"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fvcte4$7q2$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "John Galt" <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:opcSj.117755$6i4.67003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:fvb5tt$h6l$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "John Galt" <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:9u5Sj.117458$6i4.15628@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>> "Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:fva97k$kc8$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>
>>>>> "John Galt" <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>> news:AgWRj.123983$Tj3.106837@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/start_drilling.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Article Highlights (well, almost all of it is a "highlight"):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (...) The truth is that we're almost powerless to influence today's
>>>>>> prices. We are because we didn't take sensible actions 10 or 20
years
>>>>>> ago. If we persist, we will be even worse off in a decade or two.
The
>>>>>> first thing to do: Start drilling.
>>>>>> It may surprise Americans to discover that the United States is the
>>>>>> third-largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. We
could
>>>>>> be producing more, but Congress has put large areas of potential
>>>>>> supply off-limits. These include the Atlantic and Pacific coasts
and
>>>>>> parts of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. By government estimates,
>>>>>> these areas may contain 25-30 billion barrels of oil (against about
>>>>>> 30 billion of proven U.S. reserves today) and 80 trillion cubic
feet
>>>>>> or more of natural gas (compared with about 200 tcf of proven
>>>>>> reserves).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What keeps these areas closed are exaggerated environmental fears,
>>>>>> strong prejudice against oil companies, and sheer stupidity.
>>>>>> Americans favor both "energy independence" and cheap fuel. They
>>>>>> deplore im****ts -- who wants to pay foreigners? -- but oppose more
>>>>>> production in the United States. Got it? The result is a "no-pain
>>>>>> energy agenda that sounds appealing but has no basis in reality,"
>>>>>> writes Robert Bryce in "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of
>>>>>> 'Energy Independence.'"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unsurprisingly, all three major presidential candidates tout
"energy
>>>>>> independence." This reflects either ignorance (unlikely) or
pandering
>>>>>> (probable). The United States now im****ts about 60 percent of its
>>>>>> oil, up from 42 percent in 1990. We'll im****t lots more for the
>>>>>> foreseeable future. The world uses 86 million barrels of oil a day,
>>>>>> up from 67 mbd in 1990. (...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The best we can do is to try to influence the global balance of
>>>>>> supply and demand. Increase our supply. Restrain our demand. (...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Increasing production also is im****tant. Output from older fields,
>>>>>> including Alaska's North Slope, is declining. Although production
>>>>>> from restricted areas won't make the U.S. self-sufficient, it might
>>>>>> stabilize output or even reduce im****ts. No one knows exactly
what's
>>>>>> in these areas, because the exploratory work is old. Estimates
>>>>>> indicate that production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
>>>>>> might equal almost 5 percent of present U.S. oil use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Members of Congress complain loudly about high oil profits ($40.6
>>>>>> billion for ExxonMobil last year) but frustrate those companies
from
>>>>>> using those profits to explore and produce in the United States.
>>>>>> Getting access to oil elsewhere is increasingly difficult.
>>>>>> Governments own three-quarters or more of proven reserves. Higher
>>>>>> prices perversely discourage other countries from approving new
>>>>>> projects. Flush with oil revenues, countries have less need to
expand
>>>>>> production. Undersupply and high prices then feed on each other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it's hard for the United States to complain that other
countries
>>>>>> limit access to their reserves when we're doing the same. If higher
>>>>>> U.S. production reduced world prices, other countries might expand
>>>>>> production. What they couldn't get from prices they'd try to get
from
>>>>>> greater sales.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On environmental grounds, the alternatives to more drilling are
>>>>>> usually worse. Subsidies to ethanol made from corn have increased
>>>>>> food prices and used scarce water, with few benefits. If oil is
>>>>>> im****ted, it's vulnerable to tanker spills. By contrast, local
>>>>>> production is probably safer. There were 4,000 platforms operating
in
>>>>>> the Gulf of Mexico when hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit. Despite
>>>>>> extensive damage, there were no major spills, says Robbie Diamond
of
>>>>>> Securing America's Future Energy, an advocacy group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps oil prices will drop when some long-delayed projects begin
>>>>>> production or if demand slackens. But the basic problem will
remain.
