You really have drank down deep the enviro-radical kool-aid.

Peak Oil? If you believe that line of shit, I have a bridge on the East River up for sale... real cheap.

Peak Oil is bullshit. There could never be such a thing when the earth has trillions of barrels of untapped oil reserves. Right under North America there could be as much as a trillion barrels. Peak Oil is enviro-propaganda. There is plenty of oil under the earth.

You also espouse more BS about drilling becoming another Exxon Valdez. Where do you get this crap. Once drilling operations are set up and active, they do not have a very large footprint. Many have very small footprints.

In fact in some parts of the country, people live right next to active oil wells. There is an entire neighborhood in Los Angeles with oil wells all over the place. People have houses directly next to them.

Your statement is false.

There are well over 10,000 organizations alone in the United States whose sole purpose is environmental activism. Almost all of them are on the political left.... that would mean they support Democrats for the most part (it's difficult to get Green Party or Socialist Party candidates elected to office).

The vast majority of political donations from all the major environmental activist groups go to Democrats.

Environmental activism is a mult-billion dollar tax exempt industry in the United States. Much of the original sources of funding for that activism comes from foundations and other tax exempt entities. Much of the money is spent on litigation.

Don't get me wrong, my junk gets 10 or 12 MPG freeway, 6 to 8 on the trail. And it has a main seal leak. I like cheap gas. I just think it's a memory, like cheap plane tickets.

Absolutely. The papers & politicians are making hay over Exxon-Mobile, PB, and the rest, but the big bucks are going to the national petro-companies, i.e. Saudi, Iran, and Venezuela. Just the places that have some vocal, and sometime armed folks, that want to see our smiling faces dead. I don't want to fund their causes any more than funding the KKK, Black Panthers, or Timothy McVay's friends.

Agreed. The Republicans are all for increasing supply, the Democrats all for not increasing supply along with reducing demand. The answer has to be somewhere in the middle because both strategies are politically dead.

Like I said, all good conversation. I wish I could believe our that politicians are sit'n in a room and having this discussion, and maybe in a civil tone too. Instead, each side demonizes the other and speaks in sound bites thrown like grenades. Nothing good comes from throwing grenades.

So what's wrong with the government's ownership of the means of production, and control of wages, and working according to your abilities and getting paid according to your needs ... socialism is near dead in the former Soviet Union but alive and well here.

From the Daily Camera, opinion page:

"Moreover, forbidding drilling there does not prevent despoliation. It merely exports it. The crude oil we're not getting from the Arctic we import instead from places like the Niger Delta, where millions live and where the resulting pollution and oil spillages poison the lives of many of the world's most wretchedly poor.

Our environmental imperialism does not just redistribute pollution to people who can at least afford it. It generally increases the total overall damage because oil extraction in the wealthier and more technologically advanced U.S. is far more environmentally sensitive."
--Charles Krauthammer

I am yet to hear one, just one, reasonable counter-arguement to this point from the anti-drilling crowd.

These two paragraphs should make all anti-drillers re-evaluate what they are fighting.

Krauthammer always comes up with shit like that. He is a very smart guy.

""And BTW Ron, how do you think the oil from your buddies in the mideast and elsewhere gets here?

On a magic fairy boat that doesn't ever leak? Maybe the front never falls off....""

Someone else already posted that. Not as eloquently but I want some of you to be able to read it....

On the surface Krauthammer makes an interesting point but he is being simplistic. If one accepts the world needs oil and drilling is inevitable then wherever the drilling takes place there will be environmental damage to some extent. So by not drilling here (in the USA) we are exporting the destruction elsewhere. HOWEVER...

Many countries with natural resources welcome the environmental damage if it means pulling their country out of the economic cesspit. If the added wealth means disease and famine are reduced then one can understand, perhaps most reluctantly, that saving lives is worth the price of environmental destruction. Most third world countries gleefully invite rich countries to come in to, in effect, deplete them of natural resources. These countries are most desperate. So if the ever-so-snooty Krauthammer can place himself in the situation of the destitute citizenry of Latin America and Africa I think he would be singing a different tune. YET ALAS,...

