From mhagerman at worldnet.att.net  Tue Dec 15 22:09:15 2009
From: mhagerman at worldnet.att.net (Mark Hagerman)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:09:15 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Fwd: OIL - you better sit down.
References: <9bdc9ef60912122233i479b1cseb6c7b615cc01bc6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F2007A53-5822-4151-BF07-279DAAD5E5F7@worldnet.att.net>

Given the following passage, excerpted from below:

 > Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all
 > efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil!
 > Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives
 > and our economy.....WHY?

... I thought it prudent to post this to GogLog, rather than GT. Was  
I wrong?

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Bob Ahern <bobahern at gmail.com>
> Date: 2009-December-13  00:33:20 (CST)
> To: Mark Hagerman <mhagerman at worldnet.att.net>
> Subject: Fwd: OIL - you better sit down.
>
> Dear Mark:
>
> Has this made it to the GT list? If not should it be posted?
>
> Please let me know.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> OIL - you better sit down.
> :
> Here's an interesting read, important and verifiable information:
>
> About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil  
> and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes,  
> "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct  
> answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did  
> not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put  
> together." Please read below..
>
> The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that  
> only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It  
> was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much  
> oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota , western  
> South Dakota , and extreme eastern Montana ...... check THIS out:
>
> The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's  
> Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American  
> dependence on foreign oil.  The Energy Information Administration  
> (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the  
> oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource  
> base worth more than $5..3 trillion.
>
> "When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically  
> see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.." says Terry  
> Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.
>
> "This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field  
> found in the past 56 years," reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette.  
> It's information known as the Williston Basin , but is more  
> commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' It stretches from Northern  
> Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S.  
> oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil'  
> companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago.  
> However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the  
> Bakken's massive reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500  
> billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those  
> billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
>
> That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041  
> years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then  
> this next one should - because it's from 2006!
>
> U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World
>
> Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006
>
> Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies  
> the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2  
> TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its  
> extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has  
> been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still  
> fighting over off-shore drilling?
>
> They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our  
> borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the  
> official estimates:
>
> - 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
>
> - 18-times as much oil as Iraq
>
> - 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
>
> - 22-times as much oil as Iran
>
> - 500-times as much oil as Yemen
>
> - and it's all right here in the Western United States .
>
> HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the  
> environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help  
> America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a  
> small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?
>
> James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more  
> oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more  
> than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven  
> oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.
>
> Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think  
> again!  It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to.  
> Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?
>
> Why do the Democrats keep blocking attempts to extract this oil?
>
> Got your attention yet? Now, while you're thinking about it, do this:
>
> Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then  
> you should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas  
> prices - by doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain.
>
> --------
>
> Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of  
> you sent this to every one in your address book.
>
> By the way....this is all true. Check it out at the link below!
>
> GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It will blow your mind.
>
> http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
>

Mark Hagerman



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20091215/47b661cb/attachment.htm 

From jazz at qnet.com  Tue Dec 15 22:32:45 2009
From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:32:45 -0800
Subject: [Goglog] Fwd: OIL - you better sit down.
In-Reply-To: <F2007A53-5822-4151-BF07-279DAAD5E5F7@worldnet.att.net>
References: <9bdc9ef60912122233i479b1cseb6c7b615cc01bc6@mail.gmail.com>
	<F2007A53-5822-4151-BF07-279DAAD5E5F7@worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <200912160433.nBG4XAI2032606@mail.zarquon.net>

At 22:09 12/15/2009 -0600, Mark Hagerman wrote:

>Given the following passage, excerpted from below:
>
> > Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all
> > efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil!
> > Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives
> > and our economy.....WHY?
>
>... I thought it prudent to post this to GogLog, rather than GT. Was I wrong?

My first thought is what is the cost of recovery?  Just because it 
might be available doesn't automatically make it economic to do 
so.  The flip side of that being that recovery of too much too 
quickly might be disruptive to already existing supplies.  You ruin 
the market you are trying to sell to.

Second, where is it really?  There are environmental laws in place, 
like them or not, and they do matter.  You can't just suck oil out of 
the ground anywhere and anytime you please.  Eventually the permits 
can be had, but it isn't like cutting your lawn.

Beyond that, who owns it and has rights to it, and can exploit it in 
some kind of legal fashion?  Oil in the ground presumably has rights 
attached to it.  Is it under Federal land, State lands, private 
holding, some mix of the three?  Mineral rights may or may not have 
been sold with the surface rights of the land, so that makes life 
interesting for someone trying to consolidate an extraction 
plan.  Federal policy on oil extraction is all over the map.  Some 
agencies encourage maximum use of the land, while others would say 
the oil should be held in reserve against emergencies.  States would 
probably just want the money.

Bill Taylor

From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 16 09:41:38 2009
From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:41:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Goglog] Fwd: OIL - you better sit down.
In-Reply-To: <200912160433.nBG4XAI2032606@mail.zarquon.net>
Message-ID: <773542.62952.qm@web33705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

As I understand it, this has been known about for decades and
there is no conspiracy here.  The oil is locked in rocks 5 miles
under the rockies, good luck getting it out.  Alberta has similiar
oil shale and oil sand formations on the surface and the break 
even point there is $65 a barrel.  Who knows how high the break
even point is for something under 5 miles of rock that cannot be
pumped.  The cycle has been, folks wanting to make a fast back
drum up interest, others buy into it, and try to bring it online, 
the Saudis cut prices for oil and the investors go broke, you wait
20 years, wash, lather, rinse, repeat.

This is not news.  Shell has done some experiments recently trying to
find a way to extract it, but it's just not an explotable resource
in today's environment unless you are a real estate agent or a land
speculator.

