So, you like that $4.00/gal. gas, huh?
By Achance Posted in Energy — Comments (195) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Well, once again the Senate has refused to sanction opening ANWR, story here: http://www.adn.com/anwr/story/405342.html
I love the irony of the Dems and even a few Rs, claiming they're doing something about fuel prices by stopping a few thousand barrels a day from going to the Strategic Reserve but refusing to take an action that would put 1 MM/bbl./dy. into the US supply in a year or two if the enabling legislation also limited the litigation. Guess Greenie money and votes are more important to the Honorable Gentlemen and Ladies.
The CW is that ANWR production is ten years or more away after approval, but that assumes the same litigation delays that went on with Prudhoe Bay and TAPS. Prudhoe Bay was tapped and the TransAlaska Pipeline built in a little over three years of actual construction; the delay was from Alaska Native and environmental lawsuits. The Native Claims are no longer an issue, TAPS is built, and all that would be required is to construct wells and feeder lines to put the product into the TAPS system.
Anyway, as I've said before, I don't much care any more. Even though Alaska's production is only about half of its historic highs these days, the astronomical prices, ANS over $120/bbl., has us rolling in money, your money. So, we're having a special session of the Legislature this summer to give ourselves a nice fuel cost subsidy so we don't have to pay the high energy prices. Y'all just keep loving those caribou.
Problem is we have spineless idiots in congress.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
None of them want to fix it either. I wonder how much we'll be paying in 2012.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. --- John Adams
...since I'm quite confident I'll soon be facing $5.00 or even $6.00 per gallon gas, given the lunatic energy policies of our government mavens. And when that time comes (soon) I'll remember $4.00 per gallon with great nostalgia.
On the other hand, we are proving that even the U.S. Congress cannot repeal the laws of economics. As the price has gone up, I find ways to drive fewer miles - more carefully planning trips, forgoing trips in some cases - which means that my demand is decreasing. And from what I'm reading in the local press, my neighbors are doing the same.
If we can just keep Congress from trying to solve wreck the housing and credit markets and allow the dollar to stabilize, the invisible hand would have a chance to establish a new market price for gas.
**********************************
By the way, Achance, how do you plan on keeping Alaska from going the way of all the other oil-rich countries we see sliding into despotism.
It isn't easy since Alaska has such a powerful central government; set up that way Cohstitutionally. That is compounded by the fact that, as is the case in many of those countries, the People are generally apathetic so long as the money flows to them in something like the amounts they expect. The actual sums are so large relatively that few can comprehend how much the State actually spends and what for. The cynical among us always joked that you could do anything as long as you didn't close a fishing or hunting season and the Permanent Fund Dividend was over $1000. It is pretty much true.
That said, the State is THE player in the economy and buying something from one vendor or contractor leaves another out. If that vendor or contractor doesn't like how you made the purchase or let the contract, he sues. It is time consuming and creaky but except for some monopoly providers who can get anything they want, it keeps it at least somewhat honest.
The scariest thing I saw in my tenure was the Knowles (Democrat) Administration's attempt to make the World safe for their friends by simply repealing all the rules relating to procurement, financial management, and hiring. Since so much of the regulatory scheme for internal controls is ministerial and regulatory in nature, a Governor or Commissioner can rewrite the rules with a stroke of a pen. Of course, regs have to be consistent with statute and if they go too far, somebody will sue, but a suit like that takes a player with the wallet for it and who really wants to make it an issue. Most would conclude that it is easier to just make a deal with the Gov and Commish so they can get or keep their hooves in the trough. Knowles had to contend with a Republican Legislature that didn't believe anything the Administration said or trust anything they did, so they never got the hegemony they sought. A Democrat governor with a Democrat legislature could easily turn a state stuctured like Alaska in to a Soviet-style "Democratic" republic because the media would support them in doing it and the majority of the People wouldn't care as long as they got their PFD. A Republican could never do it because the media, principally the McClatchey-owned Anchorage Daily News, hounds any R about anything they do and many of the non-profits and quasi-governmentals are Democrat fronts, so if they don't get "theirs," they start howling.