Many of these third world countries have incredibly corrupt governments. So most of the wealth garnered from environmental exploitation does not go to those who need it most. On the other hand if wealthy countries were self-sufficient on oil then poor countries, unable to finance their own oil exploration, would be at the total mercy of rich countries. The rich would get richer, the poor poorer. Yes, all this sucks from every angle.

Conclusion: I don't buy the guilt trip Krauthammer is trying to lay on the American eco-fascists. I do think more drilling should be done in America for a variety of far-reaching economic reasons. All but the most extreme eco-fascists can be persuaded to compromise their position if additional oil drilling is just one component of an comprehensive energy policy heavily reliant on renewal energy in the medium/long term. Rhetoric from the likes of Krauthammer do not help.

_Lazza

So by that logic you would be against some holy grail that allowed the US to remove their dependence on oil all together? Because we wouldn't be financing third world countries with corrupt governments who don't help their poor anyway? Same end result, unless you're going to make a blind assumption that this holy grail will be available to everyone, not just developed nations with the capacity to develop the infrastructure to provide it.

The reality of the situation is we need fossil fuels now, and will for the next few decades without a doubt. There's the possibility that feasible alternatives may be developed in a few decades, but it's not a forgone conclusion yet, it could be 50 years, it could be 100 years before something is found that meets all of our needs. The cold hard reality is while there have been some interesting discoveries, and intriguing technologies, we are not close to replacing fossil fuels today, and will not be 10 years from now. Hopefully we will be closer, but it's not something I'd bet on.

In this country we have the ability to extract these resources with the smallest impact to the environment, and are willing to spend a bit more in order to do so. In developing countries they have neither the will nor the means. By refusing to use our own resources, and also those of other friendly developed countries without the overwhelming red-tape (oil sands in Canada) we're committing to the worst of both worlds. Worse environmental impact (but it's not in our backyard, so who cares, right?), and an increased dependence on foreign sources.

Stone - fer cerealous. Get your sarcasm meter calibrated.

NY Madman - Your sarcasm meter. Check it. Your sarcasm meter.

Coop - My guess is that you're overstating the position. Lazza brings up a very good point in that there's more to it than simply exporting the environmental damage. Exporting anything also brings jobs to foreign markets (or helps sustain the workers already there), which can move the country up in the world. Look at Taiwan - they started producing absolute crap and were a third world economy (at best), however, they've managed to move up in the world quite nicely based on the exports we purchased. Now China's trying to follow that same path.

Does this mean we should do so at the expense of our own country? No - if we could rid ourselves of foreign oil by developing some sustainable source, we absolutely should. Those countries will then need to find other markets (like China) to sell their product. Additionally, if we were to develop that tech, we should hold on to it for dear life and resist exporting the ability to build the technology. At best, we should manufacture and sell it at a nice high cost to the rest of the world.

Peak Oil itself isn't BS. That's an absolutely stupid statement. Unless you believe that oil is being created at a rate faster than we're using it. Oil is a finite resource and at some point our usage will outstrip supply.

What you might mean to say - and you should actually say this better so you don't sound like a jackass - is that predictions that say Peak Oil will hit soon/has hit are false. But that concept that supply is infinite, which is what you're saying here, is patently false.

Peak Oil, or the "Peak Oil Theory" as it is known to some, most certainly is bullshit.

All the predictions that have been made by many of it's proponents have been false. All the predictions are constantly being updated to keep the bullshit and the gloom and doom scenario rolling along.

Peak Oil Theory is nothing new. It's been around longer than anyone here on this board has been alive. According to some of the past Peak Oil proponents, we were supposed to have run out of petroleum years ago. In the 1970's they said the Saudi's had a finite amount of oil available. It's funny how that supposedly finite amount has more than doubled or tripled in the ensuing years. But then why give up on a good bullshit story when you can just keep revising your numbers.

The Peak Oil bullshit story is also good for people on all sides of the energy issue. Oil companies, oil exporters, and open market speculators can use the theory to inflate petroleum prices with supply concerns. The environmentalists can use the bullshit to advance their agendas. Political agendas of varying types can also be advanced through exploiting this fear and theory.

Then there is technology that has allowed oil fields that were previously thought to have been running dry, are now back up to previous and unthought-of production levels.

I never said that there is an infinite supply of petroleum, so don't put words in my mouth through whatever assumptions you are making by falsely interpreting what you assume are inferences on my part. That's what a jackass would do.