>>>>>> Though dependent on foreign oil, we might conceivably curb the
power
>>>>>> of foreign producers. But this is not a task of a month or a year.
It
>>>>>> is a task of decades; new production projects take that long. If we
>>>>>> don't start now, our future dependence and its dangers will grow.
>>>>>> Count on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This author is being misleading.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, his claim that, because some exploration of untapped reserves
>>>>> is old the estimates may be off is totally bogus. It isn't like an
oil
>>>>> field is like a bathtub capable of filling or emptying.
>>>>
>>>> Larry, the technology used to estimate these reserves improves all
the
>>>> time. That's one of the reasons that Houston (IIRC) has more
>>>> supercomputing capacity than anyplace in the world --- the companies
>>>> work overtime on these capabilities.
>>>>
>>>> Now, GRANTED, the old estimates might be spot on, as you argue below.
>>>> All Samuelson is saying is that they're old, and since they were
taken
>>>> with old technology, MAY be off.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exp;oration is a very simple. relatively low technology process.
>>>
>>> Holes are dug, samples taken, oil density calculated, and aa map of
rock
>>> strata made.
>>>
>>> Adjustments to known fields is mostly from experience with pumping.
>>> Maybe the extent of hte field is found to be different than inital
>>> estimates. Or maybe new technology can extract more oil than
originally
>>> planned.
>>>
>>> The former cannot be detected by exploration, the latter does not need
>>> exploration.
>>>
>>> Intrestingly, from the EIA data, adjustments are pretty much a wash.
>>>
>>>>> UNless he is claiming that new technology (forget it) can be used,
the
>>>>> estiimates are stable. Check the adjustments in reserves at
>>>>> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_dcu_NUS_a.htm
>>>>> Net changes in total reserves are less than a tenth of a percent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note also that, despite the rhetoric, new ex****ation and tapping of
>>>>> new fields _does_ occur every year, especially in the Gulf.
>>>>>
>>>>> Despite what this author stated.
>>>>>
>>>>> And again, despite what this author asserts, proven reserves are not
>>>>> that great. Despite his assertion that there are untapped reserves
>>>>> equal to current known reserves, the EIA doesn''t believe that. They
>>>>> put untapped reserves at about 20% of tapped reserves. Most of that
is
>>>>> in producing fields and will require secondary extraction
techniques,
>>>>> is too small to be of significant interest (fields in Arizona,
>>>>> Missouri, Nevada, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia),
f
>>>>> ex., or for other reasons (quality) is not exciting commercial
>>>>> interest.
>>>>> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_dcu_NUS_a.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a key factor of the author's exaggeration.
>>>>>
>>>>> Much of what he claims to be "reserves" is tied up in tar sands.
But,
>>>>> as the Canadians are finding out, extraction is an expensive, energy
>>>>> intensive process adn the net ouput is small, trading huge amounts
of
>>>>> coal for the low quality oil. Add the massive investments for
minimal
>>>>> profits, even at $120 a barrel, and it is understandable why the oil
>>>>> companies are silent.
>>>>
>>>> That is quite correct, BUT remember his prime premise -- that $120 is
>>>> likely to look cheap in a few years. The cost of extraction won't
>>>> change, the price per barrel will. If the price per barrell goes
>>>> up........well........
>>>
>>> Except even the oil companies are betting against this.
>>>
>>> In congressional tstimpny oil execs indicated no desire to increase
>>> capacity, indicating that they expect alternative fuels and
conservation
>>> to reduce demand to the poijt that new capacity would be unnecessary.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Even at full production of known, untapped fields, the effect on
>>>>> world markets would be small. The loss in Iraqi production due to
the
>>>>> war is about the same amount.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, BUT (again) his point is simply to say that we need to exploit
all
>>>> known sources or quit whining about prices (of course, stability in
the
>>>> Middle East, Nigeria, and less sabre rattling by Iran and Venezuela
>>>> would of course help as well.)
