil firms, then it invites a similar charge that France and Russia are against war, primarily to protect their cosy economic relationships with the existing Iraqi regime. Regardless, only one or two American or British firms in this scenario would "win" economically while the rest would lose because increased production would lower global oil prices and thus profits. Because no one knows who would win the post-war contract "lottery," it makes little sense for the oil industry (or the politicians who supposedly cater to them) to support war.
Moreover, the profit opportunities afforded by Iraqi development
This is the perfect thing to do with all those Al Quaida corpses we're stacking up in Iraq.
Turn them into fuel oil.
you could have sex with it?
just like normal?
That was classic intercourse!