In Vino Veritas
(which it was) and your thoughtful answer.
You spelled out well how that eternal trinity of money, sex, and power* (in its political manifestation) is at work in Alaska just as in other energy-rich entities.
Sounds like the best way to resist this siren call is 1) divided government, and 2) voting the bums out periodically so that the citizens enjoys the benefits of the learning curve while newbies have to learn where the bodies are buried (figuratively and/or literally).
Wouldn't it also be beneficial if Alaska could broaden its economic base beyond enery?
*formerly called "the world, the flesh, and the devil"
Unfortunately, mining doesn't provide all that many jobs done the high-tech way and tourism is vulnerable to all sorts of factors. And then there's the fishing industry which nothing the size of a state can rely on.
Those plus government and oil are Alaska's primary economic movers.
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
will usually answer any tough question in government. You're right though; divided government is the only check. If either party achieved anything like hegemony, something akin to tyranny is the result. We came close enough with the Rs here thinking they had it all under control in the Murkowski Administration. I can't say I liked what the FBI did here, there were better places for them to do their thing, but our government had it coming.
As to broadening the economy; with what? The Knik Arm Bridge (to nowhere) was an attempt to divert some Asian shipping away from the Left Coast and to the Great Circle route to the interior US via Alaska. Stupid Republicans bought off on the Left Coast Democrat's howls about that and who knows if that will ever be built. Tourism is cyclic and the revenue is peanuts. Fishing and even mining are commodities that never sell for long above the bare minimum necessary to ensure production unless somebody can establish a monopoly, e.g. OPEC. Got any ideas; you could run for governor. God knows pretty, perky Sarah could use some ideas.
In Vino Veritas
Who's getting laid or paid
So long as politicians show some self control and make sure the same people aren't getting both laid and paid, politicans cruise along just fine.
Where the politicians get nailed is when they overreach (out of arrogance or out-of-control risk-taking) and they both pay AND lay the same person - be it in the form of prostitutes (e.g. Spitzer) or getting their girlfriend/lover a job at taxpayer expense (e.g. Kilpatrick [Detroit]) - or in some cases getting their boyfriend/lover that state job (e.g. McGreevey [NJ]).
Of course, there are always outliers, such as Illinois' Ryan, perhaps the only politician in American history who got forced out of running for office for having sex with his wife.
**************************************************
I'm thinking about other economic sources for Alaska - it's a different form of the protection from divided government (in this case, the division coming out of a natural rivalry between monied interests).
I decided July 1, 2006, was a good day to retire. My boss decided to make a former subordinate of mine his deputy, which would have made her my boss at least on the org chart, because of her "horizontal skills." My first thought was, "WTF, nobody else who slept with her promoted her," and I decided then and there that these were people I just really didn't need to be associated with anymore - I was two years past retirement eligibility anyway.
What amazed me about the scandals and convictions here was how cheaply and unnecessarily these politicians ruined their lives, sold out the State's interests, and damaged the Republican brand; we're talking chump change! I won't say I'd never steal - I learned a long time ago to never say never, but I sure wouldn't steal anything that wouldn't allow me to live out my days comfortably in a warm country with no extradition treaty.
As to the economic development, Alaska is ideally suited geographically for some high-tech industry or assembly. It has lots of land, low taxes, and relatively low wages by Left Coast standards. Unfortnately, little of that land is private and getting the State to do anything with it, like woo an industrial concern, becomes a very, very nasty political game. First, the people who have private land will oppose it because State disposal will drive down the value of their usually very overpriced land. The Greenies will oppose it because they oppose everything. The unions will oppose it so that they can insist that their support is contingent on the plant being built union at Davis-Bacon wages and the condition precedent to the plant opening is that the employees will be unionized, which destroys much of the economic advantage that might otherwise exist. I can go on, but you can see what a very powerful government can do to impede economic activity.
In Vino Veritas
...since I'm quite confident I'll soon be facing $5.00 or even $6.00 per gallon gas, given the lunatic energy policies of our government mavens. And when that time comes (soon) I'll remember $4.00 per gallon with great nostalgia.