Peak Oil is a theory. A theory that is not even living up to it's own predictions. New technology in finding oil and drilling for it keep changing the theories and figures regarding the estimates of petroleum that is out there.

In coming years science may also find that theories regarding the source of petroleum may not have been entirely accurate. We may also discover other types of oil or naturally occurring hydrocarbon fuels that can be exploited.

An article in Science magazine about 6 months ago discussed the discovery of natually occurring abiogenic hydrocarbon production....

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/319/5863/604

No one knows what science will find in the years ahead. No one even knows for sure or can say with any certainty how much crude oil is out there.

While certain types of petroleum could possibly be in limited supply, it is false and even premature to claim we are reaching any "peaking" point when we haven't even bothered to tap into many areas on earth where we think oil reserves exist.

For a resource that many claim is "finite", the estimates of the amount of oil in existing oil fields already in production keeps increasing. Saudi Arabia is a prime example as previously mentioned.

It's kind of like the old Henny Youngman joke... "A man went to the doctor, found out he had six months to live: couldn't pay his bill... the doctor gave him another six months." The Peak Oil people are that doctor.

Ron - I haven't forgot about that data yet, I'll get it to you sometime.

I would agrue the current premise of peak oil is BS for the following reasons:
1. As costs increase, previously non-economical resources become economical. Such will soon be the case with oils shale in the CO, UT areas.
2. As technology progresses, previously "out of reach" resources become avaliable. We can now drill deeper, both on and off shore.
3. We will find better energy resources before completely exhausting all avaliable reserves.
4. New technology may one day "make" oil out of other things. Read about chicken gut to oil processes (extracting oils from the left-overs of processed chicken, not economical, yet). Coal to diesel would be another, as would the possibility of recycling and "re-arranging" the hydrocarbons in plastics.

Many decades ago, the same thing was said about gold. People were saying gold is finite, it will run out. Well, we still mine lots of gold today. New technology made "Carlin-type" deposits (massive, disseminated deposits) economical. True, these are not being found in as large a number today, so we are looking back to old school narrow vein deposits (we just found one with some drilling a few months ago).

Yes, oil is finite, but that doesn't mean peak oil is a correct hypothesis.

NY Madman - so, it's possible that the supply of oil will run out, but Peak Oil will never happen? I agree that the proponents falsely use it to attempt to drive behavior, but that doesn't mean in any way that the underlying concept is invalid - just their predictions.

I've seen the evidence of abiogenic production of oil - but does that offset the current usage levels? We simply don't know. What we do know is that usage is increasing and that the supply is finite.

Sure - new discoveries are made and as the cost increases it becomes more and more cost-effective to get to more difficult supplies (shale oil being one source, there may be others). The ability to use bioengineered organisms to produce petrochemicals might also get around this.

But does that prove that Peak Oil, as a concept is BS? OR does it indicate that it's a valid concept but that those attempting to make predictions are doing a poor job of it.

mine man

Ron - I haven't forgot about that data yet, I'll get it to you sometime. No problem - I'm in no hurry here.

I would agrue the current premise of peak oil is BS for the following reasons: An actual reasoned argument and not some ranting? Not that I'd expect ranting from you, but it's a refreshing change...
1. As costs increase, previously non-economical resources become economical. Such will soon be the case with oils shale in the CO, UT areas. I agree - but that doesn't make those infinite. That just provides us with additional sources and pushes the date further out.
2. As technology progresses, previously "out of reach" resources become avaliable. We can now drill deeper, both on and off shore. Much the same as #1 - we've pushed the date further out, not eliminated the theory.
3. We will find better energy resources before completely exhausting all avaliable reserves. Honestly, I didn't think this was ever in debate except by the loons. Whenever we've run up against a material crunch in the modern day (pretty much since the printing press), we've figured out new ways to get around that. This isn't that much different. I do qualify this with the need and ability to make money off the solution. If there was no way to profit, then it falls by the wayside.
4. New technology may one day "make" oil out of other things. Read about chicken gut to oil processes (extracting oils from the left-overs of processed chicken, not economical, yet). Coal to diesel would be another, as would the possibility of recycling and "re-arranging" the hydrocarbons in plastics. There's also bioengineered algae producing ethanol and long-chain hydrocarbons. Plenty of different technologies.

