33
   

Our planet is being destroyed, does anybody care?

 
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 02:38 pm
Dave Allen, your rhetoric is so neutral and unbiased, it has come to a point where I do not even know if you're arguing anything at all. Nearly every single line is a general, homeostasis point of fact cited such that it is unclear whether you're supporting an actual position, or just playing the pacifist and destroyer of generalizations for the sake of keeping the discussion going.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 02:53 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Not sent to - bought from.




No. Sent to. Iran has no refining capabilities. So, they have to import what you call petrol, and we call, gas, for their transportation. They depend almost entirely on refineries abroad.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 02:56 pm
Ken, I've noticed you're really having a problem with this quoting system.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 03:15 pm
@kennethamy,
Quote:
Iran has no refining capabilities.


There's Abadan. It's one of the biggest.
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 04:30 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

Dave Allen, your rhetoric is so neutral and unbiased, it has come to a point where I do not even know if you're arguing anything at all. Nearly every single line is a general, homeostasis point of fact cited such that it is unclear whether you're supporting an actual position, or just playing the pacifist and destroyer of generalizations for the sake of keeping the discussion going.

Philosophy forum innit?

"To what extent can the truth endure incorporation?" and all that jazz.

But for that matter I think my tone and position has been consistent. I'm generally in favour of what I see as the march of renewables and sensible application of nuclear. Sooner we're off stuff that produces CO2 the better, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

That said I'm not particularly interested in the exaggerations that form part of environmentalist rhetoric though I do take it for what it is: a metaphore rather than a literal conviction. So I sympathise on that small point.

To me lack of bias and neutrality are key to philosophical inquiry, so thanks for the compliments. A manichean veiw isn't philosophical as far as I see it.

But I don't think I've generalised much at all - not in comparison to other contributors to the discussion. I think I've been quite careful to provide relevent detail to support most of the claims I have made.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 04:33 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
No. Sent to. Iran has no refining capabilities.

According to the US Energy Information Administration:

"Iran is OPEC’s second-largest producer of oil after Saudi Arabia. In 2008, Iran produced approximately 4.2 million barrels of oil per day (bbl/d) of total liquids, of which roughly 3.9 million bbl/d was crude oil, equal to about 5 percent of global production. For most of 2009, it is estimated that Iran’s crude production was approximately 3.8 million bbl/d, almost 500,000 bbl/d above Iran’s estimated 3.3 million bbl/d OPEC quota. Iran’s 2009 crude oil production capacity is estimated to be 3.9 million bbl/d."

Not bad for a country with "no refining capabilities".

Perhaps you mean the process of fractional distillation of crude into light fuel constituents such as petrol. Iran does not currently have much industry devoted to this (though its not particularly difficult tech to buy or develop) and imports some petrol. Many refineries do this, but not all.

It is still a mistake to assume they have none - that's not true - but they do import some - true.

However, the $ they spend on imports of petrol are dwarfed by the $ they make selling crude.

Even if they had no refineries they could still export crude, so I don't get your point.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 05:03 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen wrote:
That said I'm not particularly interested in the exaggerations that form part of environmentalist rhetoric though I do take it for what it is: a metaphore rather than a literal conviction. So I sympathise on that small point.

There are certainly those who do not take it as metaphor, but take it as literal. That we are literally destroying the earth.




Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 05:36 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

There are certainly those who do not take it as metaphor, but take it as literal. That we are literally destroying the earth.
Surely you understand that they're referring to the magnitude and pervasiveness of human effects on the earth's surface.

Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 05:51 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

There are certainly those who do not take it as metaphor, but take it as literal. That we are literally destroying the earth.
Surely you understand that they're referring to the magnitude and pervasiveness of human effects on the earth's surface.

When they say things like "we're destroying the planet" they make it seem as though they are talking about the planet in the abstract - but they aren't. They're talking about their own natural habitat. It's the hyperboles and exaggerations that they hope jolt people.

It's not just environmentalists, though.

Anyway, we're not really discussing anything.

By the way, sometimes generalizations are true, even though some of you peacekeepers may think otherwise due to the whole "equality" gig.
0 Replies
 
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 06:15 pm
Let me know when we are destroying the universe, or even the galaxy in which this planet resides. Or was the OP actually concerned with something other than the planet earth?
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 06:17 pm
@thack45,
thack45 wrote:

Let me know when we are destroying the universe, or even the galaxy in which this planet resides. Or was the OP actually concerned with something other than the planet earth?

