Well, here's the real kicker...we probably should have made a much stronger push for alternatives 10-20 years ago. Why? The design, development, construction, transportation and overall implementation of alternative forms of energy requires massive amounts of oil. It would have saved extraordinary amounts of money had we started all of this when oil was real cheap. Now oil is getting so expensive, it's more difficult to start a large-scale shift to alternative forms of energy.

I've always believed ethanol is a joke, probably 90% of my posts here on APC have centered around oil, so one can reference past posts when it comes to this. I do, however, feel that there is some real promise w/ Wind and Solar...they obviously won't come anywhere near replacing fossil fuels, but there is some potential.

These aren't my ideas, I'm basically a talking parrot as they say, I'm repeating many of the things I've heard from one of my favorite geologists, T. Boone Pickens. Watch the link, it's educational and entertaining, the guy is 80 years old and going strong...gotta admire him for that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jngHfYFs9L8

 

Hi!

I'm NOT in favor of more US drilling (in the non-leased areas-there are many areas that the oil companies have leased for drilling in, and they have not done so), IF:
1-The drilling would take money away from a long-term energy solution. A long-term solution, obviously, is renewable energy. Giving tax breaks to new US drilling is a bad idea-those government hand outs should go to the long-term solution instead.
2-The drilling will cause permanent environmental damage.
3-The drilling will extend the time period required to switch over to renewable energy.

So, I'm FOR drilling in the US IF:
1-It's on the lands already leased to the oil companies, or
no environmental damage of a permanent nature will occur.
2-It won't use taxpayer/government money.
4-It will help us get through this short-term energy shortage.

cliff
ILG

 

Where did you get this short term energy shortage idea?

Under what economic theory do you think drilling takes money away from searches for other energy sources. Let me explain life to you. We are not addicted to foreign oil. We use oil because it is the cheapest, safest, most efficient method of producing mobile energy. We also use it to heat our homes and provide electricity because some morons in the past thought coal was dirty and Nuclear power dangerous. They were do gooders like you and Duke who thought they were smarter than the market. If solar and wind were more efficient than oil we would not need to subsidize them as humans will naturally gravitate towards the easiest way to fill their needs.

Sounds like you are for drilling since there will be no permanent damage and uncle sam will make money not lose it.

 

Lets see,,,,,,, that would have been Abe Lincoln, Right?

I have heard that ANWR could produce more per day than all of Saudi Arabia; if that is true, it is absolutly crazy not to drill there.

 

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.
Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech to the US Congress - in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming - to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the "perfect storm" of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.
Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.
In an interview with the Guardian he said: "When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime."
He is also considering personally targeting members of Congress who have a poor track record on climate change in the coming November elections. He will campaign to have several of them unseated. Hansen's speech to Congress on June 23 1988 is seen as a seminal moment in bringing the threat of global warming to the public's attention. At a time when most scientists were still hesitant to speak out, he said the evidence of the greenhouse gas effect was 99% certain, adding "it is time to stop waffling".
He will tell the House select committee on energy independence and global warming this afternoon that he is now 99% certain that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has already risen beyond the safe level.
The current concentration is 385parts per million and is rising by 2ppm a year. Hansen, who heads Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, says 2009 will be a crucial year, with a new US president and talks on how to follow the Kyoto agreement.
He wants to see a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants, coupled with the creation of a huge grid of low-loss electric power lines buried under ground and spread across America, in order to give wind and solar power a chance of competing. "The new US president would have to take the initiative analogous to Kennedy's decision to go to the moon."
His sharpest words are reserved for the special interests he blames for public confusion about the nature of the global warming threat. "The problem is not political will, it's the alligator shoes - the lobbyists. It's the fact that money talks in Washington, and that democracy is not working the way it's intended to work."
A group seeking to increase pressure on international leaders is launching a campaign today called 350.org. It is taking out full-page adverts in papers such as the New York Times and the Swedish Falukuriren calling for the target level of CO2 to be lowered to 350ppm. The advert has been backed by 150 signatories, including

 

[quote=Lab Rat;409738]If we would have started drilling and building more refineries in 1998, then we wouldn't be using phrases such as "it will take a decade". There has to be a starting point for everything, and as far as I'm concerned there is no time like the present. We can start now, or we can still have this ongoing discussion about high oil prices in 2018. Either way, the problem isn't going to go away by itself.

Talking about "alternative fuels" and "what if's" aren't putting cheap gas into fuel tanks at the moment. Truthfully, we should be drilling, innovating, and exploring - all three simultaneously.

I disagree with you on the drilling part of your 3 pronged solution. I believe we need to ween ourselves off of oil unless we can supply sufficient amounts to control pricing. Since I doubt the latter, the sooner we break the cycle the better. I believe that more drilling will only prolong the inevitable. You are right that in 2018 we will probably be asking ourselves how this cycle continues. One part of the equation would be " how much profit did the oil companies make this quarter?"

How do you highlight the poster's quote?

 

You hit the quote button and don't type inside the [/quote] [/quote]. Additionally don't mess with the first or last "quote"

Please define "control pricing" is that what Nixon and Ford tried to do in the 70's? Ask a russian what happens to supply when you try to control pricing. Ok lets concede the idiotic "idea" that adding additional supply won't decrease prices. Wouldn't you rather give your oil dollars to exxon stock holders than the saudi royal family?

 

I don't think T. Boone Pickens, w/ 60 years as an oil geologist, is a do-gooder. We all know oil here is a dead-end street...when we advocate more drilling, we're burdening the next generation w/ the same problems, just compounded a whole bunch.

It's O.K. to think differently here in this debate. Not thinking differently, specifically not acting differently, is what got us into this mess. The bottom line: no amount of extra drilling at this point will help us. I've tried to provide factual analysis to make my case. It would be nice to see some factual analysis from the other side of the coin, but that seems to be lacking.

I know a number of people out here in western Colorado, utilizing geothermal/solar, who are off the grid and loving life right now...it seems they made a wise decision and a good investment.

I never condemned coal or nuclear, in fact, I've never mentioned them in my posts. I happen to think making broad use of our natural resources is an excellent idea...however, it would be a mistake to focus just on oil. We need to save that stuff for the airplanes we fly!

 

What facts do you have that extra drilling at this point wont help us. You are making a statement with no basis in logic. Should Brazil plug their new found oil wealth because extra drilling wont help? If new drilling wont help, how about getting rid of old drilling? What would happen to the price of oil if we nuked Saudi Arabia? After all what is a few billion barrels either way? Never said you condemned nuclear or coal. Just said you are a do gooder who thinks he is smarter than the market and human nature. Who is just focusing on oil? My side is saying look at everything, if you have a good idea run with it. Your side is saying you can do anything but oil. Which side is the intolerant one?

 

All I'm saying is that the U.S. peaked at about 10.5 million bbl/oil a day back in 1970 or so. Preceding this peak in production, there was also a peak in discoveries, this included ANWR, also known as the North Slope of Alaska. Right now were pumping about 5 million bbl/day here in the U.S. domestically. We can drill/pump Alaska and the OCS like a first-rate pornstar, we'll never match the 10.5 million bbl/day we saw back in '70.

I think the notion that people have here is that excess drilling will either bring prices back down, or keep current prices flat. That just won't happen. Barring a massive economic recession/depression, even w/ supplemental drilling here domestically, prices should continue to rise. I'm obviously a proponent of peak oil, so I guess I have a bit of a bias here. I do think peak oil provides the best explanation for what we're seeing right now w/ oil.