Those might actually finally discredit Peak Oil if they are feasible and scalable.

Many decades ago, the same thing was said about gold. People were saying gold is finite, it will run out. Well, we still mine lots of gold today. New technology made "Carlin-type" deposits (massive, disseminated deposits) economical. True, these are not being found in as large a number today, so we are looking back to old school narrow vein deposits (we just found one with some drilling a few months ago).

Yes, oil is finite, but that doesn't mean peak oil is a correct hypothesis.

The difference here is somewhat semantical. My position is that it appears to be a correct theory, but those using it to predict are simply wrong.

You can't definitively say that petroleum is a finite resource. No one can say that with any certainty. The truth is no one knows for sure. That is just one theory. Anyone who claims that petroleum is a finite resource and that we know that with complete certainty is a liar.

What we do know with certainty is that over the years we have become reliant on the easily recoverable sources of crude oil. All the while banning and creating very small finite areas in our part of the world where people are even allowed to look for oil.

It was just recently reported that North Dakota and Montana have 10 times more oil than what was thought 13 years ago in it's last survey. More oil than in Saudi Arabia. That oil also stretches up into Canada.

The only thing that is peaking is the artificial and finite limits we are placing on ourselves.

Ron,

Since you are so smart, tell us what to do them?

And of course, you don't use any petroleum do you?

You do realize you are asking a question of a guy who said on the first page of this thread that high energy prices are a good thing.

That alone says a lot.

We can say that the fossil fuel is a finite resource based on usage stats. That's a bit different than it's completely finite as there should always be some recreation due to natural processes (be they organic or non), but due to the growth in usage and the limited range in which petroleum resources occur, it's not lying to say it's finite.

Secondly, I believe there's some confusion about how oil reserves are measured. IIRC, the gov't uses some sort of "feasible" measurement. What that translates to is that it gets counted as a reserve if we can get to it without exceeding some cost threshold that's pretty much what the current cost is. So, as technologies become cheaper or the cost of recovery increases, more oil magically seems to appear. It might not be that it wasn't known before - simply that the gov't didn't consider it feasible to get to, therefore they didn't count it.

I'm going to assume you meant then and not them. That aside, have you read many of my posts? Aside from the sarcastic one that a few folks seemed to have missed?

My solution is simple - let the markets sort it out. If fuel prices stay high or increase, all sorts of technologies become very viable. These include:

• Using previously unfeasible wells as the cheap stuff is no longer available
• Another source would be things like the shale oil - not economically feasible at low cost/barrel, but definitely good to go at higher costs
• Maybe some sort of bioengineered algae that produces specific long chain hydrocarbons that can be assembled into different plastics and fuels later. Personally, I really like this one if it can be pulled off.
• Solar, wind, and geothermal - get rid of the incentives and let the markets drive the most promising technologies here. Those would be the best balance between cost and ROI.
• Nuclear - let's get more nuclear plants going. My push would be for FBR types as they get much, much more energy out of the fissionable material.

Having the higher market prices will help to drive conservation naturally, so no need to get all into that (besides, there are already threads about that).
Seriously - not rocket science. Also, if you read and understand where I'm coming from, you'll see that I'm generally quite reasonable. You'll also pick up on my sarcasm a bit better.

You do realize that I also gave good supporting reasons for that. Something about a market-driven economy being significantly more efficient than a gov't-driven one?

I didn't say I like them - but I said they're good in the long run.

Seriously - how about you take the time to quote me properly and completely? Your modus operandi seems to be to jump into the middle of a perfectly reasonable thread, offer some sort of insulting and jackass suggestion, then defend it to the death even though it's ridiculous and in spite of evidence to the contrary. You don't even bother to even try to acknowledge that any opinion but yours is correct - nor do you even bother with any social nicety.

You're a crank. Plain and simple.

Mind you - this is just my experience with you in these threads. You may be incredible when it comes to advice on repairs, mods, wheeling, etc. But here you tend to jump off right into the deep end first thing, rather than questioning someone's assumptions with even a modicum of politeness.

I did quote you correctly. You did say high prices are a good thing. Then you went off on some ridiculous market based stuff that holds no water. You're the crank. I've seen nothing reasonable or even reality based from you in this thread.