Janet

--- On Tue, 12/15/09, Bill Taylor <jazz at qnet.com> wrote:

> From: Bill Taylor <jazz at qnet.com>
> At 22:09 12/15/2009 -0600, Mark Hagerman wrote:
> 
> > Given the following passage, excerpted from below:
> >
> > > Because the environmentalists and others have
> > > blocked all efforts to help America become independent of
> > > foreign oil!  Again, we are letting a small group of people
> > > dictate our lives
> > > and our economy.....WHY?
> >
> >... I thought it prudent to post this to GogLog, rather
> > than GT. Was I wrong?
> 
> My first thought is what is the cost of recovery??



      


From ignatz at dminet.com  Wed Dec 16 09:43:11 2009
From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:43:11 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Fwd: OIL - you better sit down.
In-Reply-To: <200912160433.nBG4XAI2032606@mail.zarquon.net>
References: <9bdc9ef60912122233i479b1cseb6c7b615cc01bc6@mail.gmail.com>
	<F2007A53-5822-4151-BF07-279DAAD5E5F7@worldnet.att.net>
	<200912160433.nBG4XAI2032606@mail.zarquon.net>
Message-ID: <20091216154311.GA7566@dminet.com>

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 08:32:45PM -0800, Bill Taylor wrote:
> My first thought is what is the cost of recovery?  Just because it 
> might be available doesn't automatically make it economic to do 
> so.

Hmm...the entire thing does look valid, esp. coming from USGS.  For that
amount of oil, they *will* develop any needed technology to recover it.
This wouldn't be the first time that an advance in tech allowed access
to known, but previously unavailable, reserves.

> The flip side of that being that recovery of too much too 
> quickly might be disruptive to already existing supplies.  You ruin 
> the market you are trying to sell to.

Who cares?  If the problem is that we're dependent on foreign oil, and
bleeding billions to hostile countries, this takes on an aspect far
beyond simple oil economics.

> Second, where is it really?  There are environmental laws in place, 
> like them or not, and they do matter.  You can't just suck oil out of 
> the ground anywhere and anytime you please.  Eventually the permits 
> can be had, but it isn't like cutting your lawn.

No, but this is in a totally different realm than anything before.  If
the reserve is truly as large as believed, this not only massively
impacts our foreign oil dependence, but also our balance of trade,
credit reserves...we just became a major oil reserve country.  Think of
what that did with Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran...a host of third-world
countries.  Couple that with a first-world country and its economy...
NOBODY should be able to successfully stand in the way of this.

> Beyond that, who owns it and has rights to it, and can exploit it in 
> some kind of legal fashion?  Oil in the ground presumably has rights 
> attached to it.

That cannot be a constraining issue with a reserve of this size.  This
is so far beyond the "oil in reserves" kind of reserve that none of our
former policies make any sense--at least, not until and unless this can
alleviate our current stupidly deep credit crisis, national debt, etc.

Cheers,
--
	Dave Ihnat
	ignatz at dminet.com

From ignatz at dminet.com  Wed Dec 16 10:04:49 2009
From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:04:49 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Fwd: OIL - you better sit down.
In-Reply-To: <773542.62952.qm@web33705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <200912160433.nBG4XAI2032606@mail.zarquon.net>
	<773542.62952.qm@web33705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20091216160448.GB7566@dminet.com>

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 07:41:38AM -0800, Janet Plato wrote:
> Replies are directed to the list.
> If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line!
> ____________________________________________________________
> As I understand it, this has been known about for decades and
> there is no conspiracy here.  The oil is locked in rocks 5 miles
> under the rockies, good luck getting it out.

Well, the USGS site says "a limited number of wells have produced oil
from three of the assessments units in Central Basin-Poplar Dome,
Eastern Expulsion Threshold".  It sounds like they have had good luck.

Also, remember that similar issues applied to oil recovery in the early
days of exploration; development of self-starting motors and deep
drilling tech enabled access.  When there's THIS much oil there, they
*will* develop tech for it.

> Alberta has similiar oil shale and oil sand formations on the surface
and the break even point there is $65 a barrel.

Oil shale and sand are a world of difference from sweet, light crude.
Breakeven is severely impacted by the cost of oil reclamation and its
severe ecological side effects.  Think low-grade vs. high-grade ore.

> Who knows how high the break even point is for something under 5
> miles of rock that cannot be pumped.

But the USGS says they *have* pumped oil from these deposits.

Wasting billable time poking at the USGS fact sheets, GIS Data, etc., I
don't see them discussing depth or other tech problems that may be
encountered.  But if--IF--there really are reserves of this size, they
*will* come up with recovery technology.

Cheers,
--
	Dave Ihnat
	ignatz at dminet.com

From jazz at qnet.com  Wed Dec 16 10:26:44 2009
From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:26:44 -0800
Subject: [Goglog] Fwd: OIL - you better sit down.
In-Reply-To: <20091216154311.GA7566@dminet.com>
References: <9bdc9ef60912122233i479b1cseb6c7b615cc01bc6@mail.gmail.com>
	<F2007A53-5822-4151-BF07-279DAAD5E5F7@worldnet.att.net>
	<200912160433.nBG4XAI2032606@mail.zarquon.net>
	<20091216154311.GA7566@dminet.com>
Message-ID: <200912161628.nBGGSo8b019043@mail.zarquon.net>

At 09:43 12/16/2009 -0600, Dave Ihnat wrote:
>Replies are directed to the list.
>If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line!
>____________________________________________________________
>On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 08:32:45PM -0800, Bill Taylor wrote:
> > My first thought is what is the cost of recovery?  Just because it
> > might be available doesn't automatically make it economic to do
> > so.
>
>Hmm...the entire thing does look valid, esp. coming from USGS.  For that
>amount of oil, they *will* develop any needed technology to recover it.
>This wouldn't be the first time that an advance in tech allowed access
>to known, but previously unavailable, reserves.