On the other hand, we are proving that even the U.S. Congress cannot repeal the laws of economics. As the price has gone up, I find ways to drive fewer miles - more carefully planning trips, forgoing trips in some cases - which means that my demand is decreasing. And from what I'm reading in the local press, my neighbors are doing the same.
If we can just keep Congress from trying to solve wreck the housing and credit markets and allow the dollar to stabilize, the invisible hand would have a chance to establish a new market price for gas.
**********************************
By the way, Achance, how do you plan on keeping Alaska from going the way of all the other oil-rich countries we see sliding into despotism.
that the dems are more than willing to have gas prices run up as high as needed in order for us to totally get off of gas. For them, Big Oil is the problem and the product they peddle is killing polar bears and will turn us all into cannibals in 40 years. They think the only way we (the uninformed masses clinging to our guns and religion) will realize all of this is if they make the price of oil and gas so high that we beg congress to give us ethanol, hydrogen, and the other options that don't rape and pillage mother nature. Until then, they are content to sit idly by while the working class of America suffers and scrapes to make ends meet. For them, the end justifies the means.
If we had a nation of Nukes for electricity and hydrogen cell cars for transportation, what would happen all the gold flowing into the middle east?
"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,
Hydrogen Fuel Cells would be as rare as they are now.
Abundant, cheap electricity would make the electric car viable.
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
The transportation fuel source problem is tougher than the stationary fuel source problem. Nuclear power and natural gas are great for generating electricity for homes, offices, and other non-mobile contexts.
I don't see the problem. By the time the plants were built, the batteries would be up to the job.
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
From what I've heard, battery technology has hit "the wall". There have been advancements in the last few years, but they seem to be at the end of the road with it for now. That's going to be a big problem.
We don't know what we need.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Until we know what energy storage will look like in the future, anyway.
Right now Goldman Sachs has a prediction that oil prices could rise to $150 to $200 within two years.
Hold on to your seat belts. It isn't over yet!
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(""The only reason that some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.")
Maybe more like 2-months than 2-years.
We are only $23 from $150 a barrel.
Oil price has increased about $90/barrel resulting in a $2.00 increase in gasoline prices, yet you assert that a further $23/barrel increase will result in a $6.00 increase in gas prices? Can you explain that to me? Or are you adding in the Democrat's tax increase of $5.00 gallon?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Don't be a fool, ANWR will not make a dent in global oil consumption and supply and our price of gas and oil products.
Only us giving up are gas guzzling ways is going to have any major effect. Our per capita gas consumption is the highest n the world and the majority of all oil used in the USA goes for one thing only - Motor Gasoline.
Also GAS will be soon in the $5 to $6 a gallon range so get use to it, our gas guzzling chickens have come home to roost.
So the answer is not to drill for more oil. Why? Your thinking is insane and sadly is shared by way too many people.
There are a lot of little ANWRs out there. If we bothered to drill, we could add to supply. Supply is as important to price as demand.
Or is there another agenda here?
but complain about high prices" meme that is the problem. ANWR is not a solution by itself, but it would add a bit to the supply. And there are other things that could be done to increase or free up supply that are being blocked by stupid regulations and just plain irrational fear.
AChance actually KNOWS what's he's talking about. How about you? Got any background or even links to something that supports your arguments?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Opening ANWAR would increase the supply of Non-OPEC oil, which is what is needed.
This statement is a lie and total fabrication - "action that would put 1 MM/bbl./dy. into the US supply in a year or two"
and actually knows what he's talking about.
You, however, are just a screaming lib with no facts and no clue.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Be glad you're on the other end of a computer and not across a room or your a*s would be well on its way to a whipping.
The ENTIRE TAPS was built in only about three years, read some history. The delay from the '68 discovery was Native Claims and environmental ligation.
The ten or more years is just propaganda to convince idiots like you that it shouldn't be done.
But as I've said, I don't much care because I'm really enjoying spending your money.