The only positive thing I can say is that you didn't make kooky accusations of the mafia controlling everything like you did in another thread.

First off, the oil industry in the United States IS NOT a free market. It is extremely regulated as far as the physical asset is concerned; it is extremely taxed, and it is extremely restricted as far as where and how it can bring any product to the market. The regulatory and litigation hurdles any energy company has to overcome in this country in recent years is sometimes insurmountable.

The industry is over-regulated in areas that hurt the country regarding the physical asset, and to add additional pain, the commodity trading of oil itself in this country ... on paper (an area that has been allowed to go completely unregulated) has spiraled out of control allowing artificial and damaging influence to affect the oil market and price.

This country has low refining capacity. It hasn't built a refinery in many decades, yet the demands on refineries to create custom retail products in the form of varying blends for different states and even seasons of the year does additional damage. We have to import some refined gasoline from other countries.

There are more numerous problems affecting the oil industry and delivery of a product to the consumer, but you claiming that the industry is market driven or that the current prices reflect a true market value of the commodity is absolutely ridiculous.

You also inferred that high market prices will somehow bring about the magical "alternative energy fairy". That is more of a faith based belief system than anything that currently resembles energy reality. Alternative energy may happen and it may not happen. Designing energy policy on what amounts to a faith based system is insane.

This country is already at the beginning of seriously damaging repercussions regarding high oil prices. It is only going to get worse and will negatively affect the lives of many people and will seriously harm this country if nothing solid and concrete is done very soon.

Yet, we still have morons believing in the religion of "alternative energy", global warming, peak oil, and every other harmful and damaging piece of bullshit that comes along.

Everything except the right thing which is to bring more domestic oil to the domestic market immediately and announce a goal of petroleum independence as soon as possible..... not energy independence.

OPEC and the oil traders laugh at the thought of "energy independence". Domestic oil independence would scare the shit out of them.

There is never going to be a long term solution when we have absolutely no short term solution in this country. The country cannot survive in it's current form if oil prices are allowed to continue to spiral out of control for the next couple of years.

Rome is burning and people are willing to let it burn while waiting for the "alternative energy fairy".

This is why I advocate for drilling, and am loud and not detered... I can see the writing on the wall.

I would even go to the point of admitting announcing drilling in the US would do little for gas prices right now, but it would help keep the price at least nearly the same for the next decade. That is what we need to keep focused on - keeping the prices where they are and not allowing them to go drastically higher.

I did quote you correctly. You did say high prices are a good thing. Then you went off on some ridiculous market based stuff that holds no water. You're the crank. I've seen nothing reasonable or even reality based from you in this thread.

I've informed you that the one post was a joke - not my fault that you can't read or fail to understand that.

As for the market-driven piece, no - markets work. In fact, as the prices are high people are starting to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, coming up with ways to get us to oil reserves that were previously not cost-effective, and pushing for different sources of power. This is the market working - whether or not you choose to see this is not my problem.

The only positive thing I can say is that you didn't make kooky accusations of the mafia controlling everything like you did in another thread. And that you can't see a joke hitting you plainly in the face is my problem how? Seriously - get your sarcasm meter calibrated.

First off, the oil industry in the United States IS NOT a free market. It is extremely regulated as far as the physical asset is concerned; it is extremely taxed, and it is extremely restricted as far as where and how it can bring any product to the market. The regulatory and litigation hurdles any energy company has to overcome in this country in recent years is sometimes insurmountable.

There are definitely points of truth to that - which is one reason I'm in favor of letting the markets work. I want the gov't out of this business and I want to let true market dynamics take over.

That being said, the oil industry isn't the only portion of this. There's also the automotive industry, the consumer goods industry, alternative energy, and start-ups. As prices stay high, the demand for alternative solutions (ranging from drilling what we've got to shale oil to others) become more and more feasible - and they'll get implemented if they're scalable, economically feasible, and aren't outright dangerous.

The industry is over-regulated in areas that hurt the country regarding the physical asset, and to add additional pain, the commodity trading of oil itself in this country ... on paper (an area that has been allowed to go completely unregulated) has spiraled out of control allowing artificial and damaging influence to affect the oil market and price. Unregulated =! bad. If the nonsense keeps up, usage will decline and the investments will fail. That'll likely cause a nice crash in those commodity markets and bring our prices back down.