I heard the Empire was destroying the galaxy. Not to worry though, I hear the Alliance has it under control.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 06:27 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
No. Sent to. Iran has no refining capabilities.

According to the US Energy Information Administration:

"Iran is OPEC’s second-largest producer of oil after Saudi Arabia. In 2008, Iran produced approximately 4.2 million barrels of oil per day (bbl/d) of total liquids, of which roughly 3.9 million bbl/d was crude oil, equal to about 5 percent of global production. For most of 2009, it is estimated that Iran’s crude production was approximately 3.8 million bbl/d, almost 500,000 bbl/d above Iran’s estimated 3.3 million bbl/d OPEC quota. Iran’s 2009 crude oil production capacity is estimated to be 3.9 million bbl/d."

Not bad for a country with "no refining capabilities".

Perhaps you mean the process of fractional distillation of crude into light fuel constituents such as petrol. Iran does not currently have much industry devoted to this (though its not particularly difficult tech to buy or develop) and imports some petrol. Many refineries do this, but not all.

It is still a mistake to assume they have none - that's not true - but they do import some - true.

However, the $ they spend on imports of petrol are dwarfed by the $ they make selling crude.

Even if they had no refineries they could still export crude, so I don't get your point.


But I know they produce a lot of crude oil. Who doesn't? What they do not produce is the stuff that is actually put into the fuel tank. Didn't I make that clear. Or are you intentionally ascribing to me something I never claimed was true, and indeed, disclaimed? Of course they can export crude. But they have to import petrol. The stuff people put into their cars. What is difficult about understanding that (and what has their production of crude compared with that of Saudi Arabia have to do with that?) My point is that Iranians need stuff to put into their cars so their cars can move, and they have to import that stuff. From us. And we can cut that stuff off. And if they put crude oil into their tanks the cars won't move. How can I possibly make it any clearer than that?
kennethamy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 06:32 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

There are certainly those who do not take it as metaphor, but take it as literal. That we are literally destroying the earth.
Surely you understand that they're referring to the magnitude and pervasiveness of human effects on the earth's surface.




No, because they identity the environment with the Earth, and they do not make that distinction. Read the OP. Making distinctions is not usually in the repertoire of environmentalists of the algore variety. They huff and puff as they think.
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 09:50 pm
@kennethamy,

our planet is being destroyed

from the sea, shores and deserts , we are destroying our planet

please , if you do not see the signs then your ignoring the truth
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 03:04 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
But I know they produce a lot of crude oil. Who doesn't? What they do not produce is the stuff that is actually put into the fuel tank. Didn't I make that clear. Or are you intentionally ascribing to me something I never claimed was true, and indeed, disclaimed? Of course they can export crude. But they have to import petrol. The stuff people put into their cars. What is difficult about understanding that (and what has their production of crude compared with that of Saudi Arabia have to do with that?) My point is that Iranians need stuff to put into their cars so their cars can move, and they have to import that stuff. From us. And we can cut that stuff off. And if they put crude oil into their tanks the cars won't move. How can I possibly make it any clearer than that?

Let me remind you of the conversation Ken.

I said in post # 4,297,885 about the oil market keeping Tehran’s pockets full.

I did not mention petrol per se – just profits off of the oil business in general.

You responded with:

“Of course, we can reduced the benefit to Iran with tough sanctions, like reducing (or stopping) the petro being sent to them. Apparently, they are not adept at refining the raw product, so it is imported from those who are. Us. Or, of course, we can eventually bomb them.”

But that’s not correct – they do have refining capabilities and they money they make from oil vastly outweighs that they spend on petrol imports.

So your obsession with their lack of refining capabilities is Just Wrong – they have them – not all refineries are engaged in the production of light fuel. That’s not a prerequisite for being a refinery. Also some of their refineries do produce light fuel, so it’s not as if the tech’s unavailable to them should they want to increase production.

But beside’s all that - it’s irrelevant – whilst they make so many dollars from crude they don’t need to worry about importing petrol to make a net profit. So their “pockets are full” despite their relative lack of light fuel production.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 03:08 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
There are certainly those who do not take it as metaphor, but take it as literal. That we are literally destroying the earth.

I would imagine that if you approached any adult who had said something like "We are destroying the earth!" and asked:

"When you say that do mean there literally won't be a planet Earth left in the solar system - or are you just conjuring up a vision of widespread ecological upheaval as a result of the damage man does to the environment?"