Sure, there will be a speculative push to develop the needed 
technology, and eventually the price comes down to make it 
economic.  If it can be scaled up, it gets cheaper yet and the 
industry is off and running.  But it takes time, and likely there is 
no magic technology out there.  I can't rule out a breakthrough of 
course, but oil guys are pretty thrifty.  If they thought they could 
make money doing it, they probably would be.


> > The flip side of that being that recovery of too much too
> > quickly might be disruptive to already existing supplies.  You ruin
> > the market you are trying to sell to.
>
>Who cares?  If the problem is that we're dependent on foreign oil, and
>bleeding billions to hostile countries, this takes on an aspect far
>beyond simple oil economics.

No one is going to thank anyone for driving oil costs up.  Even with 
a compelling argument about saving the lives of American soldiers in 
foreign lands.  Because higher oil prices just means someone else 
dies shivering in the dark.  Energy independence in that way has a 
price too.  $4/gal gas showed people what can happen, and they won't 
go back there willingly anytime soon.


> > Second, where is it really?  There are environmental laws in place,
> > like them or not, and they do matter.  You can't just suck oil out of
> > the ground anywhere and anytime you please.  Eventually the permits
> > can be had, but it isn't like cutting your lawn.
>
>No, but this is in a totally different realm than anything before.  If
>the reserve is truly as large as believed, this not only massively
>impacts our foreign oil dependence, but also our balance of trade,
>credit reserves...we just became a major oil reserve country.  Think of
>what that did with Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran...a host of third-world
>countries.  Couple that with a first-world country and its economy...
>NOBODY should be able to successfully stand in the way of this.

Which would probably make the environmentalists, and the enviro-nuts, 
dig in all the harder.  Anything that smacks of a gold rush mentality 
is going to set off panic.  "They" (the political action wing nuts) 
clearly aren't thrilled with the idea of developing anything that 
looks like more oil burning.  The idea of trying to set aside or 
scrap existing controls so we can extract more oil faster is going to 
be like declaring war.


> > Beyond that, who owns it and has rights to it, and can exploit it in
> > some kind of legal fashion?  Oil in the ground presumably has rights
> > attached to it.
>
>That cannot be a constraining issue with a reserve of this size.  This
>is so far beyond the "oil in reserves" kind of reserve that none of our
>former policies make any sense--at least, not until and unless this can
>alleviate our current stupidly deep credit crisis, national debt, etc.

Nothing short of new federal law is going to set aside some of those 
concerns.  And even then the Fifth Amendment is going to jump up at 
some point.  Can't just take something without proper 
compensation.  If the people in place (residents, owners, various 
rights holders, oil companies, cities, states, etc.) decide they had 
a right to all the controls (rights and due process) that are now in 
place, and you just rip it away, they'll send it to the Supreme 
Court.  They have been highly deferential to the executive branch in 
many ways lately.  But it would be tough to ignore the black and 
white words of the amendment.  If extraction suddenly become 
radically cheaper, they might be tempted by the expedience, but I 
don't see it.  They went along with something similar a few years 
ago, where a city took some private land then sold it to a developer 
in return for higher tax revenue.  The fallout was huge.  Something 
like this would be even bigger.

Bill Taylor

From ignatz at dminet.com  Wed Dec 16 10:45:22 2009
From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:45:22 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Fwd: OIL - you better sit down.
In-Reply-To: <200912161628.nBGGSo8b019043@mail.zarquon.net>
References: <9bdc9ef60912122233i479b1cseb6c7b615cc01bc6@mail.gmail.com>
	<F2007A53-5822-4151-BF07-279DAAD5E5F7@worldnet.att.net>
	<200912160433.nBG4XAI2032606@mail.zarquon.net>
	<20091216154311.GA7566@dminet.com>
	<200912161628.nBGGSo8b019043@mail.zarquon.net>
Message-ID: <20091216164521.GA10211@dminet.com>

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 08:26:44AM -0800, Bill Taylor wrote:
> Sure, there will be a speculative push to develop the needed
> technology, and eventually the price comes down to make it economic.
> If it can be scaled up, it gets cheaper yet and the industry is off
> and running.  But it takes time, and likely there is no magic technology
> out there.

It all hinges on whether we believe this reserve is as huge as these
reports say it is.  IF it is, and IF it's believed, everything changes.
This wouldn't just be a normal tech development cycle.  (One thing that
concerns me is that it hasn't been trumpeted in the time since it was
announced.  That's a bad sign.)

> I can't rule out a breakthrough of course, but oil guys are pretty
> thrifty.  If they thought they could make money doing it, they probably
> would be.

Ah...I doubt we're going to get any support from the oil guys.  Actually
developing and utilizing this reserve leave them with a lot of
infrastructure that's suddenly unneeded--and on the balance sheets.
Tanker fleets, oil extraction and distribution installations in the
Middle East, etc.  I'll admit I haven't yet figured out how such a huge
reserve--if developed--would affect everything.

> No one is going to thank anyone for driving oil costs up.  Even with 
> a compelling argument about saving the lives of American soldiers in 
> foreign lands.  Because higher oil prices just means someone else 
> dies shivering in the dark.  Energy independence in that way has a 
> price too.  $4/gal gas showed people what can happen, and they won't 
> go back there willingly anytime soon.