In Vino Veritas
If you are not a liar then you just don't what you are talking about which makes you just plain ignorant !
It would take 2-years to just sell the leases, you are just an ignorant fool.
....beyond a few cursory google searches.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
You're trying to tell someone who was involve in the Alaskan government who dealt with production matters on a regular basis that he doesn't know what he's ignorant. Then spout liberal talking points with NO back up and expect ANYONE to take you seriously.
IDIOT!
*Sorry Moe, I just can't help myself on this one.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
The producers just paid over $2BB for leases in the Chukchi Sea where there is NOTHING proven. Stopping that development is part of what all this polar bear nonsense is about. ANWR has proven reserves and is close to the TAPS complex.
Anyway, if Alaska needs to bolster its production, we can slant drill from State land to tap the same reservoir that underlies ANWR and there's not a thing the federal government or damned fools like you can do about it and that, too, is one of the reasons for all the polar bear nonsense. The Greenies know that they can't use their federal friends to stop Alaska from drilling on its own land, so they want that stupid bear declared endangered so they can use that to try to stop the State.
In Vino Veritas
Oh, here it is:
If we can have a Kowalski button in RS 3, we gotta have an Idiot button to push in times like this...
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
And a "kowalski button"?
...gee, coining a phrase based on someone else's regular posting habits goes a long ways these days...
...Should have copyrighted it. I'd be rich by now.
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
if the enabling legislation also limited the litigation.
If we get the d### lawyers out of the equation, it ain't all that hard to get up and running.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Watch your mouth when it comes to other users here, especially users who know what they are talking about.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Dems: Let's stop contributing to the SPR so that there is more of an oil supply in the market to relieve the high prices.
Me: Well how about drilling the Atlantic continental shelf or ANWR, that will increase supply also, thus reducing price and also adding employment.
Dem response: It won't have much impact on price, maybe pennies worth, and we must save the polar bear!
I could see if they wanted to sell some of the reserves in the SPR, at least make some money from the $126/barrel, but to say adding supply to the mkt. from our reserves instead of adding supply from drilling is hypocritical.
If you want info and real data (which only takes about 60 secs to find on the web) just go here to start your reading efforts.
http://www.earthscape.org/r1/maj02/
There is plenty more to support the facts that ANWR makes no difference for a long time.
We produce ~ 5 Million barrels a day. It will take ANWR 5 to 10 years from 2008 to produce just 1+ million BPD. About 20-30 years to get peak production etc.
We Import 14 million BPD a few 100k or 1Mil we have little impact.
But $6 a gallon is going to have a HUGE impact. Conservation is the only true answer our energy supply problems. We need to get our Motor Gasoline usage down to the 3 million BPD or less to stop this ever increasing price for a Barrel of Oil.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
...is to institute taxes and mandates that have the effect of slowing the economy, costing jobs, production, and serious restrictions in lifestyle. That's fine if that's what you think is appropriate, but our elected officials need to be upfront with the voters in describing just what they can expect. I don't think Americans are going to be willing to do that.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
to tell me about oil resources or economics. I've spent the last twenty years working with the best consultants, petroleum geologists, and petroleum economists in the World.
The saddest thing in America today is that fools like you are allowed to vote; some people really are fit only for slavery.
In Vino Veritas
I am Geophysics / Physics (Bachelor Science) degreed person and I have a Master of Science in Environmental Sciences.
I live in Texas all my life and worked in the oil production industry. I cannot say I am active currently because I have left the industry and I am now in Aerospace Industry. but I do keep up with this subject.
The data is there if you would bother to try and read it, instead of spouting your biased uneducated beliefs. Since you don't like to read much - start with only the summary from the EIA.gov study conducted may 2004. (2nd post)
http://www.earthscape.org/r1/maj02/
http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftonto.eia.doe.gov%2Fftproot%2Fservice%2Fsroiaf(2004)04.pdf&images=yes
The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and gas development is projected to increase domestic oil production starting in 2013. In 2025, the coastal plain of ANWR is projected to reach 0.9 million barrels per day under the USGS mean oil resource case, and 0.6 and 1.6 million barrels per day under the low and high resource cases,
respectively.