>>>
>>> I agree, quit whining.
>>>
>>> But there is no indication that even increased supplies will reduce
>>> proices.
>>>
>>> Jus tlike economists are saying about the McCain/ CLinton gas tax
>>> hiliday, lower prices/increased supply will do o more than increase
>>> demand, forcing prices up again. The net result wpuld merely be more
>>> moeny for he oil companies.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And all of this begs the central question of why oil/gas prices are
so
>>>>> high.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that world demand, because of the failing US economy, is
actually
>>>>> falling and recently has lead to an easing of crude prices. Yet
>>>>> despite the reduction in cost of a barrel of oil gasoline prices
>>>>> continue to set records.
>>>>>
>>>>> In truth, factors other than supply and demand are behind the high
oil
>>>>> proces, which is why little can be done in the short term to lower
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> I'm in India right now. In June, Tata will go to market with their
>>>> $2000 auto. It gets great gas mileage, but its target market will be
>>>> autorickshaws (which get even better mileage, and often use propane
or
>>>> LPG), motobikers (who will also go to a vehicle with poorer gas
mileage
>>>> than their bikes) and **new users**, of which there are hundreds of
>>>> millions about to stop using their legs to get around over the next
few
>>>> years. This is a significant supply-and-demand factor that I have yet
>>>> to see modeled in any economists forecasts ---- and then the Tata car
>>>> oes to China, Indonesia, Malaysia........
>>>>
>>>
>>> That specific example, noo.
>>>
>>> But forecasts _do_ prioject significant increased demand in countries
>>> like CHina, India, and Braxil (despite their huge ethanol program).
>>>
>>>> It's not wrong to say that currency is an issue. However, it's
>>>> misleading to not note that worldwide usage is fated to skyrocket as
>>>> the developing world continues to come "online."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except rising prices lower demand.
>>>
>>> AS prices rise, unfortunately, poor countires/peoples stop burning
oil.
>>> Already we are seeing conversions from oil to wood --- or nothing ---
in
>>> parts of Africa and centrral asia. Yeah, the amounts are small.
>>>
>>> But as prices rise more changes will lessen demand.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>
>> Larry, you're chewing up bandwidth. You're throwing all sorts of ****
up
>> on the wall instead of making concise points, and as result, I'm not
sure
>> what point you're trying to make, other than you don't want to drill
for
>> oil.
>>
>
> I apologize.
>
> I guess I have enjoyed having an intelligent, clooegial discussion too
> much.
>
>> Here's what we all know:
>>
>
> And the problem is I dispute this.
>
>> 1) Cheap and available energy is a requirement for nations to develop,
>> and for developed nations to maintain their level of development.
>>
>
> Partailly ture, but the definition of cheap and available is im****tant
and
> in dispute.
Without objection. Can we agree that "cheap" to both individuals and
businesses means that the cost of energy does not unduly affect their
short
or long term decision making? That the cost of energy is a factor in their
decisions, but not one of the major components?
>
>> 2) We have no viable energy alternatives today that can come even close
>> to meeting our requirements, nor are any expected to contribute
>> substantively over the next few decades.
>>
> But total;ly replacing petroleum is not a requirement. Alternatives for
> _some_ replacement exist today, and are being blocked.
>
> At the risk of going all over te map again, Brazil wants to ex****t
> millions of gallons of cheap ethanol to the US but tarrifs make it
> uneconomical. Just one of many, many examples.
If you want to assert that the two Iowan Senators (Grassely-R, and
Harkin-D)
have done and are in the process of doing more damage to the world than
any
two people in human history, you'll get no argument from me. That said,
ethanol created by the clear-cutting of forests and rainforests seems to
be
to be a short sighted solution, even IF it's not corn-based.
>
>> Given those two very simple factoids, it seems intuitive that in the
>> short term,
>
> Except drilling is not a short term solution. Production is at least 8 -
> 10 years off, more for extreme environments.
If you have a hundred year event horizon, 10 years is short term. Haven't
we
already agreed that one of the big problems with the US government is a
lack
of long term planning? That each president sees only 8 years into the
future?