Why do you think oil costs would go *up*?  Compared to the reserve
volume, almost any amount of development costs would be eaten in the
profits.  The real fear would be the price of oil *collapsing*.

> Which would probably make the environmentalists, and the enviro-nuts, 
> dig in all the harder.  Anything that smacks of a gold rush mentality 
> is going to set off panic.

And against them are all the people who are going to see this as the
solution to both dependence on foreign energy reserves *and* the
way--the only way, at this point in time--to dig out of the
unbelievable, unpayable debt load the US has incurred.

> "They" (the political action wing nuts) clearly aren't thrilled with
> the idea of developing anything that looks like more oil burning.

And the answer from the other side will be "So what?  They'd have us
living in the neolithic if they had their way."

> The idea of trying to set aside or scrap existing controls so we
> can extract more oil faster is going to be like declaring war.

And this--if true--will almost certainly be seen as a valid reason by
those who oppose them to declare war on them.

> Nothing short of new federal law is going to set aside some of those 
> concerns.

And if it's true, you don't think there won't be new federal laws?

> And even then the Fifth Amendment is going to jump up at 
> some point.  Can't just take something without proper 
> compensation.

Actually, they can.  I certainly wouldn't want to see it, but we already
have the example of Eminent Domain--the government will take property if
it's even for something as trivial as highway access.  You think they'd
quail at something that has the possibility of overturning the existing
energy equations and changing the political map of the world?

As a practical matter, I think they'd offer involved parties very
generous terms, or even ongoing interest in the reserves.  But make no
bones about it--if this is real, and is really accessible and of the
size reported, the government can do anything it needs to do to get it
in development.

> They went along with something similar a few years ago, where a
> city took some private land then sold it to a developer in return for
> higher tax revenue.  The fallout was huge.  Something like this would
> be even bigger.

I think you're not thinking big enough.  IF the reserve is as big as
they say, this isn't something like private land.  This would be
world-changing--a totally different level of considerations apply.

(You'll note how often I qualified everything with "if this is real".
That, I believe, is what's kept this from exploding before now.  If it's
NOT that big, then nobody's going to commit the political resources to
pushing it.)

Cheers,
--
	Dave Ihnat
	ignatz at dminet.com

From bentley at crenelle.com  Wed Dec 16 11:59:08 2009
From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:59:08 -0800
Subject: [Goglog] Fwd: OIL - you better sit down.
In-Reply-To: <20091216164521.GA10211@dminet.com>
References: <9bdc9ef60912122233i479b1cseb6c7b615cc01bc6@mail.gmail.com>
	<F2007A53-5822-4151-BF07-279DAAD5E5F7@worldnet.att.net>
	<200912160433.nBG4XAI2032606@mail.zarquon.net>
	<20091216154311.GA7566@dminet.com>
	<200912161628.nBGGSo8b019043@mail.zarquon.net>
	<20091216164521.GA10211@dminet.com>
Message-ID: <p06240807c74ed006f3db@[192.168.1.32]>

Here's the snopes article on Bakken:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp

The field appears to contain an estimated 4 billion bbl.

-m

From ben at bl.com  Wed Dec 16 12:15:16 2009
From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:15:16 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Fwd: OIL - you better sit down.
In-Reply-To: <p06240807c74ed006f3db@[192.168.1.32]>
References: <9bdc9ef60912122233i479b1cseb6c7b615cc01bc6@mail.gmail.com>
	<F2007A53-5822-4151-BF07-279DAAD5E5F7@worldnet.att.net>
	<200912160433.nBG4XAI2032606@mail.zarquon.net>
	<20091216154311.GA7566@dminet.com>
	<200912161628.nBGGSo8b019043@mail.zarquon.net>
	<20091216164521.GA10211@dminet.com>
	<p06240807c74ed006f3db@[192.168.1.32]>
Message-ID: <p06240801c74ed359fe35@[10.19.35.98]>

At 9:59 AM -0800 12/16/09, Michael Brian Bentley wrote:
>Here's the snopes article on Bakken:
>
>http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp
>
>The field appears to contain an estimated 4 billion bbl.

The snopes synopsis, at the bottom half of the page, covers the true magnitude and details nicely, thanks.
(at most the oil there equals about 1 years domestic consumption at present rates)

-- 
------------------------------
 ben at BL.COM      Ben Liberman
------------------------------

From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 16 13:04:49 2009
From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:04:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Goglog] Fwd: OIL - you better sit down.
In-Reply-To: <20091216160448.GB7566@dminet.com>
Message-ID: <735191.65768.qm@web33702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I have to apologize, it appears I did not look closely enough.
I thought this was another pump and dump scam for western land
sales in the rockies.  It appears to be a pump and dump for western
land sales in the Dakotas.  I was unaware of the Bakken formation, and
my comments are likely misinformed.  If I get a chance, I will try
and google up on this, and make some better informed statements.

In the interim, let me wish everyone a great day!