This country has low refining capacity. It hasn't built a refinery in many decades, yet the demands on refineries to create custom retail products in the form of varying blends for different states and even seasons of the year does additional damage. We have to import some refined gasoline from other countries.

I agree that this is a bad thing. It would be good to upgrade our refining capabilities - but I say that we should let the economics of the situation drive the change, not gov't regulation. Unfortunately, gov't regulation is part of the problem here - but if the cost becomes high enough, new refineries will be built.

There are more numerous problems affecting the oil industry and delivery of a product to the consumer, but you claiming that the industry is market driven or that the current prices reflect a true market value of the commodity is absolutely ridiculous.

Where did I ever say that the current prices reflect a true market value? Find it or shut the hell up.

I said that high oil prices will drive the market to change. The market isn't just oil.

You also inferred that high market prices will somehow bring about the magical "alternative energy fairy". That is more of a faith based belief system than anything that currently resembles energy reality. Alternative energy may happen and it may not happen. Designing energy policy on what amounts to a faith based system is insane.
Again, you are a jackass. Seriously - I've mentioned several different solutions in these threads. One of them was shale oil and previously non-cost effective sources. Others were FBR nuclear reactors, increased use of solar, wind, geothermal power. Then I've pointed to emerging technologies such as the bioengineered algae that can and actually do produce hydrocarbons. One is engineered to produce ethanol, another produces specific long chain hydrocarbons. I've made no statement saying these are scalable as of yet, but it's things like this that are getting attention and investment dollars now that oil prices are very high.

That's the market working.

This country is already at the beginning of seriously damaging repercussions regarding high oil prices. It is only going to get worse and will negatively affect the lives of many people and will seriously harm this country if nothing solid and concrete is done very soon.

"something" must be done. It's always "something". The thing is, something is being done. Those truly effected are finding ways to get by with using less fuel. Others are seeing the opportunity to make huge amounts of money and attempting to develop new technology. Again, let the market sort it out. Getting the government more involved is what got us into the mess in the first place, no?

Yet, we still have morons believing in the religion of "alternative energy", global warming, peak oil, and every other harmful and damaging piece of bullshit that comes along.

1 - you've not disproven peak oil. The only thing you've shown is that those using it to make predictions are wrong - something I agree with. That doesn't mean that there won't come a point where the current supply of oil is completely out of the realm of feasible attainment. That's the actual peak oil - not the nonsense of making a prediction that it'll run out next year using faulty assumptions.
2 - I'm not a ACC type. I won't deny that the average global temp has been rising - but I can't say that it's rising any faster or slower due to man's impact.
3 - How is the "faith" in those any less mis-placed than your "faith" that the oil will never run out. Or is it that it won't run out in your lifetime, so then it doesn't matter?
4 - I've not said that any of these will "magically" replace oil. I fully understand that there's a lot to this and it's going to be a combination of many different things.

Everything except the right thing which is to bring more domestic oil to the domestic market immediately and announce a goal of petroleum independence as soon as possible..... not energy independence.

Actually, if you'll read my post I want to bleed the rest of the world pretty much dry and then start exporting both oil and other technologies at a high price.

OPEC and the oil traders laugh at the thought of "energy independence". Domestic oil independence would scare the shit out of them. Not so much. China's a huge new market for them and they, coupled with Europe, would do a good job of keeping OPEC in business for quite a long time. Sure, we'd cause a short-term drop in profits for them - but they'd find a new market soon enough.

There is never going to be a long term solution when we have absolutely no short solution in this country. The country cannot survive in it's current form if oil prices are allowed to continue to spiral out of control for the next couple of years. I don't know about that. It's very possible we'd just continue to adapt. In fact, one of the adaptions that's occuring right now is that companies are starting to export less due to transportation costs. Think about that - money that was going to China is now staying in the US.

It's difficult to predict what's going to happen - very difficult. I'm not against domestic oil production - but from what I've heard, unlocking the domestic oil production is going to take years before the production levels are up. So wouldn't we be screwed anyway, according to your theories?

Rome is burning and people are willing to let it burn while waiting for the "alternative energy fairy".

If that's what I was saying, you'd have a point. Look up a strawman argument and try again.