>
>>we must maximize the use of our own resources WHILE (to address the
>>concerns of envrionmentalists and peak oil adherents funding a Manhattan
>
>> Project of sorts to determine how our energy needs will be met in the
>> second half of this century going forward. (In fact, I've heard MANY
>> people from the left side of the political spectrum blaming people like
>> Reagan for not doing exactly that on the heels of the Arab Embargo. I
>> assume such folks are still in favor of such types of projects.)
>>
>
> Massive research programs for a sigle solution are doomed to failure. We
> need multiple, distributed solutions that directly addrress local
> needs --- solar, wind, biomass, biofuel, hydrogen, conservation,
whatever
> is best suited to the specific need.
I completely agree.
>
> Not only can small solutions be broguth to market faster and cheaper,
but
> they are flexible enough to be modified or replaced easily if conditions
> change. No need, for example, to replace 60,00 gas stations with
electric
> plugs.
Yep.
>
>
>> As an aside, I find it interesting that the people who like to
trashtalk
>> the GOP (the same people who tend to be suspicious, if not hostile, to
>> free markets) defending the free market position on this issue, which
is
>> to allow the price to increase until demand subsides.
>>
>
> Only becauwe the opposition to doing something _now_ hinges on low
energy
> prices.
>
> Low prices killed the alternative energy/conservatioin movement after
the
> oil shocks of hte seventies. They will do it again, in large part
because
> the GOP is wedded to the status quo now, just like they were then.
Oh, yea, it's just the GOP that's wedded to the status quo. :-)
But, not to digress -- the entire point to a national initiative is to
insure the work goes on while we act to keep prices down.
>
>> The problem with $7 gasoline, however, is who it harms:
>>
>
> $7 doallr gasoline is unavoidable. COnservationsists tried to brig he
> price up gradually, but were thwarted. The US has the lowest energy
prices
> in the first world --- no other developed country has the problem we do
> because we are keeoing the price artificially low.
>
> Peak oil will come, the only dispute is when. Oil is getting more and
more
> expensive to bring to market. Demand, unchecked, will equal supply,
> continuing to push up prices.
>
>> The upper middle class and the rich in the developed nations will trade
>> in an SUV for a Mini convertable or that neat new BMW 1 Series and buy
>> slighly cheaper wine with their dinners. The middle class in the same
>> nations will get squeezed, some painfully, and some will lose their
jobs
>> as a casualty of diminished economic activity. The lower class in the
US
>> will hurt badly, perhaps to the point where hunger returns to being a
>> serious problem in the US.
>>
> Which is why we need to act NOw, not 10 to 15 years in the future. W
have
> the ability _now_ to make a impact.
>
>> However, the biggest point is overseas, where people in developed
nations
>> will die.
>>
>
> Only is forced to rely on petroleum.
They all are, in the SHORT TERM (20-30 years).
>
> But solar ovens in Rwanda, low electric consumtpion air conditioners in
> Baghdad, Methane and electrcity from agricultural waste in India or cow
> poo in Maine, mining methane from landfills to run factories in Georgia,
> designing new factories to use 40% less energy like the new Texas
> Instruments plant or new office buildings in Manhattan, ... all exist
> NOW.
>
> So why are (mostly, but not exclusively) republicans resistant to
> expanding this? Why are they proposing solutions that will cost
billions
> of dollars and will take a decade or more to bring to market when we
have
> cheap, viable solutions now?
You tell me. Bush says he will veto any bill that kills the energy
subsidies, so Pelosi (not to be outdone by Bush in avoiding leader****p)
PULLS OUT the solar subsidies from of the bill. As a result, First Solar
decides to create the 55 high paying research and engineering jobs it
needs --- in East Germany, where there's a 20 year plan of subsidies for
solar energy.
>
>> People who are suspicious of free markets are ill advised to suddenly
>> become laissez-faire capitalists on this issue.
>
> This is _exactl;y_ the opposite of what is happening now.
If you're depending on high prices to force change, that's as
laissez-faire
as you can get.