Well that just eliminated any vestigial credibility you might have had. I'd think a "scientist" wouldn't use unreliable sources like earthscape and msnbc.
But, I tire of you. In many ways it is good for our Country to have idiots like you; it keeps the labor force docile and cheap.
In Vino Veritas
Try the dept of energy's on report in May 2006 - but I am sure reading is not your strong suit.
In fact it appears most on this thread never bother to read anything but biased Political Commentary.
Sorry an educated person doesn't buy in all, this Bullshxt by spouted by uneducated people on this site. You and your lot will not even read the reports from the EIA (#1 Govt Authority) that say it will take 10+ years to develop 1-million BPD.
Please go back to sleep or turn on the Talk radio !!
If I could read, I might be able to what you were trying to communicate.
P.S. I am a far better reader then you are a writer
Is that new code for Custodian Engineering?
"Worked in the oil production industry" and lived in Texas your entire life. That could mean so many things.
You don't sound kosher to me as being from the oil patch.
M Penny
N/T
LOL.
You say you "worked in the oil industry".
What did you DO in the oil industry? And was that before or after college?
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
Please don't cite leftist environmental groups and attempt to pass them off as objective, respectable sources.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Your uneducated if you refuse to read both sides of an argument, I believe in reading and understanding both sides.
That how a person truly becomes educated and can make and educated and knowledgeable decision.
Sorry for disturbing your biased - one sided beliefs. YOU CAN GO BACK TO SLEEP NOW.
...and also the one who has called people here who are very knowledgable about the oil & gas business "liars".
Earthscape is not an objective source, and your arguments, that are carbon-copied off of their website, are not credible, frankly.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
To summarize:
You can insult everyone else because you are one of the elite truth seers and the rest of us are ignorant boobs
People question you andyou yell (all caps) and act all indignant
perhaps and this is just a suggestion...you might want to check your spelling and grammer....just saying!
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Anyone who starts a sentence with "your uneducated" and claims a BS and a Masters .. had better hope the next word is a noun such as mother, sister, fellow moonbat.
Otherwise, they must not have required English at your college.
If you're going to accuse people of being uneducated I suggest you're going to need to brush up on the proper form of contractions associated with the verb to be.
M Penny
(absentee is getting to me, I think)
If you stop all the litgation it should proceed quite nicely!!
nonsense --
ANWR could be brought on line in a couple of years. How you say -- well it would involve a multiple construction teams building the production pipeline.
Also offshore Atlantic or Pacific production could also be brought in in less than a year.
American oil companies would have to mobilize the way the defense industry did at WWII.
Oil production is a function of the flow from the reserve. If the oil is pumped/produced too quickly, a portion of the reservoir is trapped and shut-in. However, signficant improvements are made each year in how to produce from different reservoir structures.
Also, we need to address refining concerns and the type of oil used to refine into gasoline. Not only do we need for refineries in the US -- we need substantial improvements in the refining process that would allow for conversion of something other than sweet crude.
Let's re-open all those plugged West Texas sour wells.
M Penny
US govt (Energy Dept) says other wise read the EIA.gov report - doesn't anyone read on this site ?????
Prudhoe Bay would be played out by 2007. I got a flash for you, government "experts" have their own agendae and they're usually based more on politics than science.
In Vino Veritas
That right - educated people who do this for a living for the US Govt have an evil agenda to play out(especially since these people work for George Bush)
But people who are totally out of this process with very little education who get all their news from Redstate.com and Rush Limbaugh REALLY know what they are talking about and have no agenda.
Keep drinking you conservative delusional cool-aide.
I believe simply in Conservative Economics and the facts are Demand has out Stripped Supply and oil is going to continue to rise in value and our only true hope for the long term is to swtich to alternative form of energy use like:
1. Nuclear.
2. Wind
3. Solar
A very astute Oil Millionaire/Billionaire stated 2 years ago that in 2006 we had hit peak world oil production and we are now on the back end of the oil production curve.