Cheers,

Janet 

--- On Wed, 12/16/09, Dave Ihnat <ignatz at dminet.com> wrote:

> From: Dave Ihnat <ignatz at dminet.com>
> Subject: Re: [Goglog] Fwd: OIL - you better sit down.
> To: "The Demagogue Dialogue Mailing List" <goglog at mail.zarquon.net>
> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 11:04 AM
> Replies are directed to the list.
> If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the
> To: line!
> ____________________________________________________________
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 07:41:38AM -0800, Janet Plato
> wrote:
> > Replies are directed to the list.
> > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit
> the To: line!
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> > As I understand it, this has been known about for
> decades and
> > there is no conspiracy here.? The oil is locked
> in rocks 5 miles
> > under the rockies, good luck getting it out.
> 
> Well, the USGS site says "a limited number of wells have
> produced oil
> from three of the assessments units in Central Basin-Poplar
> Dome,
> Eastern Expulsion Threshold".? It sounds like they
> have had good luck.
> 
> Also, remember that similar issues applied to oil recovery
> in the early
> days of exploration; development of self-starting motors
> and deep
> drilling tech enabled access.? When there's THIS much
> oil there, they
> *will* develop tech for it.
> 
> > Alberta has similiar oil shale and oil sand formations
> on the surface
> and the break even point there is $65 a barrel.
> 
> Oil shale and sand are a world of difference from sweet,
> light crude.
> Breakeven is severely impacted by the cost of oil
> reclamation and its
> severe ecological side effects.? Think low-grade vs.
> high-grade ore.
> 
> > Who knows how high the break even point is for
> something under 5
> > miles of rock that cannot be pumped.
> 
> But the USGS says they *have* pumped oil from these
> deposits.
> 
> Wasting billable time poking at the USGS fact sheets, GIS
> Data, etc., I
> don't see them discussing depth or other tech problems that
> may be
> encountered.? But if--IF--there really are reserves of
> this size, they
> *will* come up with recovery technology.
> 
> Cheers,
> --
> ??? Dave Ihnat
> ??? ignatz at dminet.com
> _______________________________________________
> Goglog mailing list
> Goglog at mail.zarquon.net
> http://mail.zarquon.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goglog
> 


      


From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 22 01:06:45 2009
From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:06:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Goglog] Fwd: OIL - you better sit down.
In-Reply-To: <9bdc9ef60912211558o28b541b3y362f813c0f41a3f0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <432041.9285.qm@web33708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Bob,

I already did a mea culpa last week on the list, I had this confused
with a different formation located further west.

Point noted, so long, thanks for playing,

Janet

--- On Mon, 12/21/09, Bob Ahern <bobahern at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Bob Ahern <bobahern at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Goglog] Fwd: OIL - you better sit down.
> To: "Janet Plato" <techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "The Demagogue Dialogue Mailing List" <goglog at mail.zarquon.net>
> Date: Monday, December 21, 2009, 6:58 PM
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:41 AM,
> Janet Plato <techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> As I understand it, this has been known about for decades
> and
> 
> there is no conspiracy here. ?The oil is locked in rocks 5
> miles
> 
> under the rockies, good luck getting it out. 
> 
> even point is for something under 5 miles of rock that
> cannot be
> 
> pumped......but it's just not an explotable resource
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Janet
> 
> 
> 
> According to the U.S. government:
> 
> "Reston, VA - North Dakota and Montana have an
> estimated 3.0 to 4.3
> billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable
> oil in an area
> known as the Bakken Formation.??? ..............
> 
> Technically recoverable oil resources are those producible
> using
> currently available technology and industry practices. USGS
> is the only
> provider of publicly available estimates of undiscovered
> technically recoverable oil and gas resources.... 
> 
> About 105 million barrels of oil were produced from the
> Bakken Formation by the end of 2007."
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't sound like an unrecoverable resource to
> me, since they are currently recovering a small part of it.
> Five miles is done by offshore rigs (see Jack 2) so doing it
> on land would have to be much easier. However, I doubt it is
> a conspiracy, just a lot of people with the same incorrect
> understanding of situation.
> 
> 
> Bob Ahern
> 
> 
> 
> 


      


From bentley at crenelle.com  Wed Dec 23 17:17:40 2009
From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:17:40 -0800
Subject: [Goglog] The top 25 "censored" news stories for 2009
Message-ID: <p0624081fc75854359a96@[192.168.1.32]>

I have only read the Spitzer story at #25 with interest, so far. I 
wonder how things have gone since?

Are they real?

Were they actually censored?

Was it hard to tell if they were real, and therefore did not go mainstream?

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2009/

-Mike

From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com  Wed Dec 23 19:46:49 2009
From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:46:49 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] The top 25 "censored" news stories for 2009
In-Reply-To: <p0624081fc75854359a96@[192.168.1.32]>
References: <p0624081fc75854359a96@[192.168.1.32]>
Message-ID: <a06240800c75865cd888c@[192.168.10.104]>

Michael Brian Bentley <bentley at crenelle.com>  wrote:

>I have only read the Spitzer story at #25 with interest, so far. I
>wonder how things have gone since?
>
>Are they real?

Sort of.

For instance, #24 Japan Questions 9/11 and the Global War on Terror

should read

Trutherist Japanese Senator* Questions 9/11 and the Global
War on Terror.

Member of the House of Councillors, the upper House of
Japan's national legislature. The HoC has 242 members, so
each represents about 0.5M people - less than a U.S.
Representative (yes, a number of seats are filled by a
national proportional vote).

The man referenced appears to be a genuine Trutherist
yahoo. He takes Dennis Kucinich seriously, has doubts
about the crash at the Pentagon (never mind the thousands
of eyewitnesses), and wants to know what proof there is that
al-Qaeda was responsible (never mind that al-Qaeda _said_
they did it, repeatedly - bragged on it, even).

Incidentally, Fujita's speeches were in January 2008, so
why is this listed as a censored story for _2009_?

#25 is good too. Spitze went after various Wall Street
Big Names with harassment and extortion tactics: forcing
the head of AIG to step down, for instance. (BTW, he got
a lot of headlines, but somehow didn't prevent any major
financial crimes). He abused his authority to suppress an
anti-Kerry documentary in 2004...

Those didn't matter to the Evil Bush Cabal.

But he then wrote a _dangerous_ _op-ed_... Emergency Red
Alert! Deploy the Nuclear Death Scandal!!!

>Were they actually censored?

No.

