[MonteQuest]

I can't predict the future...who can.

But I thinks its happening now with only $4.00/gal gas.(One latest poll shows 75% of the public approves of drill here and now and it also showed a strong support for nuke plants.) As gas prices go higher and more jobs disappear.....the pressure on government will grow so intense that the government/politician will respond.

So? Like it is going to change anything near term?

Drilling isn't going to increase supply or lower price and nuke plants aren't going to produce any net energy for years.

If fact, they will be new energy consumers and will cause prices to rise and supply to be tighter as they compete with existing demand.

Who is going to do without energy while it is diverted to build anything, nuke, wind, solar or whatever?

[Peleg]

Who is going to do without energy while it is diverted to build anything, nuke, wind, solar or whatever?

That is a sublime point. There is a cost to getting new energy on line. Is there a place where the cost of new energy makes bringing that energy to market ineffectual?

Could it be possible that we do not see massive increases in exploration, oil infrastructure investment, because the very well trained and highly paid economists for those companies realize there is no return on investment?

Puppets on a string! Dance! Dance!

We have to wake up here. Everyone who understands what we know or more (which is probably a few million people in the world) are near to the issue in ways that most of us are not. There is no way that people at the top are not painfilly aware of peak oil, and where we are on the depletion timeline. The problem is getting those folks to have any sort of trust in the reactions of the common man. In fact I doubt they think it would be a good thing to have some type of 'get out your agression' session with 45 million Americans with no healthcare when you suddenly tell them they are not going to have gas to get to work either.

Let me go on record now and say that I have strong suspicions that the real details of peak oil will be part of the greatest cover-up in human history. The Saudi's had the chance to tell us at Jeddah that they really could not produce any more of the kind of oil the world really wants and that they are only going to be able to give us a limited increase of the sour stuff. Instead they said 'We are going to pump more!' We said, 'Surely there is no crisis and if you would just pump more oil everything would be better.' And they said, 'Yes you are right, so we will pump more oil!'

The founder of that Dynasty was a desert fox, a man who fought several wars with clever tribes to gain his kingdom. Are his children stupid? No.

The American consumer is proving him/herself to be stupid. Gee-gollying our way through the calculus of whether the smiling fellow in the head scarf really likes us or not.

[MonteQuest]

You know,...I hate to say this but I think we out to give them what they want. They want to drill everywhere and anywhere, have at it!

Duh??

More Drilling, Less Oil Chart

"Since 2000, oil companies working in the U.S. have doubled the number of wells drilled per year – with a glaring lack of results."

[44Flattop]

How about a link showing the chinese, Cubans and Spanish setting up offshore drilling rigs inside our 200 mile limit?

http://lighthousepatriotjournal.wordpre ... f-america/

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon143.htm

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/06 ... our-coast/

[TheDude]

Here is an MMS page with an excellent PDF showing GOM leases, platforms, pipelines, onshore facilities. Select the "(Visual 1 .pdf)." The area has seen a lot of production, contrary to MSM reports of millions of leases left unused - they're there, in between productive ones.

[ROCKMAN]

Peleg,

The oil/gas under Federal lands belong to the people and should be used to their benefit. Even though the polls now favor more OCS drilling (even self proclaimed liberals are 2:1 in favor) we are a representative democracy. It's the responsibility of the elected representatives to make the decision which they feel is in the best interest of the people regardless of how the public polls at any given moment.

Now...let's jump to the real world of fund raising, lobbyists, election cycles and citizens who don't want to give up the God given right to drive 10 miles to pay $4 for a coffe at Starbucks. Just like Clinton's battle with GW's daddy: "it's the economy, stupid". This year it will likely be: "it's the energy economy, stupid". In a darkly humorous way it will be amusing to watch it unfold. If we are about to run into that PO wall nothing short of very radical mandatory conservation will help in the short term. All the long term adjustments are important: voluntary conservation, alternatives, drilling, nuclear, etc. All are needed: to problem is too big for a single "magic bullet" even if you allow 20 or 30 years to get it cooking.

IMHO, I feel the two party sytem is so brittle that there is little or no room for compromise. I suspect the resultant positions will fall short of diminishing the troubles ahead.

[BigTex]

ROCKMAN, the question to me isn't whether we ought to allow drilling, the question is what the purpose of such drilling would be?

If we concede that we are in the early stages of a long term supply deficit relative to demand, then what is the point of simply buying a few extra years of consumption?

Wouldn't it be better to say that maybe more drilling isn't the answer at all and search for a real solution, such as living within sustainable limits?

If you are living above your means, is another credit card the answer?

Another question that I think is imprecisely phrased is the one of lifestyle. People say: "Yes, but don't you like living this luxurious American lifestyle?" The question really ought to be: "What is the long term effect of this luxurious American lifestyle? What is the future cost of today's extravagance?"