The believe we must began a massive new investment in new technology to covert our country in a high electricity use country and save oil for where it really makes sense: Diesel fuel, Jet Juel, Propanes/propylenes, PetroChemical uses, etc.
You gave some alternatives to oil for future use. All well and good....
But your desperate sounding postings here seem to indicate an irrational fear of bringing new supply online to help meet the new demands. WHY?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
I never said don't bring new suppllies online.
I simply said:
a) AChance is wrong in 1M BPD in 1-2 years.
b) Even when you get 1M BPD, it will make very little difference in the world price of oil (#1 factor in the cost of gasoline) since we are talking more than 10 years.
c) The oil demand in 10 years we be much higher than it is now. Thanks to USA & other industrialized counties shipping of its jobs to India and China. They are growing at about 10% a year or more. Their oil demand is simply out stripping the ability to bring more supplies online.
Simply World oil production is currently ~ 87 million BPD,
Don't make me laff and try and say ANWR will have any effect in 10 years or less, try more like 15-20 years.
I will give a simple and easy way to drop oil prices immediately. Ban imports from China. China's economy will tank, their demand will drop rapidly and so will prices.
Inducing a world wide economic depression would reduce demand for oil.
Of course it would induce world wide famine, global unrest, likely trigger WW3, and a host of other minor side effects, but it would achieve your goal of reducing demand for oil.
Well maybe not. It will take a LOT of oil to provide fuel for all the tanks, ships, planes and trains required to fight the wars you triggered, but hey it's worth it to prevent drilling an ANWR, right?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Wouldn't that also devalue the Dollar even more, which would then increase the cost of oil and therefore the cost of gas?
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
to surge like it never has before because people would want to put US currency underneath their mattresses all over the world.
A global depression would also cause the "trade deficit" to go away.
Monetary policy, the effects of China dumping their hoard of dollars, artificial trade imbalances, the increased industrial production to support building all the tanks, the increased printing of dollars to pay for those tanks. I can't work it all out.
I'm just glad FWguy isn't in charge of deciding our trade policy so we won't have to find out. 8*)
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
All of America's allies would be purchasing every piece of US military hardware they could get their hands on. Not to mention the fact that just about the only stable currencies in that environment would be the Yen, Dollar and Pound Stirling...
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
*ka-click* Behave.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
FWGuy -- to mix my metaphor's it is best to stop digging when your a%$ is showing.
Your first mistake is believing the nonsense they spew over at KOS or whereever from whence you came that conservatives and Republicans are uneducated neanderthals.
So, if you're going to continue to post at RS, I suggest that you understand this is a highly educated, experienced and informed audience. You're not going to be able to claim experience or education you don't possess without being challenged.
M Penny
This is a crowd (some) who doesn't like to read and it shows !!
Who think scientist are evil and have agenda's to control the world. Who thinks George Bush's own Dept of Energy has a hidden agenda and anything they publish must be wrong or totally a lie.
When a people cannot quote facts and make assertions like Authorize drilling in 2008 and you get 1 Million barrels of oil a day in 2009 or 2010.
Well THESE folks (not all republicans) are people who: "conservatives and Republicans & are uneducated neanderthals."
what, pray tell, does the FW stand for? Foolish Wiccan? Faux Wisdom? Fraudulent Wimp? What?
giving lectures.
Your version of English: "This is a crowd (some) who doesn't like to read and it shows"
Educated English: There are some in this crowd who don't like to read and it shows"
Your version of English: "Who think scientist are evil and have agenda's to control the world"
Educated English: There are some who think that scientists are evil and have agendas to control the world
Your version of English: "When a people cannot quote facts and make assertions like Authorize drilling in 2008 and you get 1 Million barrels of oil a day in 2009 or 2010"
Educated English: When a people cannot quote any facts and instead make assertions like authorizing drilling in 2008 can result a million barrels of oil a day as early as 2009 or 2010
Your version of English: "Well, THESE folks (not all Republicans) are people who: 'conservatices and Republicans & undedcuated neaanderthals"
Educated English: [This sentence is so grammatically flawed that I can't reconstruct it]
You need to go back to grammer school and learn grammer. Your use of the English language is embarassing. You aslo have an underdeveloped sense of shame.