>Was it hard to tell if they were real, and therefore did not go mainstream?
>
>http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2009/
>
>-Mike

I can think of some much more serious "censored" stories:

For instance, ACORN. The ACORN scandals have gotten _some_
attention - after a conservative news source came out with
a great big smoking gun.

But "major media" is not following up. They aren't looking
into the network of hundreds of front groups which comprise
the ACORN network, the long history of financial corruption,
the almost continual record of voter registration fraud,
the exploitation of government grants, the intricate linkage
with SEIU, the sub-prime lending advocacy and facilitation -
or the long and intimate history that Obama has with ACORN.

Serious reporting of all this would generate weeks of
headlines.

Another one is torture and murder by Islamists, in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The "insurgents" in these
countries murdered tens of thousands of people with bombs
in public places and assassinations. Acid thrown in
schoolgirls' faces.  Women raped, and then bullied into
suicide missions to "atone" for the "disgrace". Grisly
torture chambers discovered when terrorist strongholds
were captured by Coalition forces.

The major media response to all this? Meh. Time for
another retrospective on Abu Ghraib or "expose" on
Guantanamo.

IMHO, if the documented and proven crimes of Islamists
got anywhere near the media attention they deserve, there
would be a tidal wave of anger against them, and not just
in the U.S.

You want a third? Hamas/Fatah. There is no reporting to
speak of about Hamas/Fatah's numerous murders of Palestinians.
They kill each others' supporters, and also murder others
who interfere with their grafting or terror activities.
Major media is also conspicuously silent about the official
positions of Hamas/Fatah toward Israel - that both still
call for the total destruction of Israel, and both still
fill Palestinian media with incitements to terror. (There
have been cases where major media stories quoted Hamas
official documents, and deliberately elided the terrorist
passages.)

A third could be Hugo Chavez. Chavez has suborned all
institutions of the Venezuelan government to his control;
his cronies have stolen $billions; he has close relations
with the Iranian regime, including arms deals, and nuclear
development; he funds subversion of democracy in several
Latin American countries; and the major media mostly
ignore him.

Another "censored" story is directly related: the attempt
by Honduran ex-President Zelaya to overturn his country's
constitution (with funding and support from Chavez) before
he was turned out of office by the Honduras Supreme Court.

Zelaya's removal got press (but was wrongly described by
nearly all major media as a "military coup"); his previous
actions got almost none.
-- 
| Rich Rostrom               rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com  |
|                                                          |
| Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons     |
| emmerdes. -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan   |

From SteveG at swhi.net  Wed Dec 23 20:35:23 2009
From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:35:23 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] The top 25 "censored" news stories for 2009
In-Reply-To: <p0624081fc75854359a96@[192.168.1.32]>
References: <p0624081fc75854359a96@[192.168.1.32]>
Message-ID: <AC872FD86B6A4D4F8E8B7D9D115ADE2F@StevePC>


Michael Brian Bentley says: 

> Are they real?
> 
> Were they actually censored?
> 
> Was it hard to tell if they were real, and therefore did not 
> go mainstream?

Well, the first one I read completely (#5) is deceptively 
worded, the event was never censored but reported openly in 
mainstream press, and is from 2007, not 2009.  

The second one (#8) isn't news at all but a discussion of 
some not-very-difficult points of law, written in 2007 and 
updated (with nothing particularly new) in 2008.  

The third (#15) likewise isn't news, was never censored, and 
there are public appeals (such as on TV) for public service 
organizations dealing with the issue.  

#21 and #24 I distinctly remember being reported in 
mainstream media without even reading the articles.  

Most of the ones I've glanced at cite public news sources 
(The Guardian, Reuters, The Progressive, Global Research, 
The Nation, etc.).  This doesn't seem much like a list of 
stories that were censored and "didn't make the news."  
And at a glance over a few other items the list I so far 
have seen none from 2009.  It looks like a journalism 
course home page - not a very good one.  

    - Steve G 


From SteveG at swhi.net  Wed Dec 23 21:41:53 2009
From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:41:53 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] The top 25 "censored" news stories for 2009
In-Reply-To: <a06240800c75865cd888c@[192.168.10.104]>
References: <p0624081fc75854359a96@[192.168.1.32]>
	<a06240800c75865cd888c@[192.168.10.104]>
Message-ID: <DECF438D303D4611887E80790E356738@StevePC>


Rich Rostrom says: 

> (BTW, he [Eliot Spitzer] got
> a lot of headlines, but somehow didn't prevent any major
> financial crimes). 

Huh?  In what context would you expect him to *prevent* 
financial crimes?   

> >Were they actually censored?
> 
> No.

Including the entire set of allegations reported here 
about Spitzer.  They were very publicly reported at the 
time, although for some reason this one article does not 
cite mainstream sources.  

> I can think of some much more serious "censored" stories:
> 
> For instance, ACORN. 

Give me a break.  I have been seeing nonstop news items 
about them for a couple of months.  

> Another one is torture and murder by Islamists, 
<snip> 
> You want a third? Hamas/Fatah. 
<snip> 
> A third could be Hugo Chavez. 
<snip> 
> Another "censored" story is directly related: the attempt
> by Honduran ex-President Zelaya to overturn his country's
> constitution 

OK, I guess it's now about whatever is bothering Rich, 
regardless of whether it's actually being widely reported.  

May I ask, just who is "censoring" any of these stories?  
Either the 25 on the original list, or any of Rich's choices?  
Or does the word "censorship" no longer have any meaning?  