[Homesteader]

How about a link showing the chinese, Cubans and Spanish setting up offshore drilling rigs inside our 200 mile limit?

http://lighthousepatriotjournal.wordpre ... f-america/

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon143.htm

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/06 ... our-coast/

You information is in error on two points. One, Cuba's territorial waters are not part of what is inside our 200 mile limit.

Two, please read the following, link included for the full article.

Cheney's false comment on oil drilling attacked
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer

Vice President Dick Cheney's office acknowledged on Thursday that he was mistaken when he asserted that China, at Cuba's behest, is drilling for oil in waters 60 miles from the Florida coast.

In a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Cheney said on Wednesday that waters in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, long off limits to oil companies, should be opened to drilling because China is already there pumping oil.

"Oil is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida," the vice president said. "We're not doing it, the Chinese are, in cooperation with the Cuban government. Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices is more supply."

He cited his source as columnist George Will, who last week wrote: "Drilling is under way 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are."

Congressional Democrats pounced on the vice president's remarks and were backed up by independent energy experts, who called the assertion hyperbole at best and a falsehood at worst.

Cheney's office said in a statement to The Associated Press that the vice president had erred.

"It is our understanding that, although Cuba has leased out exploration blocks 60 miles off the coast of southern Florida, which is closer than American firms are allowed to operate in that area, no Chinese firm is drilling there," according to the statement.

Link: http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/661427.html

One last point: Posting three links to articles that all contain the same error doesn't work that well. Three wrongs don't make a right, even if the three wrongs are one and the same.

[Ludi]

Wouldn't it be better to say that maybe more drilling isn't the answer at all and search for a real solution, such as living within sustainable limits?

Are you nuts?!? What about the children!!! *waving arms* Why do you hate America?

[vision-master]

Just Say NO to Offshore Drilling

2012 Forum.

[ROCKMAN]

vision-master,

I gather than that you support the termination of all drilling and production in the Gulf of Mexico?

[MonteQuest]

ROCKMAN, the question to me isn't whether we ought to allow drilling, the question is what the purpose of such drilling would be?

Simple. We want to focus on short-term, short-sighted, selfish technofix solutions that allows us, (those living right now) to avoid "unpleasant" changes, with no lasting solutions for those generations to follow.

[AlexdeLarge]

I don't think anyone with any knowledge of peak oil is suggesting that drilling is a long term solution. Energy costs will continue to move up regardless of if we drill or not drill. But perhaps drilling, nuclear energy, coal to fuel can buy us time to avoid a wholesale collaspe of the economy, massive unemployment......starvation.

I don't think we are going to achieve a "powered down, living within our means type life style" in the near future either. It will take time to make the transition..... Unless you want to move to a Draconian style of government and force the population to accept the transition immediately. That type of country already exists.

Life in North Korea
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITBqRSMBWaM

[Ludi]

I It will take time to make the transition.

I agree, which is why we should begin now, instead of perpetuating the idea of business as usual by drilling even more. There's plenty of drilling going on now, more will not help, just give the illusion of "dong something" when nothing is actually being done to address the root problem.

For instance, I live in one of the world's greatest energy hog states - Texas. We have energy coming out the wazoo, and we throw it around like there was no tomorrow. So, I don't support construction of more power plants in Texas, because we simply don't need them. What we need is to conserve and power down and stop playing this role of "Bigger is Better, Biggest is Best."


Other parts of the world may be in a different situation and actually need more power for basic needs. Fine, they should build their plants, but here in Texas, as I say, we just don't need them.

[MrBean]

No, not numbers, just fertility. Nature will take care of the numbers.

You are not making any sense. Please elaborate.

No need to fixate on population numbers and especially on some estimated numbers, and certainly no good reason to proactively aim at the estimated numbers - human population will settle naturally at and below natural carrying capacity - what ever that may be. If that happens through dropping fertility rate, great, if by increased death rate, fine.

[MonteQuest]

No need to fixate on population numbers and especially on some estimated numbers, and certainly no good reason to proactively aim at the estimated numbers - human population will settle naturally at and below natural carrying capacity - what ever that may be. If that happens through dropping fertility rate, great, if by increased death rate, fine.

No, human population will crash to levels probably below natural carrying capacity due to our degree of overshoot. It will not decline due to a dropping fertility rate as the Benign Demographic Transition is over.

You confuse overshoot with exceeding carrying capacity. It would behoove you to grasp the difference. Otherwise, your statements become non-sensical.

[MonteQuest]

I just heard James Hackett, CEO of Anadarko Petroleum on Kudlow & Company discussing off-shore drilling say, that "peakoil is determined by price."

[ROCKMAN]

Monte,

Did he offer some rational for the statement or did it come across as some sort of a BS talking point?

[MonteQuest]

Monte,

Did he offer some rational for the statement or did it come across as some sort of a BS talking point?

He was asked if he believed in peak oil. He responded that peak oil was determined by price. Investments in production would increase supply. But then it said he didn't think it could go on forever.

[ROCKMAN]

I hate to judge on minimal info but it doesn't sound like he understands the definition of PO.

Manana folks