Educated English: There are some wh
are a few zero's separating them....do you have a link to the aforementioned millionaire/billionaire?
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
yes, here is just a couple of articles on him.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/01/africa/ME-FIN-Pickens-Oil-Peak...
There are many articles to be read that shows statically oil production cresting in the 2006 thru 2008 timeframe.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/170408_b_oil.htm
and those pesky old wells keep producing and fields keep being found and developed. 'Course, if I were speculating in oil futures, I'd be crying "peak oil" all the time too. Now I really am going to go help the State economy by burning some gas and catch a King Salmon (I hope).
In Vino Veritas
I would like to say I am sorry for saying - you are a liar.
I think you are misinformed but not a liar - sorry.
A professor says the sky is falling, and he thinks he is Moses giving the news to us dolts.
No sense of historical perspective
1960s We are about to hit a peak in oil production
1970s Has oil production peaked
1980s Oil is a finite resource, is the peak near
1990s How much oil is left
2000s Oil Production--we are running out
Kind of like
1960s Global Cooling--we must do something soon
1970s Global Cooling--we must do something now
1980s Global Warming--- uh, ignore what we said before
1990s Global Warming --- only 10years to save the world
2000s Climate Change --- er, a natural cooling trend is artificially undoing man-made global warming, but that will end, then we will really be in trouble
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
I also am ROTFLMAO. I award 5 Lobsters but the thread's too narrow for the gif!
Oil production is dynamic, just like other aspects of the economy.
Technological developments and economic factors cannot be plopped onto a linear graph that is used as gospel for the next 20 years.
You should have gotten a job working for the oil ministry in the Soviet Union.
He's heavily invested in alternative sources right now.
Also, I believe he recently made public statements that he was short oil. That's hardly a position that matches a belief that we have achieved peak oil.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
And, you know, Clinton also said ANWR would take 10 years to produce. TEN YEARS AGO! Just imagine where we'd be now if he'd just opened the da**ed thing.
.
as you claim then you would know that underlying every "production" estimate are countless assumptions about deployment of production assets.
Change the underlying assumptions and you change the production numbers.
M Penny
Quite a bit in fact.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arcti...
You'll notice in the reference section...no production companies are listed, simply government agencies...which do not manufacture or install oil equipment.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arcti...
You'll also note that the report was done in 2002. If it had been implemented (as it should have been) back then, it would be about ready to ease the pressure we face right now.
Unfortunately, it never got launched and it isn't ready for us now. So, should we keep sticking our heads in the sand, or begin to prepare for both short and long term survival?
Erik
supposed to believe anything the Gov't said. Now we have to believe what the Gov't said??? I'm so confused!!!!
"We need to get our Motor Gasoline usage down to the 3 million BPD or less to stop this ever increasing price for a Barrel of Oil."
That just leaves more oil for China and India to drink up. We need more production that (yes, in this case I DO support protectionism) only gets sold to American refineries for American use.
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
Don't worry Tax increases are not necessary.
Gasoline will go over $6 a gallon in 2-years due to the price of oil alone. I expect to see $5 a gallon by sometime between this summer and next summer.
But check back in 2010, Gasoline will be $6 a gallon in the summer in some or all of the USA.
You'll prove us all wrong and get to join you're pal George Soros at the country club.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
And so do those idiots in Congress who refuse to let us drill our own d*mn oil.
Makes me want to scream!
Meanwhile, I thank God everyday that I am entitled to fuel here on base. We have the cheapest gas in USAFE at $3.78 for regular unleaded.
Price on a LITER of petro here in Deutschland (off base)ranges from 1.35-1.45 EURO. So, at about 4 liters per gallon, that is about 6.00 Euro a gallon which in dollars would equal about $9.50 a gallon.
We will be heading to Normandy in a couple of weeks. I can hardly wait to pay for gas in France. NOT!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...