     - Steve G


From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com  Thu Dec 24 10:03:35 2009
From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:03:35 -0800
Subject: [Goglog] Obamacare
Message-ID: <4B3390D7.1080303@CasaDelGato.Com>

So, could somebody explain to me how this "requires all americans to buy health insurance" is supposed to work?  I know a lot of people who have trouble getting enough food.  Are they supposed to magically come up with money for a health plan?


From jazz at qnet.com  Thu Dec 24 10:38:47 2009
From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:38:47 -0800
Subject: [Goglog] Obamacare
In-Reply-To: <4B3390D7.1080303@CasaDelGato.Com>
References: <4B3390D7.1080303@CasaDelGato.Com>
Message-ID: <200912241640.nBOGe0K1011172@mail.zarquon.net>

At 08:03 12/24/2009 -0800, John G. Lussmyer wrote:
>_
>So, could somebody explain to me how this "requires all americans to 
>buy health insurance" is supposed to work?  I know a lot of people 
>who have trouble getting enough food.  Are they supposed to 
>magically come up with money for a health plan?

And so the necessity for a public option of some kind raises its head 
yet again.

If coverage costs more than the person can afford, however that is 
determined, than some way to pay for it anyway has to be 
devised.  Even the Income Tax and Social Security tax people figured 
that out, many years ago.  They take their cut right at the source to 
the maximum they can, so that later the taxpayer can't claim poverty.

One way (public option or Medicaid or subsidies) or another 
(exemptions) they have to deal with the low end of the disposable 
income scale.  And the option of granting exemptions to insurance 
coverage leaves the most vulnerable population (working poor) subject 
to the most devastating expenses.  Something will eventually be done about it.

Bill Taylor

From drsulak at zarquon.net  Thu Dec 24 11:05:52 2009
From: drsulak at zarquon.net (drsulak at zarquon.net)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:05:52 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [Goglog] Obamacare
Message-ID: <49661.69.216.247.80.1261674352.squirrel@mail.zarquon.net>

To keep myself from going crazy, I've avoided looking the actual
implementation details until we actually have a bill and a structure to
carry it out.

So, generally speaking...

For certain government benefits, be they tax credits, monthly benefits,
etc, they can be converted into capital equipment or services *without*
waiting for the monies to be paid out:
- SS disability
- Energy efficiency tax credits
- Homebuyer tax credit
- the list goes on

Some are fair and efficient, some much less efficient.

So, yes, if you do not have the cash, they *can* be ways to purchase the
insurance. Precise details TBD.

Dale.


From mhagerman at worldnet.att.net  Thu Dec 24 12:38:09 2009
From: mhagerman at worldnet.att.net (Mark Hagerman)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:38:09 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Obamacare
In-Reply-To: <4B3390D7.1080303@CasaDelGato.Com>
References: <4B3390D7.1080303@CasaDelGato.Com>
Message-ID: <0B0EA47F-5F58-4507-812D-FF8F1CB73E75@worldnet.att.net>

On 2009-Dec-24 , at 10:03, John G. Lussmyer wrote:

> Are they supposed to magically come up with money for a health plan?

That depends. If you're working for a living, the answer is "yes",  
plus paying more taxes to cover the drones.

Otherwise, no (see above).

Mark Hagerman




From SteveG at swhi.net  Fri Dec 25 20:53:10 2009
From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:53:10 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Obamacare
In-Reply-To: <4B3390D7.1080303@CasaDelGato.Com>
References: <4B3390D7.1080303@CasaDelGato.Com>
Message-ID: <69844B5E15154200A51229AA749B4EBD@StevePC>


John G. Lussmyer says: 

> So, could somebody explain to me how this "requires all 
> americans to buy health insurance" is supposed to work?  

There's what looks like a pretty decent outline of the main 
points of the current bills at 
<http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/24/health.care/index.html> 
and another at 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/18/AR2009111802014.html>. 

Of course there is debate about Congress' authority to do 
this.  

    - Steve G 


From SteveG at swhi.net  Fri Dec 25 21:04:49 2009
From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:04:49 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Obamacare
In-Reply-To: <0B0EA47F-5F58-4507-812D-FF8F1CB73E75@worldnet.att.net>
References: <4B3390D7.1080303@CasaDelGato.Com>
	<0B0EA47F-5F58-4507-812D-FF8F1CB73E75@worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <92FCF06F38F440F4834DA51DC2BEB623@StevePC>


Mark Hagerman says: 

> That depends. If you're working for a living, the answer is "yes",  
> plus paying more taxes to cover the drones.

AFAICT, no, not unless you're working and earning a whole 
lot more than anyone I know.  

Not to say it will work as planned - but I have not seen 
anything credible indicating that most people will pay 
higher taxes.  
 
     - Steve G 


From SteveG at swhi.net  Sat Dec 26 07:02:08 2009
From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 07:02:08 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Obamacare
In-Reply-To: <49661.69.216.247.80.1261674352.squirrel@mail.zarquon.net>
References: <49661.69.216.247.80.1261674352.squirrel@mail.zarquon.net>
Message-ID: <DE4365F4D3B7454180D7C7888DDA83F2@StevePC>


drsulak at zarquon.net says: 

> So, generally speaking...
> 
> For certain government benefits, be they tax credits, monthly benefits,
> etc, they can be converted into capital equipment or services *without*
> waiting for the monies to be paid out:
> - SS disability
> - Energy efficiency tax credits
> - Homebuyer tax credit
> - the list goes on

I don't understand what this statement means.  What do any 
of these have to do with being "converted into capital 
equipment or services"?  