>
> Environmentalists/conservationists are advocating government regulation
to
> increase CAFE standards, mandate conservation measures from CFL lights
to
> alternative enrgy sources to tonew building codes to ...
>
> The oil lobby, in all its forms, is pu****ng for market "reforms". Carbon
> trading, for example, is a business interest, not a public interest.
Some
> on the environmental side have embraced it out of necessity, but it is
> not a solution, just an interim step.
>
> Nobody is more free market than I,
>> and even I have no problem admitting that the free market can be a
harsh
>> mistress as it lurches from pole to pole attempting to find efficiency.
>> In a matter such as this, I can tell you that the market will be like a
>> drunken elephant in a roomfull of people. We can do better for the
world
>> than let that elephant crush millions.
>>
> Precisely. Which is why the encironemntal movement has been opusing for
> increased regulation and research since Reagan killed hthem inthe '80s.
Now, I'm starting to get pissed.
Can't anybody in this country do anything without a goddamn government
contract anymore? How much have the environmentalists spent on political
lobbying in the last 28 years? Why the hell didn't they use their money to
start a venture capital firm that searches out promising university
projects
and monetize them? Don't they realize by this time that NOTHING -- and I
mean NOTHING -- substantive will EVER come from government on this,
because
of the political ramifications about taking strong controversial
positions?
This is the USA -- its entrepenurism heaven. The goverment can't kill a
good
and marketable idea. How many people in Texas, who EASILY pay three and
four
hundred dollars a month in cooling costs BEFORE this last runup in prices,
would have LOVED to stick a solar panel on their roofs and turn off (or
tone
down) the influence of TXU over their lives? Why is it to THIS DAY, I
can't
go down to Home Depot and buy a bunch of panels with easy to use
directions
that tell me exactly how to install them and how to wire them (or have a
pro
electrician) wire them into my system to cut my monthly bills? (I can do
this for my boat, BTW. Flexible solar panels that sit on the deck and feed
power into your batteries have been around for all of those two decades.)
Let's get something straight up and clear. REAGAN chose not to invest in
alternatives. That was a bad decision. HOWEVER, REAGAN is not the reason
why
jack **** has been done on these technologies over the last twenty years.
The REASON is that environmental advocacy groups are manned by primarily
left-leaning individuals, so their DNA-driven inclination is to "get the
government to it", while forgetting (which is almost like forgetting where
your head is, it's so obvoius) that our entire economy is hard-wired to
get
the MARKET to do it. Proposals to the government are always met with hard
resistance from free marketers who are WELL FUNDED by the cor****ations who
stand to lose from the initiatives.
If all the money spent on advocacy in the last twenty years had been used
for seed money for energy startups, we'd have some of these solutions
today,
and there's not a damn thing that Exxon could have done about it. BUT, if
you try to use the government as the venture capitalist rather than your
own
money, then Exxon can and will smack you down.
>
>> Let get behind a national program to determine how we go forward as a
>> nation and as a world. Let's build wind farms, nuke plants, some
>> geothermal infrastructure, work to improve solar efficiency. Hell, I
read
>> a paper the other day that theorized how some turbines on the ocean
floor
>> off South Florida could pull so much kinetic power from the Gulf Stream
>> to light up the entire Southeast. Let's decide if the autos of the
future
>> are going to use biofuel (looking bad as a choice), biodiesel (looking
>> better), fuel cells, whatever. Let's get all our smart guys in a room
and
>> lock the door and leave them there until we have a roadmap for the
future
>> laid out.
>>
>
> Alternatives are absolutely necessary. But planned economies fail, and
> this level of lannign is doomed.
>
>
>> But in the meantime, let's DRILL FOR OIL. If we don't, it's just a
>> ****tion of our wealth at stake.
>>
> But IT WON'T WORK.
What WON'T WORK? Are you seriously suggesting that if I kick up supply 10%
prices will not fall?
>
>> But over here in India, and elsewhere, if we don't, people will die.
>>
>
> Have you heard fo the Indian decipower movement?
No, and neither has Google.
JG
|