Most, if not all, would say the latter.

I'll try it out and see...
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 03:12 am
@north,
north wrote:
our planet is being destroyed


Hi North. When you say that do you mean that....

a) there literally will not be a planet Earth left in the solar system

or....

b) There will be a sort of general and widespread ecological upheaval as a result of the damage man has done to the environment

Which of a or b best represents your true beliefs on the matter?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 06:39 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
But I know they produce a lot of crude oil. Who doesn't? What they do not produce is the stuff that is actually put into the fuel tank. Didn't I make that clear. Or are you intentionally ascribing to me something I never claimed was true, and indeed, disclaimed? Of course they can export crude. But they have to import petrol. The stuff people put into their cars. What is difficult about understanding that (and what has their production of crude compared with that of Saudi Arabia have to do with that?) My point is that Iranians need stuff to put into their cars so their cars can move, and they have to import that stuff. From us. And we can cut that stuff off. And if they put crude oil into their tanks the cars won't move. How can I possibly make it any clearer than that?

Let me remind you of the conversation Ken.

I said in post # 4,297,885 about the oil market keeping Tehran’s pockets full.

I did not mention petrol per se – just profits off of the oil business in general.

You responded with:

“Of course, we can reduced the benefit to Iran with tough sanctions, like reducing (or stopping) the petro being sent to them. Apparently, they are not adept at refining the raw product, so it is imported from those who are. Us. Or, of course, we can eventually bomb them.”

But that’s not correct – they do have refining capabilities and they money they make from oil vastly outweighs that they spend on petrol imports.

So your obsession with their lack of refining capabilities is Just Wrong – they have them – not all refineries are engaged in the production of light fuel. That’s not a prerequisite for being a refinery. Also some of their refineries do produce light fuel, so it’s not as if the tech’s unavailable to them should they want to increase production.

But beside’s all that - it’s irrelevant – whilst they make so many dollars from crude they don’t need to worry about importing petrol to make a net profit. So their “pockets are full” despite their relative lack of light fuel production.


The fact remains that they depend on petrol imports. That was my point, since they cannot run their cars and trucks on either money or crude oil. If petrol were cut off their trucks and cars would soon run out of petrol. And, even if they were willing to pay for the petrol, unless they could get it from the West, they would not have it.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 06:45 am
@kennethamy,
Quote:
Iran
Abadan Refinery (NIOC), 450,000 bbl/d (72,000 m3/d)
Arak Refinery (NIOC), 150,000 bbl/d (24,000 m3/d)
Tehran Refinery (NIOC), 225,000 bbl/d (35,800 m3/d)
Isfahan Refinery (NIOC), 265,000 bbl/d (42,100 m3/d)
Tabriz Refinery (NIOC), 112,000 bbl/d (17,800 m3/d)
Shiraz Refinery (NIOC), 40,000 bbl/d (6,400 m3/d)
Lavan Refinery (NIOC), 20,000 bbl/d (3,200 m3/d)
Bandar Abbas Refinery (NIOC), 232,000 bbl/d (36,900 m3/d)
Kermanshah refinery (NIOC),21,000 bpd
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2010 06:59 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
The fact remains that they depend on petrol imports. That was my point, since they cannot run their cars and trucks on either money or crude oil. If petrol were cut off their trucks and cars would soon run out of petrol. And, even if they were willing to pay for the petrol, unless they could get it from the West, they would not have it.

That isn't a fact at all - they make some of their own petrol, petrol refinement is not exclusive to westerners, and Iran's trading partners aren't all western. The United Arab Emirates and China are where they buy most of their imports from.

If the west suddenly ceased selling to Iran (which they don't seem to wish to do as a gestalt, Germany being their next biggest source of imports, Italy and France not far behind) it would presumably cause some temporary problems whilst they searched for new trading partners or built more refineries. A set back at most. This would hardly cause bankruptcy whilst they sell so much crude - if the worst came to the worst they could just requisition fuel sold domestically and reserve it for industry and commuting.

Not nice for ordinary Iranians, perhaps, but since when has either the Iranian regime or OPEC cared what they think?

And none of this addresses the fact that they make huge amounts of money selling oil, so it's just an irrelevant tangent really.

And seeing as petroleum accounts for 80% of their $70.16 billion worth of exports - I think it's fair to say they aren't really wanting for the stuff.

So you're indulging in a fantasy, frankly.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 04:45:40