         - Steve G 


From mhagerman at worldnet.att.net  Wed Dec 30 20:52:27 2009
From: mhagerman at worldnet.att.net (Mark Hagerman)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:52:27 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Kiyosaki article
Message-ID: <91DC1711-11B7-479E-AC33-ED9F8B8CEA79@worldnet.att.net>

Robert "Rich Dad" Kiyosaki has an aperiodic column in the Yahoo  
Finance section. His most
recent article contains a graph, highlighting the fact (assertion?)  
that there will be a large
volume of mortgage resets (I believe he's talking about commercial  
balloon mortgages and
housing ARMs, here) next year.

He also asserts that the surge in resets on subprime mortgages was  
the trigger, or at least
_a_ trigger, for the 2007 crash.

He states that the upcoming surge in resets is likely to have a  
similar effect, and that a full
recovery is therefore therefore unlikely until 2012 or later.

Comments? Opinions? Inquiring minds want to protect their 401(k)s.

Mark Hagerman



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20091230/1efa0e84/attachment.htm 

From ignatz at dminet.com  Wed Dec 30 21:01:31 2009
From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:01:31 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Kiyosaki article
In-Reply-To: <91DC1711-11B7-479E-AC33-ED9F8B8CEA79@worldnet.att.net>
References: <91DC1711-11B7-479E-AC33-ED9F8B8CEA79@worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <20091231030131.GA31283@dminet.com>

On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 08:52:27PM -0600, Mark Hagerman wrote:
> Robert "Rich Dad" Kiyosaki has an aperiodic column in the Yahoo Finance
> section. His most recent article contains a graph, highlighting
> the fact (assertion?) that there will be a large volume of mortgage
> resets (I believe he's talking about commercial balloon mortgages and
> housing ARMs, here) next year.
> ...
> He states that the upcoming surge in resets is likely to have a similar
> effect, and that a full recovery is therefore therefore unlikely
> until 2012 or later.
> ...
> Comments? Opinions? Inquiring minds want to protect their 401(k)s.

Well, one of my clients *was* a Big Player in the commercial mortgage
market.  As in, they considered things like the Sears Tower and
Woodfield Mall their playground.  They would broker mortgages for large
commercial properties, and then when they had to refi (apparently such
properties have to refi in just 3-5 years), they'd help them find
financing.

They looked ahead, and closed their doors.  As in, fired everyone and
closed the office.  One principal retired, the other has opened an
office in Oakbrook and is cherrypicking his clients.  They said there
was *no* money from the banks, and they predict the same thing.

Since they gave me this warning this summer, I've started seeing reports
like the one you've pointed out.  I mentioned it to the guy still
playing.

He said, "When you look down the tunnel and all you see is the headlight
of the oncoming train, it's time to pack up shop and move to Oakbrook."

So I've been expecting it.

G'luck,
--
	Dave Ihnat
	ignatz at dminet.com

From mhagerman at worldnet.att.net  Wed Dec 30 22:31:36 2009
From: mhagerman at worldnet.att.net (Mark Hagerman)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:31:36 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Kiyosaki article
In-Reply-To: <20091231030131.GA31283@dminet.com>
References: <91DC1711-11B7-479E-AC33-ED9F8B8CEA79@worldnet.att.net>
	<20091231030131.GA31283@dminet.com>
Message-ID: <500C0212-337B-4641-9B16-38F79CFE4BBB@worldnet.att.net>

On 2009-Dec-30 , at 21:01, Dave Ihnat wrote:

> Woodfield Mall their playground.  They would broker mortgages for  
> large
> commercial properties, and then when they had to refi (apparently such
> properties have to refi in just 3-5 years), they'd help them find
> financing.


That's my understanding. A few months ago, I read an article on this  
topic
which stated that commercial mortgages were almost always written for
short terms (no more than 5 years), at which time the remaining balance
came due. In "normal" times, it was no problem for a property's owner to
negotiate a new loan. Now, however, the market values of many properties
have dropped below the principal balance, and the income stream from
tenants has become uncertain at best.

A thought experiment: I borrow $16 million toward the construction of a
$20 million shopping mall. I pay 6%, with quarterly payments on a 30-
year amortization, with a balloon in 3 years. Principal at 3 years  
is ...
pocketa, pocketa ... $15,370,157.50 (with quarterly payments of
$288,296.32). During the three years, the market value of the mall
falls 30%, to $14 million, and enough stores close to reduce my
revenues available for payments to $200,000 per quarter. To get my
balance down to $14M after another three years under these
conditions requires the interest rate to drop to 2.327%. At a rate  
of, say,
5%, my balance in three years will be $15,268,907.47.

A bank _might_ be willing to refi on those terms, but a lot of  
properties
are in much worse shape, I suspect.

Mark Hagerman

From ignatz at dminet.com  Thu Dec 31 07:55:14 2009
From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:55:14 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Kiyosaki article
In-Reply-To: <500C0212-337B-4641-9B16-38F79CFE4BBB@worldnet.att.net>
References: <91DC1711-11B7-479E-AC33-ED9F8B8CEA79@worldnet.att.net>
	<20091231030131.GA31283@dminet.com>
	<500C0212-337B-4641-9B16-38F79CFE4BBB@worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <20091231135514.GB15624@dminet.com>

On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:31:36PM -0600, Mark Hagerman wrote:
> A thought experiment: I borrow $16 million toward the construction of a
> $20 million shopping mall.

Now think bigger.  I recall a number of their deals in the $200-300M
range; a broker might net $300K when it finally closed.  (BTW, before
you think, "why, those buggers got oodles of money on their comissions
for no work", remember a broker might work on such a deal for 3-4 *years*
with no pay.  Still not peanuts, though.)

I'm afraid it ain't gonna be purty.  And I figger we--the taxpayers--are
gonna pony up.  Again.
--
	Dave Ihnat
	ignatz at dminet.com